Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive593

User:Bbriwiki in violation of WP:ORGNAME, WP:COI
appears to be a SPA whose sole goal on-wiki seems to be the creation of Barat Bioinformatics Research Rnstitute (sic), the company associated with the username. I have already CSD'd the page per A7 and told them our policies on advertisement, but it appears the username itself is unacceptable. Could an admin please review? Thank you, Throwaway85 (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Username issues go to WP:UAA and COI reports to WP:COIN. Since you've discussed the issues and they continue to edit, I'd likely make the issue known for community consensus at WP:RFC/N. NJA (t/ c)  09:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, as I mentioned to Toddst1, I knew there was a more appropriate forum, but couldn't remember where. I'll take the matter up at UAA.  Thanks Nja. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Tadija
has been engageing in incivility and false accusations, sayng I'm a sockpuppet for another user,, who Tadija has been also incivil too.

Nothing could be further from the truth - I'm not a sock for anyone, certainly not Human Rights Believer who is notorious for edit wars on other users. Please see my page user:apm2007 for the false accusation. Tadija is a Serbian nationlist who always pushes Serb POV in edits. Many thanks2007apm (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anyone want to confirm or deny the link between the two users? There is nothing suspicious, but nothing killing any suspicion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)page
 * I had called for a checkuser SPI on User talk:Tadija, however I note from my page 2007apm Tadija has withdrawn the accusation. I therefore consider this issue closed and request that no further action be taken by an admin.  Many thanks 2007apm (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that a very stern warning should be given to Tadija. When I blocked Human Rights Believer he was fairly dancing in the streets about my action, which I have to say I am less than impressed about. See User talk:Tbsdy lives. Mjroots has since warned him about being appropriate. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My concerns was just because of these edits by :


 * Evlekis, in my opinion your last comment was an agresssive personal attack on Human Rights Beliver and inappropreiate on wikipedia. Please refrain Same revert as blocked user, with similar way of addressing (Please refrain)
 * Kosovo note removal
 * Kosovo note removal


 * After being warned multiple times on his talk page (User_talk:2007apm). Same way of disrespecting the advices and notices was reason for being blocked. I didn't say even one word to HRB, and my previews ways of editing can be check with admin .  was accused of WP:DE by other editors, and temporary blocked indef.


 * Also, is trying to make problems for me here. I think that this is incivility and wiki stalking. It looks like wiki stalking is my personal filed of knowledge, as all my previous problem were wiki stalking by, and his numerous socks, as , or  can confirm. Even this action is questionable for me. Why  wanted admin assistance regarding my suspicions? Why is that important to anyone by him, or me? At the end, as you can see, i stopped reverting  questionable edits, as someone else already did it.


 * At the end, i am asking all that think that i did something wrong to address me, so we can together find best possible solution that we all agree for. That should be the way of wiki, isn't it? :) Sorry for any possible insults, it was far from my main idea. --Tadija (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly Tadija, a self proclaimed Serb nationalist (he even has a Serb flag on his page), is always pushing pro-Serb POV.
 * Secondly he engages, as some kind of lone warrior in an edit war against multiple editors http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paka%C5%A1tica&action=history


 * Secondly, although he accuses me of wiki stalking him, in fact he has been wikistalking me, look at my talk page.


 * Thirdly, although Tadija has cleared his talk page talk, a review of his block log pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ATadija shows he has a bad record.


 * Although Tadija claims to have been the innocent victim of wiki stalking by Sarandioti, I wonder if Tadija's agressive style was the cause of Sarandioti's so called stalking.


 * I would therefroe ask that Tadija be banned from editing my talk page and Kosovo related articles for two weeks. Many thanks  Andrew 2007apm (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I recommend you two stop going at each other on this noticeboard, and let others look into the situation. You aren't going to solve anything by both continuing to argue and argue your case here, but you might both be blocked, so I suggest you take a step back and let others look in a judge for themselves.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 00:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As i told earlier, i am open for any kind of problem solving! I didn't want to argue, just was writing explanation of my actions. And, i am inviting to solve any possible problem with me, here, on my, or users talk page. --Tadija (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

2007apm is blocked indef as a sock of User:Emperordarius, a highly disruptive user. - Tadija (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with user persistently adding links to disambig page
is ignoring perfectly civil posts I am making to his/her talk page. This user's first contribution was to create an article Resourcing, but this was quickly redirected by another user (correctly in my opinion) to Resource (disambiguation). This user attempted to discuss at Talk:Resourcing thus acknowledging that the redirect had taken place. All subsequent contributions - more than fifty - have been to link the term resourcing in every and any article where it can be found. I spotted this edit pattern earlier today and attempted to engage through the user's talk page. Despite this the user has continued to add the link to other pages (around six as I write this) and has not responded in any way via his/her or my talk page. Can someone else intervene and remind this user that linking to disambiguation pages as he/she is doing is not the correct way to do things. It might also be worth pointing out that it isn't the right thing to add wikilinks to closed discussions such as this edit. Thanks. --Simple Bob (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's got to the point of vandalism now. That FAC is a good example; he basically seems to have googled "resourcing" on en-wiki and linked it, regardless of what it is referring to. I suggest a 24h block to start with, escalating if he doesn't get the hint. Ironholds (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As you can see he/she is still continuing to make the edits.--Simple Bob (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User notified of this discussion, something that really ought to have been done by you, Simple Bob, when you brought the issue here. BencherliteTalk 11:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As you can see from the user's tak page I was in the process of doing that... --Simple Bob (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Short-term block, since he wouldn't listen. Once he responds on his talkpage, can somebody please gently and patiently explain to him again why those links weren't proper? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have once again had to revert an edit by who put numerous links to the Resourcing dab page from on this occasion Chartered Institute of Personnel and  Development here and here although I have also reverted similar edits from related humanities orientated articles and have now put a warning note on his/her user page with some encouragement to stop. Then noticed in one of the earlier posts on his page that it had been already raised here and he had been blocked previously. There seems to been no attempt by the editor to respond to the most recent requests either on his own page or here to explain his editing rationale, but I will point him here again to give him a opportunity to explain. Tmol42 (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PS I see an attentive Admin has already taken action, thanks.Tmol42 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Love19886
I'm reporting this user for being un co-operative, for providing mis-leading content, disputing the references  provided, and for harbouring promotional content to suit its needs, while proper references provided by me to improved the article on the List of FC Barcelona records and statistics are ignored. Judging on its controversial edit history in wikipedia, it is possible that it could be a sockpuppetry account and is only used to distrupt articles. Nciqu (talk) 19:54 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reporting this IP account, it could be link to that users' accounts. It is possible that there are accounts link to this user, because most of its edits are the same. Nciqu (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reporting this IP account for vandalizing my talk page with NPOV and removing references on the List of FC Barcelona records and statistics and possibly a sockpuppet account by this user. This issue or dispute needs to be resolved. Nciqu (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for article protection for List of FC Barcelona records and statistics
I think this article should be protected for a few days, to settle down the edit disputes, until all disputes are solved. Its strange how "Point of views" has over-powered this article, its like "point of views" are correct, while "references" are seen as incorrect. Nciqu(talk) 12:20 25 January, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're in quite the edit war with a user, and at least one IP user. I'll gently warn you about WP:3RR as well.  If you feel there's sockpuppetry afoot, then WP:SPI is thataway, and page protection is thisaway.  Page protection is not going to help you in your dispute with another registered editor, not should it ever be percieved as an attempt to do so. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I will add: please read WP:VANDAL, the edits by one of the IP addresses do not come close to meeting the definition of vandalism - they appear to be an attempt to address the issue with the information that was being added. We work on consensus and communication.  I have also noted that I do not see anywhere that you have advised either Love or others that they are being discussed here at WP:ANI.  Communication works both ways. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you. Nciqu(talk) 12:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, responded while the above convo was taking place. I've warned all involved about WP:3RR and locked the page for a week. Further edit-warring when protection expires will lead to blocks (I'll keep the page watchlisted), so I strongly encourage you all to work our your content differences on the talk page. Failing that, see dispute resolution for some ideas of how to proceed. EyeSerene talk 12:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, once again thank you. Nciqu(talk) 13:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode and good hand/bad hand
''Archiving this now. Only issue still under discussion was prodding of unsourced BLPs by Unitanode, but per this it seems Unitanode will not be continuing that for the time being, so not really any need for administrative action or further discussion.'' --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This has recently been brought to my attention on my talk page(User_talk:Chillum). I am seeking outside scrutiny as I have already involved myself in what is essentially a content dispute. The short form of the story is that User:Unitanode started a rather aggressive proding effort towards BLP articles lacking references. Me and a few other editors made comments to the effect that he was being a bit careless in his application of prod tags. He has since created a new account and has been using that to add prod's to the same type of article.

The new account is User:Unitasock and the name is clearly chosen to not hide the fact that he is the same person. My concern is that he is effectively hiding these edits from anyone who has asked him to stop doing this. While seeing "Unitasock" makes it clear that it is Unitanode, those that know Unitanode have no way of knowing about Unitasock. My previous discussion with this user on the matter of prodding was not very productive so I am not leaving it to others to look at this issue.

I will reserve personal judgment other than saying it gives me pause for concern and leave it up to folks not involved in the current unreferenced BLP deletion content dispute(you know who you are). Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to correct the details as it was me that brought it to Chillums attention, the alternative account is marked as such and is not new as such, it is from Aug 2009, but it was the way unitanode moved from his main account when he was requested to stop to the alternative account in what looks like an attempt to continue with his actions without attracting attention to his main account. Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the correction. My primary point was not the creation of the account but rather the manner in which the editing switched over when such editing was criticized. It gives at the very least the appearance of avoiding scrutiny. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 01:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I will recuse from further comment here, since I've had interaction with the editor in the last few days of which i idn;t think too much, but this look like blatant "good hand, bad hand" socking and bordering on trolling. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat?   01:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Respectfully request that the second account be retired. Durova 403 01:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)co

Brief explanation
I'm doing my best to work on a significant problem in the project. I have no problem with people coming behind me and working through the list to try to source these articles. Unit Anode  02:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) My criteria for placing the tag is, does it have sources of any kind? If no, I tag it. If yes, I quickly check them, to make certain it's not just a fan blog or something of that sort.
 * 2) If it has a source, I stub-ify the article to only the bare facts of the subject's notability, and remove the "unsourced" tag.
 * 3) The reason I use Unitasock, is because it's contribution list is easier to cut-and-paste so as to create a holding area for the articles I've worked on (both PROD tags placed, and other work).
 * 4) As someone mentioned here, I'm not trying to hide anything, as I'm keeping a log of my work on the Unitanode userpage, and a subpage listing all articles I've worked on.


 * Why did you move to your alternative account? Off2riorob (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Read #3 again. I use it because it makes it easier to keep a running log of my work. The Special:contributions list is basically uncluttered there, so it's easier to cut-and-paste from. Nothing sinister or nefarious about it. Unit  Anode  02:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a fair explanation, and sorry to have speculated otherwise here. I'm not the one who brought the report and I would not have on the sole issue of having two accounts.  I would encourage everyone to consider this particular question settled (but not necessarily the issue of prodding articles). - Wikidemon (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass-prodding
I also note that Unitanode and his sock have been warned not to engage in indiscriminate mass-prodding of unsourced BLPs pending the outcome of WP:RFC/BLP and has at this point announced that an intention to continue even though expecting to be brought to AN/I and blocked for it, and refuses to discuss the matter further. I am currently spot checking the latest round of PRODs, and will report back shortly on what the false positive rate seems to be. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) - viable nomination, could not easily find sources, appears to be non-notable.  No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
 * 2) - viable nomination - few sources and notability could reasonably be questioned.  No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
 * 3) - viable nomination, could not easily find sources, appears to be non-notable.  No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
 * 4) - bad nomination, clearly notable and easily sourceable.  No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
 * 5) - bad nomination, appears notable with hundreds (per google, which usually overstates) of foreign language news sources.  Weak stub article, but no obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
 * 6) - bad nomination, appears notable with many news sources.  Very short stub article with no material that could possibly be considered controversial.
 * 7) - bad nomination, appears notable with many news sources.  No plausible controversial information.

I could go on but that's enough to convince me that most of these PRODs will not stand under the current deletion policy. That policy is being actively tested and debated at the RfC, and in the likely event that we do end up requiring all BLP articles to be sourced we will have an orderly procedure for making that happen. Making mass disputed content edits (or depending on how you look at it, mass invocation of procedure) while the policy is under active debate is pretty disruptive. On the mitigating side Unitanode has made only 20-30 nominations in this latest round, and none so far after being warned or after this report started. However, given the editor's announced intention not to stop unless made to do so, it pretty much forces either a block or an acceptance that an indefinite number of articles will now be prodded, which is either going to have to be undone, or if it stands would render the many editors' efforts at RfC moot. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I have removed your "resolved" tag because this is not resolved. Using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny most certainly is an admin issue and can require action. If you wish to give an opinion on this matter then please do, but I see no basis for resolving this mere minutes after it was posted. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 01:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * At 23,49 tonight Unitanode made this comment on Lar's talkpage.. I'm not sure either. I'm prepared to have my block log sullied for this, though, as it's the right thing to do. Chillum is making it pretty clear that if I continue, he's going to block me. Not in so many words, but that's what's going to happen. UnitAnode ...at 23.50, one minute later he started to edit and prod under the alternative account. A clear case of delibrate avoidance. Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To be clear I have no intention of blocking anyone I am involved in a content dispute with, I only said to him if he edit warred to replaced the prod tag and continued beyond warnings that the result would be a block, but not from me. He has not to my knowledge edit warred to replace any prod tags yet, I was responding to his hypothetical respond to them being removed. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 01:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the timing and the actions, the account they're expecting to be sullied with a block is the alternate account, so it does appear to be using an alternate bad hand account to avoid scrutiny. There has been considerable discussion about this editor's civility on this issue as well, so there seems to be an overall breakdown in collaboration with other editors.  - Wikidemon (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC) stricken by Wikidemon in light of explanation given above

Would you please stop trying to archive an active discussion less than 30 minutes old? It is very rude and clearly the matter is not resolved(you can tell because people are still talking). Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 01:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Refusal to listen to concerns about editing behaviour makes Unitanode ideal admin material, and he'll probably be an Arb this time next year. DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am seriously getting sick of your sniping. The above comment is unhelpful and unnecessary. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of genuinely disruptive unhelpful and unnecessary behaviour going on, I suggest you concentrate on that. DuncanHill (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I suggest that you stop sniping - if you have specific concerns please start a new thread. Your comment above is not helpful in this discussion. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Something needs to happen here, Unitanode is again saying on his talkpage that he needs to get back to work and how it is some massive problem and there are 50 000 more to prod, at least he is keeping a list, I worked through the top half in a couple of hours and cited them all, some of them were clearly very notable people, very multiple external links supporting content, none of them were derogatory or libelous in any way. If this mission is continued we will fast become swamped with the work it is creating. Off2riorob (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody explain exactly what the problem is here? --TS 01:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to be a gadfly, but doesn't the recent ArbCom decision at least implicitly condone the actions he is taking? --  At am a  頭 01:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Resp to TS) Avoiding scrutiny, or operating a Good Hand/Bad Hand account? Not that this is necessarily the case, but the basis upon which other inhabitants of this board might review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I should hope they're not encouraging systematic rule-breaking. It would be best if this issue can be handled here and doesn't have to go back to Arbcom so quickly.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, if a quorum here finds that the user in question is performing "good hand, bad hand" tactics to avoid scrutiny and is being apparently careless in prodding (which upon inspection, I believe to be the case), we're well within our rights to stop the action if deemed disruptive. While I'm sure we're gonna' get a lot of "arbcom said this!" to excuse behavior, careless deletion and prodding wastes people's time and is disruptive, "good intentions" aside. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really condoning this action, that as I read it said, people should take their time and policy still applies, users should not systematically prod uncited blp articles, care should be taken in all aspects of editing, for example Unitanode prodded Paul-Marie Coûteaux this article, he is clearly notable. Prodding should not be done willy nilly like this, an editor should still take a little time to improve it first. Off2riorob (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Anybody tried asking? There's loads of possible reasons, editing from different locations, maintaining a separate watchlist etc. There is certainly no subterfuge over whom the account belongs to.  pablo hablo. 01:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe that belongs in the above subsection where the socking is being discussed? ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear what the issue is with Unitanode putting PROD tags on things. Especially given the analysis above being a bit off the mark, it's not about whether the article COULD be sourced, it's about whether it HAS them... were there any that were prodded that actually were well sourced?

I am also unclear why anyone (with sufficient clue, anyway) would want to, at this time, remove PROD tags from unsourced BLPs without fixing them. I suggest that to do so would be really poor form, to say the least. I suggest folk not do it. Show the nasty BLP crusaders a thing or two about how wrong headed they are... by actually fixing things that have sat around for years unfixed instead of hanging out here on the dramahboards. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * @Lar, why the rush to PROD al 50,000 of them? Indiscriminate PRODding is frankly clueless. Surely it's due diligence to actually read the article and check any external links for something that establishes notability and, if none is found, to check for some and check the history and whatlinkshere before slapping a PROD on it. Judging by the speed and inaccuracy of Unitanode's tagging, I find it hard to believe that he's doing any of those things. I agree that many need to be deleted but mass-PRODding all of them does nothing to help this mess. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat?   02:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which of his PRODs lacked sources as of when they were PRODded? That's the issue, not whether they COULD be sourced. Not his problem. All the articles I deleted and PRODded in the last few days did not have acceptable (in most cases, ANY) references. I checked the history of each one before I deleted it. I did not just run a bot. I skipped articles in the category that seemed to have sources. It's not my job to ADD sources. The COMMUNITY had 3 years to do that. I was just cleaning up a little. And now, many of the articles, once we imposed a bit of an actual deadline, have been sorted out. That's goodness. You need to rethink things a bit. ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First off being an unreferenced BLP last I checked was not a reason for deletion. Secondly prod is to check if something is uncontroversial to delete, this is clearly not the case. Finally the real issue seems to be Uni's insistence that he will re-prod any articles that the prod is removed from, and his flat out refusal to spend a mere 5 minutes checking if the article is salvagable. Arbcom does not dictate policy, only motions so unless consensus changes then neither should policy. Unless arbcom comes along and makes a motion that Uni is doing right I think we should just follow consensus. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 02:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you need to check again. ANY unsourced material is subject to removal, and if nothing remains so is the article. ArbCom recently passed a motion validating this but it's not new news. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see editors systematically adding prods to blps as crusaders of any kind, a robot could do that, something worthwhile is adding a reference to an uncited article, a robot couldn't do that. Off2riorob (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * since the user has a criteria, it cannot - by definition - be indiscriminate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I was going to say. Hasty, perhaps, but not indiscriminate. --  At am a  頭 02:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Off: "crusaders" Me either. Obligated to do something that's needed doing for 3 years? Not me. Try again. ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was able to add information and references to Hiroshi Abe (astronomer), Makio Akiyama, Akufen, Gianne Albertoni and Karl Alpiger. Joanna Ampil is not tagged anymore. Information is online regarding Theophilus Adeleke Akinyele, but it requires subscription access. Warrah (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's very simple. Arbcom, with a handful of admin allies like Lar, have decided to say "fuck you" to community processes. Like Lar, they are not interested in adding sources to articles. Some people get their kicks from destroying rather than creating, and it's pointless trying to change them because they've got the biggest sticks. DuncanHill (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm. you forgot to mention those who like to remain complacent... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope we can avoid too much meta-conversation about what the policy is and should be. What is clear is that the policy is disputed right now, and there is a question about mass edits (and potentially use of tools) to favor a change in the status quo.  As far as the "three years" and "complacency" arguments there is an active WP:RFC/BLP going on, with almost unanimous agreement to work towards a defined date where there will be no more unreferenced BLPs, so it's simply not the case that nobody is doing anything about it.  Other pages are for policy work.  The concern here is editing that if carried out to a wider extent takes the decision away from the community.  - Wikidemon (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I read repeated references to "uncontroversial" statements that are not sourced not needing to be deleted; and I can't help but wonder how, exactly, one can possibly know whether a statement is uncontroversial without a source to back it up? For all you know, even a bare birthday can be both controversial and land someone in a mess, think longevity records, for instance, or current age where it has a legal impact? Birthplace? Obama anyone? "Afred J. Binks is the prime minister of Strangia". Uncontroversial? Or maybe it's "Alfred G. Binks", and J. is a serial murderer. The fact is, without a reliable source, any statement is impossible to declare "uncontroversial". Notability has nothing to do with it. &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A genuine question


