i) It seems that whenever I make attempts to 'help' clear image backlogs, I manage to cause any number of complaints, most recently.

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sfan00_IMG
• User_talk:Sfan00_IMG#This_is_not_just_craziness_but_insanity

It would be much appreciated if the administrators here ( which would have to perform the relevant media deletion) could provide additional commentary either way on the issues raised above.

ii) At the moment I'm in the process of reviewing the most recent-batch of tags (for no-license), and I'm finding some that could be rescued. I'd therefore like to suggest that in time CSD is deprecated in favour of a PUF system, so that there is an appropriate disscussion process for ANY media deletion.

iii) Once the current review is completed, consideration is given to some kind of limitations concerning User:Sfan00_IMG on the grounds that the linked items appear to show that I'm either repeatedly misunderstanding things, or as stated lacking in competence or qualification to carry out something that should be simple to do like checking images. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please take part in the RFC. It's not a witchhunt, and if it looks like one that would be my fault, not yours, as it shouldn't be turned into that. Your efforts are valuable and should be valued, even if other editors, myself included, sometimes forget this. NFCC cleanup is a task that needs doing and few want to do, and your efforts here are useful to the project. There are issues about some collateral impact, but this doesn't change the basic value of maintaining NFCC, the only issue is how best to do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How does one create an RFC against another editor and then try to claim that it's not an attempt to have action taken against the other person? If you really mean that, then close the RFC. Corvus cornix_talk 23:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a Request For Comment, not WP:LYNCHMOB. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ya, keep telling yourself that dingley. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

But you're asking for a user's behavior to change, then claim it's about process, not about the user. Corvus cornix_talk 23:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin move Chicago Fire SC back to Chicago Fire (soccer) and lock the page from moves so that a proper move discussion can be had? 3bulletproof16 just moved the page without discussion and then made null edits to the original page so that the change could not be undone. The move is clearly controversial considering the very first section of the talk page consists of multiple page move requests and should not have been done without a proper discussion. 3bulletproof16 clearly knew the move was controversial or else he wouldn't have made the null edits to prevent it from being undone. I've notified 3bulletproof16 of this discussion. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he moved Chicago Fire S.C. to Chicago Fire SC -- it hasn't been at Chicago Fire (soccer) since August, which was one of the move requests you mention at the top of the page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Argh. Sorry about that. Long day. I'll walk away with my head in shame. ;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The move does not seem that controversial, but I do dispise movers locking reverts by actions like this. For that reason alone I am tempted to move it back. — Edokter • Talk — 22:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the redirect, then restored it minus the move-blocking revision. Seemed like G6 applied. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I forgot the simplest things... — Edokter • Talk — 22:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Coming from WP:FOOTBALL, I'd confirm that the move is controversial, the use of punctuation in association football team article names is quite a sore topic. This should be reverted and go to WP:RM. GiantSnowman 22:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I misread the chain of events in my watchlist. He moved from Chicago Fire S.C. to Chicago Fire SC then made the null edits to Chicago Fire S.C. and Talk:Chicago Fire (soccer) to prevent moves to those articles, but as Giant said, the use of punctuation or not is controversial. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually as SarekOfVulcan noted, the page move from Chicago Fire (soccer) to Chicago Fire S.C. had occured in late August I believe apparently per this discussion I was never involved in that process. However later in November the page was moved to Chicago Fire SC per WP:NAME following the precedent set by other similarly named articles.[1] I just simply moved it back. I really couldn't care less if the page is moved to Chicago Fire (soccer) so I'll leave that up to you and this discussion. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As a quick follow up, looking through chicago-fire.com I can't find any instance where any initials are used. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody knowledgeable have a look at CyberDefender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? There are a lot of bad edits in its history, and an extensive edit war, where criticisms are being added and deleted. Corvus cornix_talk 03:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It was either uncited promotion or unreliably-cited attack page, depending on which revision you looked at, so I speedied it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so the last time we discussed this guy (see here), we were kind of hinting that HW may be headed for a block. So guess what happens? Twice in the last half hour, he has called me "incompetent" in so many words and demanded that I "stop wasting [his] time[…] with your latest manufactured drama". Between those and this recent edit where he called me incompetent and inaccurate. His repeated attacks on me have gone way too far. Several of them can be found here, copypasted from the last ANI:

• Unwelcome and rude (admittedly, he's right on this one)
• Unwelcome and unwelcome — he told me "read the edit summaries" which in no way explained how he thought the sources in question were acceptable
• paranoid ranting
• Unwelcome ranting after I pointed out that he seems to stalk me at AFD and !vote "speedy close" on lots of things I nominate
• unwelcome ranting after I politely asked why he undid one of my redirects, and then followed it up with an equally polite explanation that I had made a mistake that time. I also politely asked why he never discusses anything with me, and he still bulldozed it.
• unwelcome, also stemming from my redirection of a very short article, which he undid without any sort of discussion
• unwelcome, admittedly this one was a bit uncivil on my part
• Unwelcome, gross exaggerated after I kinda snapped at him for seemingly wikistalking me and calling all my redirects "disruptive"
• "You are no longer welcome to post on my talk page" after someone politely asked him to archive his ginormous talk page; the same editor tried to instigate an unrelated discussion about IMDb but HW bulldozed their edits and called the user rude.
• "Unwanted" after another user acted in good faith and archived his talk page (which, for the record, is 465 KB)

KWW was implying that HW would be blocked if he continues to attack me ("if you keep going the way you are going, I think it is pretty likely that you are going to see multiple blocks in your future as well."). Repeatedly calling me incompetent and paranoid is obvious attacking. I have no idea why he continues to do this when I've finally become much more civil with him, but an attack is an attack. There is no way this is not a breach of WP:CIVIL (not to mention that in one of the two most recent diffs, he refactored my comments on his talk page). All we do about this guy is talk in circles and get absolutely nowhere with him. I thought he crossed the line last time, but this time he's showing for certain that he has no intentions of stopping his incivility towards me. Surely he must deserve a block for this one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How many times does Hullaballoo have to ask you to stop engaging on his talk page before you listen? He is already engaging with you on the AfD, why do you require he do so on his talk page as well? 28bytes (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

At least he's talking to me this time instead of slamming the undo button. The main issue isn't his talk page; it's his repeated incivility towards me even when I try to be nice. And that AFD had nothing to do with his last outburst. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• (ec x 2) TPH, you edit-warred to restore a speedy-deletion tag, not just with HW but also with an admin. That is not okay, and you've been warned about that kind of behaviour in the past. Might you take a step back? You're generally an excellent editor, but I'm concerned you are perhaps experiencing some burnout. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Which is why I stepped away from the article after HW undid me instead of carrying on the edit-war. Still, give me one reason why HW should not be blocked for all the insults he's fired at me, even when I've tried to hold a civilized discussion with him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I agree he should not have restored your original comments to his talk page after you refactored them, although I'll AGF that he had composed his reply and was about to post it before you refactored them. But would you be willing to just stay off his talk page entirely? Seems like that would solve the problem. He's willing to engage you in discussion on the AfDs themselves, that seems like that should be sufficient, no? 28bytes (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

He's insulted me at AFD too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Which comment specifically? 28bytes (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of The Velvet Underground: The Millennium Collection —"despite the nominator's palpably false assertions" and "as would be evident to any reasonable editor acting in good faith" (result was no consensus)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Howard_Perdew_(3rd_nomination) — "Once again, the nominator hasn't done a minimally competent job of Google searching[…]Once again, the reason the nom can't find sources seems to be that he isn't bothering to look" (article was deleted, FWIW)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ezra Edelman "speedy close, trout slap the nominator for acute and chronic noncompliance with WP:BEFORE" (For the record, HBO Sports was redlinked when I found the article.)
• In short, he's stalked me at several AFDs just to scream "speedy keep, nominator can't use Google and is clearly incompetent" or words to that effect. He flings accusations of bad faith left and right when I've never done a single thing in bad faith in the 5 years I've been here. The Howard Perdew one is particularly egregious since other editors later pointed out that HW's findings were not good sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in those AfD discussions that I'd call an attack, although I do see some obvious frustration that these nominations were made without due diligence. I'm sure it's irritating when HW shows up at an AfD you've initiated and points that out, but it seems like one good way to avoid that would be to actually do some diligence before posting the nominations. I can sympathize with why you want to get rid of some of these articles; sometimes the sourcing is quite terrible and the articles are tiny, ugly stubs... But if you don't put in the basic research to determine whether the subject itself is notable (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ezra Edelman, where the subject won some Emmys), then you're going to have to expect the nominations to get opposed on that basis from time to time. 28bytes (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) 28bytes, you're the one who needs to step back on this one. Were that simply the case, then HW would show up at all AfD discussions, some of which are patently weaker than those mentioned, and throw out the same insults, which I find offensive, and I'm not the one being insulted. Do you have a dog in this fight?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Do I have a dog in this fight? You tell me. Honestly, I think TPH and HW both do a great deal of good work here, and I don't want to see either of them blocked. If you can suggest a better way to avoid that than what I've suggested, go for it. 28bytes (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• • (edit conflicted again) Really, TPH, take a step back. I can't see this ending with the result you are hoping for. It is true that HW often does not phrase things in kind ways, but you have also acknowledged that you have not always behaved angelically towards him either. With this particular case, you edit-warred to restore a db-hoax tag, which, to be perfectly blunt, some people might see as behaving in bad faith, especially considering your past warnings. Now you come to ANI and misquote him. Despite what you said, he did not call you "incompetent". He made some comments about "competence" being "expected", which is a little overly provocative, yes, but your behaviour was what many might see as showing less than ideal competence ([2], [3], [4]), especially for such an experienced editor. You're also accusing him of "stalking" you at AfDs, which I think perhaps you should strike. Again, sorry to be so blunt with you. Clearly the two of you frustrate one another, and I know that what I'm now telling you is unlikely to reduce your frustration. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How about an interaction ban, especially preventing HW from commenting on AfDs that TPH has started? Corvus cornix_talk 05:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

YES YES YES. Please instate this now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering his comments in one of the above AFD's clearly saved a notable article from being deleted it should be easy to see why this is a horrible idea. Ridernyc (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. It wouldn't have helped in this particular case, as HW had not even commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Fisheva at the time that TPH brought this ANI report. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the behaviour I am willing to block HW on here is refusal to discuss his edits. Can someone show me a pointer to HW again refusing to discuss his edits? If so, I'll block. If not, I probably won't.—Kww(talk) 05:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

None of that since the last ANI but surely the gross incivility is enough to block this time? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How is a two year history of calling me incompetent not blockable? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an extreme oversimplification; and I've explained above why this particular incident ought not to result in a block of HW. If he's refusing to discuss his edits, then I agree with Kww. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You know what, Paul Erik is right. Disregard my push to have him blocked. I've done just as much stupid shit if not moreso. HW may be a little caustic, but not worthy of a block. Disregard disregard disregard. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

He is getting on your nerves, that's all. If you avoid him for a while, that would be best. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 07:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a note - I'd be really, really appreciative if administrators in a content dispute didn't show up on my talk page making vague threats without evidence, despite requests. And a side note - I'm willingly hands-off all the Sarah Palin articles (I've tried to help with them since before this insanity) but it would be super-duper awesome if, at the very least, ONE SINGLE ADMIN would step up to deal with issues at these articles. It would be hard to find a bigger nest of BLP violations and POV-pushing. Kelly ^hi! 03:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been a bit baffled by Will and his recent actions surrounding the Palin articles, but his "warning" Kelly and then responding that a request for a "careful" explanation of his reasoning would be accompanied by "formal" action is beyond inappropriate for an involved administrator, let alone relating to an article subject to probation. The Palin articles are regularly subject to anonymous and single-purpose drive-by pov-pushing, and the editors (from both "sides" — or no particular side — of the political spectrum) that do their best to try to ensure the end result is neutral and reliably sourced deserve a tad bit better than careless accusations and threats from an administrator that ought to know better. (I've left Will a note regarding this discussion.) jæs (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

warning you that you are making a lot of reverts i did not realize there was a limit? approaching the 3RR limit, should we lower it to 2 reverts? Will would you consider a voluntary break from this topic? after reviewing your contributions, i am concerned there is a chance you are pushing a pov. the best/easiest solution to this issue, is maybe if you refrain from engaging this topic. i think the amount of time of your absence should be decided by you. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to join the other contributors in this thread in a break from the Palin articles. However I don't see what POV pushing you might be alluding to. Could you please provide diffs that show a pattern of POV pushing behavior on Palin-related articles?   Will Beback  talk  06:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

For a number of reasons, Sarah Palin articles draw a lot of attention, and a lot of that attention is detrimental. She is constantly in the spotlight, and makes news seemingly almost every day. So, unfortunately, the obvious solution - full lockdown of the article - is not possible. The only alternative in a case like that is for a small number of BLP defenders, such as Kelly, to stand up to the constant flow of editors who want to post every freakin' negative thing they can get their hands on, in defiance of any article probation and of the BLP rules. Keep in mind that BLP matters are of paramount importance to the wikipedia owners, much more so than concerns about edit-warring and the like. The fact that Palin is a media lightning-rod does not exempt her article here from the BLP rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think admins like Will Beback are an asset to wp - the detractors above hypocritical, worthless POV pushers. Sayerslle (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Or, howabout that reasonable people can still disagree and come into conflict, and there's no need to demonize either side in any dispute, especially not with baseless, rude personal attacks as you just did... --Jayron32 06:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe Sayerslle was referring to the "toxic authoritarian Right," which is apparently how he defines any editor who does not agree with him on the content that he wants or believes must be inserted into the Palin article(s). This would be a good dime a dozen example of why users like Kelly are pretty damned invaluable, and pretty difficult to come by at the various Palin articles — and a good demonstration of why Will being careless in his accusations in the midst of a content dispute (and stifling any questions about his behaviour with threat of "formal" action) is a very bad thing. jæs (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I've never before been accused of being a TAR baby. It almost makes me regret having voted for Obama. :) You're right, Kelly is vital to trying to keep political articles neutral, and has kept this up valiantly while many of us long ago gave up on trying to fight the mongrel hordes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Mongrel hordes? Buster Seven Talk 06:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the first and most important steps in dispute resolution is to raise the concern with the editor. See WP:DR#Discuss with the other party. I have made no threats, vague or otherwise. My post was to raise a concern that Kelly is perhaps exhibiting signs of ownership of Palin-related articles. I don't believe I'm the first editor to do so. I do not suggest that any sanctions or remedies be imposed on Kelly. Rather, I was trying to give a heads-up to avoid anything like that happening. If Kelly would like to have other editors or admins help by taking up the slack in watching the Palin articles, then picking fights with or reverting those who show up won't encourage more participation. Further, I believe that Kelly's editing has tended to promote a pro-Palin POV, and to minimize other POVs. While I think everyone endorses vigorous enforcement of BLP, BLP does not require or sanction the routine deletion of negative material which is properly source, relevant, and necessary for NPOV. To avoid ownership concerns, it would help if Kelly could be more accepting of edits that don't breach BLP, but which don't fit Kelly's POV about the topic either.   Will Beback  talk  06:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"I have made no threats, vague or otherwise." I don't know how else to define the response you gave when Kelly asked you to provide evidence of your accusations: "If you like, I can make a more careful evaluation, but if I do that then it would no longer be an informal warning."^[5] Not only is that a pretty clear threat, but it sounds like a veiled threat of administrative action. Given your heavy involvement in several content disputes at various Palin-related articles, tossing around threats of "formal" action is highly questionable, let alone when someone is asking you — in good faith — to explain an accusation that several other editors here also believe to have been uncalled for, no? jæs (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly, I see no justification for bringing this complaint, based on my own review of the edits that Will was responding to. For example, your removal of the url in the ref for the After Health Vote, Threats on Democrats NY Times story at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/health/policy/25health.html seems to me enough of a red flag all by itself to support Will's polite expression of concern on your talk page, even without consideration of your other edits. Regardless of anyone's view on this, though, a moment's reflection will make it obvious to any experienced editor that there's no action that's going to be taken against anyone on the basis of this thread, so I'd respectfully suggest we close it and all move on to more productive activities. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

how long does a through review of the article history take one? perhaps less time than it took to write this. i just did and could not find anything of note. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the diff, I would doubt that was an intentional "removal." God knows I'm still terrible at remembering the proper format for cites, and frequently copy, cut, and paste from other live edit areas. Since Kelly was adding several other references in that same edit, that seems like a plausible, good faith editing error to me. Kelly did not remove the reference, and I'd hardly call the edit, otherwise a productive one, a "red flag." The threat of administrative action by an involved administrator, however, is a very big red flag. jæs (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As a related aside, I really don't know what's going on with Will, but I'm beginning to seriously question his editing and tactics at the Palin-related articles. jæs (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerns have been raised by other editors over Will Beback's treatment of BLP articles. So, this instance isn't the first time. In my opinion, he might need to stay away from BLP articles for awhile. Cla68 (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been no serious accusation of any BLP violations on my part, here or in any other context. Please don't make unsupported accusations. Doing so repeatedly is a form of harassment.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, I don't see Cla68 alleging BLP violations on your part. I don't remember ever hearing anyone else make such a claim either. He instead seems to be saying that your approach to managing issues related to BLP articles is less than optimal (despite your good intentions) in other sorts of ways. I've felt the same way at times and might leave a note on your talk page sometime if you want to discuss it. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If he is sincerely suggesting that talkingpointsmemo.com is an acceptable reliable source, no less for an article subject to wp:blp, then I have to agree. jæs (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I made any such suggestion. Instead, I was asking for more information. Please assume good faith.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't assume anything other than good faith. You said: "In general, sources from big companies [like TPM] are assumed to be reliable, because they're likelier to have an editorial process and because they have a business that can be sued for libel if there are errors." jæs (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, here's what I wrote:

• I'm not sure what aspect of TPM you're asserting makes it unreliable. In general, sources from big companies are assumed to be reliable, because they're likelier to have an editorial process and because they have a business that can be sued for libel if there are errors. OTOH, gossip rags like the National Enquirer have a bad reputation and are not accepted despite having a large editorial staff. Could you clarify the nature of your objection?[6]

I wrote that after looking at the WP:RSN and failing to find any recent discussion of TPM, a source I'm not familiar with. If asking for more information about a vague objection is a violation then I'd like to see the rule on that. The person who posted the original question, of whether TPM was reliable or not, never responded.   Will Beback  talk  09:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Talking Points Memo is a news/commentary blog with professional editors and reporters, that has received significant recogition for its journalistic work.[7] As such, its views should be represented as a POV source under WP:NPOV, maybe about the same way as salon.com which sometimes gets brought up. Jaes is coming across as slightly tendentious in this discussion about it. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• The blog self-describes itself as: "Commentary on political events from a politically left perspective..." which does not make it a reliable source for our purposes, like any of the many other right-leaning or left-leaning blogs that add their opinions into the mix. I don't know how to put that any other way. jæs (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Jaes, do you understand of Wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view? Quote: "This page in a nutshell: Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Are you saying the right-leaning and left-leaning points of view are insignificant? That is silly. WP:RS says "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." It doesn't have exclusions for being right- or left-leaning. We have tons of stuff sourced to the Wall Street Journal, whose news reporting is generally considered pretty reliable, even though it is very right-leaning editorially. What remains is the assessment of due weight according to the significance of the point of view being expressed. Secondary sources for significance like the NYT article about TPM, the Columbia Journalism Review about other outlets, etc. are also helpful. We don't exclude sources just because they're right- or left-leaning. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss TPM. Suffice it to say that its reliability is open to question and that I engaged in the discussion without ever suggesting that it was or was not reliable. In my following comment I discovered that it was being used as a source for a frequently quoted line from Giffords which is repeated in many sources.[8] So the whole thing was a dispute over nothing. The original questioner could have simply searched on Google and fixed it in 2 minutes instead of starting an unhelpful thread. Maybe some folks just prefer the more dramatic route.   Will Beback  talk  11:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

some folks just prefer the more dramatic route will, i am concerned you aren't getting the point. instead of resolving this issue with a volentary withdraw for a short time, or acknowledging what you are doing to agitate other editors, you respond with accusations, and other unhelpful words. the main gaol here is to resolve the problem, are you willing to make a step forward to end this? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That comment is in reference to asking about TPM as a reliable source instead of just finding another source.

I'm not "getting the point" because no one here has shown any problem with my editing. That said, as I offere4d before, I'd be happy to join the rest of the contributors to this thread in taking a break from Palin-related articles.   Will Beback  talk  02:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

this is not a negotiation will, we are discussing your behavior and the negative effects it has had on others in wp. i am happy you are willing to take a short break, but do not make your withdraw conditional on the actions of others. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly's editing[edit]

Claim that Kelly "may be approaching the 3RR limit"[edit]

Kelly is complaining that I warned her about ownership and 3RR. Here are four reverts to one article in just over 24 hours. None of the reverted material appears to breach BLP clearly or be obvious vandalism, nor does she make any BLP or vandalism claim in her edit summaries.

1. 01:08, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Approach to campaigning */ expand, rework some existing language for NPOV")
2. 12:51, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Use of martial language */ rm Twitter link per WP:PRIMARY")
3. 21:42, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Health care */ rm misleading quote")
4. 01:40, 13 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Response to the 2010 health care bill */ fixing tenses and grammar, removing ^[who?] (the sources say who, and we really don't need to expand this)")

I'm not saying Kelly violated WP:3RR. I warned her that she seemed to be making a lot of reverts and also said that I was not interested in pursuing it. "I haven't counted, but you may be approaching the 3RR limit." Rather than saying something like, "Thanks, I'll be more careful", she responded by accusing me of accusing her of violating 3RR and demanded proof. Since I wasn't "pressing charges" and was only making an informal request, I didn't see the need to do so. She went on to write, "Accusations of 3RR and "repeatedly removing sourced material" - evidence, now, please, or retract."[9] So here's evidence of her possibly approaching the 3RR limit. There are more diffs available for deletions of sourced, relevant, and neutral material from this and other Palin-related articles if she wants to make a bigger case out of this now. Kelly is to be commended for deleting BLP violations from Palin-related articles, but a different standard applies for non-BLP violations. This is not a formal complaint, and I would not have brought it here. I raised it on Kelly's page as informal advice. I hope it won't come up again.   Will Beback  talk  10:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. #1 looks like adding material? Is #2 a revert? Certainly it is a good solid removal. #3 is also a good removal. #4 looks an excellent POV removal. One thing to remember is the spirit of reversion - I don't see constant reverting of the same material. I see an active editor on a highly active article making good content choices. It might be worth checking Wikipedia:OWN#Ownership_and_stewardship before making comments on ownership. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) At least two of those edits are clearly not reverts, with at least one of the other two being quite appropriate per wp:blp. jæs (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If one editor adds a {who} tag,[10] and then another editor removes it, that's a revert.[11] There's no BLP reason for that.   Will Beback  talk  10:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That seems a strawman, no BLP was claimed. But reasonable rationale was given for the removal, and under WP:BRD nothing is wrong with that process. The next step is to discuss the problem on the talk page. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no exception to 3RR for deleting clean-up tags. But notice the main change that Kelly made:

• Representative Gabrielle Giffords who was one of the victims of the 2011 Tucson shootings had expressed concerns about the crosshairs on a [map]...
• Representative Gabrielle Giffords commented on a [map]...