 * Coren, go and click the random article button. Keep clicking it until you find any non-trivial article where every single basic fact is traceable to an inline, immediately verifiable, obviously reliable, source, that makes that article, by your standards, 100% uncontroversial. I am guessing you will still be clicking by the middle of next week, and beyond, especially if you fixed each one as you went. If this is the true issue, prodding unreffed blps is not the solution, or even the start of a solution. MickMacNee (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Or even just flipping through FAs would be an interesting exercise. MickMacNee (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * More to the point, having a source doesn't make the statement any more reliable. Many of the best sources are behind paywalls, or in books.  And lots of editors misrepresent sources, some intentionally, others through good faith misunderstanding.  The only articles that are well sourced are the controversial ones, the ones in which you have two large groups of editors fighting tooth and nail over every source, what it means, and how much weight should be placed on it.  Sourcing is one step.  Having the article reviewed is another step.  But it's all a continuum.  And pretending that adding a source suddenly draws a bright line between acceptable and unacceptable is fallacious.  Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * MickMacNee, Coren would eventually come across Charles Fryatt . Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Every single fact in every single article should be supportable by the sources cited for that article, per WP:V and WP:RS (and by extension WP:NPOV). That does not mean that every sentence needs footnoting, if we have a couple of biographies cited then most of the background detail will come from them and does not need to be separately footnoted unless there is something unusual like a dispute, a fact only in one of several sources or a "WTF?" where the reader is likely to want to verify that specific statement. I do foresee a problem in those articles on individuals for whom Wikipedia is the first formal published biography and all the content is drawn from news reports and discussions of the individual's work. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to deduce my views on what should be done about subjects where we are the first to cover them in depth. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As a point of order, I personally believe that most every fact should, ideally, be sourced and not just sourceable. That would generate quite a few footnotes to be sure.  Until that happens I'd leave the burden on editors wanting sources to question in good faith whether an uncited claim may in fact be problematic, rather than saying we should delete 90%+ of the content in the project.  - Wikidemon (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The source of Coren's question may be found here in the Soxred edit history report on his contributions and here in his edit history. Coren has only 1339 mainspace edits, total, in his entire editing history.  His most recent 500 article edits stretch back to December 2007, and since becoming an arbitrator in January 2009 he has made exactly 73 mainspace edits.  That's an average of less than two article edits a week, including minor edits.  Coren, the answer to your genuine question is firsthand experience.  Spend five hours a week on the back end of new pages patrol and encounter the unreferenced soccer biographies that might be inaccurate but certainly aren't pejorative.  And if you can't manage five hours a week from your busy arbitration schedule, take a leave of absence from arbitration.  It is vital that arbitrators not fall out of touch.  Durova 403 16:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, I hadn't made the connection that this odd stamement was made by an arbcom member. Indeed it is reminiscent of the perhaps mythologized anecdotes of the American president baffled by the new technology at the grocery store or the Supreme Court justice who had ruled on the issue many times who was shocked upon having finally to deal with the American health care crisis when a hospital initially refused treatment because they could not find her insurance record.  If "subject to challenge if someone chose to do so" or "possibly incorrect" were a standard for what makes something controversial, then the word itself lacks definition.  Everything under the sun is controversial by that standard, and sourcing would not change that.  Personally, I have no problem reading a sentence to assess whether the factual claims made are problematic.  For the vast majority of sentences it's pretty clear whether they are controversial or not.  For cases where it's not clear on the surface, that's why humans talk and why Wikipedia has talk pages.  - Wikidemon (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A very serious but mostly ignored matter is the sourcing "standard" being used by some proposing and performing mass deletions. For instance, we are informed that labelling an otherwise acceptable reference, supporting most of the article, under "Further reading" instead of "References" is a deletion-worthy flaw., that not fixing all categories and templates is equally cause for deletion/userification, and that the deleting admin is apparently the sole judge of what constitutes a reliable source, even though the source has a long history of debate at WP:RS/N with mixed results, sometimes yes, sometimes no..John Z (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sourcing "Standard"
 * Suck it up dude or don't edit here! Stewarts can do whatever they want these days, it's WP:IAR or WP:BLP or just WP:LAR... Pcap ping  09:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Stewards are reconfirmed every year. You could post your comment here. Ruslik_ Zero 13:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an idea. But my point was more to show how remarkable and potentially destructive some proclaimed sourcing standards are.  By the way, I am not the similarly named editor in these diffs.John Z (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly does my being a steward have to do with anything? Pcap especially seems to be way off in the weeds. ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Lar has now made a thread on Wikipedia Review ridiculing people that signed the petition against the abuse of WP:IAR. He's acting with the same disdain for the community as User:Scott MacDonald. Presumably, he'll also get a personal thank you note from Jimbo soon. Pcap ping  08:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My issue
I don't have an issue with Unitanode prodding unsourced BLP's - It's valuable work that he's doing. I do however have issue with him prodding articles and not notifying the original author - This is standard practice and simple good manners. Uni should take the extra minute to notify authors - they may even decide to source the articles.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've figured out a way to solve that problem, Ryan. Twinkle has an auto-notfiy function, which I'm taking advantage of in my work. Before this, I'd never used any of the gadgets, so thanks to Xeno for pointing out how Twinkle can be used in this regard. Unit  Anode  21:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As well as notification, it'd also be good if Unitanode learned how to do Google searches and add sources to articles, or is assessing notability and adding sources "someone else's problem?". Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gee, has anyone considered that maybe the author should source an article before posting it to live space? I know it sounds whacky, but some authors actually do it. Or do these authors just think that is "someone else's problem" too? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just stop. I have a holding area for unsourced BLPs that I've worked on. If you wish to save them, look them up. If you wish to observe my skill at referencing articles I write myself, there's a list of them on my userpage. I'm under no obligation to do an article writer's research for him. Unit  Anode  00:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Unitanode and Niteshift36 - the onus for references is on the editor who added them, not others to do it for them. Though of course, if you know the reference then it's good to add it in... - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The onus for references is on everyone, and if you really cared about the encyclopedia, you would follow WP:BEFORE before prodding/AfD'ing. The editor who starts an article has no special status, there are no article owners. A wiki works by each one improving the work of each other, step by step. To argue otherwise is completely against the very basic concept of a wiki, every wiki, not only WP. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  13:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that's a nice philosophy, but not terribly realistic. What your summary boils down to is that it is everyones responsibility, but also nobodys responsibility. "Everyone" is supposed to do it, but when someone fails to do it when writing an article, who cares? Nobody says a word to the author, but they want to jump all over an editor that takes it on himself to follow the policy that any unsourced material in a BLP should be removed. If none of it is sourced, then no article should be there. And no, an author doesn't own the article. I didn't say any such thing. But they DO have a responsibility to source it. Just because you are willing to give them a pass and allow them to totally abdicate any responsibility for following policy doesn't mean all of us will. And while you're throwing around the "if you really care" line, consider that some might feel that caring is ridding the site of unsourced articles that can detract from the legitimacy of wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cyclopia, carefully with the "you" comments. I've never even once PRODed an article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ouch, sorry. I meant it as a generic impersonal "you", but I understand the problem. My sincere apologies, I lost a bit of cool probably. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  15:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we please encourage Unitanode to stop?
I've de-prodded several of Unitanode's recent nominations, which (after examination - I did not do this blindly) were bad in that they were not remotely deletable under current policy. Can we please encourage Unitanode to stop, and block find some way to restrain the editor temporarily to avoid further disruption to the project if they continue? This deliberate provocation has gone past making a WP:POINT and just seems to be ongoing trouble now. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I second this one. Cleaning up after Unitanode has gotten extremely tiring. Among the editors doing the mass-prodding, Unitanode is the only one so far who's so indiscriminate he might as well be a bot. If he were a bot, I'd have long since asked for an emergency block. Ray  Talk 15:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I must concur. I'm willing to make the assumption that the PRODs are being made in good faith, but being an unsourced BLP is not a criteria for deletion and many of these subjects are notable. slowing down on the PRODs and taking time to look for sources cannnot be a bad thing. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat?   16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I won't be stopping. BLP requires that these articles be reliably-sourced. If you're willing to look up and add the sources, do so. I'm doing it my way, you do it yours. But if "yours" includes deprodding unsourced BLPs without adding sources, I would recommend you stop, as that is far worse than any supposed (and imagined) disruption of which you seem to be accusing me. Unit  Anode  21:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are asked to stop you will be stopping Unitanode. Prodego  talk  21:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I won't be. Unit  Anode  22:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This isnt a matter of "I can do things my way, you do things your way". Unitanode, this is a matter of you being overzealous and applying your own interpretation of our policies upon everyone's articles. It's one thing to have your own opinion about policy and how it should be implemented, it is another to actually implement your opinion on your own. It clearly seems the majority is against your interpretation. If something is notable it is notable, being poorly sourced doesnt make it non-notable; it is clearly stated in policy that creating or adding to an article without knowing our "way of doing things" or our "proper procedure" does NOT invalidate a contribution. What you are doing is in fact saying "do it our way or dont contribute". If you dont like there being poorly sourced/unsourced BLP's, then YOU find sources for them; do not PROD them JUST because they are unsourced even though they are notable. If its notable it stays. Oh, and per IAR, Jimbo, and the very penumbra of every single policy in Wikipedia- NO the BLP policies dont REQUIRE that anyone MUST do anything; consensus determines what we may or may not do in each individual case based on consensus reached through common sense, which in this case has decided you are wrong on your interpretation.Camelbinky (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything close to a "majority" against what I'm doing. And even if there were, say, a 55-60% majority against it, that doesn't mean I need to stop. We're supposed to improve the project, even if a "majority" of the participants at ANI think I'm wrong. Unit  Anode  22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * UnitAnode continues to PROD unreferenced BLPs indiscriminately (apparently operating in something close chronological order by date of creation) after the above discussion. I've wasted about half an hour cleaining up perhaps 1/3 of the mess by selectively de-prodding some that did not appear to be viable PROD nominations and doing some assorted sourcing and improvements.  I do think it's time to do something at this point - failing that, or if anyone wants to edit war or wheel war, this will go to Arbcom because UnitAnode seems to make clear above that all requests to stop will be ignored.  Arbcom, if you look at the new wheel war case request, is taking a dim view of further provocation and use of administrative tools now that there is an RfC in place.  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A wheel war would only occur if someone unblocks without consensus. If there's good reason to unblock consensus will form.  Currently there are very strong indicators that a block would be preventative.  The continued indiscriminate prodding is consuming other people's time to review.  There's a historic precedent for the community taking action against an editor who systematically misuses prods and overwhelms the community's ability to correct inappropriate prods and provide references.  Durova 403 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I mention that for the benefit of an involved administrator who has encouraged UnitAnode and who said they would unblock if UnitAnode were blocked over this, in case they missed Arbcom's latest pronouncements on the subject. Arbcom has said that grand gestures involving tools could quite possibly could lead to a loss of tools.- Wikidemon (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A disruptive editor is an editor who rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.. Unitanode, this means you. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Eppstein, that was the quote I wanted to use but didnt know where to find it. It is probably one of the most important pieces of policy that should be spread around more often and listened to by those that think "policy says X so I can do X no matter what the rest of you think". Consensus of the community-at-large in any particular discussion trumps EVERYTHING WRITTEN DOWN. Think of us as one big giant US Supreme Court, ultimately it doesnt matter what words are specifically written down in the US Constitution and how its interpreted by any individual judge, the Constitution only "says" what the Supreme Court ultimately says it says. The Constitution says I have the freedom of speech, the Supreme Court says that doesnt apply to "yelling fire in a crowded movie theater". Same with this situation, policy may or may not encourage or "say" you must (or can) PROD every single BLP that has poor sources/unsourced; but we the community says "no you cant because its disruptive". I hope this was a good analogy.Camelbinky (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitasock, please, please stop. This edit removed valuable information about Bob Elliott a nationally famous actor for decades, and the information removed was stuff like "he wrote a book" and "he starred in this TV show", where the best possible sources are the book and the TV show. There is no way that is improving the project. For the love of whatever deity you follow, stop. --GRuban (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No sign of moderation Last bad PROD at 22:58, last refusal to stop 0:35.  Editor is flatly disregarding warnings by administrators.  It seems it will go on indefinitely absent a block.  Can we get some indication whether anyone is willing to do that or whether this should go directly to Arbcon? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And now thirteen deletion nominations for articles that had PROD tags removed, most with a deletion reason that accuses me of something. Could someone speedily close them all or just undo the nominations?  Allowing them to run seven days will waste hours of editors' time each, and I don't want to have to defend myself or follow that many deletion discussions for clearly notable people.  Thanks,  - Wikidemon (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I "accused" you of nothing. It was a simple statement of what had happened: you deprodded without any attempt to source them. It's a FACT, not an accusation. Unit  Anode  02:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting the situation and you know it. As I have said several times I selectively removed PROD nominations from articles that appear sourceable, verifiable, without any obvious BLP violations, and well-enough written that the material is usable.  If you have a legitimate reason to claim in good faith that they are deletable under current policy you are free to nominate them for deletion, but that does not seem to be the case.  Just so you know, you are upsetting me here.  Per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA please don't use your AfD nominations as a forum to take potshots like that against me. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unitanode, even granting that every single thing you are doing is a positive contribution improving the encyclopedia, this can still be disruptive. Adding a million perfect articles about notable topics would be a great improvement, but not if done at a speed that would crash the servers. The volunteers here are no less a part of wikipedia than the computers it uses, and if one contributor's actions are exhausting many others' ability to keep up, it is time to stop.John Z (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Have any of you bothered to read my userpage, where I explain my rationale, including how I decide to add a PROD, other work I do on these articles, etc.? I've PRODed about 160 articles in four fucking days! How is that disruptive in any way?!? I've done other types of work, including quickly formatting references as well as other things, to 60 or 70 articles. That there are itchy trigger fingers trying to block me for this is a sign of just how much of a dramapit ANI has become. It's more than a bit pathetic. Unit  Anode  02:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read your rationale. Might I, respectfully, suggest try looking for sources before you tag an article though? As I said at the RfC, in an hour, I've sourced 7 BLPs, taken one to AfD and prodded 2. I've come across Tour de France champions, former head of government and Olympic medalists by hitting "random page in this category". It take a little longer, but it's more rewarding. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat?   02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Mostly copied from talk page) I think the proof is the number of people who have asked you to slow down; a consensus or pretty near. The human servers are straining, and particularly about your edits. What you are doing could be OK and handleable in a normal context, but this is an extremely high load period. Every system dealing with such edits is extremely, unprecedentedly overloaded at the moment. In this context it makes good sense to start looking at the leading strains on the system first, even if they might not be enough to strain the system in normal times. I've seen people blocked in normal times for violating community norms about prodding who worked at a much slower rate than 160 in 4 days.  You aren't working in a vacuum, but in a collaborative project.John Z (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting unsourced or poorly sourced statements from BLPs is within policy. People need to internalize that. Deleting entire BLPs if they consist of nothing but unsourced or poorly sourced statements is within policy. People need to internalize that too. ArbCom gave a pretty clear ruling about this in the recent motion. Everyone who isn't clear should go review it. HOWEVER, in the interests of working to find a more optimal solution than mass deletion (even if that mass deletion is supported in policy, which it is), Unitanode is using PROD instead. Anyone who removes a PROD without sourcing the article acceptably, is, in my view, going against the spirit of policy, even if they think they have the letter of policy on their side. I suggest you not do that. Unitanode's (much milder than say, seeking a block, or starting an arbcom case, both of which are certainly within reason as valid responses) response has been to put the articles up for deletion instead. This is completely acceptable.

I'm seeing a disturbing pattern here of threats and harrassment of Unitanode. That needs to stop because it is completely unacceptable. If you see him making mistakes, point that out gently and kindly, but ... lead, follow, or get out of the way. "Can we please encourage Unitanode to stop?" says the section head... no... we should encourage him to continue and find ways to help him. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally think PRODing is disruptive if you dont go by the criteria and follow "good practice" suggestions like finding sources yourself before PROD. That's not the question here though. Alot of us think you need to simply stop prodding everything you see that has no sources. Having no sources is not a reason to delete; being non-notable is the only reason I can think of that is even remotely related to not being sourced, but you dont need any sources to tell you whether or not something is notable. An unsourced article about Albert Einstein would still be notable... because he is notable... its inherent to the subject, not to the sources to "prove" it to you or anyone else. If an article exists and you dont recognize its notable LOOK IT UP; if you dont find anything that shows its notable in your due diligence THEN you might want to PROD it or take the issue to the most relevant Wikiproject mentioned on the talk page, or see if you get a response from anyone who has worked on the article. Yes, it takes time and means you have work to do... Oh well. If it means that much to you to get rid of articles you'll do some work; if it isnt worth the work then maybe you shouldnt be deleting articles. The benefit of all this is to slow you down and hopefully make you realize yourself if an article truly needs to be deleted instead of you tagging everything you find and making others sort out the truth about notability. This isnt a case of Kill them all; let God sort them out, we dont have a deity here who can sort out your PRODs quickly and save the Worthy.

No, deleting articles solely on the basis of unsourced is not consistent with our general policy that it is not required that you know our policy or procedure and that notability is main determinate NOT quality. Quality is NEVER an issue for deletion.Camelbinky (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want him to stop, just go ahead and revert... I have just been lectured on the fact that this kinda bullshit is a perfectly valid PROD-removal. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And he doesnt have the right to be doing things at a pace that overwhelms and creates undue work and stress on multiple users to "fix" his hasty decisions. The point is that a large group of editors has asked Unitanode to slow down, take a breath, and do some due diligence to relieve some pressure. Unitanode has shown contempt for this community request. This is plainly a violation of our policies as mentioned above.Camelbinky (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not "overwhelming" anyone. It's "annoying" some people who don't like it, and that's all. Unit  Anode  03:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it proper to assume good faith of the many above who have been trying to work collaboratively and say they are overwhelmed?John Z (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)like I said, go ahead and revert... you might wanna put "ahooha-oink, well-grown boink" in the edit-summary. Be creative, it's fun. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is clearly disruptive to a fair few editors, to me it is the way it is being pushed in the way it is as if this is the best and only way to deal with it, there is a clear division running through the wiki as to how this should be dealt with, and, it is going to continue and get worse as it does, presently about three percent of them have moved off the list, some were mass deleted and some have been moved to incubation but if this is what is going to happen it is going to get worse and continue for many weeks and editors are going to be destroyed. Off2riorob (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, tough titty says the kitty, as the saying goes. AN emphasis has been placed on deleting unsourced BLPs rather than mealy-mouthing around with incubators, rescue squads, etc...  ArbCom, Jimbo, a sprawling RfC, have all come down on getting rid of them.  If I had more free time, I'd be doing it myself. Tarc (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus of the community trumps all in any particular discussion. Quite a large number have asked Unitanode to slow down and do some due diligence of his own. Therefore he needs to. Thats what this is about. Nothing else. Alot of people have asked something, a consensus was formed, and now he has to conform to it or face consequences. It doesnt matter what ArbCom has said about BLPs, IAR tells me I dont have to give a crap, ArbCom doesnt make our policies or make decisions for us that bind on us, consensus of the community in Wikipedia on an issue trumps EVERYTHING that comes before it regardless of what ArbCom has said in the past or present. My personal opinion on what he does- Unitanode adds no benefit to Wikipedia in what he is doing because deleting without doing any research is lazy and is throwing the actual work on others to decide if something is notable or add information. Unitanode should do some real editing and ADD information to articles and find sources for articles that have none. If an article has no sources then that's not a problem for Wikipedia, if it has information that is libel or false or the subject is not notable is a problem and then PROD or stronger is required. Quality is not an issue and never is. We are a work in progress. How about making it better and help in the progress instead of just deleting anything that doesnt fit your criteria of being "good enough"?Camelbinky (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, if you disagree, start mass-reverting. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Camelbinky, you are sadly mistaken if you think a two-bit AN/I thread full of bellyachers trumps what I noted earlier. Tarc (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And that's why Wikipedia is failing. "Consensus" is the bigest joke there is on this site. If Arbcom has said something regardeing BLP's then we need to at least keep it in mind. Should'nt common sense trump all other arguments?-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  03:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As Tarc points out, consensus doesn't trump BLP. Unit  Anode  03:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ArbCom doesn't write policy. ;) Durova 403 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode is restricted from prodding articles

 * Should include AfD as well given recent nominations of articles after PROD failed - Wikidemon (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Until the Requests for comment/Biographies of living people is completed and firm rules are established, Unitanode is restricted from prodding articles.
 * Note: This nonsense will have to be supported by a block, as I don't plan on stopping the work I've been doing because Ikip and a few others don't like it. Unit  Anode  04:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer. This disruption has got to stop. Ikip 03:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per my above statement.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  03:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. The failure to follow WP:BEFORE makes indiscriminate prodding disruptive. THF (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know what "indiscriminate" means? What I'm doing is not even close to "indiscriminate." If you want some proof, simply go to my userpage, read my game plan, and click on the work I've already done. Unit  Anode  04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:BEFORE isn't policy, it's advice about process. WP:BLP is, and trumps it. ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I would be satisfied if he just slowed down and paid attention to the amount of deletion activity going on, and said he would listen when other people say they are overwhelmed.John Z (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * THAT's not an unreasonable request, I'd support that. As long as the requests to throttle back from people actually doing the work and not just the "we can do whatever we want and screw BLP policy" crowd. ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am very glad we can agree here, and I thank you for the unjustified compliment at Unitanode's talk page. Some of the hard workers who deserve it have requested restraint here.  I made a suggestion here that might help exploit system capacity a little better.John Z (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support unless someone finds a better solution per the discussion above and repeated unheeded requests on editor's talk page. We have a process under discussion to address the entire problem in an orderly fashion, and going it alone wastes a lot of people's productive time.  - Wikidemon (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose although as soon as the better process moves from from "under discussion" to implemented, then I expect Unitanode will stop on his own, and switch to the better process. There are a half dozen good alternatives, I'm not fussy which, but meanwhile there is harm being done every day by unsourced BLPs and time's a wasting. Unitanode is doing something about it, bravo for him. Ikip is a timewaster, and something ought to be done about it. ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Better to put an end to this without any further contentiousness.  Durova 403 04:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditionally oppose. The problem appears to have ended.  If it resumes then consider the support reinstated.  Let's all move on.  Durova 403 18:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Consensus elsewhere leans towards support of this user's actions, AN/I caterwauling notwithstanding. Tarc (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Guess I'll oppose, for obvious reasons having to do with BLP problems, and solving them rather than doing nothing. Unit  Anode  04:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Opposed to this kind of restriction for an activity that improves the encyclopedia overall. The RFC looks to be heading toward something similar to this in any case. Kevin (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Object per Kevin. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Both WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE strongly advocate trying to actually solve a problem prior to declaring it unsolvable and proding or deleting.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the simple reason that large numbers of people are doing the same thing and we've never ruled that simply listing something for deletion is improper. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support provided Unitanode doesn't promise to at least google the people whose biographies he wants to delete. Anybody proposing an article for deletion, at CSD, PROD, or AFD, has an elementary duty to check that the subject isn't, oh, the most famous expert in his field. Or a world leader. Or the most signficant pop star in half a continent. Expecting other people to clean up after the trail of destruction he's blazing is reckless, irresponsible, and extraordinarily rude. Ray  Talk 06:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:BEFORE, i.e. evidence must be demonstrated of having looked for sources and discussing with article creator before prodding any articles. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 08:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Nowhere is this written in policy. BLP however, is policy. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of those editors who wish that article to remain on wikipedia to ensure it is up the the required standards. Viridae Talk 09:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unsourced information in BLPs may be wrong, and if no-one can check what is wrong and what is right, it should go.  This improves Wikipedia.  Maybe restrict a bit so that the category does not overflow so massively that 'we' can't keep up with it, but it is still just prodding, anyone has 5 days to do something about it (maybe more if the deletion process can't keep up), and in the end, the admin who considers to delete it still can have a look.  For those articles which haven't been googled yet, you might want to help Unatinode in providing sources for those.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support This is a behavioural issue with this particular user; although I generally oppose using PROD as a means to resolve this issue, other editors appear to be able to do it without such a glaring number of false positives and a borderline-blockworthy attitude to good faith requests and correspondence. Orderinchaos 08:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Though I'd accept an assurance from this user that they will start checking for sources and only prod articles that they can't find references for. Not bothered about the use of an alternate account for this and I note with some relief that they are at least informing the authors.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose and shame on unethical people who are opposed to removing unsoruced, unwatched and unverified claims about living people.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support per WP:BEFORE and deletion policy, and because mass prodding does absolutely nothing to help BLPs. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  14:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So the fact that there are now dozens of previously unsourced BLPs that now have sources (based solely on the fact that I PRODed them "does absolutely nothing to help BLPs"? That seems ludicrous on its face. However, it's not at all a surprising claim, given the hysteria which some who oppose PRODing seem to approach the issue.  Unit  Anode  14:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not the PRODding that helped -it was who, scared by your PROD, added sources, that helped. You're basically pointing a gun to articles yelling: "Source it, or it dies!", at an unreasonable rate. I think we could make a lot of good things happen in real life this way -say, taking people in the street, pointing a gun at their children and yelling "Volunteer for charity, or I'll blow their head off!" but somehow I don't think it would be an appreciated solution. What would help is if you do your homework before PRODding and then PROD only those for which you can't find sources, sourcing the others. Then I'd understand your actions. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  14:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With this reply, I hope that everyone can see what I meant when I used the word "hysteria." A simple question, Cyclops: would the articles now be sourced if I had not PRODed them? A simple yes or no, without the killing children metaphors would be appreciated. Unit  Anode  15:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably no, but it is utterly irrelevant: mass PRODding without WP:BEFORE causes much more troubles than leaving the same articles unreferenced. But you don't seem to hear that. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  15:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not "probably no", but definitely no. Now, is it important to have sources in our BLPs? Again, a yes or no would be great. Dissembling is not really that helpful. Unit  Anode  15:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably no: you cannot have proof. About your question: It is more important to have the BLPs to work on, than to have sources, and it is more important to not clog the PROD process (making it essentially useless) and to do it following WP:BEFORE than to have these sources right now. In a few words: Unsourced BLPs are bad. Deleted BLPs just because someone fails to do homework and disrupted PROD are even worse. And no, I don't give simple "yes or no" answers to loaded questions. Things are not black or white. -- Cycl  o  pia  talk  16:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's madness. You just answered "probably no" to the question, "Is it important to have sources in our BLPs?" That statement alone makes the case that my actions are justified. As for having "disrupted PROD", that's just nonsense. The PRODs worked. Many eyes looked at the articles, and fixed the problems within a lot of them. If that is "disrupting PROD", then more people need to be doing it. Unit  Anode  16:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I answered "probably no" to your previous question about the addition of sources: you cannot say "definitely no", because you have no proof that sources wouldn't have been added, but it's a minor point (it's just to be pedantic, if you want). To your question about importance of sourcing, again, I answered that mass-prodding and making process unusable is way worse than unsourced BLPs. Again: pointing guns at people probably helps getting the work done, but it's not the correct way to get work done. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  17:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the RfC, Jimmy Wales has proposed giving as much as nine months to fix these articles. Most people willing to endorse a BLP-PROD solution also want time to fix it.  Perhaps you should actually listen to the community rather than unnecessarily disrupting various processes because you don't like the community's timelines.  You will probably get your way eventually, but you are basically screaming "I want it now, now, now, now, now!"  Resolute 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support at least until an actual arbitration case is accepted by ArbCom to clarify the "BLP motion." Collect (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: I have no problem with Unitanode prodding articles, if he searches for sources before he does. Joe Chill (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. per failing to follow WP:BEFORE. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: I just stumbled across this discussion, as I've been busy elsewhere, such as de-prodding and sourcing numerous prods from unitanode. Someone should turn him onto this cool internet site called "Google".--Milowent (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: For the time being, right now it unclear how best to proceed with this and it is creating a fair bit of tension. Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support unless evidence is given that WP:BEFORE was observed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as per my comment above. Even god himself proposes as much as nine months to fix the problem before deletion.  There is no reason for the unnecessary rush and strain on resources just because Unitanode doesn't like the community's proposed timelines. Resolute 17:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Kevin and Git-R-Done. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 17:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support & I get the strong impression from the comments in the "Arbitration?" subsection below that editors thought they were commenting in this section. The continued mass prodding is disruptive, and UnitAnode can wait until the community decides whether or not to change policy. I thought that was essentially what ArbCom has already said about all disruptive activity. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I wasn't going to support until I scanned todays AFD log. The work is noble, but you need to refine your methods.  If you are unwilling to refine your methods you need to stop.  If you are unwilling to stop, you need to be stopped.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration?
It's obvious that Unitanode and Lar that what they are doing is justified, even if the BLP RfC has not yet completed, and there seems to be no consensus on the speed with which to prod unreferenced BLPs. I think someone procedurally inclined should either open a new arbitration case, or extend the one on the PROD wheel war with this issue, because it's essentially an application on the ground of that attempt to change the PROD policy. Based on the above discussion, the community is unable to deal with this issue. Pcap ping  09:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * STRONG OPPOSE Look, you followed dispute resolution on this (with another Admin) brought it to the Arbs and they see no problem with it.  Drop it, get down from the Reichstag and build an encyclopedia.   You're beating a dead horse for crying out loud. The Arbs have spoken already on this issue.  Naluboutes,Nalubotes Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris  12:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support As I stated earlier in this discussion, it was very easy to correct the articles that received Prod tags. Indiscriminate tagging doesn't help anyone. Warrah (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support per above comment. Mass prodding does nothing to help BLPs and the editor behaviour is absolutely disruptive. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  14:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support It is clear that ArbCom did not intend its resolution to be used as an excuse for more drama. Such acts contrary to BLP status quo policy, and contrary to any spirit of colloquy at all at the RfC are contrary therefore to the nature of how WP works.   I also feel that "get out of the way" is a mode of debate copnducive to reducing the number of editors on WP quite substantially at a time when encouraging new editors is vital, Collect (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support It's clear that Arbcom's statement is being interpreted in different ways by different people. We need to ask them to explain themselves, and, if necessary, to enforce it. --GRuban (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Collect's comments. Resolute 16:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wouldn't that amount to handing over the policy decision making to ArbCom? Durova 403 17:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal by Unitanode: Ikip is restricted from working on biographies of living persons, except to add sources to them

 * Support as proposer. The problem needs fixed, and Ikip is simply obstructing. Unit  Anode  04:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No diffs or discussion provided of any problematic activity, and a community topic ban would be an extraordinary remedy in any event. Unless it can be supported this proposal looks mean-spirited as a response to the above one, and seems to be pushing some boundaries.  - Wikidemon (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - it's a start. (diffs can be provided if necessary, but if you NEED them, you're not very familiar with Ikip's brand of interaction) ++Lar: t/c 04:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am indeed unfamiliar, which is why I qualified it with the "unless..." Is there an active discussion or process matter this springs from? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose? what in the word does this have to do with this conversation? If you are talking about my moving articles from main space to project space, unlike yourself Unitanode, I took criticism and suggestions to heart, and have completely stopped, here is what I said: "Of course. I appreciate and respect your concerns. I stopped yesterday and will not resume until a wikiproject agrees fully." I will NOT continue until there is consensus to continue. So you are creating this retribution section over something that is a non-issue. Also note my tone of cooperation compared to yours. Lar and I unfortunately do have a bad history together. Our first interaction was when Lar vigorously supported one editor calling another editor a troll.  Ikip 04:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * " Our first interaction was when Lar vigorously supported one editor calling another editor a troll" - false characterization of what actually happened. I think one of us needs to start an RfC on the other because really, you're way out of line. As per usual; You are a significant disruption to the smooth operation of this wiki. ++Lar: t/c 04:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (removed not the time nor the place) Ikip 05:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral diffs please?-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  04:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Object, why? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Becuase he's been nothing but obstructionist and antagonistic every step of the way. This battleground mentality was a nice example of the problem with Ikip's attitude, but it's by far not an isolated example. Unit  Anode  05:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly object Attemmpts to quash opposition to controversial or perceived disruption is greatly unhelpful.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Ikip's interactional style is confrontational and may merit a community response of some sort, but the main part of this discussion has not been to urge him to stop removing PRODs from articles. Several editors have specifically recommended mass removal of Unitanode's prods, and although that advice was of questionable value it was not sufficiently criticized when it was made to justify a sanction for following it. Durova 403 05:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ikip has acted in good faith. Bidgee (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have nothing to do with the issues discussed with this editor. There are no edit diffs provided, the BLP work complained about has stopped voluntarily, and probably will never proceed again. Therefore, can someone please close this? Ikip 05:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Technically I don't see Ikip actually editing any articles. He has been busy moving articles and creating tons of cross-space redirects to the Article Incubator (which could be interpreted as relating to BLPs) and other more general discussions about articles so I don't this proposal is effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose But I'm not sure about him having a bot to move articles, see Bot requests/Archive 43. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per everyone else, i.e. WP:SNOW. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 08:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't agree with everything he is doing but he is acting in good faith and is not harming anyone/anything in doing so. I'd like to see him wait for a period (say a week) before resuming the incubations, as real progress is being made on fixing them and the un-incubation part of the operation adds about 4 unnecessary steps to each article. Once the "first wave" of mass fixes/refs has gone through, I think it would then be OK. Orderinchaos 08:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, are we really suggesting that someone is forbidden to remove unsourced statements which are possibly harmful to the BLP in question? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ikip is not the problem. Warrah (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose and trout-slap Unitanode for this disruptive proposal. Nice to hear people talk about "battleground mentality" when a few lines above they scream their Jihad to continue prodding unless blocking, regardless of consensus and AN/I outcome. That said, Ikip is maybe losing his cool here and there, but he(she?) is one of the valuable editors actually trying to argue to stop the insanity. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  14:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems the usual "Opinion is running against my actions, so let's try saying someone else is as bad just to conflate everything" argument. Collect (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Collapse because consensus appears to be that this is retaliatory and disruptive. Joe Chill (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

An observation
The above ban proposals seem to have degenerated into yet another inclusionism vs. deletionism debate. This is not appropriate. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * More like a warmed-over Long-term abuse/JB196 with wider attention. Durova 403 06:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I echo Juliancolton's concerns. Co-opting BLP into inclusionism-deletionism makes us all worse off. One of these things matters way more than the other.--Tznkai (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Inclusionism matters way more than deletionishm! Or is it the other way around? But in seriousness I agree that the discussion above isn't really useful or going anywhere. A couple of people (including me) have recently left longer notes on Unitanode's talk page asking that editor to dial back or stop the prodding for now, though I'm not sure that will lead to a change. Exacerbating tensions between opposing camps, so to speak, does not seem advisable when we're trying to come up with a way to work together on unsourced BLPs, and in that respect Unitanode's actions (and some of the responses to them) strike me as counterproductive. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'm a deletionist, but I don't support mass prodding without individualized investigation. THF (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In case it wasn't clear, I consider inclusion-deletionism as one thing, and BLP another.--Tznkai (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was definitely clear, I was just trying to inject a little (probably a very little) humor into the discussion, and I very much agree with you that discussion of BLP (which actually matters) should absolutely not be folded into the rather tired inclusion-deletionism debate. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And how do you intend to make that happen, exactly? If wishes were horses, and all, given that the rallying cry has already gone out to the inclusionists (and, to be fair, I suspect the inclusionists believe the same cry has been sent to the deletionists). Hipocrite (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to make anything happen, and am quite confident I can't make anything happen (or not happen). My point is just that debating BLP should not devolve into a general debate about inclusion vs. deletion. Many people are not treating it that way which is good, but of course some almost certainly are and that's not good. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless I suddenly became an inclusionist overnight, Juliancolton is off base. There are overriding policy issues so let's assume good faith that most of this discussion's participants are not fronting for an ideology. Arguably, it poisons the well to dismiss a serious discussion on such sweeping terms. Durova 403 17:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Moot
It's worth pointing out (if it was not already above) that Unitanode has grown frustrated with the response to his or her prodding of unsourced BLPs and apparently is not going to continue doing that right now, per the comment here. As such it's probably not all that useful to continue talking about somehow preventing Unitanode from continuing with the prodding. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness. If the problem has stopped then let's close this discussion for the present.  Durova 403 18:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank goodness! If I had continued, some more BLPs might have actually gotten sourced. Can't have that... Unit  Anode  18:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:MJ787123 and User:SineDie519 are involved in severe edit war
Above mentioned users are edit warring over Trey Grayson for more than one hour now. Both users have been warned but in vain. <font color="Green" face="Times New Roman" size="4">Hitro <font color="#FF00FF" face="courier" size="1"> talk 19:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I blocked MJ for 48 hours, and Toddst1 blocked SD indefinitely. We also protected the page at the same time. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ongterm vandalism from multiple IPs and users. Ccrazymann (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Changed this to a subsection, as it's the same issue as above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the unsourced BLPs are moving to a new namespace
How much can the article incubator hold? Mebbe *all* of the unsourced BLPs will fit. Example: Barry Stewart. Concerned, Jack Merridew 08:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The only issue I can see with this is that WP treats redirects as exact copies of the page it is pointing at, which nullifies the benefit of NOINDEX. Ideally these should be moved with the redirect suppressed to achieve the goal.  MBisanz  talk 08:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted or blanked? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The redirect in the mainspace should be deleted, the article should be left in the Wikipedia space unblanked if the goal is to maintain the content and keep it off google.  MBisanz  talk 08:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) I believe that hundreds of cross-namespace redirects are being left behind. Looks like it's a script; it is going at quite a clip. Jack Merridew 08:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Has this mass-moving activity actually been sanctioned by the community, or the bot approvals group, or is this a freelance effort? If the latter, the account should probably be blocked ASAP. -- The Anome (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been proposals involving mass-incubating on the BLP RFC, but as far as I can see, none of them has so far gained very much traction. This does seem to be an unlicensed bot. Also, I'm not sure if Ikip was aware this would lead to the redirects being removed from mainspace - the result of his actions is that many potentially good articles may get hidden from mainspace and made harder to find for people who might actually fix them. Much harder than if they were in a prod queue or simply in the unreferenced BLP categories. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I blocked User:Ikip for running of the unauthorized bot for the page moves. He was also asked to stop, but kept moving pages. The block can be lifted without my permission just as long as he stops. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a bot - editor has a .NET wiki helper app. I'm going to unblock. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, is he stopping and what is this helper app he is using? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He said on his talk page he will stop. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Chaos ensues ; article has been recreated... see also: Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Barry Stewart Jack Merridew 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone also do me a favor, and delete this page, I cited it and put it back to the mainspace but the incubator version needs deleting. Off2riorob (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't do that please. It needs the history, so I just had to do a histmerge. Viridae Talk 08:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, perhaps you could point me towards the correct way to do it? Off2riorob (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You cant do a histmerge yourself. If yu are going to edit the articles, do so while they are in the incubator and then move them back. Alternatively, move them back then edit them. Dont copy paste back into the mainspace, the history needs to go too. Viridae Talk 09:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * x2 Non-admin view, but this should be paused ASAP while nothing in the RfC is even close to official. Was done during edit conflict. Though the incubator idea is "liked" it is certainly not a leading proposal. A total rouge/freelance move like this is highly disruptive and I'd argue an injunction from ArbCom should be filed requesting these sorts of mass-article changes be stopped for X length and/or editors involved in the original ArbCom case filing be specifically told not to given the already established view of acting without consensus, discussion or policy.  ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Following-up after quick actions here-- I'd still suggest an ArbCom injunction requested so that disruptions like this attempting to spark further mass community drama can be eliminated and the rogue nature of seeking this drama be heavily enforced. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno. This was all noticed and corrected in about 20 minutes. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I deleted a good 50 or so of the cross-namespace redirects, then got bored and stopped. I didn't see any need to wait, since if people objected to the move they could always just move things back to mainspace (the whole article history is perserved in the moves, I wasn't deleting any actual content). No comment about the moves themselves. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 08:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr Ta bu shi da yu wanted me to comment here. I wanted to thank Rjanag, Ta bu shi da yu, Viridae, Zscout370's diligence in patrolling wikipedia. Without their often thankless work, we would be overrun by vandals. My apologies for not alerting ANI first, maybe I should have done that originally? I thought after the community overwhelmingly accepted WP:Incubator, and when the project was closed overwhelmingly keep, that moves like this, for unencyclopedic articles was accepted by the community
 * We have discussed this move at WP:incubation. A member of Wikiproject Australia set up a page based on what we discussed. We were all excited. Two projects were going to help solve the BLP unreferenced problem. I will continue to discuss this further, with those projects.
 * I didn't remove the redirects because as soon as those redirects are deleted, editors can't see the pages anymore in their watchlist. I think it is better to keep these redirects for two days only, so editors can see the move on their watchlists, prompting them to either move the page back or fix the unreferenced problem. But this seems like a concern, so I will delete all redirects.
 * I hesitate to bring this up, but I think it bears mentioning for those who don't know the history. Jack Merridew posted this ANI. Just a month ago, editors were reviewing Jack Merridew probation, after he had been blocked indefinitely for stalking. I spoke the loudest against Jack Merridew, because of continued harrassment (once called stalking). Future Perfect threatened to block me if I ever mentioned Jack Merridew again, he was criticized  by Arbcom clerk Penwhale for this threat. irrelevant
 * Again, administrators, thanks for your diligence. Ikip 09:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a reasonable statement to me. No real harm done, though not sure about the article incubator issue. I think we can put this down to a reasonable effort at implementing something that had consensus, but still has teething problems. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

moar KAOS:


 * Ben Oxenbould
 * Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Ben Oxenbould


 * Andrew Trimble
 * Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Andrew Trimble


 * Bennett King
 * Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Bennett King


 * Ben Pepper
 * Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Ben Pepper

The above all need history merges. Please don't forget the talk pages. Regards, Jack Merridew 11:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously it would be much easier to address the unreferenced BLPs while they are in article space. The out of process deletions and the moves are very disruptive. Any actual BLP problems should be addressed in the usual ways. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's all resolved now. I'm marking this as resolved. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute at Naturopathy
This could be viewed as a content dispute, but I am bringing it here because I believe it is actually an issue of fundamental policy. We have two editors, and, who are reverting to maintain the text, "Non-scientific health care practitioners, including naturopaths, use unscientific methods and deception on a public who, lacking in-depth health care knowledge, must rely upon the assurance of providers. Quackery not only harms people, it undermines the ability to conduct scientific research and should be opposed by scientists". Their justification is that the passage is sourced. The question has been argued out on the talk page and noticeboards, with no solution. I hope to establish a consensus, clear enough that admins are willing to enforce it, that statements like this are absolutely out of bounds on Wikipedia. There are a lot of other problems with the article, but this is the worst. For what it's worth, let me add that I'm a scientist and pretty much always defend the scientific point of view, but I believe that statements like this only alienate people. Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The reversion was actually of a large quantity of referenced text not just that line.  This was without any discussion on the talk page as far as I could see. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You yourself emphasized those lines at Talk:Naturopathy. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes those were just the first few lines. I tried to start a discussion.  Maybe we should continue on at the talk page as no reply's have been made. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way a discussion is already taking place here Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. Not sure we need to spread this out more? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why am I being accused of "reverting to maintain the text" when I did not revert. Looie496 has not made any rational justification for deleting the text. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would advice Looie496 to discuss things and try to get a consensus before removing large blocks of referenced text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I give up. The text can stay. Looie496 (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not a reasonable response. If you discuss the matter further on the talk page and justify why the text should not remain, then it's fine to remove if you can get consensus. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's a reasonable response. I have too much to do to get bogged down in an endless content dispute.  If this isn't treated as a policy issue, I don't have time for it. Looie496 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which policy are you talking about exactly? One cannot just walk in removed large blocks of referenced content without explanation and not have someone assume it is vandilism and revert. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV. Looie496 (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Roscrad
User:Roscrad is an SPA in the seemingly never-ending nonsense at Crucifixion in the arts. Multiple editors have tried in good-faith to engage the user in constructive conduct, but the user only makes unexplained deletions of content, , , trolling comments at talk , (translations:  and ), and incivil comments to editors who tried to explain proper conduct. It seems obvious that the user has no intention of contributing constructively. User notified:. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * User notified as required —DoRD (?) (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC) As linked above, I also notified user, but user reverted it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I do see that now. Well, they've been notified again. —DoRD (?) (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problem. That's what redundancy departments are for! (And they reverted you too.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thoroughly warned the user and again requested that they comment here, but they removed it. I am particularly concerned about a nasty comment left on another user's talkpage, and if anything like that happens again, any admin should feel free to block them. Likewise for the edit warring spelled out above. —DoRD (?) (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just underlining that, see the edit history of the user's talk page. Even before you thoroughly warned them, two other editors also warned them extensively, much of it reverted. So there's no issue of the user not knowing. I find it hard to see any way the user intends to turn things around. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A day later: user is making no constructive edits, but is continuing to play games with their user talk page, in a manner that appears to be thumbing their nose at the warnings they have been given. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that they are being disruptive in bad faith. I have blocked them indefinitely, and have left a note on their user talk page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. That was very helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Editor responded with an offensive personal attack, I have now rolled this back and protected the talk page indefinitely. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Chapecoense
User:Chapecoense has been constantly changing the name of the players in the FC Barcelona season 2009–10. The previous seasons had the players name as they appear on their kit but he/she has changed them. It has been continued for the 2009-2010 season but he/she insist that they appear as he/she wants. Is there anyway something can be done to keep it as it has always appeared? (Angel Avendano 18:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)) —This comment is unsigned by Lafuzion (talk) • (contribs) without signing their name using four tildes ( ~ ). Please sign your posts!
 * This is a content dispute that should be discussed at Talk:FC Barcelona season 2009–10 and, at this time, there is no need for admin action. I did, however, notify the user of this discussion as required. —DoRD (?) (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to discuss it but he/she is not cooperating and is doing as they please. Angel Avendano 20:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I will explain. I made up some guidelines as "Edmílson José Gomes de Moraes" for "Edmílson (footballer born 1976)", for example, in season 06/07. In 09/10, there is no need to put "V. Valdés" or "A. Iniesta," just because you are subscribed on his kits. It is simply "Valdés" and "Iniesta". Like "Eric Abidal is "Abidal" and not "E. Abidal", for example. Similarly, "Sergio Busquets" is just "Busquets" and not "Sergio". The problem is that he wants to put the name that appears on the kits, but that is always how the player is known.