Does anyone think that deleting all mention of 2011 Tucson shootings and Giffords' concerns from a section discussing of the now-famous map is a neutral edit which corrects a clear BLP violation? Further, she doesn't even allude to this significant deletion in her edit summary, which is misleading.   Will Beback  talk  10:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a little misleading, Will, if you cut off half of the actual sentence, which provides much more context than you were indicating: "Representative Gabrielle Giffords commented on a national midterm election map on Sarah Palin's campaign webpage denoting targeted congressional seats including Giffords'." The shootings are already mentioned or linked three other times in the article, and wp:undue is a wp:blp issue. jæs (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a significant difference in implication between "expressed concerns about" and "commented on". After than edit,[12] the 2011 Tucson shootings article was not linked to at all from that section or anywhere else in the article. The section in question was discussing the map and Palin's rhetoric. Kelly has put effort into deleting the map and the all examples of rhetoric from the project. That's not neutral editing.   Will Beback  talk  11:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I;d have removed it to, pure POV pushing synth nonsense. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. There was considerable criticism of Palin for the map and rhetoric prior to January 2011. Removing the assertion that Gabrielle Giffords expressed public concerned about being placed in a crosshairs is not "synth nonsense" - it's history. Other people also warned that Palin's language might lead to violence. It really happened. Notice that we're not even talking about adding this to the Palin biography - this is buried in an obscure sub-article. It's hard to say that a paragraph on the matter is undue weight, considering it's been all over the news for days. If anything, the matter is probably receiving far too little space in proportion to its notability in her political life.   Will Beback  talk  11:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In that context it was pushing the idea that Gifford made those comments (pre-shooting!) and then was later shot. That is inappropriate and not overly neutral. Looking at the article, that has it the correct, chronological way, i.e. Gifford made this criticism, then was shot, then the media picked up on it and made a tenuous link. Certainly such material is not due in the Palin top level article, only recent ism indicated that. It's hard to say that a paragraph on the matter is undue weight; If I had said that, you would be right to criticise. But I definitely did not... I was commenting on that specific removal of text. *shrug* --Errant ^(chat!) 11:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Errant, I'm not sure where you get your news but the link between Giffords' 2010 comments and the shooting was not invented by Wikipedia editors.[13] It may be original research by the media, but the article in question is about media coverage of Palin so media speculation is relevant.   Will Beback  talk  11:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm I am talking about the single diff you provided which removed part of a sentence that was a POV push. I really do not know how much more clear I can explain that :P But I will try; the sentence which was removed by Kelly presented the facts of the matter in a way which pushed a point of view and was entirely inappropriate --Errant ^(chat!) 12:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with this statement. The sentence does not, to me, present a point of view at all. It is correct that this edit removed the only link to the TS page. Further, the existing Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#Campaign_imagery section's second paragraph, the "after the shooting" bit, reads to me as highly biased. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence does not, to me, present a point of view at all.; tyhe thing that would have concerned be about it is that Giffords comments were made way before her being shot. So throwing that statement into the middle of the valid sentence is, I feel, definitely pushing a point :) Now, the fact that Kelly did not then re-introduce the content at the right place is potentially a problem, but unpicking the history is a mess and I can't pin down a reason why that was not done. It is correct that this edit removed the only link to the TS page; agreed, and it should have gone back as better content - as it now has done. Further, the existing Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#Campaign_imagery section's second paragraph, the "after the shooting" bit, reads to me as highly biased.; I'd probably agree there. But once again, I am not commenting on that at all here ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Since we cordially disagree, can we agree then that the removal of that sentence is not an unambiguous "BLP edit"? As there is tenable difference of opinion between reasonable editors? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. There was no BLP issue --Errant ^(chat!) 13:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased editing concerns[edit]

My concern about ownership is that it looks like Kelly has a POV regarding the subject. These are her significant recent edits to Public image of Sarah Palin:

• expand, rework some existing language for NPOV
• add SarahPAC response
• rm Twitter link per WP:PRIMARY
• rm misleading quote
• Persona: trim derogatory trivia
• fixing tenses and grammar, removing {who} (the sources say who, and we really don't need to expand this)
• death threats
• per concern on my talk page

Every one of those edits, except the last, either added what could be considered positive material or deleted what could be considered negative material, all of which was sourced. None of them correct clear BLP violations. Several of them include inaccurate or incomplete edit summaries, or even inaccurate material. It's not my intention to make a full blown RfC out of this. But since Kelly has complained that I didn't provide evidence and diffs, there they are.   Will Beback  talk  11:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It all looks fine, a normal part of the editing of a highly active article. This is what happens on active and contentious articles. Accusing of a POV on such tentative grounds is not really a good faith accusation; Will, we've edited together in the past and got on, but I think you are wrong here. Palin is always going to be a seriously difficult subject to edit and I think Kelly is helping rather than hindering. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As an addendum, looking at 2011 Tucson shooting, Kelly's work to resist the temptation to insert a lot of content about a media conspiracy theory is commendable. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly's POV is WP:BLP and this is exceedingly clear when one looks at your "examples" of reverts. In fact, it is against WP:BLP to allow some of those claims to be in any BLP, even if the person were the most evil person on earth. Other examples are simply establishing further proper context for claims made in a BLP - which is also fully proper. I recall editing an article on a despicable person with you where you felt it was "proper" to include a press release from the government saying a person could get a gigantic sentence (- and where the actual sentence was 30 months. [14], [15], [16], [17] all indicating a particular attitude towards the biographies of such despicable people. My only goal is proper and vigourous enforcement of WP:BLP and it appears to be essentially true of Kelly as well. By the way, all articles relating to a living person are fully subject to WP:BLP - "a different standard applies for non-BLP violations" is a simple misstatement about such. Collect (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly's POV is WP:BLP... Oh? Kelly showed how deeply she cares about keeping tabloid accusations out of articles about living politicians by writing John Edwards extramarital affair from scratch.   Will Beback  talk  13:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Here she insists on using AccessHollywood and TMZ as sources to add material to the biography of the mistress of another Democratic politician.[18][19][20][21] Here she is urging its expansion.[22] It looks rather like her approach to BLPs depends on the political affiliation of the subject. If they're Republican then any controversial material must be excluded. If they're Democrats then pile on the sleeze.   Will Beback  talk  13:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, I was involved with those articles years ago when I was still fairly new. I hadn't looked at them in a long time, but they seem to have stood virtually unchanged since then. If you think there's a problem with their neutrality or sourcing, go tag them up. Kelly ^hi! 15:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You created an articles about two mistresses of Democratic politicians, using gossip-type sources. Every detail of the scandals given in detail. John Edwards extramarital affair is over 3700 words long. And you don't see anything in the current iterations of those articles, to which you were the first or second most prolific contributor,[23][24] that you'd change today? Is that right? Yet even 160 words on the association of Palin's rhetoric to the Tuscon shooting is apparently too much weight in your view. That seems skewed to me.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it seems like there is a political divide within Wikipedia, of which Sarah Palin is one of the boundary markers.

Which claims are you talking about? Could you be specific.

As for my edits to Bill White (neo-Nazi), I don't think I've even come close to breaching WP:BLP, despite editing that very difficult article for years, including with the participation of the subject. If you'd like to discuss my editing, let's do it at #Will Beback, above.   Will Beback  talk  11:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at Will's diffs and Kelly's other edits in more detail tomorrow if this thread is still active, but his criticism of Kelly's editing looks convincing to me on a quick examination. 12:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.122.209.190 (talk)

I'm building up this section as I look this over, but so far:

• On this provided diffs: While I have not as yet seen the entirety of Kelly's edits to the page, the set provided by Will appear on the surface to represented biased editing. I'm concerned enough to go and look further, and am quite surprised at the responses.
• Looking over the discussion at Talk:Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#Criticism.3F, while I have not seen all of Kelly's comments, those in this section read as biased to me. There she's asking for sources that not only say that the criticism existed, but that this criticism was correct.
• I am unable to see the four diffs provided higher up as reverts.
  Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a truism that you shouldn't be able to detect an editors POV through their edits. I think in some of the diffs here, Kelly's POV is fairly clear. And in some cases using BLP as a shield. Just my opinion...RxS (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point, but not necessarily true. An unbiased editor editing a heavily biased article might well make edits solely in support of one side of the debate, simply to redress the balance. Taken in isolation, their edits might seem POV, whereas infact they were not. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but just worth remembering that biased edits do not have to imply a biased editor.--Korruski^Talk 14:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is the case here. I normally don't edit those articles at all, and I certainly don't, on my own initiative, add praise or puffery to Palin articles. I'm pretty sure that normally the only times I add anything to those articles is to present the other point of view for NPOV. Strangely, it seems many/most of the editors who insist that material appearing in RS's MUST appear in the biography, never seem to include or argue on behalf of RS material that is neutral or positive toward the article subject. Kelly ^hi! 14:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I normally don't edit those articles at all, and I certainly don't, on my own initiative, add praise or puffery to Palin articles.

I believe that's a misstatement. The Palin articles, and other conservative causes and politicians, are at the top of Kelly's contribution list, aside from the articles about Democratic scandals. Here's a list of the top 16 articles edited:

• 283 - Sarah Palin
• 175 - Ashley Alexandra Dupré
• 106 - Political positions of Sarah Palin
• 72 - Eliot Spitzer
• 65 - John Edwards extramarital affair
• 41 - Michelle Malkin
• 32 - 2011 Tucson shooting
• 31 - Public image of Sarah Palin
• 29 - Bristol Palin
• 29 - Sean Hannity
• 28 - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
• 24 - Death panel
• 24 - Glenn Beck
• 23 - John Edwards
• 20 - Todd Palin
• 18 - Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal

Here are the top 16 talk pages:

• 1001 - talk:Sarah Palin
• 152 - talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin
• 82 - talk:2011 Tucson shooting
• 48 - talk:John Edwards
• 46 - talk:Ashley Alexandra Dupré
• 38 - talk:Bristol Palin
• 31 - talk:Death panel
• 23 - talk:Sean Hannity
• 21 - talk:Joe the Plumber
• 19 - talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation
• 18 - talk:Lawrence Solomon
• 17 - talk:Bobby Jindal
• 16 - talk:Bush tax cuts
• 15 - talk:Rielle Hunter
• 15 - talk:Public image of Sarah Palin
• 15 - talk:Fitna (film)

Her contributions show Kelly tends to get involved in highly polarized political articles. Her editing of Public image of Sarah Palin shows a tendency to add positive material and delete negative material, which is not neutral editing. Wikipedia has plenty of similar POV pushers, from all sides of the political spectrum. The issue is that Kelly may have been seen as a neutral protector of politicians' bios, and that does not appear to be the case in actual fact. Kelly is a partisan. If she'd stop being so quick to remove other POVs from Palin-related articles that wouldn't be a problem, but I think she has confused negative POV about Palin with BLP violations. Not all negative material on Palin violates BLP.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This sort of "guilt by association" is not proof, frankly, for your allegations. You tried with diffs above, which a number of editors here found indicated no significant evidence of "partisan" editing. So now you're producing an edit analysis that seems to indicate Kelly has a predisposition to edit — I'd argue relatively productively for this project — conservative articles?

I'll let you in on a little secret: I'm a member of the Democratic Party (of the United States) and the Liberal Party of Canada. Does the fact that I've edited the Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina articles — and often had to deal with many indefatigable, now blocked or topic banned pov-pushers from every angle at those articles indicate some sort of issue? No, because your argument here is a baseless red herring, and I'm sure you know it.

Anyone could pull your editing history, as well, and find that you've edited, thousands of times, a number of vulnerable wp:blp articles, like Prem Rawat and Lyndon LaRouche (and associated Divine Light Mission, Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, LaRouche criminal trials, and LaRouche movement). Does that mean your editing in those areas are inherently biased? Certainly without significant evidence that isn't a valid allegation. Yet you use that tactic, here, against Kelly when your earlier attempt to actually "dig up" evidence failed (above).

I continue to be absolutely appalled by your actions here, including your veiled threat of administrative action above which you have refused to respond to, and instead have taken to creating as many subsections about Kelly as you possibly can. jæs (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not expect to convince you. You have worked with Kelly in some of the above-listed articles and appear to support her editing. That's fine, people of all POVs are welcome. The issue is that Kelly is a POV editor, not a neutral protector of BLPs.

Regarding my own editing, I'd be happy to address any concerns in the relevant section: #Will Beback.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the lists of her top edits is a rebuttal to her claim here that she normally doesn't edit Palin-related articles "at all". That's clearly incorrect - they are her main focus of editing.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

@jæs - I find most of your edit to be unhelpful. Will's post is in direct response to a statement that (he claims) is not supported by facts. To criticise someone for providing evidence is poor form. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ownership issues[edit]

I think a key factor in determining whether an editor is exhibiting Ownership issues is how they engage discussion. Some comments from a recent (and related) BLPN thread may be relevant here. Note these comments come after repeated attempts to openly discuss the BLP questions:

• ...I can't participate in a discussion with Kelly if she won't answer my questions. Banana 04:43, 9 January 2011 [25]
• Kelly is not attempting to reach consensus. AndyTheGrump 04:45, 9 January 2011 [26]
• Indeed. The relentless intransigence, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and misdirection from Kelly have made principled discussion impossible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris 05:03, 9 January 2011 [27]
• There is no point saying "wait until ongoing discussion is resolved"; one side is petulantly shutting its ears. ... Ericoides 08:16, 9 January 2011 [28]
• User:Kelly has been battling this criticism towards Sarah Palin 24 hours a day. As it's evident, User:Kelly as it is visible in this Talkpage has been defending Sarah Palin and her article in this encyclopedia from any criticism. ... Camilo Sanchez 08:51, 10 January 2011 [29]
• You [Kelly] removed important and well-cited information that reflected badly on Palin. ... JamesMLane 05:27, 12 January 2011 [30]

Furthermore, I think that editors like Jaes and BBugs are overstating Kelly's value as protector of Palin articles, thus giving Kelly too much credit. This may unfortunately serve to encourage Kelly's resistance to article balance as well as discourage other more neutral editors from participating. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that is going to result from Will's repeated tirades against Kelly is that she will wind up withdrawing from the Palin article altogether, showing yet again that the POV squad need only continue, and continue, and continue, until those who are actually here to maintain this site as an NPOV encyclopedia, and not Conservapedia, will win. Corvus cornix_talk 22:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

But Kelly is part of a POV squad. We don't need more POV pushers, we need more neutral editors.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You are not impartial in the matter. Corvus cornix_talk 23:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall ever claiming that I'm impartial. But that doesn't render my complaint invalid. Further, I'll note again that Kelly brought this here. I simply posted a note on her talk page asking her to avoid WP:OWN-type behavior and to stop reverting so much. That is still all I expect as an outcome.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's unfortunate to see Will going after Kelly in this manner. I don't think Kelly is part of any POV squad any more than Will is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "going after" Kelly. She started this thread. Judging by your edit contributions and work with Kelly on political articles, I don't think you are "impartial in this matter", as Corvus cornix would say.   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall ever claiming that I'm impartial.  :-). But I'm certainly not part of any POV squad, nor is Kelly as far as I can tell.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia...Liberalapedia..... How about trying Neutralapedia for a change.Buster Seven Talk 01:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of her motives, Kelly's edits are (IMO) correct from a BLP point of view. We don't just repeat any idle speculation the media reports, even if they are a reliable source. We are trying to write an encyclopedia, and we take information from reliable sources to do that. Prodego ^talk 01:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps all those involved with those articles-in-question, should withdraw from them. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI is not RFC/U[edit]

This thread started off looking like it might go somewhere, but has instead turned into Will Beback laying out evidence why he thinks that Kelly is an editor who does not follow WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, etc. That sort of thing does not belong on ANI, unless you are looking for a community sanction. Please take the matter to WP:RFC/U. NW (Talk) 02:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't start this thread and I'd be happy to see it archived.   Will Beback  talk  03:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I would request that an administrator quickly apply BLP and WP:PERP and apply a merge. Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner#Proposed_merge Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and redirected the page, as the above pages pretty clearly suggest that a page on this individual is premature. I'm going through the rest of the archiving now (it's crashing my browser.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

David has been reverted, and I agree it was an arbitrary decision. There was no consensus to merge/redirect the article. Diego Grez (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP clearly states that in cases of ambiguity, we protect the individual while discussions are ongoing. And WP:PERP is clear and unambiguous "Note: Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured. " Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You should read consensus before doing that again! --Hinata talk 19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think people are glossing over the "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured." part there; editors havegiven serious consideration to the matter, and the general trend of the merge-or-not discussion on the page is towards the "not" side. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The "serious consideration" discussion is still in progress, but the community has not yet come to the conclusion that the stand alone article is appropriate. Again, in matters related to living people, we err on the side of protecting the individual. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Since the vote was not going their way, the OP tried this end-around. Not appropriate at all. He also tried to suppress the mug shot. Another thing to consider is that no one is questioning that this guy is the perp. The question at trial is not going to be "Who?", it's going to be "Why?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WOW. just wow. We do not and cannot presume someone is guilty. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say he was guilty? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry I misread your statement. You call him a perpetrator just like the people WP:PERP says we should not have articles about unless/until they are actually convicted. I am sorry for having misrepesented you. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Pulling the trigger is not the same thing as being "guilty" legally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And this appears to beWP:GAME The system because it is not going his way. --Hinata talk 19:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just noting here that I reverted David Fuch's redirect and full protection of the page. There was no consensus for a merge at AfD, and there's no consensus for one yet at the merge discussion on the talk page. BLP1E and PERP clearly don't apply to this situation. That doesn't mean a merge shouldn't happen, but it does mean it should be left to consensus, rather than invoking policy. So please allow time for consensus to become clear on the talk page, then ask an uninvolved admin to close that discussion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The AfD was between a Redirect or a Keep and was not a merge discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge and redirect was discussed, and the closing admin decided the consensus was keep. The merge discussion needs to be allowed to take its course, and the consensus judged by an uninvolved admin. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"BLP1E and PERP clearly don't apply". Really? If you mean that the application of those policies in this instance is under discussion and awaiting an uninvolved admin to judge consensus while giving little weight to any view that is not (at least in part) based on those policies, then fine. But if you truely mean that they do not apply, then further explanation will be required. _wjemather^bigissue 20:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• There are no compelling BLP or other policy arguments that I can see that would mandate a merger without editorial consensus. Whether the subject is (inappropriately) portrayed as guilty does not depend on whether he is described in a dedicated article or in a subsection. As such, editors and especially admins should abide by consensus and the processes dedicated to bringing it about.  Sandstein  20:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It depends on what's meant by "guilty". I have yet to see any news source that suggests he was not actually the guy who pulled the trigger. But that doesn't mean he'll be found "guilty" in a court of law. There could well be a plea of insanity or diminished capacity that could result in a "not guilty by reason of..." verdict. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • WP:PERP clearly states "convicted", which is your latter definition. I would be interested in hearing how the page does not apply to the bio. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • It also talks about significant news coverage. If some guy had walked into that grocery store and shot several non-public figures in the course of a robbery, that could be a different matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing for a merger. However, to use the AFD as an argument against it is wrong. The afd was originally discussing delete, keep and redirect. One admin closed it as a speedy "not delete" - and I reopened it, because it seemed better to allow the discussion between keep and merge/redirect to continue. However, it was then speedy closed again as "speedy not-delete per WP:SNOW". Fine, but that means that all the AFD says is "there's no consensus to delete, and the decision to redirect is not a matter for afd". So, you can argue there's currently no consensus to merge, but you cannot use the AFD in support of that - the afd simply addresses the question of actual deletion. As I say, I'm not arguing one way or the other, just saying.
  • I am wondering that too how can an admin close an AfD as something, then reopen it and another admin chooses the exact opposite choice? If this was done on every AfD that was speedly done then things would be a mess. An AfD review was opened but got only 4 or so opinions on it before it was quickly closed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Ouch, our policy and generally accepted editing behaviour here is clear (although other BLP editors would be worth consulting); unless convicted or subject to coverage outside of one event we tend to avoid creating articles like this. Recentism is a slight problem here, because stuff about him is all over the news (for obvious reasons), however with BLP we err on the side of caution - the article should be redirected and merged until such a time as a conviction is obtained and coverage outside of the 1E (i.e. a trial) occurs. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • So all the info gets moved to the shooting article, and then a week later someone proposes splitting it out because it's getting too large. Yeh, that's a good use of time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Honest answer? Tough! BLP doesn't get overturned for editor convenience :P There looks to be plenty of content already in that article, so a quick check for mergable and significant material and then a redirect will suffice. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • If the underlying history is left intact for the Loughner article, then copying the info to the shooting article and making the Loughner article a redirect could be reasonable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I do have to say I am somewhat tempted to delete WP:NOTNEWS right now. This does seem a textbook case - don't create a massive BLP of someone who became famous five minutes ago. I'm going to be shouted at for saying this, but there does seem to be a different law for stuff that impacts on the soul of the USofA. The article is really inappropriate--Scott Mac 21:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• WHAT DO YOU MEAN you're going to delete WP:NOTNEWS as inappropriate? WP:NOTNEWS has been around for some time, and should not be deleted without some discussion first. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• 99 times out of 100 I'm in full agreement with that, and my snippy & contentious history at DRV will bear that out. But when one is (for the sake of legalese/BLP) allegedly involved in an assassination of political figures then that's the 1 out 100 case for me. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm having a hard time reconciling the concern here about too much focus on someone caught with a smoking gun and charged with multiple murders while there's this much focus on alleged nastiness for which a Subject hasn't even been charged with anything at all. If consensus isn't enough to get those who are pushing redirect to back off, then maybe Ignore All Rules should be applied; but redirect is not acceptable in the face of substantialn and growing consensus opposed to merging. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Propose this be closed and all discussion kept on the articles talk page where it belongs. No reason to have the same debate here. Ridernyc (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be an admin that can close the merge discussion on the talk page and make a choice here, the whole thing has blown into a huge storm with editors taking sides on the matter - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User:David Fuchs[edit]

User did this: [31] without consensus and likely opposite consensus here:[32]. Disruptive and misuse of admin. tools if any were used. Unless there's a very good excuse, David should lose his administrative authorities,I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a little extreme. But he'd better not do it again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that edit was wildly inappropriate. I also don't think it was inappropriate to revert it. It was a difficult one to call, IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone who makes those mistakes (Or in some cases they do it on purpose) gets warnings and notices before action is taken, thats how wikipedia works. I do not think this should have gone beyond a talk page discussion here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This was automatically archived but I'm restoring it as it includes a ban proposal. Could some sort of conclusion be reached and recorded, even if only to do nothing? Voceditenore (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Time Will Say Nothing (talk · contribs) (see [33] was indefinitely blocked for legal threats. He is now editing as 87.112.86.251 (talk · contribs), which he admits here [34]. He's been using other IPs as you can see by his statement at Talk:Robert Shaw (theatre director) where he says 'this IP was blocked' whereas in fact that IP has never been blocked. I could go to SPI but I'm wondering if there is anything else that can be done here. My own opinion is that the talk page edits should be deleted and perhaps even page protection is necessary if range blocks aren't practical. Dougweller (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the previous SPI for reference Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Time Will Say Nothing/Archive. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

87.112.86.251/32 is possible; the others are too many. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

SPI filed Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh. He has a huge WP:COMPETENCE problem, mostly just here to disrupt in an SPA area. Community ban him and lets get it over with (sad as I am to say that) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of bits out of that talk page that, if not directly legal threats, refer back to the original legal threats (assuming IP identity) in both enforcement and spirit. I leave that to interpretation on if it constitutes the immediate need for a block while the SPI is ongoing. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 09:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the article and talk page would go a long way towards nipping this in the bud, since he's only interested in Robert Shaw. Whacking registered accounts is much easier than short blocks for IPs. AniMate 09:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Really, enough is enough. Talk:Robert Shaw (theatre director) is now filled with time-wasting tendentious editing with completely spurious interpretations of "policy" and accusations against other editors by an indefinitely blocked user, who is openly violating the block, and who has no intention whatsoever of changing. See this Wikiquette Alert, these two previous AN/I discussions, and this AfD for background to this saga. Given the hopping IPs, I'm not sure what another SPI will accomplish. I too would suggest semi-protection of the article talk page. No other IPs have edited it apart from the ones Time Will Say Nothing uses and those of what he calls his "supporters". If they attempt to start editing the article, semi-protection may be required for that as well or putting it under pending changes. He has already attempted to edit it while blocked using his sockpuppet Hohohobo. Voceditenore (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection requested --Errant ^(chat!) 09:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Shaw (theatre director) now semi-protected for 1 week [35]. 87.112.86.251 now blocked for one week [36], following this comment (as usual completely wrong) on the IP's talk page. A breathing space, but I'm sure the whole thing will start up again once the page protection and IP block expires, or earlier if he simply changes IPs. Voceditenore (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo posted to the Robert Shaw talk page saying he's removing anything unsourced. It's not just the Robert Shaw page that has been involved, it's his grandfather's article Martin Shaw (composer) and Up to Now (Shaw autobiography) Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Those pages probably need semi-protection as well. Doc talk 16:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

TWSN ban proposal[edit]

Eyriq86 keeps on ignoring the manual of styles, removing references and generally editing MMA records according to his liking. I warned him already three times and he simply has ignored the warnings. I believe that he is disruptive editing. While I have focused the warnings on a single article (Alistair Overeem), he has also been disrupting other articles where he has also removed references. He always marks his edits as minor and never leaves a summary of the changes, which makes me believe that he is deliberately trying to hide his edits. He has not tried to contact me or any of the other editor that have warned him in the past as seen here. These are some of his edits: Alistair Overeem 1, 2, 3; Kazushi Sakuraba; Junior dos Santos; Brandon Vera; Todd Duffee; Ricardo Arona; Georges St-Pierre; Maurício Rua. Jfgslo (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This user keeps making changes and mass deletions of referenced data particularly on Caubeen but also on Hat he seems to want to delete any reference to it being Irish despite the mass of material to this effect. A significant number of his edits have edit summaries that bear no obvious relation to the changes being made Examples of the his changes to Caubeen;

[42] [[43]] [[44]] [[45]] [[46]]

Examples of his changes to hat

[[47]] [[48]] [[49]]

I’ve explained as fully as I can my changes in my edit summaries and tried discussing it with him on his talk page but tried discussing it with him but he just deletes my messages: [[50]] [[51]] [[[[52]]

The only time he responded I used his suggested text in the article but he deleted it himself see: User_talk:Lloydelliot10 Lloydelliot10 (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that the actual cause here is your repeated removal of references to the British, as in [53] and [54]. You'll want to get that plank out before you start helping others with their splinters. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already explainded to User:Lloydelliot10 on his talk page a number of days ago that the Glengarry beret worn by the Irish army is notting like the Caubeen bonnet the British army wear. Despite this he keeps making edits about the Glengarry on the article page and added an image of the Irish army reserve which has notting to do with the subject.--MFIreland • ^Talk 22:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed you did and I used your suggested words in the article. I can only repart what I said on yourn Talk page:

I'm somewhat confused by your edits to Caubeen and Hat - as I said when you posted a 3RR warning on my page I have no wish to start a war, but you appear intent on removing any reference to its use by the Irish. Any google search throws up a lot of Irish hits in addition to its use by UK Crown forces, I'd draw your attention in particular to the reference in The Wearing of the Green and its use by the Ancient Order of Hibernians which I put on the page. I don't think anyone is disputing its adoption by various emige Irish units outside the Republic and the British Army - why are you so intent on removing any other references? Lloydelliot10 (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You never replied to this, just kept on mass deleting on the page.