Thank you for your attention, I just want to cooperate, but with consistency. Chapecoense - Chapecoense) 25 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Thank you for explaining. Please, however, take this discussion to Talk:FC Barcelona season 2009–10 and form a consensus. Not being a fan of football, I have no opinion either way, but before making such changes, you should at least mention it on the talk page. Thanks. —DoRD (?) (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been updating the page since the beginning with no issues and this Users comes out of nowhere and wants to make changes. Players are known by the names on their kits so it makes sense to put it as such. For example: Dani Alves is on the and his real name is Daniel Alves, if we're going to follow him then change his name to Daniel Alves. This is an issue that we shouldn't be discussing had he left it how it was. there was no need to change it. Angel Avendano 17:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

addition of Democracy Now! links
has added 87 links to Democracy Now! videos to Wikipedia articles, and in most cases that was the only edit he made to those articles. I interpreted this as promotional spamming, and reverted the additions, but Redthoreau (very civilly) objected to this action. Since several other editors (and myself) believe that in several cases the videos were justifiable additions to the articles, I would request a review of my removal of the links here. My reasoning in removing the links is that the intention of adding of dozens of links to the same place across multiple articles can really only be seen as an attempt to promote the site in question. Prodego <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  01:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 30 of the examples are below, a 1 hour video report on MLK from his article 1, a video with Naomi Klein discussing "shock doctrine" from the actual article on the shock doctrine 2, an hour long speech by Howard Zinn from his own article 3, a report on Dennis Brutus from the article on him 4 and 26 other video's that feature an interview or remarks by the person of the article in question ---> Avi Lewis 5, Elena Milashina 6, Philip Alston 7, Glenn Greenwald 8, Malalai Joya 9, Raúl Grijalva 10, Jonathan Tasini 11, Maher Arar 12, Anna Deavere Smith 13, John Perkins 14, William Kunstler 15, Christian Parenti 16, Naomi Klein 17, Robert Scheer 18, Lynne Stewart 19, George Lakoff 20, Pascal Lamy 21, Nir Rosen 22, Aminatou Haidar 23, Desmond Tutu 24, James Hansen 25, Kumi Naidoo 26, Vandana Shiva 27, Noam Chomsky 28, Sunita Narain 29, Evo Morales 30 etc


 * My reasoning for inclusion, was because Democracy Now! has a certain niche, and interviews a number of lesser publicly known activists and theorists who appear on their program; thus when I encounter these links I include these individuals video appearances as an external link to their own article (as displayed above). For instance if Jon Doe gives a 20 minute interview on Democracy Now! about himself or a project he is working on, and I thus link to it in the external link section, would this be spamming?  <font color="#FF3333">Red <font color="#FFCC00">thoreau  -- (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * They're not spam links as nothing is being promoted. Let the editors on each article judge if they're actually useful in practice, but links to free video interviews seem kind of helpful to me. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The ones I removed (Desmond Tutu, and James Hansen) were almost certainly spamlinks per WP:EL; and Democracy Now! is what is being promoted, as Prodego noted. I'm not saying that the rest are necessarily spam; if the person is not very notable, then an interview from an unreliable source might add to understanding.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Democracy Now! is a television and radio news program, headed by a renowned journalist and featuring original reporting and interviews. Adding references or external links to it on relevant articles is about as spammy as adding links to, say, the New York Times. I honestly don't see what the problem is here.  —Psychonaut (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any reputation for accuracy? I don't recall any claims for that, even in our article.  However, I suppose if there are few interviews available as external links, one more won't hurt.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In general there's absolutely nothing wrong with Democracy Now! links in articles, particularly when it's to in-depth interviews with the subject of the article in question. Amy Goodman is an award-winning journalist, (see here), and the show has won numerous awards and has listeners and viewers all over the country and indeed the world. I would not use a DN! interview in citation of a controversial article fact (at least not by itself), but these interviews are generally quite in depth (much more so than in most commercial media) and are exactly the kind of thing readers would find useful in an external links section. Of course there could be reasons that they are not appropriate for a particular article and that's always something to be decided on the article in question, but I see nothing wrong with Redthoreau's actions here. It's not automatically "spamming" when someone adds external links from one source to a number of articles, it could in fact just be systematic article improvement. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also worth pointing out that while Prodego was undoubtedly acting in good faith here, reverting all of the additions of these links en masse (apparently in semi-severe frustration given an edit summary like this in the middle of the process) and then leaving a note for the editor who added the links was not the way to go about this at all. A note saying, "hey, why are you adding these, what's your thinking about it?" would have been the much better way to go since we generally should not be "undoing" dozens of edits by a fellow editor without talking to them first. It might be best if Prodego reverted most or all of their reversions and closed this thread. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Joseph Spadaro
This one's a bit less than obvious, so I'm looking for other administrator opinions. Technically, the user is socking in violation of a block, but all he needs to do to get the block removed is acknowledge and agree to follow BLP. How should this case be handled? Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Back in June, I blocked User:Joseph A. Spadaro for talk page BLP violations, specifically for accusing three suspects of manslaughter in this edit, and failing to retract the statement or acknowledge that it was inappropriate in further discussions. When told his "indef block" would only last as long as it took for him to acknowledge and agree to follow BLP, he declined to do so.
 * Earlier this month, I was notified that the user appeared to have returned as User:Joseph Spadaro, having a virtually identical name and engaging in a similar pattern of edits. I haven't gone through his contributions with a fine-toothed comb, but there doesn't seem to be any indication that he's made any other similar BLP-violating statements.
 * I attempted to engage the new username on his talk page, but my query has gone unanswered for a week in which he's been quite active.
 * Suggestion Block the new account, noting the connection to the old ( not a sock template! ), and unblock the old one noting the editor was contributing from an undeclared alternate account in compliance with BLP. Note your actions to the new account. This way the BLP issue is resolved, the block lifted, and the editors previous history remains intact. The editor can now resume from their old account. If the editor protests, then they can be reminded about block evasion. If they can no longer access their old account (scrambled password) then they can only use the alternate account if they link to the old one. Then the block/unblocks need reversing. Would this be an option? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds quite reasonable to me. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, same here. If no contrary feedback is received in the mean time, I'll go ahead and implement this tomorrow. Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like a reasonable course of action to me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

James Stacy and legal threats
An IP made what appears to be intent to pursue legal action in their edit summary on the James Stacy article. They also left a message on the talk page claiming the be the subject's legal rep and requesting the page be locked while they get a decision for something or other which I imagine constitutes as a legal threat. Long story short, since June 2009 a user who has been abusing multiple accounts (see SPI here) has been attempting to remove content concerning the subject's years-old child molestation conviction citing slander, libel and various other claims like "confidentiality violations", etc. For the record, the content is reliably sourced (People and Time magazine and the L.A. Times) and verifiable, it's just not all that flattering to the subject I suppose.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  04:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The story appears to be a significant chapter in the subject's life, so it seems like fair game for inclusion. If it was a registered user making this threat, they would be indef'd until or if they retract. As it is, a block of some good duration is called for. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed and done. I've blocked the IP for 72 hours for the time being, or until he offers a retraction. If the sourcing on this article were shaky, I might be inclined to remove the offending section and protect the page until this is resolved, but as it stands, I just got done sourcing out the arrest and conviction, and it looks pretty damned airtight to me. Trusilver  08:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  10:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that someone alert OTRS about this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis and LHVU
In exchange for some entirely sensible removals of irrelevant material (e.g. ; note that the talk page there has now sensibly been semi'd which pretty well confirms the correctness of the material) LHVU has blocked Kenosis, who has now left.

LHVU's ostensible reason for the block was a 1RR parole which does not exist.

Further discussion in various places including User_talk:LessHeard_vanU. There is still time to fix this error by unblocking K, ideally with an apology William M. Connolley (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To repeat some of the points I made in different places here: LHVU blocked Kenosis, McSly, and an anonymous IP under the mistaken impression that they violated an existing 1RR restriction. No such restriction was in force or advertised anywhere, in particularly not on the talk page or at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log. When this was pointed out to LHVU, he accepted the fact, but retroactively rationalized the blocks by reference to general edit warring. However, for edit warring, especially for first blocks, we usually require an ignored warning and continued edit warring. This has been standard procedure at WP:AN3 since about forever. A similar provision has been explicitly written into General sanctions/Climate change probation ("Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps[...]"). Neither of the editors have received explicit notification about the probation, and neither has been warned about edit warring (McSly has been informed after the block). In short, I think the blocks are inappropriate and punitive. I'm particularly concerned that Kenosis, who has over 20000 contributions during the last 4 years, many in contentious areas, without coming into any (recorded) conflict with Wikipedia policies, has now been blocked due to what I consider very much a mistake by the blocking administrator. I want this block retracted, if possible with an explicit statement that it was mistaken in the block log.  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think WP:EDIT WAR and WP:TPOC amply justifies my actions - you do not remove other peoples comments (unless they are obvious vandalism) and you DO NOT EDIT WAR in any event. Yes, I misread the wording regarding edit warring in the probation page - however all parties had seriously violated the existing wording, and sufficiently that warnings were unnecessary. I would point out again, for the benefit of the readers, that no concern is being expressed upon the block of the ip, whose good faith edits were repeatedly deleted... I should remind all participants (and readers) that the need to comply with the various policies and guidelines regarding interaction with other editors is the same for everyone, not only those whose apparent pov contrasts to existing consensus. Do I make mistakes? Oh, do I!! Yes, it would have been better if I had more carefully studied the wording of the probation - and even better if participants on those pages were not in violation of the restrictions. There is a reason why the probation is in place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are still getting this wrong. Do you make mistakes? Oh yes you do. Do you correct them when they are pointed out? Oh no you don't - bang 'em up anyway looks like your answer. you do not remove other peoples comments (unless they are obvious vandalism) is simply wrong (part of your regrettably long history of failing to think before acting) - as a n arb [long term adminsitrator], you ought to understand policy better than that. Here is one obvious diff that demonstrates that you are talking nonsense. Now, will you please slow down and think before acting? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the block on Kenosis was justified. He repeatedly removed other editors comments several times and was told that he would be reported to ANI if it continued. He did so again here and here. This after doing it several times before. The block on McSly was most likely OK, since he removed coments three times, , on the page. The block on the anon is interesting, since all the anon ip was trying to do was make a comment.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The slight wobble recently found in the Earth's orbit is the result of the entire Arbitration Committee suddently jumping up and crying out, "How did he get in?" - I am not an arb. Never mind, everyone makes mistakes, LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is, are you going to correct yours? Hal peridol (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Move along here, nothing to see. There are grave concerns about the removal of comments at this TalkPage going back over many months. The matter is currently at Enforcement (where, unbelievably, some are back-slapping each other for removing more comments), and anyone removing comments while the matter is still under consideration should expect an immediate block. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for my mistake of thinking LHVU an arb (see: error - corrected - apologised for. This is the right thing to do). As Hp asks - are you going to correct yours? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * that no concern is being expressed upon the block of the ip, whose good faith edits were repeatedly deleted - to be honest, I couldn't care less about the IP. Calling his edits "good faith" in my opinion violates AGF is no suicide pact. However, if you read what I wrote above, instead of what you think I wrote, you should note that I talked about all three users. Note also that WP:TPG used to list "Deleting (or better yet, archiving) material not relevant to improving the article" as acceptable behavior less than two weeks ago (and indeed Deleting material not relevant to improving the article shortly before that) and that was indeed fairly widely applied practice on the talk page in question. I don't know about you, but I would indeed expect a warning if I violated a recently changed and not widely advertised guideline. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The ip was suggesting an agreement that talkpage comment should remain for a minimum of a week; which is not a violation of WP:TALK or WP:FORUM. The ip's comments were removed, and not archived, contrary to WP:TPOC even if they were inappropriate - and then an edit war ensued ! If your good faith is exhausted by a topic or an editor, then withdraw and allow others to try to communicate. I am flabbergasted that any editor with more than passing involvement in GW related articles are not aware of the probation - enough of the recent correspondents were very quick to point out my mistake regarding 1RR restrictions, for instance. I am stunned that those editors who have contributed to GW related articles over a long period are not aware of the general application of policies such as WP:EDIT WAR, etc. Strange, indeed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "contrary to TPOC" - again, contrary to a new version that was introduced only two weeks ago and not advertised - I was certainly not aware of the change. Given that you were not aware of the details of the very probation you were trying to enforce I find it somewhat surprising that you apparently expect every editor to notice every policy or guideline change.
 * "editor with more than passing involvement in GW related articles" - as far as I can figure out, Kenosis had not edited any climate change related article in the last year except for his contributions to global warming and talk:global warming, which started less than 4 weeks ago and were sporadic. He was not named as a party in the rejected ArbCom case (which included everybody and their kitchen sinks) or informed of the probation via the normal protocol. I don't know if he was aware of the probation, but I think your assumption that he must have been misguided - in fact, I see your flabbergasted and raise you one "baffled and flummoxed".
 * We seem to differ in how to interpret WP:WAR - I'v not seen blocks without prior warnings for first offenders for a while. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally understand why LessHeard has blocked, but having reviewed the edit that William Connolley has highlighted suggests to me that the anon. was getting heated and not contributing much to the talk page. Certainly the revert could have been handled better though. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like a clearly bad block. No warning and changing justifications for the block. Not good. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per JoshuaZ. Durova 403 22:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TALK, Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. Kenosis was acting in good faith by removing comments such as this, which contained personal attacks and wildly off-topic material that did nothing to improve the page. Kenosis even suggested other venues to take the content in edit summaries. Might be kind to at least apologize or acknowledge that the situation is quite a bit more complex. IMO would be better to unblock and apologize, lest we lose one of our more prolific and valuable content contributors over something as trivial as removing off-topic material from talk pages. Awickert (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies can't be forced. We aren't here to rub anyone's nose in a mistake.  Durova 403 18:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No intention to force, which is why I said it would be kind. No intention to rub noses in the dirt either, as that's an unproductive (and unkind) objective. The block has expired by now, but an experienced editor would probably have backed off after a warning (making a block unnecessary), and in any case that experienced editor clearly felt offended. My concern is that Wikipedia has just lost a major contributor over this. Regardless of what happens in officialdom, an apology would be the good thing to do in hopes of not losing good editors. But I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. Awickert (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I will see that diff and raise you this. This being the ip's third attempt to raise a point, the previous two being deleted. You will note it is addressing a concern raised regarding the article, and further it is commenting on the removal of its previous communications. Both points are related to the editing of the article - it thus does not fall under either WP:TALK or WP:FORUM. It may be biased and in a caustic tone but those are not reasons to revert it without comment. I would also comment that exampling above the ip's "rant" there is no note they had by then been reverted half a dozen times; it is no point complaining of how the bear roars when it has been poking it with a sharp stick previously. Then there is the matter of warning of editors who are removing content; I would point to User:Jojhutton's 2 reverts noting inappropriate removal of content, and his later notification to all parties there was an ANI thread (which was moved back to the GW Probation page). Also of interest is WMC's comment |..."@JJH: if someone has hit 3RR then there is a trivial solution: block them" (WMC obviously forgot to add "after warning them") when put together with 4 reverts by User:McSly in 3 hours, and 5 reverts by User:Kenosis in under 2.1/2 hours, which action by me WMC is complaining about - seemingly not so trivial after all. I acknowledge, again, that I was mistaken in referring to a 1RR restriction when giving my block rationales - but I think that, Monday morning (evening here in the UK) quarterbacking though it may be, that it is clear that all editors concerned including the ip had far exceeded 3RR and the two named accounts were warned that such removals were not in keeping with WP:TALK or WP:FORUM. Whilst I have every confidence that there will be no next time, because everyone is now very clear as regards the appropriate removal of content from talkpages which are under the Global Warming Probation, should such a situation occur again I shall endeavour to ensure that parties are properly warned before enacting a block. Lastly I would like to make a couple of points; Firstly, the two editors subsequent comments are quite civil and - under the circumstances - understanding. I hope they will be continue contributing as before to the various articles. Secondly, should anyone have believed they have determined what my personal pov regards Climate Change / Global Warming and specifically the effects caused by human activity by these actions of mine discussed above are very highly likely wrong! - I feel that there is ample evidence of human induced climate and environment change. I just don't think that being inclined toward the existing consensus gives any editor the right to ignore policy, guidelines, etc. and to dismiss good faith contributions from editors not so convinced. Battleground mentalities do not help the cause of creating good articles, no matter which side of the debate it is coming from. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * K was absolutely correct to remove a pile of off-topic twaddle from the anon, unless you're really defending Dear Malcolm, is it? I had a look at the thing you directed me to, and, I did add my signature to the appropriate row, but I'm afraid I am not very interested in your thing over there! (Is it yours?) Is that, um, OK? (Or is this an official wiki position or something I don't understand, or?? Do I HAVE TO respond to that survey? Or?) as highly relevant to GW? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As one of the two blocked editors, I think I should mention here that I'm actually okay with LessHeard vanU' s decision to block me. I still think that the IP's additions were trollish at best and were a clear violation of WP:TPG; and that's why I removed them. That being said, I got carried away. I did revert them four times in a few hours and I knew the article was on a contentious suject (to say the least); The rules are the same for everybody, I should have been more careful. I don't think LessHeard vanU acted inappropriately when he blocked me. By the way, I got over it about 5 minutes after the block was issued (well, technically, 12 hours and 5 minutes after the block was issued). My only complaint is that a warning before would have been nice (and certainly sufficient to stop me). The worst part in this sordid affair is the decision by Kenosis to leave WP. As an aside, let me join the chorus and urge him to reconsider, as this petty battle is certainely not worh quitting over. Now that the talk page of the article has been semi-protected, we shouldn't have these problems anymore, so can we move on now. --McSly (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support LHvU for Arbcom. Obviously a good block. If there's a problem with take page comments then there are noticeboards that can deal with the issue. Removing and refactoring good faith comments by others is a big problem among the AGW cabal and needs to be addressed along with the COI issues and incivilities. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this block will result in GW-related talk pages spiralling downward into uncontrolled pontification and off-topic comments. As a result the pages are apt to become useless for discussing improvements to the articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then who then, gets to decide what is proper or not? Removing talk page comments, especially from editors who disagree with you, is highly suspicious and that is why he was blocked.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * These users should have been warned not blocked. Blocks are to be used to protect Wikipedia not to punish users ( either new or long time ).  This does look like a punishment. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic IP vandalising
On the page Arequipa, a series of IP vandals all belonging to the same range are vandalising the page. Is it possible that someone can block the 167.128.72/ range temporarily?--Iner22 (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The page has been temporarily semi-protected by Mentifisto. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 03:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick admin help requested concerning BLPs
Please see the edits of this IP. It is edit-warring to add sexually disgusting images to articles concerning a real world politician. Please help! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We're sorry, Mario, but our Princess is in a different castle! Half  Shadow  21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * IP has apparently already been blocked. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A recent upload that might warrant a badimage tag was used in the vandalism File:Tröpfchen3.jpg I'm guessing all the uploads of User:Stan Spanker at commons need a look at. Maybe I'm just too cynical, but seeing a plethora of various new BDSM photos with only some having matching metadata, especially with its current caption seems like more than a coincidence, even without tineye hits. Sorry for the hassle of not linking but I felt it was easier to not point out where you could get the beans to put up your nose. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (2nd nomination)
I would appreciate review of an AFD I just closed. I have overturned Jayjg's closure, because he has kept but with no justification. I see it differently, and have provided a detailed reasoning. It was a controversial close, and I don't think its acceptable that a decision is made without giving a reasoning. Can I please have admin review on this matter. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My decision is now being reverted, with no justification behind Jayjg's AFD decision. I have deleted the article, I don't want to get into an edit war. I will alert Jayjg as to this discussion. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: it was not reverted by Jayjg. Someone has now protected that page, but the article is deleted. This needs to be resolved soon I fear. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Now at Deletion_review/Log/2010_January_26. (I protected the page.) Ucucha 03:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Or a better wikilink is at Deletion review/Log/2010 January 26. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We have this thing called Deletion review, when you don't agree with a close. We point the regular users to it, which is the hat you ought to have been wearing in this instance. DRV can now review Jay's close. If no especially objects, I'd like to restore the article for the DRV's benefit. Mackensen (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... here's the thing Mackensen - Jay edited that page while I had spent a good 15 minutes typing up a valid closure reason. Typing in "keep" and clicking on submit would have taken him all of about 15 seconds. Now if I had closed that AFD without the detailed reasoning, the article would now be deleted, with a detailed reasoning as to how I came to my decision. Jay has still not provided that reasoning. I welcome his feedback at DRV. And I do object to you undeleting. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, those things happen. I've been in that position myself. I went and talked to the admin in question, instead of putting myself in the wrong by reverting a close. You realize that you're putting DRV in an impossible position by not allowing access to the deletion revisions during the discussion? This situation's pretty messed up as it is. Be reasonable. Mackensen (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I will undelete it and let DRV do it's thing. I am not very happy about the way that the closing admin closed the discussion. I note they still have not provided an explanation. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it. Mackensen (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs. I'm not trying to create drama here, merely being bold to overturn a poor decision. As this has been closed badly, I'm going to put it up for AFD again in a few days. I note that so long as the closing editor gives a reason for the close then I will accept it either way. However, there will need to be a reason. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you write a long close and someone else closes it first, that's too bad but it's kinda how it goes sometimes. No fault found as it's just a bad break. What I have done in the past is tagged the discussion as "pending close" saying that a close was coming and I was writing it up. That way, if some other admin closes it, you've sort of established that you did intend to close it and they just raced ahead of you to beat you (or they truly didn't see that you'd archiveboxed it with a pending close note...) That tends to give you a bit more standing, I find). Just a suggestion. (and yes, asking for a reason is reasonable. But what I do there is just go ask. Most admins will give a more detailed rationale if asked) ++Lar: t/c 04:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I've reversed my deletion. Jay hasn't explained his reasoning. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

General advice not related to this particular AfD. If you decide to close an AfD but need time for a longer closure write-up, you can "lock" the discussion by tagging it with closing as explained at Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. Pcap ping  10:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the correct place for it, but the above IP left me a pretty insidious/threatening message on my talk - the IP (he's been using several) has been persistently removing a sentence on Mirror's Edge, which I've been reverting. Thanks! Fin©™ 08:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * warned <font face="Segoe script"><font color="#ff0000">D <font color="#ff6600">u <font color="#009900">s <font color="#0000ff">t <font color="#6600cc">i SPEAK!! 08:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock drawer at WP:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Royal Family
Proposing semiprotection at this AfD. Who knew that the Middle Ages in the Balkans could be so controversial? Recently I blocked User:Regionlegion indefinitely as a sock of Bosnipedian, due to a colorful and abusive edit war on articles about the kings of Bosnia in the 1500s. One of the comments by Regionlegion was "You are a lying Serb, as is your friend PRODUCER, as just exposed. Your Serb nationalist agenda to freak-control Bosnia articles will not be tolerated." The subject of the AfD, Bosnian Royal Family, was created by Bosnipedian. Due to the nature of the edits, it is nearly 100% likely that the IPs adding their opinions in the AfD are socks or meatpuppets of Bosnipedian/Regionlegion. There have been 20 IP edits so far. One of the IPs removed the AfD tag from the article. Does anyone object to semiprotection of the AfD? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tagged it as a possible hoax. IconicBigBen (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Having skimmed it, the article is BS and the protagonist either autistic spectrum or a massive attention whore. Someone just needs to delete it as total crap and close the AfD before people start selling tickets to watch this latest performance. ninety:one  23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, anyone notice how Bosnipedian and Bosnian Royal Family sound very simular? IconicBigBen (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would definitely support semiprotection. AFD is being blitzed by anon accounts with some pretty amazing uniformity of viewpoint. <font color=#AAAAFF>ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ <font color=#D50000>bomb 00:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the AfD, and suggest someone take a look and see if it should be closed already. Most All of the IPs I've seen have been open proxies. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Requesting premission to re-add the hoax template to the article now that the issue has calmed down? IconicBigBen (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be preferable for an admin to assess consensus from the AfD. I don't recommend adding the speedy tag. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem is that the article passes "notability" easily, and is not a "hoax", but is horridly written with useless asides. Collect (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The notability is not so clear, when the article is full of speculation, synthesis and original research. Edison (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Bosnia had a ruler ("Despot" was a valid title, I suppose, for part of that period) who functioned as a monarch. This title was passed within a family ("royal family.").  Most of the other stuff is excisable (not my slashing) but that does not remove notability per WP guidelines. Collect (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The ruler of Bosnia was not a despot - before 1377, the ruler was a ban and after 1377, the ruler was king or queen. The last medieval rulers of Serbia were despots. The crown of Bosnia was not passed within a family according to any succession rule that would allow us (or any historian, of which none are cited) to determine which family is the present royal family of Bosnia. All the kings of Bosnia just happened to belong to the same family, while one queen regnant belonged to another family and at least two appointed heirs belonged to other families. Anyway, all Wikipedia articles about royal families are about present royal families, not about those that went extinct in the 15th century. Surtsicna (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This sort of abusive editing is exactly what I'm trying to address at Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility blocks. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Bosnipedian seems to have yet another sock puppet (or at least several meat puppets). See Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian. Surtsicna (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Unapproved bot
It appears that is running an unapproved newsletter bot on his main account as shown in this edit sample. Such accounts should be run on a bot account after seeking a bot request for approval per the bot policy, but it does not appear that Ikip has done so. What should be done?  MBisanz  talk 02:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that this was already explained previously... he's actually running a .NET helper app. It doesn't seem to me that he's doing anything in the wrong. Urgh. Just looked again at the edit history... this is a canvassing issue. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ikip has been posting the same messages to what appears to be every Wikiproject and their documented task forces asking for input on the BLP issue. (Special:Contributions/Ikip has, as I write this, at least 100 posting of the same message). While the message is likely meant in good faith and is written in an unbiased manner to attract attention to the issue, and knowing how Ikip has, in the past, insisted on involving as many editors as possible on an issue, this seems to be entirely against the spirit of WP:CANVAS. The BLP discussion is already listed at CENT and is listed at watchlist pages; further announcements to every WP and their task forces seems like excessive overkill.
 * Would this be considered canvasing (warning, related to BLP issue)

My apologies to Ikip in advance if this is not canvasing, but this seems entirely against advice outlined at WP:CANVAS. Message on Ikip's talk to immediately follow after posting this. --M ASEM (t) 02:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(Please see the section immediately above this please as well. --M ASEM (t) 02:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC) )
 * Note: MBisanz and Masem posted on the same issue nearly simultaneously (though with different concerns). I have united the two sections into one. Ucucha 02:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would appear he has the bot set to automatic since my talk page note did not trigger a shutoff as with AWB. Usually such unapproved bots are blocked until the owner agrees to obey the bot policy.  MBisanz  talk 02:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a very big deal. @harej 02:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of this may extend from this discussion where it is suggested that a bot to notify Wikiprojects of unrefed BLPs within the project bounds be developed to notify the projects of the problematic ones, but this does not seem to suggest that notifying the projects in general about the issue is appropriate (either way, such a bot probably needs approval). --M ASEM (t) 02:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure. Is there even any evidence to suggest that Ikip's list of WikiProjects is based on a list of affected articles? And approval should be sought, but I still don't consider this to be a big deal. @harej 02:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's indiscriminate spamming. Seriously, do WikiProject Balzac or WikiProject Novels' 19th Century Task Force really need "tools to improve their unreferenced BLPs"? Fran Rogers (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to mention the highly amusing irony of sending this message to WikiProject Death. --Geniac (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The death project? Oh, that's some funny stuff.....I just saw it at the Star Wars project and I'm not thinking unref BLP's are a big issue for Star Wars either.Niteshift36 (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Saints? Don't you have to be dead to be a saint? WP:WikiProject Ancient Near East?? Not exactly BLP magnets. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This behaviour isn't new at all. Ikip has previously been warned by ArbCom "to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing" after a very similar burst of edits last February.  Them From  Space  03:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That might change things. harej  03:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * More serious breaches with convention have been allowed to slide in relation to the BLP situation. I would suggest restraint; it clearly wasn't a bad faith action. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 03:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, but in another situation... I'd noticed this two on a couple of ancient history projects and came here to see if it was being discussed. Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the previous Arbcom warning, he should at the very least be given a stern warning to stop. He's been testing the limits all through the last days. I cannot see his wording that "wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person" as neutral either – it's clearly alarmist and sensationalist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't find comments like "323 articles incubated to Wikiproject Australia, one more article then was deleted by Rdm2376, Lar, and Scott MacDonald" to be particularly mature. As I asked here, I cannot figure out how preemptively moving the articles out of articlespace helps in any way.  It eliminates any possibility that people here can actually work on the articles and in my mind having them run off to random userpages is more hidden than having them even unilaterally deleted.  At least these articles can be discussed.  It seems more like a vendetta to prove a point than anything else.   And is this an appropriate use of a user page?  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The only viable way to fix a backlog of 50k articles is to mobilize an army of our volunteer editors. Ikip's actions should be seen in that light, and should be praised, and the alternative stealth renegade and coup-like lead, follow or get out of the way BLP "cleanup initiative" should be shown the door. The large majority of Ikip's postings seem to hitting relevant projects: Guitarists, Contemporary music, hip hop, .. etc. You can ridicule him for posting on project Death, but that's nitpicking.  With the amazing speed events are unfolding here and the BLP hardliner stance, Ikips postings are defensible, and wholly understandable. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not considering the nature of his actions, and the fact that he's already been warned by ArbCom for doing the same sort of thing. I'd suggest a sharp knock-it-off warning, followed by a block (although Ikip's relatively reasonable, the second step is unlikely to be necessary). Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed them from the King Arthur and Bible wikiprojects, he's replaced them. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In fairness, while not 'living people', both King Arthur and Jesus are scheduled to make a comeback at some point.  pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 10:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Future living people? -- Jayron  32  13:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it appropriate to do this sort of broadcast during the RFC as it could be construed as canvassing, and I would request that Ikip stop and only resume if he can agree a wording with those who are on the other side of the RFC to him. In any event I do think that after the RFC a neutrally phrased note could go to all wikiprojects encouraging them to sign up to user:WolterBot, I've also asked User:DASHBot's writer if he would consider a mailing to projects on similar lines to his current mailings to the 17,400 creators of these unsourced BLPs. But I think that should be after the RFC, if only because there is a huge BLP improvement project going on as a result of DASHBot's mailing this month, and we should let that run its course before running a second round via projects. As for various ancient and or art history projects, I suspect that a Bot which only informed them of unreferenced BLPs in their project would uncover a variety of professorial biographies.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am probably not neutral in this issue, since I personally agree wholeheartedly with most of the opinions of Ikip on the matter: so take my comment with a grain of salt, and I'll try to stay as objective as possible. Having read the message he posts at the talk pages (e.g. ) it seems quite neutral and more of a calling for help in sourcing articles. It doesn't endorse explicitly one position or another, it just asks for community participation. I therefore don't see as disruptive the mass-posting of Ikip; if anything it will probably help the community participate to an important discussion and help maybe some BLPs to be properly sourced. It falls under WP:CANVASS in being mass posting, this I agree, but some solution has to be made to make the community aware (many potentially interested editors are not watching/following the BLP drama venues as we may be) and in the end it seems more constructive than else. It seems these days a lot of people endorse bold actions in dealing with BLPs, even when pushing policy to the limit, as everyone of us here probably knows: I think we should think of the Ikip posting as something in this direction, even if from a different perspective. I hope it helps. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  14:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Non Admin "changing" protection level.
No admin action required here. User:Andrewlp1991 has with this edit changed the protection template on the Article, i am well aware that the user cant actually change the protection level however it has still concerned me that a user with Rollback rights has done this. I have requested the user comment on this action in the users talk page however i feel as the user is trusted with rollback it needs to be noted here.  Zoo Pro  08:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Andrewlp1991 was just kindly clearing up after an admin who had forgotten to update the page when they changed it's protection log, see here for the change to the protection log. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries thanks.  Zoo Pro  11:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon 121.208.130.92 impersonating a real person
I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this, but I couldn't figure out which category it falls into. If it belongs elsewhere, feel free to move it there.

Peter Foster has a long history of attempted whitewashing and bad-faith edits by anons and single-purpose accounts which all appear to be the same person. As discussed at some length on Talk:Peter Foster, there is evidence to suggest that this editor is Foster himself.

Today this editor claimed to be Richard Shears, journalist and author of Foster's biography. I had my doubts, looked up Shears' contact details, and emailed him to check. Response:

Many thanks for checking with me. This is 100 per cent absolutely definitely NOT me! Obviously someone is taking my name in vain, so to speak, having picked it up from articles that I've written for the Daily Mail in the past. I don't talk like that and I'm not aggressive like that. So I'd be grateful if you could delete that particular passage. Once again, thanks for checking.

I have blanked most of the comment in question, per the real Shears' request - I wouldn't normally delete another editor's talk-page remarks, but I think this is an exceptional circumstance. I have also requested semi-protection, and given the BLP issues involved with an article about a convicted criminal I've posted it on the BLP noticeboard to get more eyes on it; at this point I can't consider myself to be a neutral party where pro-Foster edits are concerned. Is there anything else that should be done about this issue? --GenericBob (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Atmapuri Non-compromising on issue, and maintains a bigoted view
Thanks for your attention to this issue.

I have an issue with an user User:Atmapuri who is non compromising on an issue.

I have posted up numerous referenced observations around this topic (Kundalini yoga) and more than a dozen different written changes, each time adding more references and citations. I have updated language numerous time. I have tried to remain neutral and non-negative. However, this person has an issue. They revert every time to repeating the exact same item without compromise citing only one source, which is actually not a strong source (1st source) based upon your guidelines.

Specifically and additionally problematic, they insist on negating any mention to the Sikh-based practice of yoga in the opening paragraphs (specifically P:II), with a continual preference for Hindu-based posting and comments of the Hindu-based ownership of "copyright" of Kundalini Yoga - this is essentially amounting to bigotry! Also, this is not his first time removing or changing Sikh-based postings or altering such information, although he deletes the comments made to him on his user page [example] that detail this.

He also continues also to post up something called "Kundalini Syndrome" and claiming the widespread problematic negative mentions of "mental damage" without ANY proper citations or reference. His only reference is citing from a 1st source book where these words was simply mentioned as an opinion/warning, and not at all the premise of the book itself. In fact, the book they reference is actually pro-Kundalini (of course, because written by a Kundalini teacher) - as if one needed to be "pro-yoga" at all, like it was a bad thing. Needless to say, his source and also some other postings on this book author of his are already flagged repeatedly for non-adherence to Wiki guidelines and advertising [example].

Hard to understand his/her motivations, however, they are uncompromising, and this person never writes or cites anything new. In my opinion, this is not a good editor - rather, someone with an agenda of (Hindu) cultural elitism and religious dominance over a public source of non-religious Yoga practice.

Please see the history on this... I have worked hard to make my open-sided, neutral point understood and legitimately referenced & cited, but this person is obsessed with their singular viewpoint and weak source references.

I would also suggest his conduct of dozens of reversions to a single bigoted point with neither copy changes nor compromise has already grossly violated the WikiPedia Three-revert rule (and not first time doing so).

Thanks for your attention.Fatehji (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just looked over Atmapuri recent edits and your are correct..Hes behavior it not what i like to see here...Even when hes is asked to changes his behavior he does not-- not that you can see as he deletes the comments made to him on his user page [example]..thinking you might want to take this up here --> Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as i dont see that a third party talking to him would help you!..This is not an endorsement of your or his point of view/edits on the article ..but simply recognizing hes behavior is wrong !!... Good Luck!!!... Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Buzzsherman, I will elevate this request and see if an admin can help. Thanks.Fatehji (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've notified him about this discussion, although you were required to do that. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. Noticed it, and I notified him as well.Fatehji (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So, the warring has not stopped. User Atmapuri continues to erase references to Sikhism under thinly veiled "editing" reasoning like: "lists not needed", so he erases and changes around the phrasing of an entire paragraph to make it seem like "other" forms of Kundalini yoga are "secondary" or simply opinions of other sources.


 * The biggest issue here and foundation of the problem is that he has stated in the topic discussion seriously flawed thinking as reasons for his warring.


 * 1) He has stated unequivocally that "Hinduism has a copyright on Yoga" Um. OKKk. So therefore he erases or belittles other religious ties (or non secular) practices of yoga. As I said on the boards, he may as well be claiming "Jews have a copyright on Jesus".


 * 2) His second serious flaw and source of bigotry is that he believes "Sikhism is a part of Hinduism". This is insulting and outrageous. You may as well say "Protestants are Roman Catholic". If you want to get someone upset, this is a great way to start - by revising history and claiming ownership of someones else religion.


 * 3)Additionally, he continues to make reference to "Kundalini Syndrome" which is not a real syndrome at all. The internal link and articles he provides links to a page that has been flagged for being unprofessional (see kundalini syndrome). It is a pseudo-scientific postulation by just a few psychologists. It is also a poorly coined term because it has no direct scientific basis. "Kundalini" (kundalini) energy itself is claimed by Eastern philosophy to be dormant in all humans, and in yogic thinking all yoga styles work to raise this energy. Therefore any mention of "Kundalini Syndrome" in relation to yoga must be included in ALL FORMS of yoga, or NONE. Just because it shares a name with "Kundalini Yoga" doesn't make it directly related. There is no proof that "Kundalini Yoga" itself is directly related to "Kundalini Syndrome" any more than it relates to Hatha or Vinyasa yoga or any other yoga form. It's kind of like saying that "Down Dog" (a yoga pose) can sometimes catch rabies. It's a non-linear connection.


 * Nonetheless, this person continues to re-post an change and revise these references regardless of the talk discussion and these points. His sole concern is maintaining that Hindu teachings are primary, and that any other school teaching this is harmful, without any demonstrated interest in compromising, or wanting to expand on or add to the topic at all. He has long ago exceeded his reach on this topic. Please help put a stop to this.Fatehji (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned user's blog used as an external link in articles
A Wikipedia editor was recently indefinitely blocked for personal attacks, POV edit warring, etc. He happens to maintain a personal blog which is linked to from various Wikipedia articles as an external link (and possibly also, in some cases, as a reference). Since being blocked, he is now using the blog to continue the behaviour for which he was blocked (personal attacks against other editors) and to incite his readers to edit Wikipedia on his behalf. In light of this, is it appopriate for links to his personal blog to remain as external links within Wikipedia articles? As references? (In the event that the answer to both questions is "yes", for now I'll refrain from disclosing the identity of the editor in question.) —Psychonaut (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you've obviously set up the question in a way that the answer is "no" I'm guessing that the name would add some context that might make this a bit less black and white than you are making it out to be? Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  17:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Bosniak and . Hipocrite (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I have no idea what the answer is, because this is a novel situation and I don't know of any applicable policy. The reason I didn't want to name names at this point is because (a) I'm one of the targets of the personal attacks, and (b) I don't want to publically embarrass the user in the event that he's done nothing wrong (policy-wise). —Psychonaut (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That site does not look like a reliable source or an appropriate external link. I suggest reporting it to WikiProject Spam and ask for help cleaning them up. Jehochman Brrr 17:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At a glance I'd agree with Jehochman here. Leaving the indefinte block and related issues to the side, a personal blog is generally not something we would use as an external link (certainly not as a source) unless it was considered particularly reliable or important (e.g. an "expert blog" regularly cited in news stories). If it is just basically a personal blog that is not well respected I would say the links should be removed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the issue of linking to the blog has already been discussed before on countless article talk pages. It's widely known by editors that User:Bosniak is the author of the blog, no one seems to have a problem with it, and so neither did I, until this recent use of it to circumvent a block gave me pause. I don't think this use alone qualifies it as spam, especially since the links were added to articles long before the fact.  —Psychonaut (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that nothing to do with the current content, a non-notable partisan blog is thoroughly inappropriate as an external link, and even more inappropriate as a reliable source, if indeed it is used as such. I am particularly concerned by the way the real content is disguised as a "photo tour" eg here. It looks to me that a good clean out of external links (with reference to the external link guidelines) should happen on many of those pages as there are other dubious looking sites there.--Slp1 (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree the links should be removed, and should probably have been removed earlier, independently of Bosniak's behaviour. Clearly not an appropriate WP:RS. (Sorry I've shortened the section title a bit, hope you don't mind.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, then, perhaps one of the many people here who think the link should be removed for reasons completely unrelated to this report should go ahead and do so. But be prepared to be named as another genocide-denying, history-effacing, Bosniak-baby-murdering Serbian fascist. ;) —Psychonaut (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For a charged topic like this, a personal blog should default to a big no-no. Unless positive evidence can be presented that he is a well-known authority on the subject, the links should definitely be removed. 19:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the Sarajevo one, and also found a link to a web page called "Chronology of the battle and siege of Sarajevo" where an editor had called it " Aggression by Slavic forces against Bosniaks", so I changed that to the real npov title. The good news is that most of the links are on talk pages: . Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Seem to 3 uses of the site in mainspace: Special:Linksearch/srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/ CIreland (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * has several hits on subpages from the above link. Personally, I don't think those subpages are appropriate use of user space. Anyone else care to take a look? Mjroots (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * These have now been deleted as spam. Mjroots (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, User:Bosniak called User:Sandstein a "piece of worthless serbian shit" on his talk after the block, so I have strong reservations that linking his blog even on talk pages is appropriate. I've not read the blog, but I suspect it's nothing like NPOV. Pcap ping  20:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On a related note, could someone change his talk page so it redirects to his userpage, or else delete the links to his blog and other nonsense at the top of the talk page? Someone who makes openly racist attacks against other editors doesn't need help from us directing people to his hate screeds. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of who put it in, the blog site doesn't look like it meets WP:EL due to its confrontational and politicized nature. It should probably be removed from most every article it is in.  Them  From  Space  05:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support that. The link should be totally eradicated from Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the link from Bosniak's talk page. If any admin feels that this was incorrect, please revert me. Now, what about the remaining links to that blog, should they be allowed to remain, or do we eradicate them totally? Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin, I don't know whether I am entitled to contribute here, but I deplore the damage being done to articles by purging Bosniak's links and contributions. Bosniak behaves unwisely and very unwisely on occasions but that doesn't stop him from being a very important contributor to articles about the Bosnian war in particular.

His blog is in fact a respected source of reliable information even though his partisanship is unquestionable. It is one of the most important regularly updated sources of accessible information about issues like war crimes investigations, trials and judgments. His posts are open to public criticism (with the exception of a legitimate proscription on submissions that deny the genocide findings of international law). In my experience when he provides sourced information it is almost inevitably reliable when followed to source and even if his personal comments are not always well-judged they tend to be readily recognisable as such. (The author is genuinely respected by individuals of repute in this area who know how to take his more erratic moments into account).

While Bosniak is not the most temperate of individuals, I would also point out that Psychonaut has found fault on a number of occasions with Bosniak's contributions in a way which although objectively legitimate does not appear to be inspired by interest in / an informed judgment concerning the substance of the subject at issue. Bosniak may over-react to him but as someone fortunate not to have the personal experience of events that contributes to Bosniak's and other contributors' sensitivity in such matters, I have nevertheless found myself puzzled by Psychonaut's tendency to challenge Bosniak's contributions, eg the article on the April 1993 elementary school massacre at Srebrenica, in a way that suggests no particular interest in developing the content of the article/contribution in question.