If I deleted any new references that you added I apologise but I did not see them. You seem intent on deleting any references to Irish use of the Caubeen (see above for two in particular). I have no intention of deleting refences to its use by the British - I don't know where the idea that I have came from but just because they may have 'poached' it doesn't mean they get exclusive use. Regards Lloydelliot10 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I will explain to you again just as I have above and on your talk page, that the Glengarry beret worn by the Irish army is notting like the Caubeen bonnet the British army wear. Despite this you keep making edits about the Glengarry on the article page and adding an image of the Irish army reserve Guard of Honour which has notting to do with the caubeen. My comments on your talk page was not a suggestion for the article but to explain to you what a Glengarry is. This is a link to the offical Irish Defence Forces website page on the Armys uniform.LINK --MFIreland • ^Talk 19:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This issue has just come to my attention and if anyone checks out some of the information that MFIreland is trying to erase for example sourced information that show the caubeen being used outside of the Brirish/Commonwealth army, i.e. by the Ancient Order of Hibernians. His edits have also tried to change an article on an Irish type of hat into an article that makes it appear that it is only a British/Commonwelath piece of headgear despite evidence to the opposite.

MFIreland has not disucssed a single one of his edits in the articles talk page. In fact no-one has. If MFIreland wants to continue making disruptive edits to alter an article into an exclusively British army article, he should take it to the article talk page and seek consensus with everyone else. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Joetri10 (talk · contribs) has been insistent in reinserting and reemphasizing fictional elements of Two Qiaos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) despite the attempts of others to try to refocus the article back to the factual (and I'll admit that perhaps now I'm embroiled, which is the reason why I'm bringing it here). I'd like someone to review the situation and consider appropriate actions. --Nlu (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well the Romance of the Three Kingdoms isn't just any old work of fiction. ☺ It's a shame that Joetri10 is the only one pointing to a source for what the article says, even if it is a 14th century work of historical fiction.

  Here's an appropriate action: Start pointing to some other historical source material, that backs up what the purported "facts" are supposed to be. How is the poor reader to know that this entire article isn't derived from the stories in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms? It's the only source that anyone is even pointing to. It's a good idea to show what actually is factual in this article, with sources, before edit warring over what's fact and what's fiction. For all that anyone has shown in 7 years, the entire article could be something that doesn't even exist outside of the Romance. Indeed, back in 2005 the article said outright that these people didn't exist except in fiction, so it's possibly a bit rich to claim that one is sticking to "just the historical facts" when one hasn't shown that there even are any, and that Joetri10's emphasis on the Romance as the sole existence of this subject isn't indeed entirely proper in this case.

  Good content drives out bad. A good article that provably documents the actual history with sourced historical analysis will discourage counterfactual additions and cargo-cult encyclopaedia writing. But coming to the administrator's noticeboard to get support for one side of an edit war, and not finding out what the historical fact that the article should present even is, doesn't get one the good content that the process requires. Uncle G (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Historically, there's a name-hopping editor whose whole M.O. is adding large amounts of content from Dynasty Warriors and other such video games to articles on historical and semihistorical Chinese figures (Uncle G: I use "semihistorical" because quite often the Romance of the Three Kingdoms or The Water Margin have influenced conceptions of these figures; e.g., I basically agree with you), and to a lesser extent other East Asian historical topics. I don't know if this is the return of the same individual or not, but I tend to remove such content when I see it because there have been so many unconstructive additions of this type. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • If only that sort of thing were confined to Chinese historical figures and one person. It isn't. ☺ There's more than one person for whom knowledge of some subjects is confined to television, film, and video games. But that's how good content drives out the bad. A good article, explaining some actual facts from authorities on the subject, tends to stop people just building piles of random fictional occurrences in the hope that they'll magically turn into an encyclopaedia article about something factual after some mystical critical mass of fictional instances has accrued. And that's definitely what is needed in this case. The unanswered question is whether there's any historical fact to be had in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I’m not sure if I can post on this issue but seeing as the issue is me then I’m going to explain a few things to help you understand this. The unanswered question?, it is indeed unanswered. Similar to the figures Zhu Rong, Diao Chan, Lu Lingqi, Xing Cai and many others, they are all based on real people however because of the Novel Romance Of The Three Kingdoms and the game Dynasty Warriors By Koei, their existence is much more fictional then factual/historical. I say good luck to any who tries and find real historical facts about the Qiao's that doesn’t derive from the Novel. Now onto the fictional points?. Many people who will be looking up the Qiao's will find very little if the fictional points are not there. Another question is not what facts should be on the page, but what the page should be about In which i think it should be the both (meaning both Real life facts and there portrayal in the novel). If you look on any figure's page related to the Three Kingdoms, you will find information of the novel on all of those, the Qiao's are in no way any different. Showing facts about Dynasty Warriors, what movies they have been portrayed in and their inclusion to the novel can help the reader a lot as that is most possibly what they are looking for. If i am doing wrong by wanting the reader to learn more about them by showing facts that are most important, then i don’t understand what you truly want on Wikipedia. Because i promise you, without the fictional facts on that page, it will prove worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetri10 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Recognition denied
See User:Access Denied XI. WP:RBI WP:DFTT. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 18:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC) WP:DUCK. This makes me sad. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Goes several months without editing, then all of the sudden creates a SPI investigation against me without my knowledge. see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jddjss and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JDDJS JDDJS (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL at the sock report he tried to create; it takes a lot more than that to fool me. Anyways, the following accounts are  Confirmed:

• Isabella and Lego Liker (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jddjss (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sfdgsuy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fdst7vugy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Xvhjkbvbb (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Usdftgysd (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sfdjiv (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Xffgs (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 03:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

So can those fake SPI investigations against me be deleted? JDDJS (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

They already have been deleted by MuZemike, so this issue is more or less resolved. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Opinion requested on Friedrich Krüger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): should an unsourced allegation that this SS officer's grandson lives in a certain city be removed from history? (I reverted the edit, but I am not sure whether to remove it from history; it is not per se defamatory as to either the deceased subject or to the grandson, but could have undesirable consequences whether true or false.) --Nlu (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is the clean-up you have done is adequate as only admins can now see the information. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A real-life Freddy Krueger??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Aleenf1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps reverting edits made by me on the article "2011 Asian Winter Games". He decided to remove repeatedly infomration that is sourced without a reason to so. Also for this article he does not follow the genral guidelines when it comes to multi-sporting events on wikipedia, such as removing the calendar and the number of events by sport repeatedly. Finally, he removed a huge chunk of information from the "2017 Asian Winter Games" for no reason. Intoronto1125 (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If people who are making a bold move and considering as vandalism, then i have nothing to say about it. This is something like posting a threat and send people a rare "worst" message. --Aleenf1 17:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • This is vanadalism. If you keep editing not correctly then reverting the edits after they are correct is considered vandalism. Intoronto1125 (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
      • What a joke! Don't use the word "vandalism" if you not fully understand it. It seems like you are "correct" while blindly revert and violate the 3RR rules. What a shame. --Aleenf1 23:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
        • It most certainly is! You removed content from pages. Intoronto1125 (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What we have here is edit-warring by both parties, including a 3RR violation by Intoronto1125, with no attempt by either party to discuss the dispute on the talk page. Accordingly I have fully protected the article for three days. If further edit-warring ensues, blocks will follow as appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Banned user Raymond Mardyks has been using the talk page of User:Shii to post personal abuse. (see: user talk:Shii#You called?) While this is fairly constrained compared to his previous behaviour {see the archive history for Talk:2012 phenomenon) he has recently begun to abuse uninvolved posters on Shii's talkpage (diff). As this user has no account and frequently changes terminals, bans are, it seems, only a temporary measure, but that seems the only option to keep uninvolved users out of his way. Serendi^podous 16:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs and [55]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

He also appears to be posting as "Star Heart" on Talk:2012 phenomenon. Serendi^podous 22:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I would love it if any uninvolved administrator could pick up the slack of banning this guy. It would basically involve monitoring Talk:2012 phenomenon and the related article. Shii (tock) 01:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure of right policy to cite, but thought that this edit [56] from an editor with a few hundred edits ought to be mentioned here. --FormerIP (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The editor acknowledged on FormerIP's talk page that the edit was mistaken, so I don't see a need for any action or followup here. Looie496 (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

[57] That subpage he created sent up a BIG red flag ! Also of interest is his contribution to Talk:Michael Jackson.[58]

Can someone please look into the matter? He hasn't edited any ARTICLE so his subpage and comment on the Michael Jackson talk page ALMOST went undetected but that at least has been reverted. Thanks. This lousy t-shirt (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

We should tag this user's subpage for speedy deletion. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like somebody got it already. Good! But next time I see something like that I'll just tag it. Hope not to see that often. This lousy t-shirt (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Good deletion - I'd have given it a G10 instead though. It was clearly an attack page. LadyofShalott 02:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No notification of this discussion? No warnings on his Talk page? Corvus cornix_talk 02:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I notified him. It's on his talk page. This lousy t-shirt (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you put a notification on the talk page of the subpage; I've now put one on his actual talk page. Ladyof:Shalott 03:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. (I was more than a bit alarmed at the time). This lousy t-shirt (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've imposed a voa block on the account. If he wants to do something useful, he can create another account. Looie496 (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

John Calvin Moore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the Jimbo-banned editor obsessed with Whitman and the police officers who shot him; see contributions for evidence. Would have taken this to AIV, but it's perhaps too complicated - and in any case, the last time I took this guy to AIV he wasn't blocked for eight hours afterward. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Whack! Looie496 (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Two editors on the East Africa article who are open supporters of Somaliland (a secessionist region in Somalia whose autonomous government declared the territory independent a while back, but which is recognized by every country and international organization as a part of Somalia) have been trying to add the region (c.f. [59], [60]) to a section of the article reserved for the 19 actual countries that are part of the UN's Eastern Africa geoscheme. The section of the article in question begins as follows (something I've already explicitly pointed out to one of them):

East Africa or Eastern Africa is the easterly region of the African continent, variably defined by geography or geopolitics. In the UN scheme of geographic regions, 19 territories constitute Eastern Africa:^[1]

I've explained to the editors that the material is obviously original research since the UN geoscheme does not include the Somaliland region of Somalia among its 19 Eastern African countries. However, they have attempted to work around that by, rather incredibly, claiming that they are only listing the region among the 19 territories in the UN's geoscheme for Eastern Africa because the UN considers Somaliland to be a part of Somalia. I then logically pointed out to them that the UN geoscheme does not recognize let alone mention any area/enclave in the territory of modern-day Somalia, whether the Somaliland region (which they listed) or the neighboring autonomous Puntland region (which they tellingly did not list); the geoscheme only recognizes and includes Somalia itself, as it does with every other actual country in Eastern Africa. Because the editors have been attempting to force through this original research into the article, there was no other alternative but to come here. Middayexpress (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please also note that this issue is not over whether or not to include the Somaliland region in the East Africa article, as it has already been included. The issue specifically concerns listing the region in the section of the article exclusively reserved for the 19 East African territories that are a part of the UN's geoscheme, as described above. Middayexpress (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you notify the other editors of this discussion?

I've not previously been involved in this debate. However, you are grossly mischaracterizing the issue. This isn't a dispute over OR, since all of the facts are sourced and agreed upon. The UN considers Somaliland to be a part of Somalia, Somalia to be in East Africa, and hence the territory of Somaliland to be geographically within East Africa. No one has suggested listing Somaliland as an independent state recognized by the UN. The suggestion (as has been repeatedly pointed out to you) is to explicitly mention that the UN considers Somaliland to be a part of Somalia. Something along the lines of "Somalia (including Somaliland)". It should be clear to any reader that this doesn't imply that that the UN considers Somaliland to be an independent state within East Africa. Not mentioning Somaliland in some way is not neutral. Including it within brackets addresses NPOV issues. TDL (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As explained above, the Somaliland region was already included in the article; that was never the issue. The issue is over whether to include it in the section of East Africa article specifically reserved for the 19 territories that the UN actual includes in its geoscheme. And the UN geoscheme, of course, does not recognize let alone mention any area/enclave in the territory of modern-day Somalia, whether the Somaliland region (which the accounts listed) or the Puntland region (which the accounts tellingly did not list). That is original research, not neutrality. There's no getting around that. Middayexpress (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I should also point out to readers that the username above (one User:Danlaycock) uploaded just yesterday a map ([61]) that purports to show an independent Somaliland "country" juxtaposed by Somalia. Less than an hour after this map was uploaded, one of the other accounts involved the issue then attempted to add it to the East Africa article [62]. The map also has no source, and thus could've been self-made or obtained from a partisan source, such as a publication from the secessionist administration. The username above is therefore hardly neutral in this matter. Middayexpress (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a false accusation. The map was added by User:Night w, not by User:Danlaycock/TDL. --Taivo (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I did not say that User:Danlaycock added the map, but clearly that he uploaded it ([63]). I then remarked that, interestingly, "less than an hour after this map was uploaded, one of the other accounts involved the issue then attempted to add it to the East Africa article [64]." Middayexpress (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, because I notified Night just after uploading the image so that he could make use of it. What are you trying to suggest, that I'm a sock for Night? By all means get a CheckUser done. You certainly won't find anything.

The source of the file is clearly indicated on the image's description page. You will find it (shockingly) under the heading "Source". The copyright info is located under the heading "Description". Do you have any sources to back up your suggestion that MapArt Publishing is a Somaliland "partisn source"? Otherwise the issue is moot. TDL (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You have not provided any proof that the image is indeed from MapArt Publishing. You just claimed it is, with no accompanying link to show that this is, in fact, the case. The map could just as easily have come from a partisan source, such as a publication from the secessionist government itself. At any rate, that's a separate issue that will be dealt with soon, rest assured. As for Night, I never suggested you were a sock of his. I brought up the fact that you uploaded the image to demonstrate that you are "therefore hardly neutral in this matter". Middayexpress (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that any source which isn't online isn't reliable? There is no link, I took a photograph of the map hanging on my wall. It's not my obligation to prove to you that I didn't forge the map. I gave you the reference info, so go to the library and look it up for yourself if you don't believe me. Just because you won't go to the library to verify my source, doesn't make it's any less reliable. You'll notice that >50% of the articles cited on East Africa don't have links to "prove" themselves. TDL (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS:

Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries.

Emphasis mine. TDL (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOURCEACCESS pertains to text sources, not images. You are also clearly confusing the author parameter with the source parameter (which are mutually exclusive). The author parameter is where one lists who actually created the work (which you claim, in this case, is MapPublishing), and the source parameter is where one actually links to the original work itself i.e. where the file is from (refer to Template:Information). The actual source of the file is still unfortunately required. Middayexpress (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not confusing anything. You just aren't reading what I actually wrote in the summary. Go back to the file and read it. You are correct in your identification of the author, listed under "Description", as MapArt. The source, listed under "Source", is me. As I mentioned previously above, I took a photograph of the map hanging on my wall. There is no other file. I created the file. Without me there would be no file. I'm not sure how else to explain this to you.

And how do you come to the conclusion that WP:SOURCEACCESS only applies to text sources? It certainly doesn't state that in the article. TDL (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOURCEACCESS pertains to editors using pay-per-view sources (such as many scientific journal articles) or academic books not readily available online for their sources. It does not pertain to image upload description pages, but to actual articles ("This policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.") As already pointed out, the actual page that explains what the various parameters on the image upload description page represent is Template:Information. And again, the author parameter only pertains to the origingal creator of the work (which you initially indicated was MapArt Publishing), not you: "original author of the file; where appropriate, use {{Creator:Name Surname}} with {Creator}. If the work is derived, the author of the original (e. g. depicted or retouched) work should be mentioned as well." Similarly, the source parameter is where one actually links to the original work itself i.e. where the file is from: "information about where the file is from (own files should be tagged with Own work ); if the file is derived work, the original work(s) should be designated". The actual source of the file is still unfortunately required. Middayexpress (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Before lecturing me on proper image uploading procedures, it would be helpful if you got your facts correct first. The template you are linking to is wrong for two reasons. 1) It's on wiki-commons, while you will notice that I actually uploaded the maps to the local wiki. 2) Template:Information can ONLY be used for FREE images. It's not allowed for the image I uploaded. The template I actually used was Template:Non-free use rationale, which is the correct template for non-free images. Please go back and look at the correct template usage. There you will find that I've properly filled it out.

There are a few subtle differences. Namely there is no "author" field. The "Description" field says "Always include the copyright holder here." This is where you will find MapArt, the original creator of the work, listed. I've never claimed otherwise. From the REAL template you will find "Source: Where you acquired the copyrighted material, or how you regenerated it." And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, SOURCE=ME. That's clearly indicated under the "Source" header. The actual source of the article is my camera. What else do you want? I'm sorry you find this so difficult to grasp. Most people don't find it that hard. TDL (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Awfully condescending aren't we today? This doesn't have to be an emotional issue, you know. You are correct about one thing though: the proper template for this non-free image is indeed Template:Non-free use rationale. My bad, and I thank you for producing the link. Unfortunately, this template also requires you to actually list where (not just who) you got the material from: "Description [...] A description of the copyrighted material. Always include the copyright holder here.." Example provided: "Book cover of Strong Poison." And that's still what's missing here. Middayexpress (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I generally try my best to adhere to AGF. However, after you a) suggested that I (or others) are "open supporters of Somaliland", b) claimed that you notified the involved editors of this discussion on their talk pages, but never actually did (in spite of the big warning on the top of this page) c) implied that I'm a sock of Night, d) accussed me of forging the map (or of lying about the source), e) insinuated that I (or others) are canvassing opinions, all without a single diff to back up these accusations, I find it hard to continue to AGF. I suspect you probably find this happens to you frequently when you get into disagreements. If you want to get the benifit of AGF you should practice it yourself.

As for the issue, you still aren't making any sense. I'll go through this step-by-step for you. The "Description" field asks for: "A description of the copyrighted material. Always include the copyright holder here." The first part (the description) is satisfied by my statement: "A photograph of a map which illustrates East Africa, and includes the disputed state of Somaliland." The second part (copyright holder) is satisfied by my statement: "The copyright holder is MapArt Publishing." The "Source" field asks for "Where you acquired the copyrighted material, or how you regenerated it." Note, that the key word here is OR. This means that I only need to mention EITHER where I got it from or how I generated it. I chose the latter (since I generated the file) and answer with: "I personally took a digital photograph of the map." Problem solved. All questions have been answered. Even suppose that it did require a "where", what would you suggest I put? The latitude and longitude of my wall where the poster is hanging? TDL (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Middayexpress didn't bother to notify any of the affected editors. I was notified by Danlaycock/TDL. This issue is a festering one and one where Middayexpress has proven to be completely unwilling to work constructively with other editors. A mediation was begin here, but when Middayexpress continued to express a complete unwillingness to compromise and then, finally, a complete unwillingness to even participate, a consensus for including Somaliland was reached without him/her. His claims that I am an "open supporter" of Somaliland are false. I am an open supporter of NPOV. NPOV states that we take neither side and express as neutrally as possible the fact that there exists a de facto independent state in the former area of British Somaliland. Middayexpress has, in various places, been unwilling to have this existence expressed in any way whatsoever, claiming regularly that it amounts to OR. His POV is intransigent and his willingness to work constructively with other editors on this issue is virtually zero. --Taivo (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I did notify the other accounts of this discussion on the article's talk page discussion (which I linked to above), and that's after I already warned one of the users well beforehand that I would post on AN/I if he persisted with adding OR to the article (c.f. [65]). It was also already clearly explained to the user above on both his own talk page and the article's talk page why this issue has nothing to do with the arbitration:

"Irrelevant. Somaliland was already included in the article (the point of the arbitration). But that apparently wasn't good enough, since you then attempted to add it to the section of the article exclusively reserved for actual countries that are a part of the U.N.'s geoscheme. And that, of course, still most certainly does not include the Somaliland region [66]. This makes your edit [67] very much original research. There's unfortunately no getting around that."

Middayexpress (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Middayexpress most certainly did not notify me of this AN/I. Otherwise, he could provide you with a diff. But he did not. I invite anyone to examine my talkpage at [68] to see that there is a threat from a day ago, but no notification of this action. Burying an acronym in a discussion thread on the article's Talk Page does not satisfy the requirements, clearly written above, to "notify any user who is the subject of a discussion." --Taivo (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I notified you on the article's talk page where we were already having a discussion and which you clearly have watchlisted (the difs are above, fyi). And that's well after I already promised you on your talk page that I would. Middayexpress (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you didn't notify ANYONE on either personal or the article's talk pages. You had previously discussed the issue on these places, but you didn't notify anyone of this CURRENT discussion. The links you provided above aren't diff's. They are just links to the article. Please provide diff's of the specific edits you made linking to this page that you claim you made. TDL (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I not only notified the other accounts of this discussion, I also linked them directly to it on the article's talk page ("As promised, this matter has now been reported on AN/I." [69]). And that's, of course, well after I warned Taivo on his talk page yesterday that I would if the OR persisted, as it indeed has ("I'm asking you politely to stop adding untruths to the article. Next time, it's off to AN/I." [70]). Middayexpress (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Middayexpress is also completely wrong about the relevance of the mediation. It was specifically about this list. He is misrepresenting that mediation since the consensus that developed was not his POV. --Taivo (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That is a lamentable untruth. The arbitration was over whether to include Somaliland among the territories listed in the East Africa article; it already was (and is) listed in the article when you tried to add it a second time [71]; only this time, to the section of the article exclusively reserved for the 19 territories in the UN's geoscheme for Eastern Africa. It's still unfortunately original research because Somaliland is, of course, not at all a part of the UN's geoscheme nor is any other region of Somalia; only Somalia the country itself is [72]. That's all there is to it. Middayexpress (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stick to the subject. No one is suggesting that Somaliland is recognized by the UN geoscheme. The issue is whether or not it should be mentioned in the list that the disputed Somaliland is considered to be part of Somalia by the UN. TDL (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out repeatedly, Somaliland was (and is) already mentioned]. That is not the issue, but a red herring to distract away from the issue. The actual issue is that the Nightw and Taivo accounts have been trying to include the Somaliland region a second time, only this time in the section of the East Africa article reserved for the 19 territories that are part of the UN's Eastern Africa geoscheme. Unfortunately, this is original research because the UN most certainly does not list any "Somaliland" region or any other province or area in Somalia, including Puntland; it only lists Somalia itself [73]. Time to face the facts people. Middayexpress (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Middayexpress, it's time for you to face the facts. The addition which you oppose is supported by multiple other editors. You stand alone in your objection. Your objection is ridiculous since the addition is not adding Somaliland to the U.N.'s list, but is simply a cross-reference of sorts so that readers who might wonder how Somaliland fits into the scheme will know right away. Indeed, you mention that Somaliland is already mentioned in the article. But that mention is further down and it's always better to mention relevant information earlier rather than later. Perhaps the second reference is not as well-placed as this one. You stand alone, Middayexpress, and it's quite clear that you are unwilling to edit this article cooperatively. This isn't the only place where you have launched an edit war against an NPOV reference to Somaliland, so it's clear that you have a dedicated POV against it. It is this AN/I that is a red herring and a distraction from the real issue, which is your unwillingness to work cooperatively when it comes to the issue of Somaliland. --Taivo (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a democracy nor are its best practices decided by popular vote. What is admissible on this website is determined by reliable sources only, which in this case, is the UN geoscheme. That means that no matter how many like-minded accounts show up and agree with you, that still won't make Somaliland any more a part of the UN's geoscheme per the UN website itself than the territory already is (which is to say, it isn't at all [74]). Your attempts to cite the Somaliland region among the 19 countries that the UN actually includes in its geoscheme is not "NPOV". It's the very opposite of that: it's blatant original research and an obvious POV attempt to imply that Somaliland is included in the geoscheme. Of course, you will argue that you included a footnote [75] to the effect that Somaliland isn't included in the geoscheme. But that's not an argument at all because you could just as easily have added that "clarifying" footnote after Somalia itself without ever having needed to cite Somaliland in the section of the article exclusively reserved for the 19 East African territories that are actually a part of the UN's geoscheme. And no, complaining that Somaliland -- a secessionist territory that is internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia [76], [77] -- is listed further down in the East Africa article's intro is not a valid argument, especially given the fact that the region is listed alongside actual countries when the world at large doesn't even recognize it as such. Middayexpress (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You have completely misrepresented the addition. You claim that we are adding it to the 19 countries. We are not adding it, we are simply adding a useful cross-reference as a parenthetical note to Somalia. Your POV continues to blind you to NPOV solutions. No, Wikipedia doesn't work as a democracy, it works on consensus. When a consensus of editors agrees, then that is the edit that is placed in situ. A consensus was reached without you because you refused to participate in the consensus-building process. The consensus is that a parenthetical note mentioning that Somaliland is part of Somalia in the UN's scheme is NPOV, and it is not OR. --Taivo (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to "misrepresent" your edits, for they are as clear as day:

• Here is a dif of you personally adding Somaliland to the section of the article's intro that is reserved for the 19 territories that are actually a part of the UN's Eastern Africa geoscheme (which the Somaliland region most certainly isn't a part of [78]).
• Here is a link to the East Africa article as it looked after that initial edit
• Here is another dif of you adding a footnote after Somaliland -- which you already listed alongside the the geoscheme's actual territories -- with the following phrase: "Somaliland is not included in the United Nations geoscheme, as it is internationally recognized as a part of Somalia"
• Here is a second link to the East Africa article as it looked when you were through with that last edit described above.