I would ask that any action admins take in response to Bosniak's most recent outbursts and the pattern of spasmodic inappropriate conduct should be measured and above all take account of the overall interest of the readers of the articles he has been involved with. Opbeith (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, that while Psychonaut's interventions were unhelpful and his subsequent observations above strike me as less than straightforward, I certainly don't condone the way in which Bosniak has referred to the dispute at his blog. At the bottom of it all, though, the article is important. Opbeith (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is true that my involvement with Bosniak's edits is not "inspired by interest in… the subject at issue". That's because I have practically no knowledge or interest whatsoever in the aftermath of the breakup of Yugoslavia.  My only concern here has been monitoring and dealing with problematic edits, such as vandalism, personal attacks, vanity articles, obvious POV-pushing, garden walls, etc.  Bosniak has a long history of engaging in (and being blocked for) all of these activities, and thus it is no surprise that his edits have commanded particular scrutiny at times.  (Practically everything he has contributed here needs to be meticulously fact- and POV-checked.)   But as my contribution history attests, such scrutiny is by no means limited to Bosniak, nor to Balkans-related articles.  I could easily point to a number of other problematic editors, writing in completely different fields, who have been just as closely monitored by myself and/or other editors. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That blog clearly doesn't meet reliable source guidelines and doesn't belong here, regardless of whose blog it is. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Towaru
I've raised the subject of some of the sub-pages of at WT:CSD. Looking at their contributions it is obvious that there are a lot more sub-pages, which may or may not be within policy and need looking at. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:HagenUK
is repeatedly reverting the Android (disambiguation) page despite multiple requests not to at User talk:HagenUK. No response on user talk page; only the 2nd revert has a comment: ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Android_%28disambiguation%29&action=historysubmit&diff=339347993&oldid=339331892 Restored entry. It is relevant (especially in the business community), referenced via BBC source and MOS:DAB is clearly non-applicable.]'' which was addressed with appropriate wikilinks in my prior and subsequent edit summaries (please see revision history) and talk page messages, plus Talk:Android (disambiguation). Not sure if I should request a block, or page protection, or take other action first? 92.1.93.82 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I think both of you should be blocked for edit warring. However in being constructive, why do you think this material should be removed. You state on one of the talk pages that the word is not mentioned in the reference when it very clearly is and gives no room for misinterpretation. <font color="Blue">Canterbury Tail  <font color="Blue">talk  23:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The MOS:DAB criteria for "Items appearing within other articles" are If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. I stated that the word "Android" isn't mentioned in the Accenture article, never that it's not mentioned in the reference. 92.1.93.82 (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From previous experience, I am not discussing things with anonymous IP addresses. If someone cannot be bothered to show who they are, there is usually a reason for that. Also, the reasons for the re-instating where mentioned in the second restore. a) The term in widely used in the business community. b) the term is back up by a reference to the BBC website. If requested, I can attach a lot more. c) the term links to the Accidenture term. Also, looking down the same page, there is an identical situation with "Android Lust", song by The Prodigy. Why is this not an issue?!? HagenUK (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not even on an article talk page? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to make sure, just re-read the MOS:DAB. Please refer to section "Where piping may be appropriate", and look at the example in the text box. Ergo, I rest my case ... the "Android" entry is exactly the same. Now, Mr/Mrs 92.1.93.82, would you please refrain from engaging in any further edit warring? Thank you! HagenUK (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The term "Android" does appear on the What Evil Lurks (Prodigy) page, therefore it should be listed on the Android (disambiguation) page. The term "Android" does not appear on the Accenture page, therefore it shouldn't be listed on the Android (disambiguation) page, piped or otherwise. 92.1.93.82 (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The IP has the right of it here. Also, HagenUK's "I don't talk to IPs" attitude is not acceptable in a collegial environment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

revert war at Race and Intelligence
There is an unreasoning squabble over two different versions at Race and Intelligence. I don't really want to get anyone in trouble, but I think it's time to protect the page, if only to remove a pointless bone of contention. -- Ludwigs 2 02:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see an indication for protection at the moment - it hasn't been reverted for 4 hours or so, so it's possible things have died down. It appears that a single editor,, is edit-warring against multiple other editors, and furthermore that this editor has been blocked twice previously for edit-warring on this article. Under those circumstances, a block is probably more appropriate than page protection... but since he hasn't made any reverts in the last 4+ hours, a block would be punitive at the moment. MastCell Talk 04:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * .... aaaand while I writing the above, reverted again, while asserting in the edit summary that everyone else was guilty of edit-warring. Blocked for 1 week, given previous offenses. MastCell Talk 04:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * At least 10 different editors were involved in that little revert spat since January 9th, all with multiple reverts over the same material, and Occam gets singled out as the culprit? I agree with Ludwigs that a page protection was in order, but I find a week-long block for one user unfair. -- Aryaman (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When one editor is being reverted by multiple others, and that one editor is reverting them back and claiming that the many are guilty of edit warring, which is what MastCell indicates, then there is very likely to be a simple root cause of the disruption; a one week block seems therefore appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A one-man edit war, resulting in a block, over the subject of intelligence. Yup. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:PAs by Pryde 01
Rather than debating the issue at Talk:Passport, has placed some of the most nauseating and obnoxious personal attacks I have ever seen on my and RashersTierney's talk pages. He is aware of the inappropriateness of his actions, I quote: "I do not give a fuck about the etiquette on this site". It is this kind of behaviour which is making it difficult to maturely debate this issue. — what a crazy random happenstance 08:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Toddst1 (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If they don't care about etiquette, why should a warning matter to them? 67.51.38.51 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Nine Unknown
  An IP vandal is hard at work on The Nine Unknown how do I go about requesting semi-protection? Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * requests for page protection --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

my restrictions
So I've been told I have to go here to get my restrictions modified/removed. I think I deserve to be part of the full community again. It's been almost a month.--Levineps (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On what grounds? What have you done since the restrictions have been placed that show that the restrictions are no longer needed?  -- Jayron  32  04:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The user has abided by the restrictions. How about lifting the restrictions on March 1, 2010 with relaxed probation until April 1, 2010.  Relaxed probation means that the user should be aware of the concerns on the previous restrictions and try not to offend anyone during that additional one month. JB50000 (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Diffs and links to prior restrictions would be helpful. Not everyone knows what is going on here, so it is hard for uninvolved people to comment on the situation.  Could you provide a link to the original discussion that led to the restrictions so we can all know what is going on here?!?  -- Jayron  32  04:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at his userpage. That will show you the terms of the restrictions.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  05:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I dunno, his recent edits look in line with his restrictions, and I don't see any problems in the last 500 or so edits.  However, I also don't think that 3 weeks is long enough for restrictions of this nature.  I like JB's suggestion to revisit this in March.  I'd also like to hear from Levineps a bit more on what he has learned from his prior problems and sanctions.  Just showing up an ANI and saying "It's been long enough, take them away" does not necessarily give any indication that the user intends to abide by community norms.  I routinely decline unblock requests which state "Sorry, I won't do it again" without any indication that the blocked user understands what "it" is, and I also don't see anything here that Levineps understands why the restrictions were put in place, or how he intends to avoid the problems that led to the restrictions in the first place.  He has shown that he understands what his restrictions are, and appears to have followed them (for about 3 weeks or so) but I still don't see evidence that he understands what the initial problems were or what he intends to do differently to avoid those problems. -- Jayron  32  05:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All I know about this is from this thread and what I see on Lev's user and talk pages, but: The restrictions are actually very modest, and except for "No new categories" are mostly just good manners.  So the restrictions were apparently imposed because of category abuse.  How has Lev's understanding of category policy changed in the last three weeks? PhGustaf (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To show his good faith, maybe Levine could list here some new categories he has in mind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion which led to the ban is here. I was the editor who reported the problem.

The sanctions were imposed not in response to a single incident, but after a prolonged period (nearly a year, I think) in which Levineps has created new categories and recategorised articles and categories at a prodigious rate. Much of this work was controversial, but Levineps repeatedly failed to respond to attempts by other editors to discuss his edits, or responded with rude or dismissive one-liners. When I finally startes reverting his disruptive edits, he repeatedly accused me of vandalism.

Nothing in Levineps request indicates in any way that he intends to behave differently than before, and his comment on Coffee's talkpage merely says that he has been restricted for a week without complaint. The disruption caused by his previous edits will take a long time to resolve, and I hope that the restrictions will not be lifted that has been cleaned up and Levineps can give some clear indications of how he intends to work differently than before. Like Jayron32, I see no evidence that he has learnt anything at all about why he he was banned, and I would oppose any lifting of the restrictions until Levineps can persuade the community that he really has learnt from this episode. So far I see Levineps using edit summaries, but no sign of him working collaboratively to resolve differences, which was the kernel of the problem before.

Rather than deciding now to lift the restrictions in March, I think it would be much better to ask Levineps to reapply in March, with a clear warning that a simple "I want to edit categories again" request will result in the ban remaining in place. If and when it is lifted, I hope that there will be a much longer period of probation than the 1 month suggested above by JB50000. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this proposal. Levineps can re-apply on March 1. and if it his ban is lifted then he is on probation for another 3 months. Does that sound good?-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with User talk:Baseball Bugs—that it would be helpful to know what kind of category work Levineps has in mind. If he's just going to go back to doing what he was doing before, there's no point allowing it—now or in March. The category ban was not a "punishment" that he can "serve" by sitting out a period of time like a person can serve a jail sentence—it was kind of a last resort in a situation where the user was repeatedly causing major problems in the category system. Unless that changes the ban can't change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32 and BHG. Given that the main problem was a lack of communication and responsiveness, I don't think the restrictions should be lifted unless Levineps can, at a minimum, expressly show his understanding of why the restrictions were imposed. The above request falls woefully short. It shouldn't just be a matter of him behaving by complying with the restrictions (though kudos for that). He needs to explain and prove himself through his own words, not by implication from his conduct. I don't think it particularly matters what category changes he wants to make, particularly not if the suggestion was to base the removal of his restrictions on whether he puts forth good ideas. He's completely free to propose category edits to others on talk pages while the restrictions are in place, and I can't think of a better rehabilitation than forcing him to go through that process. postdlf (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely understand why I was banned even if I disagree with all the restrictions put in place. I have definitely learned to communicate and when I do communicate to be more respectful. Even if I was trying to crack a joke or two, it might not have been the greatest idea. I think this period of time has also allowed me to be productive in other areas. I do intend to create as many categories (if at all) and would focus more on overcategorization. I also like the feedback I have gotten and plan to act on those changes.--Levineps (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a start, but I'd like to see a a clearer acknowledgement of exactly what was awry before you were banned: for example, the problem before was not that you cracked a joke or two, but that you cracked jokes in place of any substantive communication. Let's see if you can improve things further by March. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would hope to be able to apply for reinstatement/partial removal of sanctions (whatever you want to call it) before March, but if it's March than so be it and ill wait.--Levineps (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha
A note that this discussion is occurring has been left at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am in the wrong place. A simple request: Ucucha, whom I've never seen editing before within the subject areas in which I participate, in a period of several days unilaterally moved/renamed the article Jew to Jews. Although some discussion was held between January 18 and the present, there certainly wasn't a clear consensus - especially by the core group of editors (including members of the umbrella project dealing with Jewish-related articles). Part of this short time fell on the Jewish Sabbath, when some of these editors do not work on Wikipedia. Then, this user closed the discussion, archived it, obtained a semi-protection, and made the move. Is this, uh, kosher? Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I closed a requested move that had been open for the full seven days required by established procedure. My rationale for this close is at Talk:Jew; I interpreted consensus as being in favor of moving the page "Jew" to "Jews". Any seven-day period will include the Sabbath, so I don't see the relevance of this argument. I did not obtain any semi-protection; I only moved protection settings from "Jew" to "Jews" (which is done automatically by the software).
 * I am open to constructive criticism of my close. A Sniper and have now undone my move, which carried out the conclusion of a valid requested move. Ucucha 05:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ucucha's account of the facts. I didn't see anything wrong with the way Ucucha closed the discussion.
 * I moved Jews back to Jew only because A Sniper had moved Talk:Jews, and I thought the article (which was move-protected) should share the name of its Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I don't quite understand why didn't you move Talk:Jew back to Talk:Jews.
 * I have commented at Talk:Jew that I will move the page back to "Jews" in accordance with the result of the RM unless A Sniper comes up with a good reason why that should not be the case. It would be even better if another admin could make that decision, though. Ucucha 12:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, I probably should have moved the Talk page instead of the article, but A Sniper seemed agitated and I didn't want to start a revert war. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please let an admin confirm whether or not consensus actually took place. I disagree entirely that it has. Considering this move has been debated before - and consensus never achieved - I think it should be only made with considerable care.  Hence my wanting to slow the process down slightly.  Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable point. Consensus can change, and I think it did here, but I'd be happy to have a different admin do another assessment. Ucucha 14:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I can not honestly say "consensus" for moving was reached in that discussion. Counting up, I find 4 supporting the change, 7 opposed, and one who does not care. Collect (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I count 84.92..., Nick Graves, V = I * R, Yoninah, Prezbo, Jimsteele9999 in favor; IZAK, Bus stop, 74.66..., Debresser against; Malik, Rebele, Jayjg, Jmabel neutral. I count that as 6-4-4; don't know where you got your numbers from. There are some weak arguments on both sides that should be discarded, for example Jimsteele9999 and IZAK. Most of those with an opinion seem to prefer the plural, although many apparently don't care much either way. Both sides can cite some other articles that their proposed title would be consistent with, but I see no reason there to disregard the rough consensus. Ucucha 15:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact is, this is the RM process. If User:A Sniper doesn't like it, he should have at a minimum discussed the issue with User:Ucucha before edit warring over the move (both by reverting the discussion close, and reverting the move of the talk page, which created a mess for the article as well). I don't think that User:A Sniper is widely experience with our policies and procedure however (obviously), so nothing more then a good trout slap should come from this, but doing nothing or allowing his poor behavior to stand is not a solution at all. I should note that I did support the move, but I want to point out that the RM request itself is the only thing which brought me to the article, and my feelings on the matter are entirely academic (which I think are manifest in my comments during the RM). User:A Sniper should note that he/she is free to open another RM, preferably in a month or two. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been editing for several years, so I will take the slap in the face by a tasty trout, as suggested by V = I * R. However, my revert and missives are well intentioned. I have been one of several editors from our Project editing this article and merely felt that, even if the RM was followed to the letter, that the discussion was taking place with a fair number of editors brought to it merely by the RM itself.  I mean no offence towards 84.92 or Ucucha when I state that I have never seen them editing any article within the realm of the project, and that some leeway could have been granted to allow for more time - at least as a courtesy to the many who have dealt with the issue of the article name whenever it has reared its head.  Thanks.  Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to add as the nominator of the move, I took part in editing many Jewish related articles when I was a registered user. The move was purely motivated by feeling the title I suggested better reflected the content of this article. I will also disclose that I am Jewish. I feel that A Sniper is being unusually agressive in what should be an uncontroversial move request, and that he has not yet given any reason for opposing the move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, IP, but I don't know what you're talking about. If you aren't registered, there is no way to know who you are, what you edit, and it is difficult to get to know you as an editor.  I don't think I'm being 'aggressive'. If you want reasons, why don't you check the archives for the other times people have drifted in to the article, made moves to change the name, were unsuccessful, and then drifted off again? If I must wait a short period, and then rally the troops to look at the issue again for another consensus, so be it.  Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to know more about me, I will happily answer any questions you submit to me. If you're interested in what I edit on Wikipedia, please view my user contributions. I can't see why you can't just state what you dislike about my requested move and have done with it. I looked at the archives of Talk:Jew before I made the request, as I mentioned on my move request itself, but the suggested moves had different rationales to mine. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is it necessary to "rally the troops"? Jew is watched by 800 editors, and on January 17 I posted a notice to WT:JUDAISM. There were more than 100 edits to Talk:Jew last week, all of which showed up in those 800 editors' watchlists. Nobody can say they didn't know about the proposed move. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Unknown Lupus
I really don't know how else to address this problem, but there is this account named Unknown Lupus that has been hounding me and harassing me long enough and I will not tolerate it anymore.

First of all I believe it's a single purpose account since in his 79 editions he only dedicated to patrol Bolivian culture articles to revert editions made by Bolivians to defend an extremist POV which as he says in :

So this person actually tries to vandalize Bolivian and Chilean articles to nullify their entire culture and make it look as all the culture in South America is Peruvian, which is completely ridiculous.

I could never had a direct interaction with this person as I try to address his content deletions on the articles talk pages yet he ignores them and continue hounding me or insult me, I don't consider he's even trying to be serious I feel that he, for my nationality, tries to keep me away from the project. A clear example of this is:

In a talk page I saw an IP just insulting other countries and I said this, yet Unknown Lupus insulted me and offended me with this.

Now I was working on other article that was unsourced and contained many misspellings and he came again hounding me again to battle me just eliminating arbitrarily parts and putting copyrighted images,.

I'm tired I'm honestly tired I don't know what else can I do with this individual, I left a "inuse" sign as I'll be editing the article tonight but I hope he doesn't come again to delete arbitrarily pieces of information.

List of systematic reversions or Peruvian nationalism:, , , , , , , even ridiculous changes like this, there are more examples but I think it's enough information.

Thanks. <font color="#000">Erebedhel  - <font color="#000">Talk  07:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Other than the notice saying you've already tattled on him/her, I don't see you trying to discuss anything with the editor. Perhaps that's a better place to start. Toddst1 (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but no I didn't talk to him over his talk page but I tried it on the articles talk pages,  yet he doesn't answer me just ignores it and continue attacking me. <font color="#000">Erebedhel   - <font color="#000">Talk  07:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S besides I did try before even a Mediation cabal for other article where I invited him and he didn't participate just continued reverting edits, I have this problem with him since August of last year, he doesn't really participate just follow me and revert or delete things while I'm editing something without giving explanations or calling it "useless information" when I mention it on the talk page of the article he never answers just insult me in Spanish on other editor's talk page like I showed above. <font color="#000">Erebedhel  - <font color="#000">Talk  08:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mediation Cabal and he didn't participate? How was the user supposed to even know it existed except if he actually was hounding you? Nobody told the guy it was going on!!  Geez! Toddst1 (talk)
 * I provided the link above it's a response to a comment he made about me on a talk page, it's from October, I believe I addressed it in a civil way. <font color="#000">Erebedhel   - <font color="#000">Talk  03:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's clear enough. <font color="#000">Erebedhel  - <font color="#000">Talk  03:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuing abuse
This user was notified, he ignores this warning yet he keeps hounding me calling "unnecessary lines", I believe there is a clear policy about hounding I don't know what else to do but I'll not tolerate this kind of behaviour. <font color="#000">Erebedhel  - <font color="#000">Talk  22:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone help this person with their hounding complaint? It appears valid and they have attempted to communicate with the other party at the various article talk pages, even attempting mediation. Additionally, rude and snarky comments like Other than the notice saying you've already tattled on him/her are not helpful in the least. If someone feels they are being hounded or Wikistalked and they ask for help they deserve to have their problem investigated without sarcastic dismissals. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree - the whole "tattling" line is a bit embarassing, considering this is an appropriate place to report hounding. It does look a bit suspicious, but on the whole the editor is making largely constructive edits, though I don't believe that they are using the talk page enough. It looks like Unknown Lupus has a genuine interest in Peru/Bolivian articles. Definitely I think they are skating close to the edge in terms of problems with NPOV though. I think that we should probably continue to monitor this editor for a while and see what happens. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys are full of it. There is still no discussion - not from Erebedhel or from any of you armchair quarterbacks on Lupus' talk page. Get off ANI and at least try to fix it yourselves! Toddst1 (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe there is a misunderstanding due to my initial phrasing but I tried to address his behaviour in a civil way before on another article's talk page but he ignores it even though he does read talk pages; it can be visible in this sequence: →  → . That's how he responded when he made a complete section dedicated to me because of what another IP did. (and yes his buddy ran to try to block me accusing me of sockpuppetry which of course turned to be false). That's from October, I have been having problems with this editor for months and I believe I tried to address it in a civil and patient way. I don't know how else to make it clearer I didn't feel the need to template him because I consider that my comments on the articles' talk pages were enough. <font color="#000">Erebedhel   - <font color="#000">Talk  03:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that addressing an individual's behaviors should not be done on article talk pages. If you see a problem - a pattern of behavior with a user - talk to them on their talk page where they'll see a big orange banner when they continue to edit. Templates are usually not the right answer for anyone who has been around more that a brief period.  Talk to them, explain that they need to change their behavior, point to policies and when and only if that fails, pursue WP:DR, WP:WQA or Category:NPOV disputes.  Toddst1 (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I'll do the following as I told Tbsdy, I'll try to continue editing explaining my editions to him in a calm way and if he continues I'll point out the relevant policies in his talk page. However I believe that the scale of the problem I have with this user and another editor MarshalN20 wasn't clear in this report because since now the problem is only with Unknown Lupus I didn't want to bring back the problem with MarshalN20. However in August I observed that both editors were making offensive comments on the Diablada article and asked them to stop, MarshalN20 specially reacted against me in a disproportionate angry manner. That led to Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-18/Diablada which failed and now is on Requests for mediation/Diablada, but that also led to a RfC for user conduct on MarshalN20 where we also observed that Unknown Lupus does act suspiciously similar to Marshal so there is the possibility that these accounts are in coordination or is a case of sockpuppetry. Unknown Lupus did know perfectly about that because he participated actively in the debate and did read the section where his policy infractions were addressed. Naturally I did point out at the beginning "please keep WP:CIV WP:NPA" when they first started making those comments but the conflict escalated till the RfC, which I recognize wasn't perhaps the best approach because I wasn't familiar with the procedure and the other editor who signed it didn't participate. I try to remain calm but dealing with these two editors has been extremely exhausting I'm afraid that if it doesn't stop it'll reach arbitration but they don't seem to change their way to treat me. Maybe my mistake was just mention the policies on the articles talk pages and avoid taking it to the boards as I didn't want to look authoritarian, maybe I should have done that instead earlier but now is too late to follow a different path. <font color="#000">Erebedhel   - <font color="#000">Talk  08:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Drop me a note on my talk page if you need help. Toddst1 (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you I'll keep you informed of how it goes. <font color="#000">Erebedhel  - <font color="#000">Talk  19:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Motor skill
I'm here instead of RFPP because this is a bit tricky -- apparently there is a class somewhere that has been assigned to work on this article; the problem is that they don't know what they are doing and are making a mess of it. Some edits look like vandalism, others are good-faith but clueless. None are sourced. I've tried engaging but haven't had any luck. I wonder if it would be possible to protect the article temporarily in order to force them to the talk page? The article wasn't very good before they started on it so in principle we could just let them hack away, but that doesn't seem very useful even as an educational experience.Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Followup -- now taken to RFPP due to ongoing vandalism and lack of response here. Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a bit tricky but-hang on! What's that noise? Oh, it is a jet ski! Hold on a minute,. I cannot think twith this noise!--222.154.161.61 (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No no, you fool. That's engine skill. Half  Shadow  21:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently a University class! (University of Illinois), Kin 457.  Woogee (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The instructor's personal page is here. Woogee (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would someone be interested in pointing the instructor to School and university projects and WikiProject Classroom coordination? We can probably clear this all up pretty quickly if someone does this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear God. We should indef anon block every school and university. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Breach of ARBMAC civility parole, trolling, harassment by User:Sulmues
Back in December, this user was placed under the following 3 month civility supervision per WP:ARBMAC by User:Moreschi for outbursts such as these. Since then, he has continued posting trolling comments such as these                   (the "Trojan Horse" is a reference to Greek editors), calling me a vandal, while here  he is making the false accusation that Albania had to be protected because of "vandalism" on my part, when in fact it was *I* who requested semi-protection  because the article was plagued by IPs. Here is talking smack    in Albanian with the indef-blocked User:Lceliku (translation available on Google Translate).

Particularly odious is his restoration of this TOV by User:Lceliku with the mendacious excuse that the guy "welcomed" me and I "banned" him. When I became irate  over this, his response was to mock me.

Lately, he is also now falsely accusing me of breaking 3RR  when in fact I did no such thing.

Here he is trying to disrupt an SPI I have filed   by somehow implying that I'm anti-Albanian and that therefore the checkuser should take this into account.

The final straw, however, was that even though Moreschi explicitly warned him that further accusations of vandalism against me would constitute a breach of his revert parole and hence would be blockable, he has continued to do so. There is a clear pattern here of incivility, bad faith assumptions, trolling, and personal attacks since he has been put on civility parole. This is intolerable and has got to stop. I would ordinarily be perfectly content to let Moreschi handle this, but he appears not to be active at the moment. Athenean (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It might be better if you were to put this in the form of a Sanction enforcement request at WP:AE, which would provide for a structure for response, discussion and review.  Sandstein   06:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sandstein, I think Arbitration Enforcement is to enforce a closed Arbitration Committee ruling, and I still have not had the chance to see this ruling. When I was blocked by Moreschi in December, I never had the chance to protect myself. Do I get the chance here to defend myself? Athenean has brought here plenty of accusations which I have to reject. His interpretations of my behavior are very agressive. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 13:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to admit looking at all of the diffs (and digging through contributions for quite a while) that it looks like both of you have been a little hot headed and it may be better served for you guys to just back away from each other. Sulmues may be throwing words like vandal around a bit loosely but I can't deny that it does appear you are following him around a bit as well (just recently accusing him of being a banned user here and taking barnstars off of his userpage is a bit much. Too much wikilawyering is not good in the longrun. <font color="#999" face="Tahoma"><font color="#008">James  (<font color="#000">T |<font color="#000">C )  13:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Except that I'm not under civility parole, but he is, and he has clearly breached this parole. I mean, he never misses an opportunity to make a dig at me, even when welcoming a new user. I will go to AE and request enforcement of his civility parole.  Athenean (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish I could. athenean within the last 24 hours has brought me to the attention of Moreschi (see where he uses inappropriate language, ckatz and Luna_Santin where he accuses me of receiving a barnstar from an IP that was subsequently blocked (see User_talk:Ckatz) and User_talk:Luna_Santin) and he is now reporting an incident that is caused only by his accusations and his sufference to see me edit his Albanian pages. He has also a history of blanking references that are perfectly valid and it seems like I need to get banned or blocked at any cost and I cannot work in peace for my contributions to Wikipedia, because I have to spend all my time to defend myself from this user. Athenean's 6.3k edits are all patrolling Albanian related topics (See here  that 7 out of his 10 most edited articles regard Albania). He does not know Albanian, but he'll make sure to blank references that I bring to the table. I'm bringing this  (but I could bring at least 50 such blanking cases) where he takes out references which you can easily see online.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 13:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

File talk:MiddleEast.A2003031.0820.250m.jpg
I'm certainly not gonna touch this with a 10 foot pole myself (it's not my fight at all), but someone may want to look into File talk:MiddleEast.A2003031.0820.250m.jpg — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I took a stab at it. The image is on Commons, so deletion discussion is not appropriate here. And shouldn't that be a 10 ft pole? ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Main article on simple Wikipedia for Jessica Lange is blank while an extensive version of the page exists elsewhere on Wikipedia
Dear administrators,

I have tried to edit the page http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lange in English without success.

Would you please correct these mistakes; every time I tried I seem to have made some mistake and the page was deleted rapidly. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.253.209 (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That is on the Simple version of Wikipedia, and it has it's own rules and admins. Looking at the page, it gives some clear reasons for the deletions— the last was "Complex article from another Wikipedia, little sign of simplification/conversion." Please discuss at simple:Wikipedia:Simple talk. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User Goldor
was given a final warning by me about personal attacks. I also reverted some personal attacks at Talk:Bosnian_Royal_Family which he reverted. He's calling editors scum at RPP and the above talk page. I'm going to block him, anyone object to an indef block? Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I went to his talk page to tell him about this, he's already blocked indefinitely. He was clearly not here to benefit the project. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Coach Station or coach station?
I don't pretend to know enough about this really to go and start making reverts and changes, but an editor is changing many many bus and coach stations to lower case titles. The biggest coach station I know is Victoria in London - this though, has managed to remain Victoria Coach Station. As this is the name of the station, capital C and S for Coach Station seems justified in the title.

Newcastle coach station, Bristol bus station, Birmingham coach station to name a few, have all been changed recently. A quick search of google would suggest that most sources, newspapers included, use capital letters to denote coach stations. National Express website also uses capitals for their coach stations, ie. "Bristol Bus Station".

Any thoughts? Willdow (Talk) 17:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't an admin issue. Village pump (miscellaneous), WikiProject Transport, or WikiProject England would be appropriate venues (one, not all). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Other ideas may be the talk page of Naming conventions or one of the subpages thereof. -- Jayron  32  17:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try there in relation to the naming of the pages - was slightly hinting also at whether it's a tad controversial moving all these pages without any mention or discussion on the articles talk pages - I know that in cases of train stations, ie. Talk:Birmingham New Street railway station, where "railway" has been added against consensus, and Station changed to station, it has kicked up a bit of a storm... "If it ain't broke don't fix it" or "fixing something for the sake of fixing it" comes to mind. Willdow (Talk) 17:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor corporate whitewashing at Carhartt
Over at Carhartt, there's a Carhartt section, cited to the New York Times. That's been removed at least twice by accounts with few other editing interests. Today, it was removed by in this edit.

A traceroute returns "70-227-70-3.carhartt.com". Geolocation returns (42.3165 -83.205), in Dearborn, MI, approximately 1000m south of Carhartt corporate headquarters. 

Please watch.

(Amusingly, a Google News search for Carhartt returns recent articles, each about a different crime, like "The second suspect was described as 5-foot-8, 170 pounds, in his late teens, wearing a black Carhartt coat, black ski mask and dirty white gloves", "the suspect was also wearing a brown Carhartt workman jacket", and "Witnesses described him as a light skinned black man, 5 feet 5 inches to 5 feet 7 inches tall, about 140 pounds, and wearing a brown Carhartt style jacket". Those are all in the top 10 on Google News. That really is their demographic.)  --John Nagle (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * this seems really unfair as a general statement. it may be part of their demographic in certain areas.   DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have explained to the IP, i.e. Carhartt employee, that they shouldn't edit that article, but should make their case on the talkpage, instead. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know what this is about?
Some weird edits on arbitration related pages, eg and this and contributions by user:Excellentedits. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have blocked this account for harassment. (Referring to Excellentedits, not Dougweller!) I find as a fact that the edits are not, in fact, excellent, or even acceptable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have asked Antandrus first, he's explained it elsewhere. This is resolved. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Edgar Martins and user:A.montenegro
Previous report, which fizzled out with no action, here.

has been appearing every month or so to whitewash/textdump quotes on an article about photographer Edgar Martins. His additions fail NPOV, and attempts to explain this to him on the article talk page, his talk page and various edit summaries have not gotten through to him. The user does not engage in discussion in any form, and simply continues to revert the article to his preferred, non-neutral version: his first go was partially reverted and partially integrated, again, again, again, again. It looked like he might at least be trying with this shorter addition, but alas, he continues to whitewash and textdump with no response to messages. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have indef'ed the account, on the basis that their insertion of the same content against consensus and with no apparent desire to discuss the matter is disruptive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just went back to the article talk and found a tl;dr dump by the user from around the time I added this report here (oddly, its addition didn't then and continues to not show up on my watchlist, so I guess it's lucky I happened to go back to view the page later on?) stating that they have filed "official complaints" with Wikipedia about their/the article's treatment . Not sure if this makes any difference in anything, but it seemed like a good idea to add it to this report. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JCRB
User:JCRB has been disrupting Gibraltar articles to make a point for some time now. He has been trying to force his edit into the lead of the Gibraltar article for some time. Now he is trying intimidation threatening to report people. I suspect this is a sock puppet of User:MEGV and that he has used several IP addresses as well. Before this is dismissed as a simple content dispute see, this effort dates back nearly 2 years where he tried to fillibuster the opposition into submission. From the looks of his contribution history his behaviour looks to be disruptive on Phillipines related articles as well. Justin talk 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Without looking further into any other allegations, I'd like to point out that the JCRB account was created on July 17, 2007. The MEGV account was created on May 14, 2008. JCRB has 303 edits, while MEGV has had 59. I don't think MEGV would be a sock of JCRB, rather it would be the other way around. I'd also like to point out that both accounts have clean block logs, and MEGV hasn't edited since August 1, 2008. I don't think an sockpuppet report would be useful because the MEGV account has been inactive for a very long time. --  At am a  頭 02:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I really do wish people would look into this further, because it is incredibly frustating that the DR process is being disrupted. I make the suggestion of sock puppetry because both used to log in within moments of each other, then proceeded to agree with one another.  There are also a number of IP addresses involved as well.  Justin talk 09:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an odd form of "disruption". He is replacing the unsourced statement that Gibraltar is self-governing with a statement that it is non-self-governing sourced to the unquestionably reliable United Nations: . I'm bound to say that we could probably do with a bit more of that particular kind of disruption. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You know what, this is exactly why every conspiracy theory nut or ardent nationalist swarms round wikipedia like flies round shit. People have taken the time and effort to explain why its disruption, its down below.  People have independently looked at it and agreed, the information is down below.  People have actually explained why its wrong in detail on the talk page of the article.  Did you read any of it?  No.  Do you know anything about it?  Obviously not, but you're quite prepared to wade in with a pair of size 10s and back the disruptive editor over the product editors who desperately do need admin help on an article that is literally besieged by people trying to advance their agenda using wikipedia as a platform.  Marvelous, absolutely fucking marvelous.  Justin talk 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You know what, what you can read down below is merely your own particular opinion on why the references provided aren't acceptable. However, reliable sources such as United Nations' resolutions usually have more bearing here than your peculiar POV. Finally, we could use a little bit more of politeness and a bit less of original research. Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A peculiar POV of UN resolutions? I presume you're referring to the suggestion that the UN says that Gibraltar is Spanish is that the WP:OR you refer to?  No that isn't a view I'm advocating.  Funnily enough the view of the UN C24 is in the article, because I was one of the people that added it.  But they we aren't actually speaking of UN resolutions are we, there is no UN resolution that specifies Gibraltar is a none self-governing territory.  We're looking here at UN documents being abused for something completely different.  Justin talk 21:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever. I removed the contentious phrase from the lede since it had no cited source, was contradicted by a very credible source and the default for contentious and disputed material is to remove it pending formation of some consensus. And do you know something? After I removed it the article read so close to the same that I bet anyone who's not already engaged in the WP:PANTO will never know the difference. But you'll never guess what happened. Apparently I have to "discuss" in in a way that is not satisfied by a new section on the Talk page. My how Wikipedia changes: discussion now happens somewhere other than talk pages, maybe. Who knows. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Justin and User:Gibnews
User:Justin's accusations of "disruption" are an interesting example of hypocresy. For months this editor and User:Gibnews have blocked verifiable and neutral information about Gibraltar, preventing relevant information about its status or history from being included. A number of editors including User:MEGV (of whom I am accused of being a sock puppet), User:Imalbornoz and myself have attempted to include some dosis of neutrality (starting here, ending here ) with little or no success. The result is a biased article about a disputed territory which portrays only the British and/or Gibraltarian POV. Minimal or no reference to the Spanish (Andalusian) POV, or even the position of the United Nations is permitted by these editors. Issues like the arguable transfer of sovereignty according to the Treaty of Utrecht, reference to UN Resolutions on decolonization, or UN declarations expressing disapproval of the Gibraltar Referendum of 1967 have all been rejected despite reliable sources being presented. There has been constant opposition to citing the basis of the Spanish claims, specially territorial integrity and UN resolutions, as well as the San Roque issue. A complete overhaul of the article was suggested a few months back due to its overwhelming lack of neutrality. Again these editors blocked specific improvements. Up to this day they deny the Non-self-governing status of Gibraltar despite this being the definition given by the United Nations (my latest edit with reference to UN 64th General Assembly statement was again reverted). In summary, these editors permanently block any pieces of information which appear to oppose the British POV on Gibraltar. By constantly pushing their POV and refusing to include certain relevant facts, they are not only preventing the article from being more neutral and accurate, but they are disrupting the normal process of editing of the article. Finely enough, it is I who is accused of "disruption". JCRB (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem I see with your contribution, JCRB, is that it omits half the information. There are sources which affirm that Gibraltar isn't a self-governing territory. UN ones, for instance (which makes it a relevant POV, in fact). But your edition fails to acknowledge that other sources define Gibraltar as 'almost self-governing' (encyclopedia Britannica uses this wording, althought makes the exception of foreign policy and defense). Whether this information belongs in the lead section or not is arguable, at the very least. I myself think that there's a more appropiate section in the article to include these considerations. However, as indicated below by Atama, this has to be dealt with through discussion on the article's talk page. --Cremallera (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you disagree about what should be in the article, that's hardly a surprise. I've let Justin know that there's no point in sockpuppet accusations, everything else will have to be dealt with through discussion on the article's talk page. --  At am a  頭 07:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think JCRB describes the situation well. Yes, there is opposition to rewriting the article on Gibraltar to show its a British colony of pirates on stolen Spanish soil. --Gibnews (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all I would actually welcome somebody independently investigating the allegations made by JCRB. He complains the article is POV, what he actually means is that it doesn't represent exclusively his POV.  He claims the view of the UN C24 isn't represented, it is, he claims that the disputed nature of the territory isn't mentioned, it is (and we have an article dedicated solely to that).  However, to properly understand the allegations made you need to have some understanding of the unique definition that the UN C24 applies to self-governing territories ie it bears no relation to the actual degree of self-government.  I don't see Gibnews' intervention as particularly helpful, it may seem extreme to some but it wasn't that long ago that es.wikipedia did actually use the term pirates.  Justin talk 09:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Atama, you've told Justin there's no point in baseless sockpuppetry accusations how many times already? Three? Four perhaps? I've been accused by him of being a sockpuppet more than once as well. So have Ecemaml and Imalbornoz in the past few months, as far as I remember. On the other hand, do you know how many times has he been accused of sockpuppetry by the aforementioned editors? Zero times. Quite frankly, all those editors' behaviour (myself included) isn't always exemplary, but reiterating this kind of unfounded accusations is as out of place as any other personal attack. Yet, he gets away with it every time he indulges in this kind of misdemeanour. One by one, it is 'just annoying', but when you look at the trend, it becomes gross. I am not editing anymore nor discussing in the talk pages, as I am really tired of the constant disrespect and ridiculously vehement discussions over the most petty (and reliably sourced) issues. Yet, I am complaining here because previous notices and requests to cease this conduct have not been listened, dare I say. Sincerely, I concord with Narson  here: I'd favour topic blocking everyone who has previously edited those articles (and I am one of these editors) to clear out some of this. To my disappointment, I put my best hopes on the moratorium. It is time, in my opinion, to be more expeditious. Thanks for your time. --Cremallera (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'd comment on Gibnews' tiny soliloquy above. But he can't be serious so, with due respect, I'll simply ignore it.


 * Actually I've never accused you of sock puppetry. If you want to be precise I expressed my disquiet that given the messages on your talk pages you appeared to be co-ordinating your activities, including off-wiki by email, which is meat puppetry.  Thats as far as it went.  To be blunt as well, you're wading here in without being in full posession of the facts and I would suggest you ask Narson about MEGV and JCRB.  You'll find it illuminating. Justin talk 09:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The action here seems to be focused on getting active editors who oppose a particular agenda being imposed on Gibraltar articles banned. This has been preceded by long tendentious arguments to bore the arse off everyone else interested, which has worked. As noted, another wikipedia did indeed recently refer to British pirates occupying Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it takes much effort to look through JCRB's past contributions on all articles. My observations are that this editor likes to push Spanish POV, and when challenged, becomes very stubborn and unpleasant. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=334902097 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spanish_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=331912740

Regualarly breaks 3RR which would imply regular edit warring. Good faith is obviously not assumed and bullies other editors into submission. Don't take this as a personal attack. I am purely stating my opinion from what I can see in the contributions list... Willdow (Talk) 16:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is exhausting to try to make the Gibraltar article more NPOV. As Atama has seen, it takes months to change even a little bit of the article. For example (regarding the Capture and the San Roque episode), only to include some facts that are in EVERY History book ABOUT GIBRALTAR is taking months (while other less notable historic facts go unchallenged). Regarding the lead, I think that unless someone else gets involved, it will be impossible to solve the current dispute.


 * I think there is a dispute between two POVs (JCRB's defending the UN and Justin and Gibnews defending Gibraltar's and myself trying to include all POVs propotionally). I would propose that someone helps to reach an agreement in order to include all of them proportionally (Justin and Gibnews have rejected any alternative of mediation, RfC, ... in order to solve this dispute).


 * I would also like someone to make Justin quit attacking other editors (he has accused myself and many other editors of sock and meat puppetry -and many other things such as nationalism, tendencious editing, disruptive editing, ...- without any consequence), using reversion as an editing tool (he has recently been reprimanded for doing it, but seems to go on, he even got blocked once for doing it some time ago), deleting other editors' comments in articles talk pages when he does not like them (several times he has deleted my comments, JCRB's, ...), making every little change in the article a long and painful process...


 * Thanks. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That is untrue, I was not reprimanded, I was falsely accused of something that I hadn't done and cleared. I did not use rollback inappropriately.  I was blocked as a new and inexperienced editor nearly 3 years ago, when I mistakenly breached 3RR when misunderstanding policy thought I was reverting vandalism.  Some people seem to like misrepresenting things it seems.
 * Also Imalbornoz is misrepresenting his edit, which pretty much is the same as JCRB and is giving undue prominence in the lead to something that is actually in the article with appropriate coverage. The article is neutral, he seeks to skew the POV of the article to favour his own.
 * Imalbornoz has edited tendentiously, he shopped round multiple forums pushing this same edit. And again the suspicion of meat puppetry was expressed when it appeared from talk page comments that 3 editors were communicating off-wiki to co-ordinate their activities.  Raising that was a legitimate concern.
 * As regards his claim we've refused mediation, not true, he seems to think mediation is about forcing his will into the article. He has never shown any willingness to compromise.  Now it seems there is a campaign to get rid of editors who dispute their editing agenda.  I could be paranoid but it seems co-ordinated to me.  Justin talk 23:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is we have three editors who appear to be using Wikipedia as a means to further their opinions in a real world dispute? JCRB, Imalbornoz, and Gibnews appear to be editing with a nationalist point of view, and if they cannot separate their nationatlist opinions from their Wikipedia edits, they will probably be banned from the cite.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 23:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Banned from the cite? Contravention of policy! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: I do not favour a Spanish or Andalusian POV but a neutral point of view in the Gibraltar article. I've made this point many times in this and other Talk Pages. I sincerely believe in neutrality because it is a crucial element of accurate information. It also happens to be one of the policies of Wikipedia. But as Imalbornoz says "It is exhausting to try to make the Gibraltar article more NPOV [...] it takes months to change even a little bit of the article". I agree. For over two years the two editors reported here have continuously rejected all constructive attempts by good editors to improve the article with small dosis of neutrality. What's more, in the case of Gibnews, he takes an academic discussion personally making aggressive ideological and political statements which are completely out of line (see his ironic comment above). In other cases, these editors twist solid arguments around and beat about the bush when presented straightforward and well-supported information. They imply sources are not "always" reliable, or "books can say many things". They will say "everybody knows that's not true", or in the case of the UN listing Gibraltar as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, well "it's because Spain is putting pressure on the UN". Judge for yourselves. In other words, it's not just their continous blocking of information they don't like, acting as if they own the article, it's their negative attitude, their lack of etiquette, and the complete absence of neutrality. Some specific points regarding the above:


 * Here is an example of what I mean about favouring neutrality, and not a particular POV. If indeed there are sources that say Gibraltar is "self-governing" in "some issues" despite being listed on the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories, then a consensus phrase could be "Gibraltar is a partly self-governing British overseas territory" with a reference at the bottom of the page that explains both points of view and sources: the UN list on one hand, and the encyclopedia that says the opposite on the other.


 * One of the points I made in the past is that the lead paragraph is very biased in that it reflects only the British POV. Indeed, it mentions the transfer of the territory from Spain to Great Britain under the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) but nowhere does it mention that according to Spain and some English-language sources this treaty only transferred the property of the castle and the fortifications on the rock, not the "sovereignty" of the territory, or "territorial jurisdiction" as it is called in Article X of the Treaty. The article goes out of its way to mention that the "majority" of Gibraltar residents oppose reintegration with Spain, and that Britain has committed to support their wishes (both of which provide legitimacy to the British POV) but no mention of the basis of Spain's claims: territorial integrity and a number of UN Resolutions mandating decolonization (UN Resolution 1514 (1960), General Assembly Resolutions 2070 and 2231 (1965) on "Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples) . There is no mention either of the UN decolonization process itself, or the Consensus of the Committee of 24 and the annual meetings that all parties hold. Why is all of this omitted?  Again, my proposal for a more neutral sentence was to add "based on territorial integrity and UN resolutions on decolonization" (with a link to these). The sentence would read:


 * "Gibraltar was ceded by Spain to the Crown of Great Britain in perpetuity, under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, though Spain asserts a claim to the territory based on territorial integrity and UN resolutions on decolonization, and seeks its return."


 * A final example of lack of neutrality which I pointed out some time ago, but was rejected by these editors is the sentence about the 1967 Referendum . It avoids mentioning the irregular nature of the Referendum, or the protest by one of the parties in the dispute, or the UN Resolution against it. The sentence simply reads "Gibraltar's first sovereignty referendum was held on 10 September 1967, in which Gibraltar's voters were asked whether they wished either to pass under Spanish sovereignty [...] or remain under British sovereignty, with institutions of self-government". The sentence suggests a normal, legitimate vote by a sovereign nation, instead of explaining its exceptional nature: a referendum by a dependent, disputed territory. It was protested by Spain and declared a contravention of international agreements by the United Nations. My point back then (and today) was simply to add in the latter sentence:


 * "Although the UN declared the referendum to be a contravention of prior General Assembly resolutions, it led to the passing of the Gibraltar Constitution Order, granting autonomy in May 1969..."