Any actually honest person can see that you added the Somaliland region to the section of the article reserved for the territories that are actually included in the UN's geoscheme, just as I indicated in my very first post. Instead of simply admitting that you were mistaken and moving on, you now absurdly try and claim that I somehow "misrepresented" your own edits and appeal to numbers. But that unfortunately still won't bring the Somaliland region any closer to being a part of the UN's geoscheme, as you clearly insinuated in your edits. That is still very much original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia (even if a few other accounts really like it too). Middayexpress (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Middayexpress, you continue (and continue and continue) to misrepresent the edit as "adding Somaliland" to the list. All that was added was a parenthetical note so that anyone who is looking for Somaliland knows that it is included in the UN's scheme under Somalia. You are the only person who can't see the sensibility of that. It is not OR. You clearly don't understand what original research actually is. --Taivo (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in this either, but it seems obvious to me that we mention all countries covered by the area. Somaliland is a country in the UN definition of East Africa. IMO restricting it to a parenthetical is an appropriate way to emphasize that it is not recognized by the UN. I fail to see how anyone could possibly object to that. — kwami (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, I know you and I have had our differences in the past and that Taivo is your friend. However, Somaliland is not a country in the UN definition of East Africa; that's the point. It is not even included at all in its geoscheme [79]. Hence, it is clearly original research to list it in the section of the East Africa article that is reserved for the 19 territories that are, by contrast, included in the UN's geoscheme for Eastern Africa. That includes in parentheses, as has been done ([80], [81]). Middayexpress (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The wikilinks are also not included in the UN's geoscheme. By your misguided logic, all wikilinks and other cross-referencing information should also be removed from the list. Your logic is quite flawed, Middayexpress. --Taivo (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"Misguided", eh? "Flawed logic", huh? Ok. Then do me a favor Taivo, and point out for the first time where on the UN's website [82] it indicates that Somaliland is a part of its geoscheme (or indeed even mentions the region). Demonstrate what on-point, sound logic is. Middayexpress (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And the UN doesn't recognize Tanzania as a state of East Africa either, only the United Republic of Tanzania. Hence it's clearly OR to include Tanzania in our list by your logic.

What you've failed to grasp is that V doesn't force us to mindlessly reproducing sources. We can find secondary sources which show that the shortform name of United Republic of Tanzania is just simply Tanzania. That's not OR. Neither is adding a note that the UN's definition of Somalia includes Somaliland. Without such a clarification, just stating "Somalia" is ambiguous since there are at least two different definitions of "Somalia".

If you aren't going to listen to others opinions, then why did you bother bringing this issue here? This is a pretty classic case of a WP:BOOMERANG. TDL (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that challenge above was directed at the Taivo account; but you are of course welcome to respond. That said, the United Republic of Tanzania is just another name for Tanzania (read that article's first sentence). So yes, by my logic, the UN geoscheme does indeed list Tanzania. There also unfortunately no secondary sources extant that cite the Somaliland region as being a part of the UN's geoscheme (what is actually dealt with in that particular section of the East Africa article). And that's to be expected since, per the UN website itself, Somaliland is of course not a part of the UN's geoscheme [83]. Indeed, the UN's website doesn't even mention the territory at all. It is therefore clearly original research to list Somaliland (that includes in parentheses too, as has been done [84], [85]) in the section of the East Africa article's intro that is reserved for the 19 territories that are, by contrast, actually included in the UN's geoscheme for Eastern Africa. Middayexpress (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I happen to think your arguments are just as ridiculous as Taivo. That said, the Somaliland region is internationally recognize as falling withing Somalia (read the article's first sentence). So yes, by your logic, the UN geoscheme does indeed include Somaliland. There are also unfortunately no secondary sources extant that cite the United Republic of Tanzania as being part of the UN's geoscheme (what is actually dealt with in that particular section of the East Africa article). And that's to be expected since, per the UN website itself, United Republic of Tanzania is of course not a part of the UN's geoscheme [86]. Indeed, the UN's website doesn't even mention the territory at all. It is therefore clearly original research to list United Republic of Tanzania (that includes in parentheses too) in the section of the East Africa article's intro that is reserved for the 19 territories that are, by contrast, actually included in the UN's geoscheme for Eastern Africa.

It's funny how have such a unbalance POV can make you think one argument is correct while the other is wrong, when the exact same logic is used, don't you think? TDL (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, Tanzania=The United Republic of Tanzania just as the Somalia=The Republic of Somalia. The Tanzania article's intro makes this clear too in its first and last sentences, so very poorly thought out red herring. Middayexpress (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And Somaliland Somalia according to the internatinoal communtiy. Exact same logic. TDL (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this an admin issue or a content dispute? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a content dispute. I'm not sure what Middayexpress want's out of the admins. TDL (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Chipmunkdavis, it is a content dispute that Middayexpress has failed to influence in his direction for eight or nine months now. He is the sole editor who doesn't see the sense in listing Somaliland as a parenthetical note behind Somalia. He has unsuccessfully made this same "OR" argument in multiple other articles to prevent the name of "Somaliland" from appearing. --Taivo (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A lot of familiar names showing up all of sudden. Very interesting and duly noted.

Actually, Taivo (and other accounts) have tried very hard today to distract attention away from the actual issue and instead link the present content dispute -- which is strictly over whether or not it is original research to include the Somaliland region of Somalia in the section of the East Africa article's intro that is reserved for and lists the 19 territories that are actually included in the United Nation's geoscheme ([87]); Somaliland isn't; only Somalia is -- to an older dispute over whether or not to include Somaliland in the article at all. That dispute was already settled and Somaliland was (and is) already included in the article well before the present dispute even started. Taivo keeps trying to tie the two together because he has no way at all of proving that Somaliland is cited in the UN's geoscheme. Not even via carefully chosen secondary sources. How could he? It's either listed or it isn't (and in this case, it most certainly isn't). To be honest, I'm not especially worried about how this particular post turns out because, in the long run, I know I've already won the dispute. Middayexpress (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, Chipmunkdavis, Middayexpress continues to ignore the consensus that was built during a mediation which he abandoned when the discussion was not favoring his POV. He has tried to make this into an "OR" issue when he has been clearly told by multiple editors that it is not. He has tried this strategy unsuccessfully on multiple pages, all with the aim of eliminating NPOV references to Somaliland. This is not an admin issue, but a content dispute between Middayexpress and everyone else. Moving the content issue here almost amounts to forum shopping. --Taivo (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the total lack of cooperation demonstrated here, together with the fact the Middayexpress was blocked less that a week ago for edit-warring at a different article, I have imposed a block of 1 week. Looie496 (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And the WP:BOOMERANG takes another victim... TDL (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

See also discussion Here

An editor, NinaGreen (talk · contribs), has been harassing other editors, including myself, on the Talk:Shakespeare authorship question page, and her disruptive behaviour has escalated to the point that has made it almost impossible to get any work done or attract any new editors to the page, which is currently in the process of being made ready to take to FA.

Lately she has been demanding that another editor divulge personal information about himself, and today in the process of doing so she included an inadvertent slip I had made on 6 Jan. that revealed personal information about that editor.

The slip had already been archived, and immediately I learned about it by her mention I deleted it from the comment I had made with the summary “delete inadvertent slip of the tongue”. I then deleted the information from her comment, with the editing summary of “delete repetition of inadvertent slip of the tongue”.

She then restored the information to her comment and repeated it, and then began a section calling for my admonishment by administrators for acting “in direct violation of Wikipedia policy”.

She has been asked to modify her behaviour toward other editors several times on her talk page, as is readily evident by simply reading the section titles in the ToC.

I filed a report at Wikiquette, with no results, and I made a request on her talk page, which quickly degenerated to more abusive behaviour.

I’m quite busy today, but I dashed this off hurriedly because of the WP:OUTING problem, and I would appreciate if an administrator looked into this and advise on what should be done next. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I just posted on the SAQ Talk page, indicating that the alleged 'inadvertent slip' on Tom Reedy's part has nothing to do with 'outing' Nishidani, because Tom Reedy knows Nishidani as 'Nick Nishidani', which Nishidani uses as an e-mail address OUTSIDE WIKIPEDIA, and which is also not his real name. There is no such person as 'Nick Nishidani' to be found anywhere on the internet who has academic qualifications or has been published in peer-reviewed journals, as Nishidani has frequently boasted he has on the SAQ and other Talk pages, and has used as a weapon to defame and bludgeon other editors. 'Nick Nishidani' is merely another alias which Nishidani uses outside Wikipedia. There is something very peculiar about a Wikipedia editor using an e-mail address which is merely another alias. Most people do not set up their e-mail address under an alias unless they have something to hide. Nishidani has been banned from numerous Wikipedia Talk pages for personal attacks (the instances are readily accessible), and in recent days and weeks both Nishidani and Tom Reedy have repeatedly and incessantly made personal attacks on me which are not only personal but which go far beyond that and are defamatory. These personal attacks and defamatory statements are attributable to bias. Both Nishidani and Reedy have admitted to bias in the editing of the SAQ article, Nishidani terming the authorship controversy 'this ideological mania' and Tom Reedy terming it 'a wacky theory'. This bias on both the part of Nishidani and Tom Reedy motivates them to incessantly subject editors of the SAQ article who are not of their persuasion to personal attacks, defamation, and endless wikilawyering and other forms of harassment designed to drive those editors away from editing the article. They have already succeeded in having one editor not of their persuasion banned for a year, and hope to repeat their success in having other editors banned.NinaGreen (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom Reedy Has Edited An Archive

I just searched the archives for Tom Reedy's statement to Nishidani in which he called him 'Nick', and I see that, in direct violation of Wikipedia policy, Tom has made a change to the archive. The archive search still yields the statement worded 'Nick, because that's her stock in trade', but Tom has edited the Archive itself. Editors who wish to see this for themselves can used the search function at the top of this page to search for 'Nick', and the relevant hit will come up to Archive 18, including the name 'Nick'. But when one clicks on the search result and goes to Archive 18 itself, Tom has deleted the name 'Nick' from the archive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_18

What do Wikipedia administrators intend to do about this?NinaGreen (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing. There's nothing wrong with that edit although an admin might want to oversight it if there is an outing issue. BE——Critical__Talk 22:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Becritical, this is obviously something which is not an 'outing' issue. Tom Reedy thinks Nishidani's real name is 'Nick Nishidani' because Nishidani uses an e-mail address in which his "real name" is shown as "Nick Nishidani", but a quick search on the internet shows that there is NO-ONE with the real name 'Nick Nishidani' who has academic qualifications or has been published in peer-reviewed journals, so Tom knows Nishidani under the name 'Nick Nishidani', which is merely yet another alias, and one which Nishidani uses OUTSIDE Wikipedia. There's something very peculiar going on here. Very few people have e-mail addresses which are merely aliases.NinaGreen (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody cares what anyone's email address or real-life identity is, or what editors think it might be. Attempting to reveal someone else's based on on-wiki or off-wiki forensics is not acceptable behavior here. Edits must stand or fall on their own merits, not based on the actual person behind the wikipedia screen-name. DMacks (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: This is all confused because there are also responses here. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment I have just opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Shakespeare authorship question, in which Tom Reedy, NinaGreen and Nishidani - among many others - are parties. Unless there are issues which will fall outside of the RfAR, perhaps this should be concluded here pending acceptance or otherwise of the case? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

LessHeard, as I stated on my Talk page, the arbitration issue has not been defined. Tom Reedy's allegations are all over the place, and for the reasons set out both on my Talk page and on the SAQ Talk page, there is certainly no WP:OUTING issue for arbitration since the only thing which was revealed by Tom's inadvertent comment was that Nishidani goes by the name 'Nick', which is NOT his real name, but merely another alias Nishidani uses OUTSIDE WIKIPEDIA. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia policy WR:OUTING. Moreover as is abundantly clear from the material posted by Nishidani on my Talk page, the only thing he is being asked to do is support his defamatory statements made on my Talk page and elsewhere that his academic qualifications are so superior as to allow him to defame and denigrate mine, and I have merely asked him to BACK UP HIS CLAIMS OF SUPERIOR ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS SINCE HE IS USING THEM AS BLUDGEON TO DEFAME OTHER WIKIPEDIA EDITORS ON THE SAQ TALK PAGE AND ON OTHER TALK PAGES. So what is the issue to be arbitrated, since it is clearly not an WP:OUTING issue? And is also abundantly clear, Nishidani himself has been banned on other pages for persistently engaging in personal attacks in contravention of Wikipedia policy. This is what Nishidani posted on my Talk page:

Certainly. Happy to oblige. It's becoming a meme round here, to cite that record as proof I am an editwarrior. Smatprt used it first I think. Michael Price does the same regularly on the Ebionism page.Nishidani (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

NinaGreen (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, had I known that an arbitration request was going to be filed, I would not have brought this here but waited and chimed in there, so I might as well withdraw this case. Is there some type of formal procedure to do that? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have marked this section resolved; that's all that needs to be done. Looie496 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that ArbCom case, LHvU. In my brief encounter with that topic, Shakespearean authorship is a nasty tarpit which rivals the worst of the ethnic/nationalistic disputes. It definitely needs cleaning up -- regardless of what happens with NinaGreen. -- llywrch (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that 4chan is currently undertaking to change every instance of "Voldemort" in Wikipedia to "Voldermort" (with an "r"). A current thread about this is here, but as usual that will probably expire soon. Alook at Special:Search/Voldermort will show that quite a large of damage has already been done. This probably needs an edit filter to block it in the short term, but also needs reverting once the edit filter is in place. Any help with this is appreciated. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've thrown around some short blocks and protections. My eyes are open... J Milburn (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that. I left a notice mostly because I expect this to recur, so "eyes open" is good. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so that is where the random change to MagiQuest came from. FWIW, that has been "Voldermort" for quite a long time, unrelated to any 4chan nonsense AFAIK. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Handsopened (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating an endless stream of "articles" which consist of table of which acts played which theatrical venues in the past few years. This seems to me to be blatant recentism; but far worse, a blatant violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, but I want some more input on this issue. My initial impulse is to ask for a mass AfD discussion followed by deletion of all of these things. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That might be a good idea as it would open the floodgates for any number of poor quality promotional articles to let them stay. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 07:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd support this. Take a look at Science & Faith Tour which seems clearly promotional/advertising for forthcoming events. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs) has been on a POV-driven campaign to decimate our number of articles dealing with the political system of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus through multiple AfDs. The latest one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of Northern Cyprus, admittedly has a plausible case for deletion (though not for the POV reasons the nominator brings forward). In what is now fast becoming pure disruption, Nipsonanomhmata is now trying to bundle yet more deletion cases into that same discussion, among them obviously absurd ones like the deletion of Rauf Denktaş (!). This is pure madness. Can an uninvolved administrator please step in and restore some semblance of procedural sanity? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Fut Perf has personally hounded me like a stalker for months. Fut Perf has accused me of POV, racism, and activism on multiple occasions. This is just another example of Fut Perf throwing his toys out of his pram. Rarely has he shown good faith on my part. All of the nominations I have made have been made with good reason. The articles have been nominated either because there are no references at all or because the citations given are restricted to the sphere of influence of the Republic of Turkey or the TRNC. As such, they have all been legitimately nominated. Fut Perf needs to show some good faith and allow an administrator to respond in their own good time on AfD. Moreover, Fut Perf tampered with three nominations when it clearly states on each nomination "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled". I was compelled to rv the interference. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You nomitated President of Northern Cyprus for deletion. The POV here is so blindingly obvious, that no mount amount of trout can save you from the WP:BOOMERANG that's about to hit you. Trying to defend your actions and accusing Future will only make that Boomerang more painful.--hkr (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy closed that one, a merge on the list may well be the right option so I'm leaving that open I meant to leave that open but since Fut perf has done the merge it seems all is well that ends well. Nipsonanomhmata can expect blocks if this continues and I have left a warning on their talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:37, 15 January 2011

Thanks. I've actually implemented the merge, it seemed an obvious and easy thing to do. If anybody doesn't like it, I have no problems if they revert me. (Hope Spartaz doesn't mind me faking completing his signature above.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Shocking! :-) Much better then the nasty unsigned template or the worlds most annoying bot sinebot. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A Spanish-based vandal who I blocked recently emailed me and promised to revert any edits I made. Tonight, they started that little vendetta, as you'll see from my contribs. I've done some rangeblocking and semi-prot, but obviously that won't work for everything. Would be appreciated if people could keep an eye on articles I've recently edited. Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This admin is abusing its conditions as admin, it solves all acting more abusive and less dialogue: blocking. Just see the last contributions. The war began when I was putting images from logos of TV channels that are classified as "not free" to report that this TV broadcast a match, these images were about 5 months that they were there and anybody allege nothing and nobody was complaining or anything. He is applying the rules very severely so that his role on wikipedia administrator is just obstructing the functioning of Wikipedia. If a rule is stupid and does not bother to understand why no one should be applied in case of discrepancy block of the first exchange. In any case should revise some rules, Wikipedia is not a project of a minor group of people or admins. The rule is consensuated and must be comply? I think everybody could propose, discusss on wikipedia the rules, do not impose restrictive criteria because of many administrators with Taliban behavior think in that way. Surely some persons will ignore because i'm tagged as a "Vandal" (just reverting Black Kite contribs, no vandalism for other reasons) but the Black Kite is put to unnecessary and destructive actions that end up obstructing the wikipedia, as most of their actions will undo the work of others and propose deletions. If everyone acted like he, success of Wikipedia fails. Greetings to all those who believe in constructive action to Wikipedia, common sense and respecting the work of others. I continue believing in Wikipedia. Thanks for read all User:Raul-Reus talk 21:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.68.81 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.94.161 (talk)

Dude, the Wikimedia Foundation has ordered that we use as little non-free content as possible, see resolution on copyright. The Foundation is the ONG that holds the rights for the wikipedia name, it pays for the servers, and it takes care that wikipedia keeps working well. Wikipedia projects have to use free content always, in order to comply with our mandate of writing a free encyclopedia. Non-free images are used only in very specific situations, when you absolutely need to use a non-free image to explain an encyclopedic thing. Using non-free images as nice-looking icons is absolutely against that rule. This rule is not consensuated, it is imposed on us because of legal reasons. You can't ignore this rule, you have to follow this rule. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, you are getting revenge by reverting everything the Blck Kite makes? I find that this is petty. Black Kite was only doing his work as an admin, please stop reverting him. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I upload images that are similar to those logos (done manually) to replace it and not have a list of those TV stations in words as it is now? I think putting icons that represent a TV channel to provide information is much more comfortable visually. I propose images that resemble those non-free logos --User:Raul-Reus talk 23:07, 14 January 2011 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.94.161 (talk)

See WP:MOSLOGO: "The insertion of logos as icons into articles is strongly discouraged. While illustration of a logo may be appropriate at the main article on the topic to which the logo pertains, use of logos as icons is not useful to our readers, and often presents legal problems." --- Barek (talk) - 22:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Those would be derivatives of copyrighted works and therefor cannot be used. — Edokter • Talk — 22:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I respect these incomprensible rules, so I don't insist anymore in putting more non-free images as an icons. Thanks to explain more comprensible to Barek, Enric Naval and Edokter. Simply, if Back Kite act as this 3 users and not abuse his condition as an admin any war would not have happened. I promise no more vandalism, not insist in these tv stations images as icons and a warning to Black Kite by their ways of acting. My last propose is that some admin unblocks my accout, I promise comply with rules and not vandalism in any way. Thanks --User:Raul-Reus talk 23:24, 14 January 2011 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.98.26 (talk)

If you wish to request unblock, please follow the instructions posted on the talk page of your regular account. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.98.26 (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul-Reus, if you want to be unblocked, I suggest that you read WP:NOTTHEM. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone should create a bot and remove all of it, and then delete it. Why is it not deleted? I am asking here because I need an admin to do it... --Hinata talk 19:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are you raising this here? You're welcome to add to the discussion at WT:TFD#Review_instructions_for_Expand if you like or submit a bot request. Mhiji 21:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Does not call for admin action and therefore does not belong here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
All right Codrinb (and Daizus), perhaps we can reach an agreement afterall. I accept the removal of my map from all Dacia-related articles as long as you will stop harassing me, EraNavigator and the discussion page of my map regarding the linguistic labelling of the Daci, Carpi, Costoboci, Bastarnae, Venedi and Aestii. I think we brought more than enough references to support the probable affiliation of these tribes. And from now on I think we should completely ignore each other. Agreed? If you guys don't agree with my proposal I'm afraid I will have to go further and accuse you of vandalism and harassment. I trust you are reasonable enough and we won't reach that level. Andrei (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC) You got it wrong. I will discuss your map, say if things are wrong and suggest improvements, whether you like it or not - it's public content! That doesn't give you any right to insult me. But if you continue doing that, we'll meet again here. Daizus (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Daizus, please stop harassing my work and upload your own map with whatever linguistic classifications you want to have. I thought you were the more reasonable one. I will not succumb to your pressure to have this map modified according to your wishes. I'm saying this yet again: please upload your own map. Andrei (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC) You're again engaging in baseless accusations. I'm not harassing your work, I didn't even demand to have this map one way or another. I only demanded reliable sources for your work and so far you failed to provide them. But as I pointed out already, this is a content dispute - please continue it on your map's talk page or in the NOR board. Daizus (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Why do you still keep arguing against me when you see that I won't succumb to your requests. I have my own beliefs, which are nor OR by the way, and you have yours. Please upload your own map. Andrei (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC) I'm not arguing only "against you", I'm replying to an incident report you initiated. "Own beliefs" are WP:OR by definition, a map shouldn't reflect its author's own beliefs. But again, please continue your campaigns on the relevant pages, not here. Daizus (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC) You are misinterpreting my words. I never stated my map is based on my own beliefs. I only promote the conclusions of scholars who are arguing that a linguistic connection existed between Dacian and the Baltic languages beyond the common IE roots. And I have chosen to believe them and their theories. Do you have a problem with the work of Ivan Duridanov, Harvey Mayer or T. Sulimirski or with the affinities between Albanian and Baltic as evidenced by E. Hamp? Please stop harassing me and my sources and upload your own map. Andrei (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Again, content dispute. Please read WP:OR and stop bringing red herrings. You stated few times the map is based on your own theories ( [88]) and you started to look for "sources" only after you reverted the previous compromise version. You've been told repeatedly that Harvey Mayer is an unreliable source (and you haven't proved otherwise). T. Sulimirski is an archaeologist and historian whose work you haven't read. But the other two are reliable linguists. Now, if you create a category of languages "with some affinites with Baltic languages", you'll have a POV, but sourced map. However your map alleges languages like Dacian were "Balto-Slavic" and none of your sources (reliable or unreliable) claim that. All these were said to you in one form or another, I don't understand why you want to have the same discussion on so many pages at once. Daizus (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD of WP:FA University of Michigan was vandalized and when ClueBot NG reverted it, the vanalism was still apparent. I can not figure out how to revert the problem correctly. I have also pinged the help desk.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it. I purged the page's cache, so reload to see if you still see the problem. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw a cite error (in red letters) for a sec but after I refreshed it went away. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this happened to me at another article. But purging will work. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just a user, but I wanted to bring to your attention that the article on the S&P 100 needs some serious help. Accurate information, history, etc, deletion of personal comments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S%26P_100&action=edit&section=1

Thanks, Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.68.106.227 (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to report such things, but I've reverted to the previous version without the comments, for now - the article needs proper sourcing etc anyway. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

174.28.41.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly added poorly-sourced (as in, using YouTube videos) content to Jeopardy! theme music. The user has caused several little edit-wars, though none breaching 3RR as far as I can tell. He's gotten up to a level 4 warning. And yet for some reason no admin wants to block him for his edits. Can I ask someone to keep an eye on this editor? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hypocritepedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zimmbotkiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor and several of his socks have already been banned by the community since October for a longtime and unchecked problem of unsourced and insigificant insertion of information into media articles dealing with the Upper Midwest and subjects involving the Dakotas, dealing with warnings with profane tirades and leaving inappropriate pictures on user talk pages, and threats of 'hacking' which were incredibly laughable. Subject waited out an IP hard block placed on their range of Daktel IPs for a few months and has returned again with the same problems over 69.178.194.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 69.178.194.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), both on Daktel without addressing any of the complaints that got him blocked in the first place. Asking for the hard block on these IP's to be returned before he goes into his usual ad-hominems on articles dealing with politics and politicians, and user talk pages, and a check to make sure no new sockfarms have been established if possible. Nate • (chatter) 05:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Just popped up a user account under Auseraccount2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Nate • (chatter) 05:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• User account is /dev/null'd by Tide Rolls. I just removed two profanity-filled edits this user made; one here and the other on his talk page. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 05:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There is some rather uncivilized behavior occurring on the talk page of Blood Libel. The locus of the dispute is regarding inclusion of part of Mrs Sarah Palin's speech and the "Blood Libel" comment. Two editors are currently attempting to declare the Consensus as finished according to whatever terms they believe it to be, when the two discussions haven't even lasted a week, and they are currently taking jabs at each other regarding some sort of bet. The two users in question are Jayjg & Bellagio99. Could a kind administrator please sort this out? Phearson (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't realize we were supposed to wait a week to officially declare consensus. I am happy to wait a week. Indeed, what I was requesting was that we move to an official consensus process. I hadn't realized that User:Phearson had started it already. As to the bet, I lightheartedly called Jayjg when he declared to the effect that he'd bet that everyone taking the stance opposite to his was an American. I'm Canadian and said so. In any event, I have already decided to not respond to Jayjig anymore. Thanks for listening. Bellagio99 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, there is no minimum time limit, but a week is general considered minimal. being the the article will be high trafficked for awhile. What I'm bringing up though, is that you and Jayjg are not being very nice at all, and you may chase other editors away from the page. Phearson (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This will probably become a non-issue in short order, if it hasn't already. They are both experienced editors. Bellagio thought this was a lighter discussion than Jayjg did - tone does not carry - leading to today's friction. Once they realize they will disengage (I see Bellagio already has indicated he will) and there should be nothing left for anyone to help with. Jd2718 (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. As I think there will be a stalemate, I'm just curious as to what the next phase normally would be. The only other Consensus issue I recall was about whether it would be "the Bronx" or "The Bronx". Jd might well have been involved in that one. Bellagio99 (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

...seems insistent on adding to Mince pie a link to some random Mince pie website that tells the reader nothing about Mince pies whatsoever, but which does appear to fall under WP:SPAM. It'll go to WP:3RR pretty shortly but before that happens I wonder if someone could take a look at this user's contributions? If I was the suspicious sort I'd guess that someone from that random website wants a bit more traffic. Parrot of Doom 19:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please notify User:Rjensen about the danger of accusing editors of harboring Nazi sympaties, per Digwuren. Rjenssen refered here to a recent edit I made to the Marshall plan article; he used the following words "have been introduced into the article as part of an anti-American, pro-Nazi, POV of the sort that flourishes in extremist circles in Germany.".diff --Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This strikes me as better suited to WP:WQA than to ANI. The comment is out of line, but unless it is part of a continuing pattern, it does not call for admin action. Looie496 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I suggested that any editor is being a Nazi. There is a danger in the article of copying the rhetoric that flourishes in extremist circles in Germany and is not based on RS. (The German rhetoric --echoing David Irving--says the US bombed, starved & ruined a wonderful nation that the Nazis had successfully built up.) Rjensen (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Without looking into the detail of this, the US (and, perhaps more so, the British) did bomb, starve and ruin a nation (albeit not-so-wonderful) that the Nazis had successfully built up. That isn't a thesis in any way attributable to David Irving, but is standard history, I think. WWII was not all fun and games, you know. The immediate history prior to the Marshall plan seems to me to be of obvious interest. It doesn't make you a Nazi to acknowledge that it wasn't easy living in Dresden or Berlin after 1945.

Point being: don't make assumptions too readily about where someone is coming from. --FormerIP (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow. Corvus cornix_talk 05:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

the revisionist position is that the Hitler, Roosevelt and Churchill were all guilty of war crimes, but that only the Americans and British continued their crimes against the German people after May 1945.Rjensen (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought Other Losses had been discredited. Corvus cornix_talk 07:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen has apologized here so I am satisfied. However seeing the path the discussion has taken above, here is the edit that Rjensen was reacting to, which says nothing about bombed and wonderful. It simply says that the US through their economic policy of industrial disarmament in Germany of the first years of occupation slowed down not only German recovery but also European post-war recovery. The U.S. sought to prevent future wars by making Germany weaker economically, but failed to realize in time that, to paraphrase Herbert Hoover: "The whole economy of Europe was interlinked with the German economy through the exchange of raw materials and manufactured goods. The productivity of Europe could not be restored without the restoration of Germany as a contributor to that productivity". So it was hardly about "US bombed, starved & ruined a wonderful nation that the Nazis had successfully built up".

This newspaper article from mid 1947 actually summarizes many things quite nicely, for anyone interested.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 10:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Anyone know what's going on here? Why is a strangely formatted AfD from almost three years ago pasted onto yesterday's log? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle error because of the weird dual format of that AFD. Scott Winkler was nominated for deletion again and twinkle added the first nomination to the log. I will fix it. Yoenit (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I spotted a user deleting a db tag on John V. Saykanic, warned them [User_talk:Lawline#January_2011] and replaced it [89].

The editor has deleted it again and I am worried I might not be following procedure correctly. Can someone have a look at it and follow up on any action that may need to be taken?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have indicated that the Speedy Deletion is being contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawline (talk • contribs)

Recreating an article that was deleted at AFD is not going to go well ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedied per G4. This version was shorter than the original, but no more notable. Favonian (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You guys are morons. You state in the wikipedia COC that speculation ISN'T allowed and yet, you protect a (GTA Series) page that I am merely trying to get rid of speculation, being the "Future" section! THERE HAS BEEN NO CONFIRMATION OF A NEW GTA GAME, SO HAVING THIS SECTION ON THIS PAGE IS MERELY SPECULATION! 139.168.3.75 (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• What would you like an administrator to do? Reyk _YO! 10:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Good question, because yelling in CAPS certainly makes me believe you're a good faith, well-reasoned editor. </sarcasm> (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You have apparently misinterpreted the section. It merely quotes that the publisher has announced that they're not ready to announce another game yet, and it is sourced (granted it should be an inline citation). It doesn't say anything at all about "confirmation" of another game, and there doesn't appear to be anything speculative about it whatsoever. --Dorsal Axe 13:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Somebody who knows how to use open proxies has taken to harassing Purrum by stalking him and reverting his edits all over the place with misleading summaries - see e.g. Special:Contributions/187.45.214.138 for an example of her recent editing patterns, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Escapeeyes/Archive for a longer-term track record.

Obviously the proxies can be blocked once identified, and I've been reverting her wherever I can, but this gets pretty tedious. Is there some way to automate the process? (e.g. set up a bot to keep an eye out for IPs reverting edits by Purrum, check whether they're open proxies, and auto-revert if that is the case?) --GenericBob (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the nature of proxies, I don't think that is possible. It's plausible, but not practical. Phearson (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese has been an occasional editor here for some time, mostly writing about operas and making small improvements. In November she drastically increased her number of contributions and became involved in many politically contentious articles, mostly involving abortion. Roscelese has made repeated personal attacks in the last few months, is perennially uncivil and unceasingly sarcastic.

Roscelese has been made aware of the policy on personal attacks [90] and has been warned many times by concerned users and asked to cease her personal attacks and uncivil behavior. [91], [92], [93] and [94].

But she just keeps rolling - [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112] [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129]

Among the more notable;

• On the talk page for abortion; "Also, very sneaky, you are, claiming that it's an "argument" rather than a fact only slightly more complicated than "the sky is blue."",
• On a AfD "I found this article because I was searching on a particular grammar error that you made in writing it, Mr. Special Snowflake Writer",
• On the talk page for abortion; "Don't worry your pretty little head about that",
• On the talk page for Crisis Pregnancy Centers; "As for your personal beliefs, though - like I said in talk, there's more than enough evidence. That means you're either ignorant or malicious; I personally think ignorant is the kinder option, but you seemed to take exception. It's not like you have any actual policy reasons for suppressing this information, so I kind of have to conclude that it's a bias thing.",
• Another talk page; "Aren't you cute. Since your opinion is so clearly authoritative, as substantiated by dozens of reliable sources, how about you try adding "Cat:Libraries that LAEC thinks are committing fraud" to the articles and see what happens? Maybe you'll get an A on your school project.",
• On the talk page for Crisis Pregnancy Centers; "Then you do need me to parse it for you. It's okay to admit it.",
• On the talk page for Crisis Pregnancy Centers; "Making things up out of thin air doesn't make you look smarter, it makes you look stupider. I recommend against it.",
• On a abortion-related discussion; "Why don't you read the sources and then get back to us? Don't worry, you shouldn't have too hard a time - they don't use very big words.",
• On an RfC with yours truely; "If you can't read, you shouldn't be editing articles here",

I don't know much about opera, her contributions there seem valuable but I have no reason to believe that this user is capable of civil interaction on politically charged articles in general, abortion-related articles in particular. - Haymaker (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at every single one of the diffs here, but I have reviewed about 20. Some of them clearly cross the line of incivility, although at times this is in response to others' somethime intemperate contributions (not an excuse, of course). However other diffs show no incivility or attack, just the robust debate I would expect on articles such as these. What admin action is being asked for here? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A short-term block to see if NPA sticks, if it doesn't a community sanction to stay away from the topics that have been problematic so we can keep the worthwhile contributions while avoiding the drama. - Haymaker (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK a block is meant to be protective, not punitive. Also, a block would not permit us to see "if NPA sticks" because for the duration of the block she would be unable to edit anything; we would have to wait for events after the end of the block to see if NPA had "stuck". Personally I agree that there have been unwise elements of incivility in the conduct of this editor, who at other times is obviously capable of well-sourced and intelligent argument. My own preference would be a well-worded statement from an admin advising her to tone down her worst excesses (I would be happy to draft that), following which further recurrences might be cause for a short block. But I'd like to hear what she (or other editors) think. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the above repeated flaunghting of NPA warants some sort of acting, though I would prefer it to be as productive as possible. I thought about leaving a notice on the talk pages of other users who had interacted with roscelese in this manner but I worried that that might border on canvassing. - Haymaker (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this belongs in WP:WQA but in any case, a clear warning by an administrator against civility violations should suffice at this point, unless the editor starts warring. Likeminas (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Normally that's all I would be after but several warnings have already been issued in the last couple of months and the behavior persisted. Can't hurt anything though. - Haymaker (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

God, I hate to sound like a broken record, but...Haymaker, you're leaving out some salient information. If you've come here with the intent to come clean about your own personal attacks, then I admire your candor, but you seem to have forgotten to link them. In particular, I'm sure everyone here at AN/I would find your comment that I should be fired from my job for using gender-neutral pronouns (and the rest of the "I really like strict gender boundaries" saga) absolutely fascinating from a psychological standpoint, if not quite within the scope of the board. (Although incidentally your comment that gender-neutral pronouns were dehumanizing was what prompted my "Making things up out of thin air doesn't make you look smarter, it makes you look stupider. I recommend against it," so perhaps it is relevant after all.)

Civility unfortunately has pretty much totally disintegrated at Talk:Crisis pregnancy center, as of the last couple of months, with Haymaker and his buddy (possibly sock? but I'm not going to start that discussion) Cloonmore removing things cited to dozens of sources with no argument other than that they don't like them, and then blatantly making stuff up about the sources in order to justify their actions. Cloonmore has been inactive for a while, but Haymaker has continued to remove references after a discussion took place with no consensus to remove them, to claim nonexistent consensus in his favor, to insert untrue information, and to continue blatantly making stuff up in talk. Admittedly my temper has been a bit short on occasion, but I'll be honest about the fact that I think mockery in non-article space is less of a sin than deliberate bad-faith attempts to make articles worse - and that mockery can sometimes be a useful way of getting someone to realize that their behavior is ridiculous and to change it and behave better.

(Also, for things that aren't related to what Haymaker seems to see as a personal feud with me - the Waldman AfD isn't really worth it because the guy implied that he could sue me for libel after I said that he wasn't notable, and I consider mockery a less harsh alternative than calling down AN/I...you know, I started explaining all the other diffs but most of them aren't relevant and it isn't worth it. If there are any other specific things you'd like me to explain, here I am.)

Oh, and by the way, Haymaker...Thanks for the laugh. It really was terribly amusing to see some of what you considered "personal attacks," and it's always nice to start the morning with some humor.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't put things in quotes unless they are actually quotes.

I didn't say you should be fired from your job. You referred to me in language that many (myself included) find derisive, I asked you not to use such language to told you it would be a detractor in a professional environment. You extrapolation of one into the other is untrue and unsettling.

Things at CPCs can be heated but most of the above diffs are not from that page.

You can't say that Cloonmore is possibly my sock but then claim that "you're not going to start that discussion".

Mockery, derision and personal attacks have no place in the editing process. If you are concerned with editor's behavior there are places to air those concerns. You have been told this repeatedly. - Haymaker (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This process would be so much more simple if you didn't keep lying, you know? It's unmistakably apparent from the comment in which I used them - any editors who may be interested can look at Talk:Crisis pregnancy center - that they're in reference to Binksternet, whose gender I don't know, hence the gender-neutral pronouns. Your attempt to control other people's grammar and to stop other editors from using language that allows them to avoid mis-gendering people, in matters that don't concern you at all, is so way out of line. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please try to keep it civil. You have referred to me with that term in the past, I found your renewed use of it on that talk page to be an appropriate time to register my complaint/concern. None of that justifies your uncivil behavior throughout that page and others. - Haymaker (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

At the time I used it to refer to you, I wasn't aware of your gender, and I thought using a neutral term was preferable to calling you a woman, since I know some men take exception to that. I don't think you ever mentioned it being a problem at the time. Since then, I've (somehow? perhaps someone called you "he" on a talkpage or something) been made aware that you're male, and consequently haven't used gender-neutral pronouns in reference to you. I hope you understand that, since I wasn't referring to you in any way at the aforementioned incident, your freaking out on me was bizarre and unjustified. Next time you have a problem with my behavior, please let me know, instead of telling me almost a month later how I should refer to people who are not you and that I'll surely be fired if I ever have the nerve to try to avoid mis-gendering anyone. It'll make things easier for both of us.

Given the formal setting, I'd still appreciate an apology for your misrepresentation of my comments. I'd be inclined, too, to ask for an apology for your somewhat strange selection of "personal attacks," the volume of which makes it seem as though I am much more combative than I really am - but I have just eaten some delicious macaroni and cheese with jalapeno, so I'll let it slide. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The above quotes are reproduced in full. They are personal attacks after you had been warned repeatedly about making personal attacks. I find it very unnerving that you still see these actions as defensible, that you think that mockery, derision and incivility are called for, even productive. - Haymaker (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked Roscelese for 3 hours for the comments made directly above, and the edit summary, in response to a section asking for admin intervention for intemperate comments and edit summaries. As I noted in the block advice, I have not looked into the allegations made by Haymaker but acted upon the clearly inappropriate response to them. I have also indicated that I am happy for an admin to review any unblock request without further reference to me. In the meantime, perhaps other readers might with to review whether this was an unfortunate coincidental poor choice of words or whether there is a long term issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Support LHvU's short block - it was very unwise of Roscelese to prove Haymaker's point here in such emphatic terms.

@Roscelese: I support your efforts to keep language and terminology at these difficult topics neutral and balanced. I suspect despite our differences in gender, age, religion and continent of residence that you and I share a lot of off-Wiki political and social goals and attitudes. But we differ about means, even if we may agree on ends. When I first reviewed the diffs (see my first comment above) I was minded to see Haymaker's complaint as over the top, but your handling of it has saddened me. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and if you really think "that mockery can sometimes be a useful way of getting someone to realize that their behavior is ridiculous and to change it and behave better" then you need to ask how that is working out so far. You would fight your corner much more effectively by using politeness, patience and courtesy. Even if you don't persuade your opponents, you will make them seem shrill, impulsive and irrational by contrast if you can keep calm. I realise you will not take Haymaker's criticism much to heart, but I and at least one other uninvolved editor here think you have overstepped the mark. We have no history, I have nothing to gain by criticising you; do you have it in you to accept some friendly advice and agree that your on-wiki behaviour has not been exemplary, and needs to change? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I'm overly optimistic. :) Got any suggestions for what to do when both reasoned discussion and mockery have failed to correct destructive editing tendencies? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Bite your tongue, say nothing, keep a cool head and resist the temptation to descend to your opponents' level (if that is how you see it.) Other editors who review the conflict will be influenced by how each side has conducted itself as well as by the content of the arguments. If one side is behaving well and the other with destructive impulsivity, they will draw their own conclusions. Make civility your secret weapon! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 06:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that all that is going to be said, may have been said. I propose to close this in a few hours but will not do so immediately in case anyone else has anything further to contribute. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm mildly concern that she fails to understand NPA and CIVIL and that she appears to be sticking by her previous actions. - Haymaker (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I too see a bit of a problem here. A resolution to at least back away from some of the uncivil comments would be a good start. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes three uninvolved editors seeing a problem, none giving Rosecelese's behaviour a thumbs up. Not an overwhelming chorus of condemnation, but unanimous as far as it goes. Roscelese, are you prepared to make any resolution here for the future before I close this and leave a note on your talk page? (Hint: The clearer and less provisional your resolution, the milder and less formal my note.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Some clarification would help on which ones were acceptable sarcasm and which ones were unacceptable (I think I can tell for myself which ones were completely unrelated, but there are still those other two categories), but yes, I regret being uncivil, and I'll try to be more civil in the future. Absent any guidance on what's okay, I'll err on the side of caution.

This has no bearing on my "resolution," but I would, as mentioned above, appreciate some (symbolic) action over Haymaker's several misrepresentations of my comments. Although I'll make the same changes to my behavior anyway, the decision of the board would sit a lot easier with me if I knew that it wasn't okay to make false claims about other users' behavior in trying to get them blocked. I'd be fine with an apology, but he doesn't seem inclined to make one or even to acknowledge that what he did was wrong, so I suggest a note. (I'm not sure how the aforementioned freakish and authoritarian behavior by Haymaker could be dealt with, but maybe it's enough to be optimistic and hope it doesn't happen again - if it becomes a serial problem, I'll make some kind of formal request.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

All of the above quotes were unaltered. There is no point at which personal attacks are acceptable. I am concerned that you're not seeing that. - Haymaker (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I too had some recent unfortunate interactions with Roscelese. It all began with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Israel, where Roscelese disagreed with my statement. Her next edit, three minutes later was to Civilian casualty ratio, where she reverted me.[130] This was the article I edited prior to initiating the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Israel. She did not edit the article or discuss its subject prior to reverting me. I proceeded to question her editing pattern at User talk:Roscelese#Chill with the talk page notifications, please, but was unable to make any progress.

Less then 48 hours later, Rosclese showed up at an article I created, Now They Call Me Infidel, and nominated it for deletion. She did not edit the article or its talk page prior to the afd initiation. The afd eventually closed as a Snow Keep, but her stalking, especially after my request to stop, was an unfortunate. Thankfully, she appears to have backed off stalking my edits since that afd.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, this is the second time you've accused me of stalking when my actions do not at all fit that description. The first time you made this accusation, I gave you some friendly advice, as I might have to a new user, suggesting that you read rules before accusing people of breaking them. Now I'm more concerned that you're trying to pin something on me because you disagree with my political views. You can't possibly hope to scare me off Middle East articles by claiming I'm stalking you - some people, you know, actually have a genuine interest in the subject, they're not out to get you.

A cursory look through my edit history will prove how ridiculous this claim is - the Middle East isn't my main editing area, but I do work on articles related to it with decent regularity, often before Brewcrewer has put hir stamp on the article at all. In particular, the claim that my nomination of hir article was motivated by personal animosity is easily disproven - I edited a number of other articles in Category:Books critical of Islam (and related categories) at the same time, didn't know Brewcrewer was the creator, and nominated it for deletion because - surprise - it was poorly sourced with no indication of notability. (For what it's worth, it still just barely scrapes by. You might want to work on that, Brew - has a newspaper ever reviewed it, or anything?)

Please retract your accusation of stalking - for your sake, as well as mine.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, I'm not sure there's much point in coming here to complain of activity which you say has now stopped (and is in any case different from the incivility which is the topic of this discussion.) I think it's time to close this as it has been open a good while and relatively few editors have posted, with little new being said after the first few edits. I am posting a request on Roscelese's talk page to be more restrained in future. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Stalking is a form of harassment, which together with incivil comments about other users indicates that this user has difficulty getting along collegially with fellow editors. That being said, I am in favor of closing this discussion. Everything that has to be said appears to have been said. Hopefully this type of activity will not flare up again in the future.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've not looked at incivility problems, but the reversion of your reversion here by Roscelese was totally the right thing to do. It should not go unremarked that this is the same Civilian casualty ratio article at which you defended the quite dreadful DYK conduct when it went to Arbitration Enforcement. Templar98 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC) struck comments of banned user.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Per a dispute at Flag of Tibet-including an attack edit summary by this user, this user has taken it upon themselves to start an edit war on my talkpage. I warned them to leave off, it continues. Admins, help!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"Please provide links and diffs". That which you have not done.

And I take that by the header, you wish that action be taken on my edit warring on your talk page. That which I have since stopped. Now if you wish to discuss the other issue, bring it up under a new header. And I now kindly ask you to remove this, since I have agreed to leave your talk page alone. Let's see who is being the cynical one here.

and I am not many persons, Kintetsu. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello evreyone,

I recently came into conflict with two users registered to the Wiki-project Dacia concerning my map of the Roman Empire and Barbaricum in 125 AD. One of them (Codrinb) is in fact the administrator of the project.

On the map I created for Wikipedia I labelled the Daci as being part of the Balto-Slavic linguistic group based on some obvious connections between ancient Dacian and the Baltic languages pointed out by several linguists and historians (Harvey E. Mayer, Ivan Duridanov, T. Sulimirski). I have also labelled the Carpi and Costoboci barbarian tribes as of Uncertain origin based on the Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd edition, Vol XI and XII.

The troubles started when my collaborator's (Era Navigator) contributions to the articles on the Carpi (people) and Costoboci were voided because he supported a more neutral Uncertain classification of these tribes, as opposed to the Dacian identity as claimed mostly by the Communist-era Romanian archeologists and historians. Codrinb started to accuse me as well of doing OR and supporting unneutral or anti-Dacian theories on my map.

This was followed by an endless dispute with Codrinb who is trying to isolate the history of Romania from the history of Europe and the history of the neighbouring countries by aggressively promoting a unique and disconnected identity of the Getae and Dacians and their unattested speculative firm links with modern Romanians. He disagrees that there are no certified surviving Dacian words in Romanian and he is also attempting to Dacianize all the tribes with a probable non-Dacian ethno-linguistic affiliation (like the Carpi and Costoboci) in order to achieve a Dacian ethnically homogenous habitation of modern Romania. My opinion is that Protochronist agendas should be entirely condemned and anihilated from Wikipedia.

I just want to continue contributing with my maps to Wikipedia and be safe of any future wars with other users backing discredited pseudo-historical tendencies. One should only take a look at the project 'Neutral Point of View' intro which is mixing 'anti-Romanian' with 'anti-Dacian' agendas although we cannot speak of a Romanian identity before at least the Late Middle Ages and modern Romania came into existance only at the end of the 19th century. It is also stated that the project condemns protochronism but next they say they equally condemn anti-Protochronistic aggressiveness.

I beg you to block or disband the Dacia wiki-project before it becomes a nest for pseudo-scientific Protochronism under Codrinb's tutelage.

Thank you for your attention, Andrei (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

1. This board is not about content disputes.

2. Sometimes you changed the content of the map, not because of reading sources, but because of your conflicts with CodrinB (probably also with me, now that you mentioned my name, too), thus a case of vandalism

3. You and EraNavigator have insulted me, CodrinB and other editors and scholars. Few examples: a) you: "maybe they are just paid by some organization to support theories" [131] b) EraNavigator: "Daco-Romanists with Stalinesque double-speak" [132], "continuity mafia" [133].

4. Your assertions about sourcing the map are incorrect: [134] [135].

5. You have repeatedly asserted various things about me and my beliefs without a shred of evidence. Please provide evidence I was "aggressively promoting a unique and disconnected identity of the Getae and Dacians and their unattested speculative firm links with modern Romanians" (remember when I told you this: [136] ?) and that I was "attempting to Dacianize all the tribes with a probable non-Dacian ethno-linguistic affiliation (like the Carpi and Costoboci) in order to achieve a Dacian ethnically homogenous habitation of modern Romania." (not long ago I told you this:[137]). Daizus (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Daizus I have nothing against you and I sincerely appologise for unfairly mixing you in this dispute I'm having with Codrinb. You're not the one advocating Protochronism and Dacomania around here! You have proven you are indeed neutral on all issues under debate and I admire you for that.

The Dacia wiki-project is a serious threat to the objectivity and balanced nature of this Encyclopedia. Someone has to take action and replace Codrinb with somebody more neutral to head the wiki-project. I urge an administrator to react to the biased pseudo-historical tendecies Codrinb is advocating! Andrei (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Your labeling of the entire project, open hostility and dubious agenda are insulting EVERY MEMBER of this project, formed by a very neutral and diverse group people with extremely various backgrounds, and beliefs.

All this after the obvious original research and dubious agenda have been pointed out.

Your constant and huge amount of blatant personal attacks, harassment, insults have been reported, after an equally huge amount of attempts on our side to bring calm, civility and collaboration, which you chose to ignore. Here are just a few examples: [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145]

You are even resorting to a large amount of blatant personal attacks on this very report you created.

An equally large amount of attempts to calm the situation has been done from the project level:

• clarifying the scope

[146]

• clarifying the neutrality and position of the project

[147] [148]

• invitations to the collaboration on various theories regarding Dacian language

[149]

• some of the invitations to use user space or project drafts space for high conflict articles, to avoid edit wars and prolong conflict

[150] [151] [152]

Your maps (not just the Roman Empire one, with original research|very founded suspicions of original research raised by Daizus and later by me) are actively used by many articles related to the project. No one is removing your maps if relevant and respect the WP policies. And your contributions as a graphics designer are excellent, very needed and highly appreciated!

HOWEVER, your behavior and agenda are openly hostile, uncivil, harassing, unacceptable, disruptive, unfortunate and unwelcomed. --Codrin.B (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am an somewhat uninvolved editor here, having only come into contact with this dispute through the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dacian script. Now I couldn't tell you the difference between Protochronism and Protozoa, but I can certainly tell an edit war when I see it. First off, I would caution all parties to remain WP:CIVIL. Secondly, according to our policies even viewpoints that are demonstrably incorrect can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia as long as there is enough reliable sources that can prove the theory notable, such as in the example of Moon landing conspiracy theories. It is therefore an appropriate goal of the Wikiproject to make sure such theories are not given undue weight. One of the points I brought up in AfD is that merely adding weasel words such as "so-called" does not correct NPOV issues, and in fact makes the issues worse. Looking at the Protochronism article alone, the assertion in the lead that it is "largely relying on questionable data and subjective interpretations," is highly problematic. I'm not saying Codrinb is right or wrong in this edit war over these maps. What I am saying is that rejecting Protochronism outright is not the solution, but rather careful balance and a neutral point of view -- RoninBK _{T C} 17:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Roninbk, I agree with you. I have only come to question Codrin's ability to head over the Dacia wiki-project after he started accusing me for following some sort of hidden agenda when I labelled the Dacians as Balto-Slavic and the Carpi and Costoboci as Uncertain. This is unacceptable as he wants me to embrace ideas which are associated with Protochronism, a highly unscientific and Dacian-biased tendency in Romanian historiography. I don't want to offend anyone who contributes to the Dacia wiki-project but I think a more neutral user should have the leadership. I propose Daizus, for example, to take Codrin's place as he has proven he is indeed neutral regarding all the issues under debate.

Andrei (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What agenda are you talking about Codrin? You are the one making false accusations on me. Please be a gentleman and admit your Dacian-biased tendencies make you unfit to head over this Wiki-project.

Andrei (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This is my last attempt to have a sensible dialog with you, although your gross violations of WP policies and your hostility doesn't warrants it in any shape or form. I put A LOT of effort in creating this project, all with an interest for the subject, an open heart and in good faith. Most of the articles around this subject are incomplete, of low quality and need help organizing their expansion. Many articles are also missing. As I do not claim the best qualifications but just an interest, I have actively reached out t o archaeologists, history professors and other specialists to contribute, none of whom are in any shape or form Dacomans. As a matter of fact, they despise them. I am aware of the high amount of controversy, nationalism, original research and fringe theories which can lurk around this project, give the limited knowledge we have about Dacians. Still, instead of sitting on the side, deleting, labeling and attacking, I had the courage to create such a project in an attempt to bring neutrality and organization, which are much needed. Every single phrase I wrote in the few articles I personally created (see Amutria) has a valid, verifiable source, of non-Dacomanic origin (whatever that might mean anyway!). And if any source is suspicious, I am open to discuss it constructively in the corresponding article talk page. I have invited you in good faith since the first days of the project (December), based on your edits. You chose to ignore it, and not bring your view or input, although you obviously have an interest in the subject. I respected that but now I know why you did it. I created the project work structure which involved a lot of work, but by no means I assume the leadership of the project or I am interested in or embrace any dictatorship. I treat this as a collaborative project, where everyone's constructive input and participation is welcomed. The people involved in this project, are of various backgrounds, nationalities and have different views (very welcomed!) over the various Dacia topics. This is the last comment from me, as this is the wrong place for this conversations and I want to avoid the negativity and further continuation of the conflict. From now on, all your comments, personal attacks, canvasing etc. will go ignored by me, but judiciously reported and reviewed by qualified admins. Deeply saddened and offended. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I kindly ask you again to be a gentleman and admit your Dacian-biased tendencies make you unfit to head over this Wiki-project. Some of your Dacomanic samples:

1. 'I was just reading this blog about the large number of Dacian statues made by Romans (quoting from a well-known Dacomanic blog). Leonard Velcescu did a PhD in art on this subject and found over a hundred of them. One wonders why the Romans represented so many Dacians, and didn't do the same for Celts, Iberians, Illyrians, Thracians or Germanic tribes? One puzzling question, why are they not in chains?'

2. 'Here is very long List of Dacian towns and Davae. Many of them also coincide with most major cities in Romania proving continuity'.

3. 'You are trying to separated from being also anti-Romanian but is a very twisted way of thinking. Honestly, everyone will associate the two (Dacian and Romanian) whether you like it or not'.

This and your false accusations on me that I am following an anti-Dacian agenda only add weight to your statements above. Noone with a genuine interest in the Ancient History of Dacia will accept an aggressive Dacoman hiding under an olive branch to have the lead of this wiki-project.

Andrei (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Both of you stop, please! Accusations of bias and agendas are by no means gentlemanly. There is not supposed to be a "leader" of any WikiProject, decisions are supposed to be made by consensus among all members of the WikiProject. Please calm down the uncivil language. -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I sincerly appologise for my harsh language. From now on I think it would be best for me to ignore Codrin and vice versa.

Andrei (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am seriously worried. What does "administrator of the project" mean? There are no other admins on this project other than those that have been approved by the community. Individual Wikiprojects had better not have administrators, or they should be shut down. Corvus cornix_talk 05:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Corvus, Codrinb crowned himself ruler over this wiki-project. He is already identifying himself with EVERY MEMBER and is acussing other users not sharing his views as having hidden (presumably anti-Dacian and anti-Romanian) agendas. See the above discussion and take a look at his statements here and at the wiki-project's stance on neutrality.

Andrei (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Making claims of being an admin of a project sounds like WP:OWNership to me, and should lead to a block. Corvus cornix_talk 20:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not very familliar with Wikipedia procedures but I don't want to go so far as to block Codrin's account. I think he can still come to his senses. He never claimed being the project administrator but his aggressive behaviour and unfounded acussations on me and on Era Navigator of having hidden agendas and the way he's trying to identify himself with the entire wiki-project and its members are unacceptable. I think a warning from an administrator would be enough in this situation.

Andrei (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not claim myself as any leader or administrator in any way, shape or form of any project. I put a lot of effort in the project but I REPEAT, I am not claiming anything and respecting all WP policies. Please read my last statement above. This is part of a very long series of never ending false accusations, harassment and personal attacks started by user Andrei nacu and which have been reported (and unfortunately continue on this page and elsewhere). --Codrin.B (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we get a bad name ban for this vandal?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, bad name? If you can explain why it's a bad name at WP:UAA it probably will get done, but I don't see it at first glance. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the name, the editor made eight edits—all of them unquestionable acts of vandalism. They won't be back. Favonian (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's made to look like Jamba Juice, the name of an org, which is a no-no.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case, try Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention as suggested above Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't necessary. :) Favonian indef-blocked the user for VOA. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Two days ago user was blocked for violation of 3RR rule. Today he tried to add unreliable sources (Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer) and a blog here to support his POV, I reverted him and warned him in his talk page. He obviously didn't like that, so he is now reporting me (!!!) in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Please someone deal with this guy. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

His User page has just been deleted as an attack page, and he then went on to try to request the deletion of User:A Macedonian's User page - I've reverted that. These actions, coupled with that ridiculous Arb case, strongly suggest he's not here to edit in a collegial manner to improve Wikipedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indef, very few constructive edits, the user page and the retaliatory CSDing of someone else's userpage does indicate that. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Matter resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Aiken drum, would you mind please not removing a post here from a troll who quite obviously wants the attention of admins so he can be blocked? [153] This is in reference to Kleopatra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who just opposed a FAC. See my talk. Carry on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC) No action here after 45 minutes, but one of my talk page stalkers blocked Frische Falle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Aiken Drum, before removing a post, you might check the editor's contribs-- it will save everyone time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Anyone notify Kleopatra of this thread (FYI for courtesy's sake)? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Thank, Berean Hunter, for notifying me. I think your intentions were 100% good, but I think SandyGeorgia was right not to notify me of this thread. --Kleopatra (talk) I overlooked it because 1) I always forget, 2) I didn't think it should concern you (it was on my talk page, best not to spread it, and 3) I was busy reading FAC. Sorry! Once this is all sorted, an admin has to decide what to do with my talk. And actually, I wouldn't have even bothered with ANI, just waited for one of my talk page stalkers to deal with it, except that curiously, when checking his contribs, I found he had posted here and been removed, with no attention! So I posted here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC) I'm fine with your not notifying me in this case; in fact, I assumed you didn't notify me on purpose for reason 2. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC) And now we have admins restoring "Kleopatra is a cunt" Wiki brah edit summaries for some reason. You know, users are banned for reasons. Their edits should be deleted from wikipedia. Their edit summaries should be redacted. Instead, it seems that their edit summaries are getting them as much attention as they want and more. I was posting this on User:Prodego's talk page. It can just as well go here. Wiki brah need dealt with quickly. There's nothing new or original. He/she calls female editors cunts in edit summaries when he/she sees a lucky strike. Administrators should know that calling someone a cunt in a edit summary is not part of writing an encyclopedia. Why would you restore an edit summary by a sock puppet of User:Wiki brah that calls someone a cunt? A personal attack edit summary that says, "(cur | prev) 14:48, 16 January 2011 Anette Thewylwl (talk | contribs) (138,079 bytes) (No worries, Kleopatra is just a cunt) (undo)" by a banned user does not need to be in the edit history of a policy page. "(Deletion log); 16:06 . . Prodego (talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy): restored content, edit summary for 1 revision (misinterpreted)" --Kleopatra (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC) I rev deleted the edit summary, because I misinterpreted it as outing a different editor. When I realized that was not the case, I reversed my action as I no longer believed my action was in accordance to policy. I'd say toughen up Kleopatra, everyone gets attacked, don't take it personally. Prodego talk 00:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC) I'm not taking it personally. I'm taking it policy--banned users don't get to post on wikipedia. Your deletion, then restoration, and another users multiple deletions and restorations of the edit were feeding a banned troll. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC) I am the only one who has rev deleted that edit. I am never going to give up the right to undo any of my own actions if I decide they were incorrect. I believe very strict requirements should be applied to rev deletion, so others may disagree, but that edit does not meet my criteria for rev deletion, and so I believe my deletion was in error. Prodego talk 00:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC) We could have a lengthy theoretical discussion here as to whether this edit should have been rev-deleted or not in the first instance—my view is yes—but even if the deleting administrator decided it was an error, I don't think it was necessary to reinstate the edit, which could be potentially be seen as apparently happened as some sort of endorsement of that edit, which of course is not what was intended. Without intending to create a cause celebre or a precedent here, I don't think it does anyone any good to continue this line of discussion, and since the edit was highly offensive while containing no meaningful content, I've deleted it again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC) No problems with that at all, as I mentioned my personal criteria are stricter than most interpret them as, and if you are willing to delete the revision, that is fine by me. If I think any of my actions was in error though, I am absolutely going to undo it. As administrators we are accountable for every admin action we take, and I am not going to stand behind an action I believe is wrong. No administrative action endorses anything (as m:The Wrong Version will have you know), so interpreting one as such is simply incorrect. Prodego talk 00:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Newyorkbrad, I think that was an excellent move. If calling another editor a cunt is not "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value" then that phrase truly has no meaning. 28bytes (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC) That's for BLP articles. Still, this is not within any intent of wikipedia to give a platform for banned users to call other editors cunts. Banned users have been deemed by the community to not have any right to edit wikipedia. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC) I think this matter is resolved. There's no reason to call attention to the edit in question through further discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am at the end of my tether with Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs). This editor displays a unique mixture of WP:COMPETENCE problems joined with political prejudice, POV agendas and opinionnatedness. He creates a new problem almost every day. Yesterday, we discussed him here because he was insisting on proposing Rauf Denktaş and other presidents of Northern Cyprus for deletion (because the diplomatic non-recognition of that state meant they were "not notable"!). Today, he has identified the location of Atlantis, no less! and insists on writing [154] there is "compelling evidence" for its being Santorini, based on a recent TV documentary(!) written about in a tabloid newspaper. The other day he was edit-warring at Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) to force some obvious POV qualfiers into the wording [155]. This has been going on and on for many months. This editor is completely unable to understand NPOV, tell apart reliable from unreliable sources, or recognize his own OR, and I have rarely met an editor so utterly impossible to reason with. Since he has a tendency of spreading the same or related POV issues over many articles once he doesn't get his way on the first (as for instance when for many months he kept pushing for the notion that the 1896 Olympics weren't the "first" Modern Olympic Games, and that certain predecessor games outside the canonical sequence should instead be fully counted), it has been necessary to monitor him continually, and he is now evidently convinced I am "hounding" him. Something needs to be done about this editor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

All because I added a reference concerning an excellent documentary about Santorini. This was the response I got from Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) [156]]. This is not untypical of how Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) communicates with me. I have behaved impeccably today and well within Wikipedia rules. This is a hysterical over-reaction on Future Perfect at Sunrise's part. And no, I was not edit warring. I avoided edit warring because I know there are limits. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You aren't seriously going to use the Daily Mail as a reliable source for the location of Atlantis? The mind boggles. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail reference was written by the presenter of the documentary. I also added a BBC TV reference to back it up. But the article was well written and it is a worthy reference. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the daily mail is a worthwhile reference. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

At least you are happy with the BBC TV reference. That's something. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Given a 3RR warning (and reverted), there is no way we are going to have Wikipedia saying there is 'compelling evidence' for this. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You have given me a 3RR warning and I have not committed a 3RR. Interesting approach. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I might just point out that you have a warning which means you are approaching 3RR. If you had broken it you would have been blocked. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I appreciate the advanced warning even though I had already given up hope of being able to contribute a useful BBC TV reference to the article. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, the section is called speculation, surely you could have just changed the tone without throwing out the addition? Rich Farmbrough, 18:18, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Everything that could validly be said about it was already covered in the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I see [157] which is a revert of the previous edit which had removed the claim, [158] which clearly says rv, and a third at [159] after which I gave the warning - am I wrong? The Santorini hypothesis is already in the article, all this editor is really adding in terms of content (besides a new BBC source) is the 'compelling evidence' bit which he insiste on keeping in. Otherwise we'd probably just add the source as another cite. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Might be worth keeping the BBC cite, but I didn't examine it. Rich Farmbrough, 22:05, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

• The theory that Santorini (Thera) was Atlantis is venerable and widely remarked on (which is different than saying that the evidence is compelling) and is worth mentioning on notability grounds, but a TV series is not a good source for that. Nipsonanomhmata is best advised to find an academic source or two for that type of edit. scholar.google.com is a good place to find such sources. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This user was the subject of a recent ANI on his civility and POV pushing. Most of the users condemned his actions (of which I was one), but agreed that a stern warning, not a block, was a sufficient response. I supported this result, but an admin who had previously interacted with the user noted "that there have to be consequences at some point". Arilang has (thankfully) shied away from civility issues, but I've noticed two very problematic practices that should be brought up and addressed on ANI.

The first, and most important, issue is the egregious amount of copyright violations (WP:PLAGIARISM) by the user. After encountering one of the articles he wrote, I noticed that the writing did not match the style of his talk page contributions, which led me to an investigation of the article. A quick google search revealed that much of the content was taken, or closely paraphrased, off other websites. Going over his contributions, I've noticed a host of other articles with the exact same problems. A few examples from randomly choosing articles off his Articles Created list:

• From January, 2011. This was taken from the product review on Amazon.
  • Compare "Madame Chiang Kai-shek, beautiful, brilliant, and captivating, was one of the most controversial and fascinating women of the twentieth century" (Wikipedia) with "beautiful, brilliant, and captivating, Madame Chiang Kai-shek... one of the most powerful and fascinating women of the twentieth century". (Amazon)
  • Compare "manipulative “Dragon Lady” and despised her for living in Western-style splendor when most of the Chinese still live in poverty... this book is the result of years of extensive research in the United States and abroad and access to previously classified CIA and diplomatic files." (Wikipedia) with "manipulative “Dragon Lady,” and despised for living in American-style splendor while Chinese citizens suffered under her husband’s brutal oppression... the result of years of extensive research in the United States and abroad, and written with access to previously classified CIA and diplomatic files." (Amazon).

I have moved the related article into my sandbox to work on it when I have more time. Arilang ^talk 00:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From January 2011. This was taken from an Amazon review of the book.

• • Compare "Becker concedes that the American press reported the famine with accuracy, but leftists and communist sympathisers such as Edgar Snow, Rewi Alley, and Anna Louise Strong, remained silent or played down its severity. The tragedy could have been averted, Becker concludes, after the first year if Mao's senior advisers had dared to confront him (Wikipedia) with "Becker concedes that the American press (especially Joseph Alsop) reported the famine with accuracy, he notes that other Western "foreign experts" who admired Mao, such as Edgar Snow, Rewi Alley, and Anna Louise Strong, remained silent or played down its severity. The tragedy could have been averted, Becker concludes, after the first year if Mao's senior advisers had dared to confront him." (Amazon

I have removed the copyvio content. Arilang ^talk 00:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From January, 2011. This was taken from the product description on Amazon. The quotes used in the "review" section are directly copy-pasted off the Amazon list of reviews.
  • Compare "Based on secret and classified Chinese archives documents smuggled out of China...the most important and mythologized communist China leader" (Wikipedia) with "The most important, most mythologized leaders in the history of communist China, based on long-secret documents" and "classified documents spirited out of China". (Amazon)

The related article has been moved to my sandbox to be worked on. Arilang ^talk 00:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From December, 2010. This was taken from the product review on Amazon.
  • Compare "controls the government, courts, media, and military, and how it keeps all corruption accusations against its members in-house" with "controls the government, courts, media, and military, and how it keeps all corruption accusations against its members in-house". In this instance, the user did use quotes for the following sentence, but this initial sentence remained unquoted. An anonymous IP removed the segment with the editing summary "Removed copyright violation, new summary", but since (judging by the contributions) the IP's POV is different from Arilang's, I assume this is not Arilang's IP.

I have removed copyvio content. Arilang ^talk 00:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From January, 2010. This was taken from a blog posted two days before the article.
  • Compare "which is a satire on the mainland Chinese government’s attempt to “harmonize” China’s Internet with forced installations of Green Dam Youth Escort and the travails of mainland Chinese World of Warcraft players over the last several months" (Wikipedia) with "satirizing the government’s attempt to “harmonize” China’s Internet with forced installations of “Green Dam Youth Escort” and the travails of Chinese World of Warcraft players over the last several months" (Blog).

Not sure about this one, it has been long time since I worked on that article. Arilang ^talk 02:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From March, 2009. This was taken from a Guardian review.
  • Compare "The Dream of Ding Village is about a community in Henan where almost everyone is infected with HIV/Aids because of unregulated blood-selling in the 1990s. Far more than any of his previous novels, it is rooted in reality, yet Yan says it is no less surreal" (Wikipedia) with "The Dream of Ding Village is about a community in Henan where almost everyone is infected with HIV/Aids because of unregulated blood-selling in the 1990s. Far more than any of his previous novels, it is rooted in reality, yet Yan says it is no less surreal." (Guardian)

I have removed copyvio content. Arilang ^talk 00:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From November, 2008. This was taken from The Times Online
  • Compare with "On 2007 Mr Guo threw down a gauntlet to the ruling Communist Party by declaring that he has formed a underground New People's Party with 10 million members at home and abroad, and he was the acting chairman of the new party."(Wikipedia) and "Last year Mr Guo threw down a gauntlet to the ruling Communist Party by declaring that he was acting as the chairman of the underground New People's Party and claimed 10 million members" (Times)

I have removed copyvio content. Arilang ^talk 02:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From October, 2008. This was taken from this About page.
  • Compare "to generate systematic, multi-facted research in the field of Chinese journalism" (Wikipedia) with "position at the doorsteps of China to generate systematic, multi-facted research in the field of Chinese journalism" (About page).

I have removed copyvio content. Arilang ^talk 02:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• From May, 2009. This was taken from Radio Australia.
  • Compare "Amnesty International says these activities spiked around last year's Beijing Olympics, which drew many protestors/petitioners. It's increased again with the recent Chinese National Congress meeting" (Wikipedia) with "Amnesty International says these activities spiked around last year's Beijing Olympics, which drew many protestors. It's increased again with the recent Congress." (Radio Australia)

I have removed copyvio content. Arilang ^talk 02:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

And this was just from randomly picking articles off his Articles Created list, a more detailed review of his contributions will reveal more incidents. Since this user has largely worked on topics that most Wikipedians are not interested in, the user's copyright violations have remained undetected, and the damage could be extensive. A search shows that this practice began as early as 2008, and the user currently has 8,707 edits, so there is a massive amount of content that must be reviewed.

These are not isolated cases, this has been occuring for years and it's going to be a headache to deal with. Now, you could argue that Arilang is unaware of Wikipedia's stance on copyright violations, but this is a user that has been here since 2008, it's difficult to believe he can contribute 8000+ edits without encountering WP:PLAGIARISM. Pretending to be innocent through ignorance is not an excuse. He was notified for copyright problems on one of his image uploads, other users have reverted his edits for copyright violations, he should know better.

There's also the second issue, which may be just as worrisome. In his last ANI, he promised to behave, and began to back away from the articles where his edits attract the most criticism. One of the problems identified in the last ANI included Arilang's habit of adding external links that are of his POV, even if they may be unreliable or unrelevant. He's still doing this, but with internal links, look at this article he creates and the link he adds here, under the See Also section. Judge for yourself. This seems like an attempt to flout his promise to behave, a sneaky way to POV push without triggering the scrutiny of the editors that criticised him in his last ANI.

On his last ANI, he was dangerously close to a block and users advised him not to worsen the situation, which he had been doing. While the plagiarism problems were not included in the last ANI, concerns over POV were. I'm not sure what the best response is, but I leave this up to the administrators and editors.--hkr (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the plagarism is a "new issue" (yes, I know that this is an issue that he should have been aware of, but "should have" is not quite the same as "did know") that he had not been warned about, I am not inclined to advocate for anything other than a warning.

As far as the "sneaky POV pushing," I would advocate now not a one-week cool-off block (which I advocated last time) but a one-month ban from all China-related articles, with an explicit warning that while he could return to them after the one month, if this resumes, he will be blocked at least one month for each instance. I realize that this is a harsh sanction, but I believe that the behavior warrants it. --Nlu (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to protest against the "sneaky POV pushing" label, though on various talk pages I have never try to hide my "strong opinions", but when come to editing on actual articles, I have always tried to write in a neutral style. Arilang ^talk 11:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think that this section is written in a "neutral style"? Don't you see how it would be problematic to link this article under the "See also" section of its subject? Please understand Arilang, I sympathise with your POV at times, but when act like this a few days after your last ANI, editors will take notice.--hkr (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not see the adding Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary to Zhou Enlai is an act of "sneaky POV pushing". On the contrary, it is in the everyday reader's benefit that more info about Zhou as a human being being offered in wikipedia. Arilang ^talk 12:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

See? It's this type of response that creates the conflicts you've been involved with. A facetious response like "it is in the everyday reader's benefit" tells me that you're not taking this seriously. It's not your job to "benefit" the reader by promoting a bias. Don't you see how your contributions can be construed as POV? No amount of trouting seems to be working.--hkr (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If Mao Zedong can have Mao: The Unknown Story at the "See also", why is it that Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary became a POV issue when added on to Zhou Enlai article? Arilang ^talk 12:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The former is an article that has been worked on by many contributors and is (somewhat) neutral. The latter is an article that has solely been written by you, was created a few days ago with a clear POV, misrepresents the book it was written on by "selectively" quoting, and was created to (in my eyes), make a point of avoiding the scrutiny of the editors that typically frequent these articles. Strangely, the article acts as a disservice to the book (it's partially available on Google Books), which is much more moderate in its POV and nuanced in its analysis. I do not like Mao, I think the man is a mass murderer, but I care about neutrality, and this is the straw that broke the camel's back, with your last ANI so recent.--hkr (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have clean up Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary a bit, to make it more neutral. Since the article has been created new, I shall try my best to turn it into a more neutral article, just give me a bit more time. Arilang ^talk 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think "selective" quoting might be too kind, "completely changing the tone of" is much more fitting. Compare the version of this section with the article its supposedly attributed to. Notice how the first expresses a negative tone of the subject, while the second is positive. Notice that both are attributed to same author, but make completely different points. He's taking quotes, chopping them up, and rephrasing them to make them support the POV he makes. There are ways of being critical while being neutral. Blatant attempts attempts like this are not. I've defended Arilang in the past, but I'm tired of all the final warnings. And the plagiarism issue remains.--hkr (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There are also copyright problems with his images. This File:People's commune3.jpg, labeled public domain, credits "Google Image Search" as its source.--hkr (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Arilang1234. Yes, quite a few of my uploads did get deleted, but I also had created quite a number of articles at commons, and successfully uploaded quite a few jpegs. Arilang ^talk 12:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have encountered these editing problems before in my previous dealings with Arilang, in which I have noted that he often inserts Google translated Chinese language blog and forum posts, as well as Youtube videos, as references and external links. While I believe that he added these in good faith, considering his time spent editing Wikipedia, I think he really should spend more time to familiarise with Wikipedia guidelines regarding these matters. Thus, I believe Nlu's suggestion of a one-month restriction on China-related articles to be appropriate.--PCPP (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree we have a problem here. If Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary is Arilang's best attempt at writing neutral encyclopedic material, then this is more than just a failure. Given the long history of prior disruption, it becomes clear his presence is a net detriment to the project. I am willing to impose a lengthy block of disruptive editing here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'm not convinced he's taken in the message about copyvio after looking at the article. And using Amazon's excerpts from reviews may not be as bad as copyvio but we need links to the originals so we can see the context of the excerpts. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph still contains the copyvio that I listed. The sourcing issues with the excerpts are a problem, but I agree with Doug that the priority should be on fixing the copyvios, removing or rewording the unquoted and closely paraphrased content.--hkr (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Main problem here are copyright issues (and frequently RS problems, as in his new article "Zhou Enlai..."). Perhaps the most constructive course of action would be as follows. Ask Arilang1234 to fix all copyright and RS problems he created, give him a couple of weeks for that, and check if he did it. If he can not, I leave this to judgment of more experienced people.Biophys (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The cases that hkr showed are not a comprehensive review of all of Arilang's contributions: they are random articles taken from the list of articles Arilang created. Given his 8000 contributions, the fact that his copyright and other problems go back to at least 2008, and his unsatisfactory record in fixing the articles so far, it would be prudent to open a broad CCI on Arilang's contributions. Quigley (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote directly from Arilang1234-"when come to editing on actual articles, I have always tried to write in a neutral style"

Again, let us take a look at Arilang1234's "neutral style" Boxer's anti-civilization and anti-humanity evil doing.Boxer members ...The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme. this whole article which has massive sections written by Arilang1234 stank of POV and pure hatred toward some of the subjects he was written about, such as the Boxers, before admin User:Nlu thankfully deleted much of it Дунгане (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote directly from Arilang1234- "Yes, quite a few of my uploads did get deleted, but I also had created quite a number of articles at commons, and successfully uploaded quite a few jpegs"

Is he being serious here? He doesn't seem to have a single clue' regarding rules for uploading images to wikimedia or wikipedia, saying he "successfully uploaded quite a few jpegs", with no evidence that he actually understands why there were allowed to stay on wikimedia while other images were deleted, he evidently has no understanding of public domain or copyright laws. He seems to by playing Russian roulette with his edits. Several entire articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between written English and written Chinese were deleted by Afd, and Arilang1234 himself said Well, your are free to create new articles, as long as they survive AfD, almost as his procedure for writing wikipedia articles was creating them with absolutely no idea of wikipedia rules regarding copyright, content, and neutrality, and seeing whether they get deleted or not.Дунгане (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have moved Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary into my sandbox to show my sincereness, and I shall try to fix the POV problem from there. Regarding other copyvio problems, give me some times, I shall fix them too. Arilang ^talk 19:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Cautionary note: let's not turn this into an orgy of criticism. The issues are still: given what we have seen, what measures should be taken, if any? It should not turn into a regurgitation of everything that Ariliang1234 has done on Wikipedia (and criticism thereof), nor should it downgrade into personal attacks (which it has not yet but appears on the cusp of). My recommendation still stands (but I think we need more opinions on this): no blocks, one-month ban from China-related articles (with a block to come if ban is violated). --Nlu (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. 1. I do not think that creation of Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary can be interpreted as an example of WP:DE by Arilang. 2. Copyright problems. This needs to be assessed. If this is a serious problem in a large number of articles, that's one thing. Otherwise, this just needs to be fixed. When I saw that kind of things in Russia-related articles, I tried to fix them immediately by removing or rephrasing the text and leaving a notice to the user.Biophys (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The earlier version of the article was clearly disruptive. Arilang's later "fixes" to the article after this ANI was brought up, shows that that he does understand what the concept of neutrality is (it's hard to argue ignorance), and acknowledges that his earlier article was pushing a POV. The idea that he is intentionally POV pushing is later reinforced by a comment on this ANI where he defends the act as a "benefit" to the reader. I appreciate that Arilang apologised, I welcome his desire to improve, but sooner or later, he has to understand there are ways to be critical without pushing a POV. User:Greg Pandatshang and User:Ohconfucius are examples of editors critical of the Chinese government, that do an admirable job at remaining neutral.--hkr (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly protest at hkr using "disruptive" to describe the creation of Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionary, which is a notable book reviewed by scholars such as Jonathan Spence and others. And regarding all those POV and copyvio problems, I shall be able to fix them when I have more time. Arilang ^talk 05:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't WP:N, the subject is notable, and notability was never brought up as a concern. The main problem is creating an article with "all those POV and copyvio problems" a few days after being warned about POV, which is disruptive.--hkr (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nlu, the one-month topic ban from China-related articles could work. And the plagiarism issue, although extensive, can be dealt with at CCI, with the coooperation of Arilang. But, because of the WP:COPYVIO, WP:RS, WP:POVPUSH issues related to Arilang's article creations, I propose that a longer editing restriction on article creation be implemented. Arilang should be, for a time, restricted to creating articles in his sandbox, which can be moved to the mainspace upon review and approval by an admin or uninvolved experienced editor.--hkr (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

To show my sincerity, I have moved Madame Chiang Kai-shek: China's Eternal First Lady into my sandbox to work on any copyvio problems, and I am willing to cooperate with other editors to eradicate any editing errors. Arilang ^talk 23:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have done a bit of rewrite on Madame Chiang Kai-shek: China's Eternal First Lady, and Zhou Enlai: The Last Perfect Revolutionaryand hope that it is OK now. Arilang ^talk 08:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Cooperation with others[edit]

I have look into articles mentioned by user hkr, and have done quite a bit of cleaning up, and I shall continue to do so, until all the copyvio content is removed. I would like to stress my point again, I am here to contribute, not to disrupt. Please also have a look at the number of articles created by me: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Arilang1234&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=none Arilang ^talk 09:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I was extremely forgiving last ANI thread in an AGF manner akin to "really, they won't do this again, who would deliberately get him/herself blocked after coming so close to the edge?", but I have to agree with User:Nlu and User:hrk this go. That's it's been only a few days since last "incident" suggests to me that any kind of block or topic ban would be 100% justified as preventative against further damage to the project. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 12:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a second ANI thread about the same user during just a few days, but the only thing he did between the threads was creating a couple articles about books. He is also currently making an effort to fix the alleged copyright violations [160]. Blocking/banning a user while he is cleaning up his mess would be highly counter-productive. Biophys (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. Again, I am not questioning Ariliang1234's good faith in remedying the issue. But what I believe is that during the middle of that process, there will be a trigger for something else to occur. I think a one-month ban from the topic area will be good for him, as well as for the rest of us, to get him to take a step back from the topic area and reevaluate. --Nlu (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue here isn't that he created the articles (this is not a WP:N problem), it's the content in the articles that's problematic, when you consider that he promised to back off making controversial edits in his last ANI, a few days before. Just compare (using an example I gave on Arilang's talk) what Arilang writes in this section with the actual article it's supposedly attributed to. The former is a negative assessment, the latter is a positive one, and yet both are attributed to the same writer! I've never seen a better example of a WP:COATRACK article. Promoting a POV is one thing, misquoting and altering the meaning of your sources to promote a POV is another, and he should know better. I am not against (hell, often I agree with) Arilang's POV. The problem is how he promotes it unrepentantly, in an egregiously conspicuous and heavy-handed manner. I appreciate that Arilang promises to act in good faith, but if you're going to use Wikipedia as a soapbox (which you shouldn't!), do it with a little finesse.--hkr (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You started this thread because of the alleged copyright violations by Arilag. Now you also filed a request for copyright investigation. Let's wait what this investigation would produce.Biophys (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"But I've noticed two very problematic practices". I'm aware of what I said. If this had only been about the plagiarism, I would have gone directly to WP:CCI.--hkr (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are the rules? Can an administrator discuss content and edit the article - and then revert the edit he explicitly did not support and lock the article to all editors, ip or not - immediately enshrining his, and his close editing friend's, preferred version? Ever?72.5.199.254 (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, they musn't use their tools for "win" a battle, never. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 00:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly they can, so presumably you're asking if they should. A link would be helpful. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, just a moment while I gather it.72.5.199.254 (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's the edit in which he supports inclusion: "I think Maeve Jones passes [[WP:RS]]". And here's the edit in which he reverts to include it:A revert of two edits. This is the principal edit under dispute which was hidden inside his revert without summary:"idea is not notable, it's unknown. The author is an unknown undergraduate." And here is the full lock which was placed immediately:Locked to all editors. I think that's it. I'll notify the admin mentioned. Note: When reading the Talk page, I am the only IP editor involved there no matter the address. 72.5.199.254 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with what Nev1 has done here. Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What I saw was an edit war between the IP and another editor. The admin who locked the page was not involved in editing the article itself, so therefore they weren't considered "involved" and so I don't see any problem with the page protection.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OP: consider WP:BOOMERANG. You could get blocked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems very clear to me that undergraduate essays cannot be considered reliable sources, as opposed to the sources they use themselves. In this particular case it seems to me that Nev1 has done the right thing in protecting the page rather than blocking adversarial editors, regardless of his views on undergraduate essays. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, "undergraduate essays cannot be considered reliable sources" - the problem is that Nev1 does not agree with you, and he was willing to force it back in...then lock it to all ... and then he refused to discuss it as if he was just a neutral uninvolved arbiter.....72.5.199.254 (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Allegedly we have 1600 active admins, any areas of involvement is something that admins should avoid using their tools in completely, unless it is unavoidable and required to protect the project. Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The admin was involved in the content debate - he sided with his close friend and geographical neighbor whom he has edited on the same side as hundreds of times, and then he falsely presented himself as a neutral and uninvolved arbiter. I myself only just found his discussion of the content and support for inclusion. (1.)Nev1 was an involved editor. (2.)He is acting in support of a friend. (3.)His last act before locking to everyone, not just IP's, was to change the article to include the edit he is long on record of supporting. (3.)His lock was done under a false appearance of being a neutral and uninvolved arbiter ... These are clear acts, supported by ref's. And they are a violation - no matter how uncomfortable that may seem to some. 72.5.199.254 (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not even close, 763, about 700 too many IMO, but that's another story. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about this particular case, but I feel I'm noticing more admins using the tools while involved. Or maybe it's just more noticeable because overall it's happening less. Whichever it is, I've started a discussion about trying to clarify WP:INVOLVED. Discussion here for anyone wanting to join in, though it's already a bit bogged down. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• For reference, 72.5.199.254 (talk · contribs) is one of the parties in an edit war at Hanged, drawn and quartered (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), who is repeating the edits by 99.141.243.84 (talk · contribs). And this reversion to the status quo ante has obviously caused The Wrong Version to be protected. There's a combative immediate protected edit request, that doesn't even attempt to show a consensus but rather immediately attempts to make the discussion all about the protecting administrator, at Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 1#Edit Request. There's a discussion of the issue at Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered/Archive 1#Maeve Jones, but "I see little point in debating the matter further with you. I will continue to revert your removal of this material" (not by the editor without an account, notice) is basically a declaration of intent to not discuss on the talk page but engage in edit warring, and there's little beyond that. Indeed, that statement is dated at the point that the edit war began.

  It's worth noting that neither 72.5.199.254 nor 99.141.243.84, nor any facsimiles thereof, have been edit warring before Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs) declared that intent to stop discussing and start revert warring; nor is there evidence that the talk page discussion going back to August 2010 has been accompanied by any previous edit warring in the article on this issue by anyone. So it's possibly unfair to land the boomerang where some people plainly think it should be landing. The history here appears to be: talk page discussion started months ago → "I see little point in debating the matter further with you." → revert war → protection to get discussion going on talk page.

  It's rather sad, but not entirely unexpected, to see that 72.5.199.254, by going on at length about a reversion to the prior stable version of the article, is shooting xyrself in the foot, by frittering away any potential support for xyr position on the content issue with this prolonged nitwittery about The Wrong Version. It's not as if pointing to this talk page edit wouldn't have immediately cleared up the matter of whether Nev1 has an existing stake and position in this particular content dispute, without all of the irrelevant silliness about who is "friends" with whom and who lives where in the world.

  It's also rather sad to see a sensible suggestion made back in September 2010 completely ignored.

  To be honest, if there'd been less of the combative and ridiculously personalized approach and more of the "You reverted and protected in a content dispute where you actually took a side on this very talk page a few months ago in August 2010, if you remember, Nev1.", perhaps Nev1 might have been persuaded of the error. Mind you, that still doesn't solve the problem of Parrot of Doom's declared intent not to discuss this on the talk page at all but to just revert war until blocked.

  Uncle G (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Yet another concern that could be corrected by "how about we just ban admin tool use in involved articles so they have to use the normal incident boards?". There's no reason they shouldn't very aggressively recuse from such areas. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 02:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • No, that doesn't correct this. Go and look at Special:Contributions/Nev1. See how many edits ago xyr August 2010 edit to Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered was, relatively speaking. Count how many times you have to follow the "older 500" hyperlink to get to it. Xe probably simply forgot that xe took a position on this months ago. No amount of policy and rules creep will stop people from just forgetting something from months ago. A simple reminder, and diff of the relevant edit, would have likely sufficed; and Nev1 would probably have acknowledged the involvement in the content dispute. But we'll never know, because 99.141.243.84 decided to go for the combative and acutely personalized approach instead, ironically claiming to have made 100,000 edits to Wikipedia along the way. One would have thought that someone who has truly made 10,000 edits per year would appreciate the problem of not remembering every edit one has made from last year.

      And you're not even addressing the main problem here, which is the content dispute itself, with the intransigent editors who began by discussing on the talk page for months, and then decided to stop talk page discussion and start revert warring — ironically completely the reverse of the pattern that the article protection is intended to achieve. Don't miss the meat of the problem by focussing on the fashionable side issue du jour. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Aah, but ANI is not for content disputes. Never meant to say that was anything close to a "fix", though, and I'm not speaking as to whether any admin ethical issues were conflicting here or not. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 04:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• to suggest that nev1, an admin for whom I have the highest regard, is motivated by a desire to protect friends and acquaintances and not to help prevent a silly edit war, is nothing but dummy-spitting. I have repeatedly asked for help on this article but as usual nobody is prepared to do the hard work, even I'd that's merely reading the source which has proven so contentious. It's pathetic that more time is spent whingung about rules than is actually creating half-decent content, but not surprising. Parrot of Doom 15:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

From 2 January there was a slow-moving edit war on the article, with a couple of reverts a day, but neither party breaching WP:3RR. Discussion was breaking down on the talk page and every post was preceded by a revert. I protected the article to keep it stable and so that both sides might concentrate on discussing the issue and searching for a third option. Before January 2011, my only contribution to the article had been reverting vandalism. I'd forgotten that nearly five months ago I said that maybe being published in Historical Discourses: The McGill Undergraduate Journal of History meant the essay satisfied WP:RS (and Joey Roe (talk · contribs) immediately pointed out that the journal was compiled by students, thereby rendering my point void). Nev1 (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that the the expression, "both sides" is a bit of a stretch. There exists a consensus, every editor but one is against inclusion of the undergraduate's classroom essay. It's not a content dispute - its an enforcement issue regarding Wikipedia rules regarding Consensus, Notability, Reliable Source rules, Fringe..(not to mention impartial and neutral use of tools) etc, etc. Clear Consensus exists from numerous editors, here and there, over months to oppose inclusion. And not a single tangible argument has been provided by the intransigent editor, and not a single editor has supported his addition of the student essay. Not a one.72.5.199.254 (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a view on the content issue as I haven't properly looked into it yet (though I will), and I don't think Nev1 has done anything too terrible; anyone can forget a previous involvement and take admin action, though he should probably recuse in future; but I do see a potential problem in Parrot of Doom's edit here; he seems to be throwing down the gauntlet. As an experienced editor there is probably little value in warning him about WP:EDITWAR, and I fear a block may be necessary if he does not rescind the threat, or perhaps more practically if he follows through on the threat to keep edit-warring "until one of us is blocked", as this is not an acceptable or collegial way to behave. --John (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"With all due respect", that's not quite what Parrot of Doom said. What he actually said was "I will continue to revert your removal of this material until the matter is escalated for discussion elsewhere and a proper consensus formed, or until one of us is blocked.". Naturally enough you focus on the block comment though. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

From your tone of disdain and the perspective you implicitly reference, I am under the impression you are referring to me. I don't believe I've never mentioned it.72.5.199.254 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would you think I'm referring to you, when the indentation of my reply makes it very clear that I am not? My "disdain" is for those administrators who resolve what is clearly a content dispute over the reliability of a source with blocks. A better place to discuss this is WP:CONTENT, where there will hopefully be no veiled threats, just a rational discussion of the pros and cons. Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, a block would be premature. I am sure some agreement can be reached. Edit-warring or threatening to edit war is seldom helpful; there is always a better way to resolve things without anybody needing to be blocked. I will take a look at resolving the content issue amicably. --John (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be getting a bit cart before the horse over there and now WP:OR is being first considered on it's merits. Ahh, such is the current laissez-faire zeitgeist of this period of wikipedia. At one time we suffered from an excessive application of rule minutia, now the pendulum swings away....99.141.243.84 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right about the zeitgeist. I'm here to make the article better, how about you? --John (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'm completely here to better content(5), even in the crevasses. The students essay was first entered into the article by Parrot of Doom (1) ... and the students essay was immediately objected to, and just as immediately Parrot of Doom rejected any and all discussion, stating, "No I won't remove it, I'm happy that its a reliable source"(2). Numerous other editors objected from the start(3) And all have been driven away from "bettering the article", and all from the start have been asked to read the Original Research(4). Original research, via an undergraduates classroom essay, presenting an idea never uttered once in literature nor academia, has no place. It's not a reliable source. Period. Why must we first disprove the Original Research before we can remove it? It does not make sense. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like, to me, that inclusion of the student essay (pure Original Research presenting an idea unknown elswhere) is to be the only result. Still to this day the one intransigent editor has refused to offer any argument beyond - "Prove the Original Research Wrong". ...99.141.243.84 (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Markvs88 has repeatedly vandalized the Cheshire Academy page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire_Academy, reducing it to little more than a paragraph and a single photo.

He has repeatedly complained that people listed under 'Notable Alumni' do not ALL have Wikipedia pages, so he has simply deleted almost everything. I am unable to find any requirement that Notable Alumni have their own Wikipedia page, only that there be some reference to them somewhere.

According to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines page, "All alumni information must be referenced". Some people may be very notable to their school, but do not pass the standards for requiring or justify their own page within Wikipedia.

This appears to be some sort of vendetta against the school. No such standard is applied to pages for similar nearby schools, such as Choate Rosemary Hall, which includes a matriculation list.

According to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines page, matriculation lists are NOT supposed to be includes, but no similar vandalism has been applied to the Choate Rosemary Hall page.

In its vandalized form, the Cheshire Academy page includes notes that it has no references, because the lengthy reference list for sports, awards, and alumni has been deleted.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Vandalizing of page. The thread is User Markvs88 has repeatedly vandalized the Cheshire Academy Page.The discussion is about the topic Cheshire Academy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skranish (talk • contribs) 01:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

When posting here, you are required to post the template to the talkpages of the people you are mentioning here, not post the notice here. Have you notified the person on their talk page? Heiro 02:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, how is File:CheshireAcademyCrest.jpg pd-self? 87.115.137.216 (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've looked into this article's history. The edits that Markvs88 reverted were largely additions of unsourced content and promotional language. I can see how the way he reverted entire edits without explaining the issues must be frustrating for Skranish (there should have been more communication), but for the most part his changes implemented Wikipedia policy (the fact that other schools have promotional language in their articles does not justify adding promotional language to this one -- our policy states that Wikipedia is not a promotional service). I spent some time rewriting and cleaning up that article. I'm not done with eveything that needs to be done, so I sympathize with Markvs88's mass-reverting as being a far easier strategy than "surgically" addressing the problems (which is what I attempted to do).
  Being a newbie (with respect to Wikipedia experience, although the account was registered in 2008), Skranish would benefit from reading up on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:NOT, WP:Copyvio, and WP:Citing sources. I've placed a welcome template on Skranish's talk page to provide links to those pages. --Orlady (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC) I've also placed a message on Markvs88's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hello! Please note that I reverted edits on Cheshire Academy (twice) to edits by Drmies, which I felt were justified given the amount of "poof" in the article that he trimmed out. Also note that I dropped a cordial note on user talk:Skranish for discussion, and did point Skranish to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines, he chose not to reply. Anyone can look at my prior edits on this (or any other CT school page for that matter), which are to remove puffery. Some examples are Pomfret School, Avon Old Farms, Choate Rosemary Hall, etc. I am happy to discuss the matter and answer any questions. Thanks to Orlady for her efforts! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi folks. I think there's a backlog in the Category:Articles tagged for copyright problems. I see a bunch of articles in there that are tagged and probably need tending to. Basket of Puppies 04:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There is indeed a small backlog on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, but it is nothing serious. Help is always appreciated though I would advise interested admins to contact user:Moonriddengirl first to avoid doing double work. That being said, there is a massive backlog at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations that needs attention. Yoenit (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you look at Special:Contributions/24.77.203.125 you`ll see a shwack of edit summaries such as: unacceptable spelling mistake!!! i will kill you all, i swear. and other rude/inappropriate things. Also note the comment here which is quite inappropriate. This user needs to be punished for their incivility and inappropriate actions so I`ve taken it here. Thanks. --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 20:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Also note this --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 20:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As well as this, where he/she C&P the infobox from the Pig article, and added to to a BLP article. GiantSnowman 20:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

and this --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 20:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by HJ Mitchell. GiantSnowman 20:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Just note, we don't "punish" users, blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive. Something to keep in mind... -- œ^™ 02:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

99.12.124.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding gun makes and models to various plot summaries over the past couple of months. Myself and others have asked repeatedly for him to stop, but he is completely non responsive and continues. --Leivick (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am one of those editors who asked him to stop. Virtually all his recent edits are to add unsourced gun identifications to plot summaries. I see no evidence that he's contacted anyone to try to discuss this. Zachlipton (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding my name as another editor who has asked him, both in edit summaries and on his talk page, to cease adding these unnecessary details. In addition to being tediously unnecessary, this is original research, as he cites no sources to indicate that his information is correct. He also does not use edit summaries. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked them for a month in view of the persistent nature of the problem. Hopefully, they will request unblocking, in which case we can demand a promise of better behavior in the future. Otherwise, it'll be "escalatio". Favonian (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Rjbronn (talk · contribs) has been adding a lot of biased information from random sites, he looks like a sock puppet of some banned user. Please take care of him and restore my twinkle back.--NovaSkola (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted a couple of edits to Kurdish People and this editor seems to be involved in some contentious areas, suggest other editors look over his contribs. Exxolon (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

NovaSkola - two problems with your post. One, you've used the "vandal" template for Rjbronn - unless the editor is obviously vandalising that template is inappropiate, please change it to the "user" template. Two - if you are requesting restoration of Twinkle, please make a separate post, the two issues are not related. Exxolon (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Exxolon, I never used vandal template, someone edited. His socks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CiteChecker and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/StanfordUniversity from the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Azerbaijan&action=history. --NovaSkola (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct - User:Inka 888 made that edit, my apologies. I will be having words about editing other user's posts. Exxolon (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, an SPI would be needed to see if socks accounts are used to make reverts and engage in edit-warring by possible accounts of Rjbronn. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The users turned out to be socks, as expected. Blocked by admin (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rjbronn). Tuscumbia (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have recently made edits to the article Mind in the Gutter due to the fact that the information on the article is incorect. The single has not charted in any country on any chart other than the US iTunes. I am simply trying to fix the page from the lies that have been posted onto it. Also, several times in the article it says "critics feel" or "the critics" but yet there is no sourced information to say what critic said it, and when did they say it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethjohnson95 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to post this type of question on the article's talk page. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind in the Gutter. KrakatoaKatie 07:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

But you kept adding links to non-reliable sources, and refused to discuss why you felt those edits were appropriate. If it were not for the fact that the article has been nominated for deletion, you probably would have been blocked for tendentious editing. You had gone past a level 4 warning, and I had reported you for vandalism. Corvus cornix_talk 20:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• This user just registered yesterday but I'm quite wary of him already because of what he has to say on his userpage and talk page. I don't know what he thinks Wikipedia is but it appears that he's taking WP:BATTLE to a whole new level. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • OK...so you're saying there's not going to be a pay raise? Tiderolls 07:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • What? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
      • [161] Tiderolls 07:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Don't know how I missed that. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • About time I got some monies for this crappy job. KrakatoaKatie 07:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message on Lt Col Warringham's talk pointing the to the user talk guideline. If another admin finds the pages excessively disruptive or trollish, I certainly would understand. Tiderolls 07:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

He created a hoax article which was taken to AfD but I've speedied it after a search. Now that I've done that cleaning I've got to do house cleaning, which is much more boring but doesn't involve templates. Dougweller (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Also interesting activity at Turkey Vulture here, here, and here. I'm assuming that's his IP edit in the middle. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat? Tbhotch ^{۩ ۞} 08:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I came here to comment on the same issue. In my opinion, it's enough of one to apply the standard remedy, and the editor seems otherwise unconstructive. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious? I guess the only question if he has actually been disruptive enough to warrant a block. Taemyr (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously. :-) I've done the obvious, blocked indefinitely for trolling and disruptive editing. Enough is enough, he can always appeal. We should probably delete his user page and the subpage, at least. Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleteed both. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 10:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed as Hunter Warringham (talk · contribs):

• Vladimir Khruschevovski (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Την ελεύθερη εγκυκλοπαίδεια (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked. –MuZemike 18:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hunter Warringham is now abusing talk page privileges. Please revoke them. Never mind. Dougweller already did it. Goodvac (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a legal threat at Wikipedia:Help_desk#help_altering_a_page_please.... - or is this a straightforward request that could be handled by a commons admin? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): Not sure if an admin can do that (I don't think they can) but that is definitely a legal threat. Block until they recend. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a legal threat. It looks as if he is talking about "litigation against Google Inc". You forgot to notify him about this so I did. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 10:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there was discussion about this before. I believe the status is that he is a photographer of nudes who has released some to commons & WP - but now does not want his name associated with them. I understand he is suing Google to get them to disassociate his name in search listings with the name (why he continues to contribute here on the Wiki on the same topic... well, that defeats me). I believe in the past there was a fuss when he tried to get his name disassociated here on the Wiki and was blocked for legal threats during the confusion. Given the context (I wasn't aware he was unblocked) I suggest pointing him at OTRS to solve the issues (he has this annoying way of referring to himself in the third person as well, so be aware of that) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I've now replied to him at the Help Desk. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been raised before (For example by myself: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive654#NLT_Heads-up) and I believe it ending up working out the said account was a role account or something, try checking the users talk page history. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 12:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no legal threat towards Wikipedia:Help_desk#help_altering_a_page_please....in any way at all. The Foundation authorized the attribution change to the CN Foundation. I am involved in litigation against GOOG and there is a jury trial in July. I am simply trying to prevent thumbnails from being presented to my daughter's school on safe search at GOOG images. The personal name in the history of the file at the bottom of the page allows GOOG to still return the thumbnail. I have sought a preliminary injunction but am trying to cause display of the nude thumbnail to cease in any other way possible. I contribute in the topic and am sure not to use my name in an articles because I am not yet notable or dead. I do not want my name to return nude thumbnails to minors. I stated that if it is not possible that I understand completely and I will never threaten Wikipedia Foundation. EVER. I will send an email. Thanks. CurtisNeeley (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the obvious thing to do, would be to request deletion of the photo, over at commons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Article is clearly a hoax; see this search. I CSD'ed it as a hoax; tag was removed (no explanation) by 137.120.89.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); I nominated it for deletion; tag was removed a bunch of times by creator and 137.120.89.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have a feeling that at least one of the IPs is also the creator. Anyway, perhaps an admin can weigh in and see if this article needs to be removed right away, without waiting for the inevitable SNOW in the AfD discussion, before more IPs will be reported for vandalism and electrons are wasted. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you Sarek. May the force always be with you. Move to close? Drmies (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at, and close, the move request that is now at Talk:Standard Chinese. The discussion is not just in that section and flows onto other pages as well. A request was made at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves for this to be closed a couple of days ago as it has been around for a couple of months. I had a look but decided it wasn't suitable for non-admin closure. The move was then done by User:Kwamikagami (an admin) - the third time the move has been done while waiting for the requested move to be close. I went to reverse the move as I didn't think the result of the RM was obvious like they asserted only to find I couldn't due to the move being done without a redirect and then an "incorrect" redirect being made before being changed to the correct one. I'm struggling to assume good faith on this move as I believe that creating the redirect is the default option so I have no idea while they'd follow the course of action they have. They certainly aren't uninvolved so they shouldn't be doing an end-around on process like this regardless. Therefore I'm asking a) that an uninvolved admin close the discussion (and so hopefully stop the move war) and that b) there be a review of User:Kwamikagami actions. Dpmuk (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is clearly for the move. I don't know why this has been open for so long. There was no response to my request for closure when I and then Taivo were reverted a couple days ago by someone who objected to the move but had no cogent argument against it. No argument has been presented in the meantime either, except that we might want to consider 'Mandarin' instead of 'Standard Chinese', but the response since has been for the latter. As for the link, I think I must have unclicked redirect when I clicked to include subpages in the move. As for inappropriate tools, the fact that there's been a move war shows that it's not a matter of admin tools. — kwami (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason I said possible inappropriate use of tools was there was "not creating the redirect" (ad admin tool albeit a minor one) and also the move of 13 January which I suspect may have needed the tools. You may have done nothing wrong in either case but I'd like someone independent to look it. It would also be good to get an independent view of your non-admin actions which I think have been very questionable. Dpmuk (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if someone had responded in the last two months to a very one-sided discussion, I wouldn't have moved it at all. It's not like anyone has presented an argument for keeping the article where it is, or that there's any cogent debate about it. — kwami (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kwami. This issue sat without neutral admin action for two months. All the valid arguments are in favor of the move and the majority of opponents simply said "I don't like it" without any valid arguments based on either reliable sources or Wikipedia policy. There comes a time when it would be nice to have neutral admin action, but the failure of a neutral admin to act means that some other path must be taken. --Taivo (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I note that the move request was closed, but not closed - the discussion was archived with the comment " article already moved by kwami (removing from RM list and this is not meant as a discussion closure.)" I've reversed that as this does a neutral closure and that's more likely to happen if it remains listed. Leaving it archived would be allowing a massive end around process. Now if consensus was clear that wouldn't really be a problem as we have the right result but in this case I don't think consensus is clear (the number of oppose votes alone mean consensus can't be that obvious) and so this end-around may be going against consensus. Have also updated section heading to make it clearer the move request needs closing. Dpmuk (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also add that the very fact that the RM is still open is a good sign that consensus from the discussion isn't as obvious to uninvolved editors as you think it is. Obvious discussions normally get closed pretty quickly - even long ones. Dpmuk (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This particular discussion illustrates one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia. On one side was a group of editors supporting the move who had overwhelming evidence and the support of Wikipedia policy. On the other side was a group of editors without evidence, without Wikipedia policy to support them, and without any reasons for opposing the move whatsoever. Indeed, many of them wrote "Oppose" without any comment or justification whatsoever and did not take part in any further discussions, thus blocking a true consensus. So either 1) the move process gets "stuck" without a consensus developing and the article title neither conforms with reliable sources nor with Wikipedia policy; or 2) an admin makes a content call based on the conformance of the arguments to Wikipedia policy and reliable sources and moves the article without a true consensus developing. During the last week, only one opponent of the move made any Talk Page contributions at all and that was still without evidence or policy to back up his/her opposition. So if you look at the discussion over the last week, a consensus did, indeed, develop with only one opposing voice. --Taivo (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please can someone actually take a look at this and close it - the lack of closure is resulting in a slow motion edit war. Dpmuk (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Bump. Here is a chance for those admins who make difficult decisions to do so. It's much less drama than the ongoing personal blocks that end up at ANI but somebody must be bored, right? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Bump again. This one could really do with closing. Dpmuk (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The move discussion was closed by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim at 00:00 on 18 January. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that was sods law wasn't it, closed a whole 6 minutes after I bumped. Oh well at least it's done now. Dpmuk (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A new user (10 minutes old) showed up in the article Frank Dux. The article has a history of sockpuppetry and fans/followers of Dux trying to add unsource, questionable claims of Dux's derring-do and super-ninja abilities. Last night, User:Phoenix2923 arrived and started posting on the talk page. Initially, he demanded that I not dicuss the issue because I was not an admin and was a little uncivil. After some back and forth, he calmed down and started to act civil. I suggested that he simply show the sources he was planning on using and I'd tell him what I thought and it would allow others to view it as well and get their input. The documents were a series of scans allegedly of a statement made by a reporter in Dux lawsuit where the reporter claims that he investigated what Dux said (complete with anonymous secret special forces operatives) and that Dux really was a super-spy. The other scan is a pic of Dux supposed Russian ID, a pic that is in his book. Anyway, I explained problems with these documents as they pertained to the policies and WL'd to the applicable policies. Since everything was uploaded listing the reporter as both the author and source (making no mention that these were from court records in the source), I asked if User:Phoenix2923 was in fact the reporter and WL'd to some policies that would apply if he were. Then I suggested that he start as thread at RSN to get some opinions there about the reliability of the documents. User:Phoenix2923 went on a tirade: " I would prefer to speak to people that have a brain. You're probably some old pedophile with nothing better to do thatn troll on Wikipedia with people who are actually trying to show credible material for edits to this page."[162], "If you really care, as you obviously do or you wouldn't troll here 24/7, go pay a few bucks and see for yourself. You have a serious problem guy."[163], "Are you a muslim terrorist the Dux kicked in the face back in the 70's?"[164] and some rant about the Gabrielle Giffords article (an article I haven't even read, let alone edited). Niteshift36 (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The article itself has not had much editing so protection isn't needed, I will give the account a final warning about personal attacks but someone with more experience of the article will probably spot a sock a mile off. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix2923 (talk · contribs) notified of this thread. GiantSnowman 18:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• I suspect a sock of a previous sock, but to be honest, the whole SPI thing is so tedious, I hate doing it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

_{I'll just point out that Niteshift did notify the user of the threat ([165]) he just did it on the user page rather than the talk page, accidentally I presume. S.G.^(GH) ping! 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)}

• Yes, I hit the wrong tab, my bad. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In this edit, User:Phoenix2923 makes the unlikely claim "Niteshift36 seems to have a conflict of interest with Mr. Dux. They both served in Desert Storm and could very well have a personal vendetta given Mr. Dux's role during this conflict and certain prior covert operations". If true, this would be a case of WP:OUTING, nicht wahr? If not, it seems WP:TEND (or perhaps Paranoia). User:Phoenix2923 is a WP:NPA; a WP:COI seems a possibility. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just stating another coincidence. Where is I Corps? Hmmm, I believe I walked past I Corps everyday for 3 years while stationed at Ft. Lewis which also happens to be 30 minutes south of Seattle. Home of Frank Dux. It is just as easy to call your interest coincidental as well. I have very good reason to question your credibility as you served in the military during the same period Dux claims to have served and you were stationed in Ft. Lewis. Very coincidental. Please stop pointing fingers at me for trying to add documents to an article. Why is this turning into such a huge friggin' deal anyways? Phoenix2923 (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure how he figures that anyway. I wasn't in Desert Storm, so there is no outing. I've never been in the middle east, nor have I ever crossed paths with the super-ninja Frank Dux.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Still not quite succeeding at being civil [166]. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• The latest response was done from an IP address that shows Lynnwood, WA. Dux lives in the Seattle area. Also, further down the page, you'll find a posting from someone claiming to be an investigative reporter (and claiming that he contacted the Wikimedia Foundation and was told to put this stuff up) that, of course, comes back to the Seattle area as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, this is what I mean. Ever since I began posting on the topic you have attacked ME. Of course I'm going to get defensive. Who gave you the right to speak to me that way in the first place? As an editor your judgment should be NEUTRAL which it obviously isn't. I do not live in or near Lynnwood, WA nor am I nor did I claim to be an investigator or a reporter. You also have a history of attacks on people in Wikipedia which are duly noted within the community. I would also like YOUR attacks to be listed here as well. Phoenix2923 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• I thought you were a "new user" who doesn't know how things work. Please, follow along. I did not say you claimed to be an investigative reporter or jornalist. I said that someone from your area claimed to be one and just, conincidentally of course, came in, having edited no other articles, and started pushing the same stuff in the same article. Your IP comes back to Lynnwood. Of course it's just a huge coincidence that you, Dux and the guy claiming to be an investigative reporter are all from the same area. Pointing fingers at me and saying "well you said this to someone else, some other time" won't justify your behavior in the Dux discussion and THAT, my friend, is what the topic is. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And because you ASSUMED that there is some connection between me and somebody who lives in the same state as me MUST be connected somehow gave you the right to treat me the way you did? Do you speak that way to every new user you come across? I have USED Wikipedia for a long time but I have never created an account until I came across Frank Dux's page. I see unreferenced disputes that don't hold any more weight than the articles that support him. You were intentionally provoking me in the discussion and anybody with common sense can see that. Why don't you try being helpful for once instead of sarcastic and accusatory. Phoenix2923 (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• There was no assumption my friend. The possibility was mentioned, as was the coincidence. I have been helpful. I've linked you to the applicable policies. I've given you honest assessments of the problems you are encountering. I suggested that you take the matter to the RSN and get some input there before even trying to use it. You've simply ignored those things because they weren't the answer you wanted. And those same people with common sense will see that my skepticism of your intentions sure don't warrant calling me a pedophile etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So you're telling me that you used the utmost respect in conversing with me and you weren't sarcastic or degrading in any way. shape or form? Come on guy, get off your pedestal. You have been extremely disrespectful to many contributors on that page and you aren't even an admin nor are you anybody with a reason to be posting there anyways. You have no authority about what is edited and what isn't anymore than I do. Like I said before, you intentionally provoked me into engaging in a cyber-argument when my first post FIRMLY stated that I did not want a back and forth rhetoric with people that would just as soon argue with me instead of being constructive. Phoenix2923 (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• On the contrary, I don't deny that I was skeptical at your first post and that it is possible that you thought it was sarcastic. But it sure as hell is a huge leap from that to the name calling you did. No, I'm not an admin. I don't want to be an admin. Ever. You seem to think that admins are some magical, all powerful entities around here. They aren't. Most of these content and source disputes get ironed out without admin involvement. I learned a lot from non-admins. So can you. And no, I haven't been all sweet and nice to some of the SPA's that came there before. Some have ended up being banned because of their activities. Some were found to be sockpuppets. You're right, I don't have more authority than you. But I do have a lot more experience. Consider for a minute that I might know a little more about the policies and then actually go read the ones I'm telling you apply. Have you actually read them yet? For someone who doesn't want "back and forth", you're sure doing a lot of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No I don't want the back and forth but I do like to defend myself. Yes it was wrong of me to call you names, I felt attacked and looking through the discussion page I assumed you were a troll. Yes I have read some of the policies but the damn things give me a headache sometimes. I see now that, yes, you are an experienced user and I would appreciate help and advice as opposed to skepticism. I understand why you would be skeptical but I'm just trying to help a page that I found intriguing. I like controversial topics in general. I was going to start with some other sites but their discussion pages were insanely messier than Frank Dux's. Well if we are able to at this point, I would love to start over and have a constructive discussion pertaining to where I went wrong with my uploads. I don't fully understand some of the policies regarding sources and references. Phoenix2923 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I would advise that you both trust your admins and let someone assess this without continuing to use ANI as another forum for debate. Leave the report to lie still and let someone review it in due course. That way you don't compound your perhaps otherwise valid point with something regrettable in the middle of the ANI board. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you two obviously got off on the wrong foot. Phoenix2923 apologized for the personal attacks and admitted it was out of anger/frustration. I hope you can now continue with a civil and constructive discussion at the article's talk page. No admin action necessary here. -- œ^™ 19:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • Thank you both for responding to this debate. After doing some research into his username and looking over his many edits, I have come to the conclusion that Niteshift36 IS a reliable contributor who is invaluable to discussion and policies but sometimes has a tendency to come off in a negative tone. I would like to continue constructive debate with Niteshift36 and other editors as the article in question has been bumped up to mid-priority. I believe Niteshift36 and I simply misunderstood each other and were unnecessarily skeptical of each other.Phoenix2923 (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Got one of these damned emails. Seems 69.178.195.148 (talk · contribs) sent it. Could someone block that account and do a little rangeblocking? Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

IP range is being used by indef blocked User:Hypocritepedia. Rangeblocks are needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

 Sorted - that /24 range is clean so I just softblocked the IP for a week. No underlying accounts - Alison ^❤ 05:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ma'am. Much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As for this, Mhiji (talk · contribs) is mass-stripping categories and any other additional markup from redirects.

Warning have been given. You_Are_the_Everything shows that they're re-doing these changes, even after they've been reverted by others. The rate of editing (several a minute, alphabetic order) also suggests an unauthorised 'bot.

There needs to be an admin-grade trouting to stop this (warnings from editors aren't effective), then a bulk rollback. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a bot, because 5 edits a minute is impossible... --Hinata talk 20:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

User warned to stop until he achieves consensus here about what he is doing. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

'bot ow AWB? If it's a 'bot, is there anything showing it was approved? If AWB, IIRC from prvious threds dealing with other editors, isn using AWB of of a base user account a no-no?

That aside it looks like the issue was raised with them on the 9th and they were still burning along until just before the warning and ANI post today. I'm not sure if this was a natural lull in their editing or if the cesation was because of the ANI report. If it is the later, that is really, really worrying. Especially since I seem to remeber this same editor has run other mass modification projects that wound up on ANI. - J Greb (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

AWB on the base account is fine, as long as the base account is registered. 28bytes (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have stopped. A mass revert would be inappropriate since the majority of the edits where helpful (e.g. this one removing a misplaced edit request which has already been done). Mhiji 21:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no - running at ~9 edits a minute to remove material makes it almost impposible to believe you were looking to make sure that any of the edits were helpful. - J Greb (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"Majority" is dubious. For one thing, if you've evaluated the "helpful" and "non-helpfuls" like this to show that helpfuls were in the "majority", then why were you making the unhelpfuls at all?

Secondly, mass-rollback is the easiest way to clear this up. Any of these that are agreed to be helpful by consensus can be re-done individually afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur with mass rollback, because (a) there's no way to know which were harmful without scanning them all, and (b) while ones like this did actual damage, I'm not convinced that "helpful" ones like this one cited above actually do any good - the obsolete text is not visible, doesn't get in the way of the redirect, and deleting it saves no space since the deleted version is still stored. JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just referred to this conversation by JohnCD after posting on Mhiji's talk page. I'm not privy to the discussion going on here, but I can say that I received an auto-generated CSD notification from Mhiji, which notified me of the speedy deletion of an old AfD page, though the template used was obviously meant for new editors who created nonsense pages. This may have just been a mistake on Mhiji's part, but given the discussion here, I think it indicates a lack of attention to detail in his editing. From what I can tell, his intentions were good, just not the methods with which he carried them out. --Hojimachong^talk 21:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

From the looks of they're talk page, they seem to be on a deletion spree of some sorts. I'm not sure if they are trying to trim some perceived waste on the project, but from when I have encountered Mhiji on other stuff, they are always in deletion-related material. My question is Mhiji, why are you so intent on trimming stuff? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for mass-rollback also; people leave other content in redirects for a reason — i.e. Kenneth Pinyan. No evidence a majority (or even many) of these were useful, let alone necessary enough to cause this amount of collateral damage. --Closeapple (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Echoing support for mass rollback. Deleting comments like the one JohnCD cites is completely unjustified. 28bytes (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If Mhiji's been overzealous with trying to get rid of redirects, their edits should be mass-rollbacked and they should be reprimanded for their incaution. (DISCLAIMER: Mhiji nominated a redirect I made in 2008 for deletion.) —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 04:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Mhiji has been doing a lot of editing very quickly tonight. He moved several pages on music albums and individual songs from disambiguated titles to less disambiguated titles (e.g. he moved Anything Goes! (Maki Ohguro song) to Anything Goes! (song)) because there was no article at the other title. However, this was a problem because several of these articles were disambiguated from pre-existing articles on other albums and songs with identical names (there are plenty of subjects with the title "Anything Goes", several of them being songs). I've corrected him on this, but those edits he fixed are way behind in his edit count at the moment after he's made a bunch of BLPPRODs and TFDs.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This Mhiji (talk · contribs) person/bot/whatever also make other kinds of multiple moves without any explanation in the edit summary, like moving non-encyclopedic userbox templates from "Template:User BQZip01/*" to "Template:User *", though they seem to be spaced as if they were script-assisted manual changes, rather than full-on mass edits: Mhiji edits from 2011-01-16 04:12 back. Aren't the "cutesy" types of userbox templates supposed to stay in userspace, per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Which namespace? and the resulting Wikipedia:Userbox migration? He seems to have stopped about 2 hours ago (from the time I'm posting this message). --Closeapple (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I made a post at Mhiji's talk page several days about this, but it received no response. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support mass rollback. A huge number of changes have been made with very little scrutiny, many of them damaging. It also appears that some sort of unauthorised bot is being used, so I suggest a block until that is clarified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There were 44 edits made in a single minute at 00:45 on 16 January 2011. Editing 44 times in a single minute is obviously a bot. This is very concerning if the bot is not authorized. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Mhiji blocked - suggestions invited for unblock conditions[edit]

I have blocked Mhiji (talk · contribs) because the discussion above, plus a study of his talk page and contributions, have convinced me that he is doing more harm than good - many even of those edits which are not harmful are at best "pointless tidying". In similar situations (e.g. Betacommand), unblock has been agreed with restrictions on the number and rate of automated or semi-automated edits, or conditions on gaining prior agreement before undertaking them. I invite suggestions here about what unblock conditions might be suitable. Any admin may unblock who is satisfied that suitable conditions have been agreed and that Mhiji has accepted them.

There is consensus for a mass rollback of his "redirect cleaning" - I will ask at AN how to arrange that. JohnCD (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Mass rollback of yesterday's 300+ redirect edits has been done by Rich Farmbrough (talk) - thanks! JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a similar edit restriction to Betacommand's:

1. Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Mhiji must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Mhiji must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.
2. Mhiji must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.
3. Mhiji must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

This would address the issue of bot-like editing (#2 and #3) and the issue of choosing tasks that turn out to be inappropriate (#1). — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'd support that. What about the MfDs? He generates a lot of those, some quite spurious [167], some not; seemingly from some auto-generated list, since they're placed at MfD in Unicode (not alphabetical) order. 28bytes (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe something about how they achieved more than 40 edits / minute — because at that rate a lot of damage could be caused before anybody catches it. Maybe something about bot use from user accounts and bot authorization should be part of this. - Hydroxonium (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the point of the 4 edits/minute part, which slows down the edits enough that it's harder to rack up hundreds without anyone being able to comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support edit restrictions as written up by CBM above. The carelessness with which Mhiji has been editing does indeed necessitate some kind of intervention, and a block was appropriate, but I do think indef is a tad excessive. Although I've been annoyed with Mhiji's persistent nominations at TfD, RfD, etc, and his general lack of interest in content building, it is still the area they chose to work in, and they are editing in good faith, plus I do believe even the little things matter. With that said, I hope Mhiji can agree to the terms above, and perhaps take a bit of a break from the deletion areas. -- œ^™ 02:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  I accept that the edits themselves may have been made in good faith, though they were undoubtedly reckless. However, I question whether running an unapproved bot was done in good faith. I'm inclined to think that anyone clueful enough to create their own bot is likely to have encountered WP:BOTPOL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Broadly support edit restrictions as drafted by CBM, although 4 edits per minute seems a little high to me; at that speed, there's little scope for scrutiny, and I suggest that 2 edits/min would be more appropriate. I disagree with OlEnglish about the block length: an indef block is not a permanent block, it's a block until the issues are sorted out. I would support lifting the block either when terms are agreed, or when Mhiji agrees to hold off further such editing while terms are discussed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • strike comment based on my misredading of the proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support edit restrictions outlined above; agree that the he should be unblocked if he agrees to the terms of the editing restrictions ultimately agreed to. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I think Mhiji could be very useful to the project. But I would like the bot run from a seperate account and to be approved by the WP:BAG before it is used. To be clear, I am saying Mhiji is using a bot as opposed to bot-like editing as noted by the 44 edits made in a single minute at 00:45 on 16 January 2011]. - Hydroxonium (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that 44 edits per minute is probably some sort of automated editing (it fails the duck test). The point of the proposed 4/minute restriction is that it's very hard to prove someone is using a bot if they slow it down, but if they slow it down enough then it doesn't matter any more how they do the edits. Bots should be run from another account, you're right; if a particular task should be done by a bot, someone can point it out during the 24 hours discussion period on VPR. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note that the proposal is four edits in ten minutes, not one minute. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • It's 4 per minute averaged over a ten minute period, i.e. not more than 40 in any ten minute period. The point of that is that it allows someone to make 5 edits and then take a break, without worrying about accidentally breaking the rule. It's easy to exceed 4 in one minute with manual editing; it's only a problem if it involves a lot of articles, which is covered by the other points of the restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

My only concern is that WP:BOTPOL be followed as it is an official Wikipedia policy. WP:BOTPOL covers scipts, automated editing and semi-automated edited. More specifically "Automated or partially automated editing processes, known as "bots", must be harmless and useful, have approval, use separate user accounts, and be operated responsibly.". Underlining is mine. - Hydroxonium (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The restriction says he is supposed to manually review every edit, which should eliminate actual bots. The restriction would not prevent him from getting approval to run a bot if he follows he usual process, but it would make it less likely for him to run a bot from his main account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I'd misread it. That does seem about right then. GF manual editing is indeed "bursty" in just that way. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Support editing restrictions. I became aware of this discussion after visiting his talk page to see if he made any response to my post there about his closures of RfD discussions (user talk:Mhiji#RfD closings). Related to this and other comments in this thread, I'm wondering if restricting him to a maximum of a single nomination per day at each XfD process (with no more than 1 group nomination every 2 days) would be appropriate? I'd also explicitly restrict him from closing any discussion before the standard time period has elapsed, and from closing (at any time) any discussion in which he has taken part. Thryduulf (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support the edit restrictions. - Hydroxonium (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to see Mhiji's response before I can make a Support/Oppose decision on this. What (s)he using a bot, AWB, etc.? →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣←

• I have asked him that in my explanation of his block but he has not replied, or edited at all, since being blocked. Is AWB capable of 44 edits in one minute? JohnCD (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, if you just click "save" when each page comes up and don't actually look at the changes it's making. 28bytes (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• However, Mhiji does not seem to be on the list of approved AWB users, unless I'm missing it. 28bytes (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I Support the editing restrictions since there is really no possible explanation, besides a bot, to make these edits. But, if the user makes no attempt the be unblocked, I don't see why we should grant it. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 19:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support edit restrictions, since the edits don't have "AWB" at the end of them, they weren't made with AWB. Might we need to curb his/her use of Twinkle? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  Not necessarily. AWB is an open-source project, so for anyone with the right development tools it would not be hard to hack AWB to produce a version which omitted the word "AWB" from the edit summaries and allowed it to run unattended without a bot flag. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support edit restrictions. I have noticed several sprees of spurious edits from Mhiji, and a tendency not to want to talk about them. After watchlisting his/her talk page last fall, I have seen a steady stream of vexed comments come through there (and many laudatory ones as well - Mhiji does do good work). It seems that restrictions may be necessary to get the community point across that discussion is not optional when it comes to mass edits. The Interior(Talk) 06:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)