I would appreciate outside editors to read our statements carefully and act accordingly. Let's see what happens to these renewed attempts to correct the biased tone of this article. JCRB (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One hundred words or less please.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 02:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats part of the problem, see Talk:Gibraltar biased in this context means disagreeing with JCRB and a group of editors with an agenda of grinding down any opposition and having the burger their way. --Gibnews (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed that is the problem, the talk pages are filled with tendentious argument and its remorseless. You take the time to patiently explain things to people, assuming in many cases its a language barrier or perhaps the tendency for British constitutional matters to be unwritten isn't easy to understand.  Then its straight back to the same point again. And again.  And again.  Its driven numerous people of the article, any effective progress on the article is stymied, the sheer frustration of it all is making people snappy.  Can we please get some help here.  Justin talk 09:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see someone saying that I try to forward some kind of nationalist agenda in Wikipedia and with a Spanish nationalist POV. That is wrong and worries me deeply. In the current dispute, all the sources I have tried to include were either from the UN, from the UK Government, from the Government of Gibraltar or from Gibraltar newspapers (that does not look like a Spanish nationalist list of sources, does it?) If you look, all the cites I have brought to the talk page reflect the official position of those governments. I have never said in WP anything vilifying Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians (as Gibnews implies). Notice that no diff is provided. Of course, I can't provide any diff of my "not posting nationalist comments".
 * On the other hand, Justin and Gibnews have tried at all cost to remove any reference to the UN POV in the lead of the article, or to the complete POV of the UK Government about Gibraltar (which is not that Gibraltar is self-Governing, but that it has an important measure of devolved internal self-government).
 * I insist, there is no evidence that I am pushing a nationalist POV. If you think that there is any, please show me so that I can either clarify it or apologise and change it. Personally, I feel VERY uncomfortable when someone considers me a nationalist, that's why I try to avoid any nationalist attitude at all cost. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No evidence? Never said anything to villify Gibraltar?  Do I have to post your contribution off-wiki again?  You're not pushing the UN POV, you're misrepresenting UN resolutions.  You don't listen, you simply push the same line constantly, its reams of tendentious argument that is stymieing any progress. Justin talk 12:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There we go again. You take the time to explain the problems with the article, you give examples, you provide the references, and you propose a more neutral wording which is neither Spanish nor Gibraltarian POV. You do this to find a consensus and move forward, yet again these editors call it "tendentious argument" and "misrepresentation". No more to be said. I am also offended when accused of "pushing a nationalist POV". JCRB (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Justin, I am starting to feel VERY OFFENDED. REALLY. I said: "I have never said in WP anything vilifying Gibraltar or the Gibraltarians." So far, Justin has not been able to bring any evidence of the contrary, yet he keeps accusing me (and referring to "off wiki" comments out of context; are this kind of attacks usually accepted?). If I have vilified anybody for his/her nationality (which I am very sure I haven't), I will apologise (of course).
 * I find the word nationalist as very offensive and disruptive in discussions about Gibraltar - specially in discussions about Gibraltar. Meanwhile, through these repetitions, outside editors will come to the conclusion that, if I am so persistently accused and I am -in fact- discussing about a foreign territory, I must have a very strong nationalist POV. WHICH IS NOT TRUE.
 * Therefore, I would ask the admins whether is it possible that I make the following request: "If no editor brings a diff proving that I have pushed a nationalist POV in WP discussions, then I insist that Justin and Gibnews do not keep offending me and disrupting the discussion. I would also request that in case no diff is brought here, Justin and Gibnews apologise for those offensive and disrupting accusations."
 * Is it possible to make that request? And, if someone keeps accusing me of nationalism without any basis, is it possible to qualify that behaviour as disruptive? Thank you very much (and apologies for bringing these ugly issues to this page, but they have gone too far). --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You have kept out of actually editing pages and have resorted to long tendentious arguments on the talk pages preventing progress and creating new articles, but here is a a diff where you repeatedly reject a reference because it comes from 'a Gibraltar law firm' one which employs 70 professionals, has an international profile, and no connection with me. You have previously expressed the view that "The Peninsula of Gibraltar is a colony" and "it should be returned to Spain" and that "Spanish Minister Moratinos visited Gibraltar last week in order to negotiate how to mend some of Gibraltar's many disorders that have arisen under British rule (criminality, smuggling, tax evasion, ..." but I trust that reading the wikipedia page on Gibraltar and six months of discussing things for inclusion at GREAT length have modified that initial distorted view ?  --Gibnews (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

If that is a way of saying that I have not "vilified Gibraltar or Gibraltarians" nor "pushed a nationalistic POV" in WP, then I am very glad.

Regarding the removal of the source, I quote my comment of 7 August 2009: "BTW, when I removed the lawyers' citation, I did it because I really thought it was immaterial (with all the respect to Gibnews and what seems a large and prestigious law firm); but the context of the "self-governing" citation seemed more commercial than informative, thus my -I will admit- sarcastic reference to the next sentence "Gibraltar is well placed etc." In fact, my next edit had the following tag: "Was reference to private law firm site (the next sentence in that page is "Gibraltar is tax-effective, well regulated, well placed and well developed.", maybe we should add it to the introduction too?)" In fact, the quote was so out of place in WP that nobody (not even Justin) defended that source as reputable. Honestly, I think this is not a very good diff to prove that I have made a nationalistic comment... It is also a bit embarrassing that you have not yet realised how out of place that cite was... ;-)

Also, you are quoting some off-wiki sentences by myself which 1) are out of context (and you know it because I explained them at length six months ago) and 2) about which I have apologised in WP several times in case I had offended anyone (the first one in the beginning of August and the beginning of my edits in WP -not 6 months later- just when we began to discuss about this and Justin brought those off-wiki comments to the discussion). I think that is very much out of place if what we are talking about is whether I have pushed a nationalistic POV in WP. I am a bit disappointed and offended by that.

I repeat that I have only insisted in including the UN's, the Government of UK and some Government of Gibraltar POVs. Obviously, that is not pushing a "Spanish nationalist POV"...

I insist, is there a way to stop people accusing me of pushing a nationalistic POV if no (serious) diff is provided? IT IS VERY OFFENSIVE. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I neither defended nor opposed that reference. And I will highlight you are not seeking to present the UN view, rather a somewhat perverse interpretation of UN resolutions to "prove" Gibraltar is Spanish.  And that isn't a nationalist view point?  Please also don't attempt to portray your comments as anything but sarcasm, you insult people's intelligence.
 * Again I ask the question, do I have to post the comments you made off-wiki and acknowledge as yours? Justin talk 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that Gibraltar is Spanish. It is British. So I have no intention to "prove" that Gibraltar is Spanish. I only say that, if the lead says that Gibraltar is a "self-governing territory" (a very respectable Gibraltarian POV), it should also include the fact that the equally respectable UN's General Assembly has listed Gibraltar as a "non self-governing territory" as per NPOV. Also, in that case, it should show the POV of the UK: the very respectable UK Government does not say that Gibraltar is "a self-governing territory PERIOD" but that it has an important level of "internal self-government" (that is, that Gib is self-governing except in the areas of defence, foreign affairs, internal security and the public service -which are not insignificant exceptions). This, I am sure, is not a nationalistic approach. But I have already explained this to you more than 20 times (this is not an exaggeration)
 * I have asked you already in the article 9 times to accept an alternative to just keep discussing with the same arguments over and over. Are you finally going to answer me and accept mediation, RfC or any other dispute resolution option? --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all the UN General Assembly has NEVER listed Gibraltar as a "colony", Gibraltar is on the list because the UK nominated it back in 1947. You have constantly and consistently misrepresented sources to advance an agenda.  Secondly, the comments about the UN C24, who maintain it on the list due to lobbying by the Spanish Government, are included in the article.  The article as written is NPOV.  The UK Government actually says that Gibraltar is self-governing except for defence and foreign relations - the limits are in the article.  So what you're asking is nothing to do with NPOV.


 * Back in June last year, whilst doing some research on the Economist website I came across the following unpleasant post of yours:

''I have been reading the comments. And have to say that I am very surprised. To wrap it all up:

The Peninsula of Gibraltar is a colony, in fact one of the territories in the UN's list to be de-colonised. It was ceded to Britain, under the Treaty of Utrecht, as long as it had British sovereignity. The British have occupied that Peninsula as well as some other territories (the isthmus, waters, ...) beyond the Treaty's limits. If Gibraltar is decolonised (i.e. it loses British sovereignity) it should be returned to Spain, according to the treaty.

Spanish Minister Moratinos visited Gibraltar last week in order to negotiate how to mend some of Gibraltar's many disorders that have arisen under British rule (criminality, smuggling, tax evasion, ..., which The Economist sees as... a good case of development!).

Some Spaniards have protested that FIRST comes international legality (UN's list of territories to be decolonised, Treaty of Utrecht, occupied territory beyond the Treaty...) and THEN comes solving the mess inside Gibraltar (which will be difficult, as long as it is ruled as an overseas colony, and not as an integral part of a democratic state).

Then, some Englishmen make a big fuzz: they confuse Gibraltar with an island (and insist on it), they say that treaties don't matter just because because they are 300 years old and some people feel this or that, or they forget important parts of them (in doing so, they criticise Spaniards for writing in capital letters).

All of this contradicts my previous view of The Economist (gambling, smuggling, tax evarion...: din't TE defend economic development via a free market with a soul and with rules?), of British people (wasn't theirs the country of respect to laws and contracts no matter how old?) and translators...

(Matt. Stott: it shoud be "vida que vivir" not "vida a vivir" -shame on one of England's top three translation MA degrees...)

Sorry for my poor English (I'm not a language professional)... ''


 * Even for a Spanish nationalist thats a pretty extreme expression of opinion. Your first edits were to remove the fact that Gibraltar is self-governing, , you then proceeded to try edit warring to keep it.  You then proceeded to tie the talk page up in tendentious argument its nearly 156 kB long .  None the less people engaged in good faith and tried to explain it to you, you've never once listened and still push the same line.  It hasn't changed all the below were just this week.


 * 1) The UN and Spain (and other countries) consider that the right of self-determination (and to self-governance) should be exerted by people of the territory, not the people in the territory.
 * 2) In the case of Gibraltar, the UN says that the people of the territory are the Spanish people. Of course -being a bit realistic for a change- the UN does not say that UK should return Gib to Spain and that's all; the UN says that the Governments of the UK and Spain should reach an agreement so they stop having a dispute about Gibraltar. They almost did with a proposal of shared sovereignty some years ago (in 2004, I think), but it was rejected by Gibraltarians and the public opinion in the UK.


 * The UN says no such thing, its a gross misrepresentation of sources to claim that it does. Similarly:


 * Key words: "national unity" and "territorial integrity". It refers to the UN's position that the people of Spain is deprived of the unity of its territory. Therefore, it considers that the people of Spain is the people of the territory.
 * Key words: "referendum" and "a contravention" It means that a referendum held among Gibraltarians does not advance the self-determination of the territory. Therefore, it considers that the people of Gibraltar (or the UK) is not the people of the territory.


 * Again, the UN says no such thing, its a gross misrepresentation of sources to claim that it does. What is clear though is the POV agenda behind it.  Now having a POV is not a problem on Wikipedia but what is a problem is disrupting the article with reams of tendentious argument to try and skew the article to favour a particular POV.  Whats also a problem is lobbying for sanctions against other editors, claiming they're being "insulting" and that you're "offended" when all that has been done is to point out you're misrepresenting what you're setting out to achieve.  The article is currently paralysed, nothing can move forward, so please can we have some admin intervention.  Justin talk 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * PLEASE, SOMEBODY HELP US!!!
 * This is very frustrating. I have been for six months asking for outside help in the discussion. Now Justin -even though he does not answer directly to me, after 10 times asking for his opinion on outside help in dispute resolution- seems to agree that some admin intervention is needed. Now is the moment...
 * (even though I have explained the previous comments to Justin many times, he keeps bringing them out of context -maybe to paint me as an extremist to outsiders of the discussion; so I will -boringly- explain them once again:
 * The off-wiki comments were not a serious discussion trying to improve an encyclopedic article, but to -playfully, as you can see in the style- make fun of a (very coky) commentator in The Economist who pretended to be a translator from a very prestigious university, but kept making mistakes in Spanish while putting other commentators down laughing at their English. I am not proud of those coments and have apologise many times in WP for several months. I sincerely apologise here once more if they offended someone. Anyway I think they are not relevant in WP.
 * You have just seen one clear example of what has been happening during the past 6 months: Justin says that the General Assembly does not list Gibraltar as a non self-governing territory. On the other hand, I have posted the following link like four or five times to Justin but he -maybe because the discussion is very heated- seems to ignore it. Please take a look a it:

"NON SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES LISTED BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN 2002"
 * I do not say that Gibraltar does not have any self-government (my opinion is irrelevant). I only say that the UN General Assembly lists Gib a non self-governing territory.
 * Justin brings some of my comments on UN's resolutions (those were the texts where the "keywords" came from), and says that the UN "does not say so", but he fails to bring the UN texts just one line up from my comments where it is clear that the UN says that the referendum among Gibraltarians was a contravention of its resolutions (because it does not consider Gibraltarians as the people with the right to determine the status of Gibraltar, otherwise that referendum would be very happily accepted by the UN). I do not say that Gibraltarians are not the people of the territory (again, my opinion is not relevant). I only say that the UN says so.
 * Please, I am getting very tired of this discussion. I know that Justin and Gibnews and other editors from both sides are too. I am afraid that this will get too heated at some point. It has already been six months. I agree with Justin that we need some admin intervention to help us out.
 * Please... --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No the list is compiled by the UN C24 and adopted by the General Assembly, there is a big difference. And the fact remains that Gibraltar only ever got on that list because the UK nominated it and for no other reason.  Misrepresenting it, is intended to give the list more credibility than it actually posesses.  The article already includes this information, you're not seeking to improve the NPOV you're looking to skew it.  You are abusing UN references claiming they say one thing, when they do not.  Justin talk 17:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

It feels like Bill Murray's character in "Groundhog Day": I have just cited the UN list, then you say that it's not the UN official position as it's there only because it was listed by UK, then I'll say...

...that the fact that the UN website has a page that says (in capital letters in the source) "NON SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES LISTED BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN 2002" is as clear as sources can be, and that so is the sentence by Chairman General Mr Ban Ki Moon in the UN website: “Today, there are 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories remaining on the agenda of the United Nations. Until their status is satisfactorily resolved, the ideals of the General Assembly Declaration on Decolonization will remain unfulfilled.” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Remarks at the Opening of the 2008 Session of the Special Committee on Decolonization 28 February 2008

Whereby (if you look at the General Assembly list) the 16 territories are: Western Sahara, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Montserrat, St. Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, United States Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, American Samoa, Guam, New Caledonia 4, Pitcairn, and Tokelau (other 80 territories have made to the status of "self-governing" according to the UN, but -and you can explain it as you wish, and call it fair or unfair- the verifiable and notable fact is that Gibraltar obviously has not).

Then you'll say that this list is already in the article, then I'll say that indeed it is in the article but not in the lead (where it is said as an undisputed fact that "Gibraltar is a self-governing territory", when it is actually under dispute by the UN and some more), then you'll say that I only say that because I pursue a Spanish nationalist agenda, then I'll be offended, then you'll cite the off-wiki comments... (and that's where the radio alarm goes off and Sonny & Cher sing "I've got you babe" like in "Ground Hog Day" when the day starts all over again for poor Bill Murray).

Please, we need some admin assistance to make this dispute move on without anyone being blocked: after 6 months we've had enough of a try. PLEASE. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The UN GA did not, as you infer, set up a working party with an atlas and a pencil to draw up a list of "none self-governing territories", they were nominated and listed by the colonial power way back in 1947 - verifiable fact. The list is now maintained by the UN C24 and adopted annually by the General Assembly.  Big difference.  The status of the list is not as you infer "suppressed", it is in the article with due prominence.  The position is explained; the lead does not mislead.
 * The UN C24 definition of "self-governing" bears no relation to what the average person would consider "self-governing".
 * I only mention your original comments, because the comments this week are exactly in the same vein. Like how Gibraltar is "Spanish" based upon a perverse intepretation of UN resolutions.  If you're "labelled" as a "Spanish nationalist", that may well because of the comments in the vein of a "Spanish nationalist" as to why Gibraltar is Spanish.  Groundhig Day?  Like when something is explained to you and you go but the UN says....when it doesn't.  This one goes to 11.  Justin talk 20:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Justin, please stop playing with words. The personal interpretations of verifiable information are secondary to the information itself. We don't care how or who set up the "working party" that put together the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The question is Gibraltar in on that list. Yes, the current lead misleads when it says that Gibraltar is "Self-Governing". This is quite arguable at best (specially as the UN says it is not). And please refrain from making accusations of "Spanish Nationalism", they are hardly justified. JCRB (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Then don't misrepresent UN Sources, Special Committee on Decolonization hears petitioner from Gibraltar as Spain opposes its removal from list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Justin talk 14:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Articles
An idea that I ran past Atama to stop the disruption on Gibraltar articles, that I'd like to open up to wider community discussion.

To stop the disruption I propose:

1. Indefinitely semi-protect the articles to stop IP disruption. 2. Introduce a red card system, where any mention of nationalism or ad hominem attacks gets a yellow card, then a red card leading to a block. With an escalating scale of blocks, 24 hrs, 48hrs etc. A yellow card would last for say 24 hrs.

What would be slightly more difficult to deal with is the filibustering that has taken place, ie constantly returning to the same point again and again. Its gotten extremely tiresome for all concerned.

I'm imagining this would be a voluntary scheme that all of the editors would sign up to. I asked Atama if he would agree to be "referee" the process. I believe admin overview would be necessary as I suspect sock/meat puppetry may become an issue.

The people who I'd propose would be:

User:Ecemaml User:Imalbornoz User:Cremallera User:Gibnews User:Justin_A_Kuntz

Does this seem a workable suggestion? Justin talk 23:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't really make new sections if they are directly related to another section earlier up on the page. That and topic bans are much easier to enforce.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 23:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's my fault, I should have been more specific. I should have clarified that you should have added that to one of the two existing topics on ANI. I'm moving it for you. --  At am a  頭 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that proposal gets to the root of the problem, which is that there is a very different perception about Gibraltar in Spain as a result of the active pursuit by its government of its sovereignty claim. Yes its simplistic and probably not in line with wikipedia policy to explain it like that. But its true Today on talk:gibraltar I've been informed politely that the real 'people of Gibraltar' live in San Roque, that the UN considers the current population mere colonists, and that the Government I elected does not govern the territory. This is what some want in Wikipedia. Its wrong.  --Gibnews (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree to the proposal of a compromise to block anyone mentioning nationalism and ad hominem attacks. I would not limit the list to those five editors, in any case (there are several others -of several tendencies- who have engaged in nationalist and ad hominem attacks in the Gibraltar talk page).
 * In order to avoid filibustering, I think that the agreement should include the enforceable compromise to use dispute resolution tools (mediation, etc.) when a point has been repeatedly discussed. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * disagree with blocking anyone as although the editors information may be wrong, apart from long tendentious arguments and the inability to compromise or agree there is not the sort of malice experienced from, for example Vintagekits who deserved to be banned and was. BUT the point of including anything on these pages is to try and involve some outside parties rather than to just open up yet another 100k of exchanges. I think all the involved parties have all said enough and its time to let someone else form an opinion. --Gibnews (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT
 * Justin, does your proposal include a ban on removing other people's messages in your talk page and stop using reversion as an editorial tool? It would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise, your proposal seems extremely faulty? --Ecemaml (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no need for a ban on using reversion as an editing tool; WP:EW is a policy and one that can lead to blocks if not followed. Removing other people's messages on your own talk page is a privilege we extend to most editors, and nobody should be faulted for doing so. It's assumed that the person removing the message has read and acknowledged the message prior to deleting it. Even warnings can be deleted, generally the only sort of message an editor isn't allowed to remove from their talk page is a block template for as long as the block is in place. --  At am a  頭 22:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...
Right. How about standard discretionary sanctions, and start the process of topic-banning the edit warriors? It's apparent to me that people have completely lost sense of perspective, and have also forgotten some fairly fundamental Wikipedia principles. Such as: the solution to text that supports a POV you don't like is not to edit war back to text that supports a POV you do like but to say neither until you can reach a consensus about how the external dispute should be described here (WP:BATTLE, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS and so on). "Revert to consensus / stable version" is offten a red flag in cases like this, and telling people to "discuss" changes when they have already done precisely that, and have no prior involvement in the dispute, and have no evident ties to the POV you don't like, is not exactly indicative of a productive attitude. Incidentally, it also doesn't help when you say something is sourced from Britannica but Britannica does not use the term you claim, and actually says something that rather supports the opposite POV. The Spanish editors will no doubt claim that I am biased against them based on my nationality, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I think it's time to start dealing with this battleground mentality. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just checked the cite you say doesn't support the text and it says "Gibraltar is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and is self-governing in all matters but defense." Do you have java enabled?  I don't have a POV I like, I would prefer it if the article would not suffer while there is an attempt to skew the POV.  Thats whats at hand here.  Oh yes people have forgotten wikipedia principles, the relevant one being NPOV, and some have gotten frustrated after trying to explain this and gotten more bad tempered than they should.  What is helpful is a considered approach, not blundering in without understanding first.  My apologies if I vented at you but thats precisely what you did.  The problem with it, is you're encouraging further disruption.  Justin talk 00:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Justin, you are being obstructive and disingenuous. The BBC News says "Gibraltar is self-governing in all areas except defence and foreign policy." - that is equivocal and the BBC is British anyway. The Chief Minister's speech was prompted by the UN's report stating that it was not self-governing, so unquestionably cannot be taken in isolation. The Telegraph (British) says "GIBRALTAR'S parliament approved an ambitious package of constitutional reform yesterday designed to give the colony almost complete self-government" - that's equivocal too. To state in the lead sentence that Gibraltar is self-governing based on two equivocal and one partisan sources, while ignoring the fact that the CIA World Factbook and the United Nations both say its not, is POV-warring of the worst kind. I have removed the statement again, I note you have reverted at least once more. Please do not do this. Your edit history shows a lengthy involvement with articles with contentious issues of sovereignty, and always on the British side. You are clearly not a neutral party here and should step away from the firing line and discuss matters on talk.
 * For now, I have left the opening sentence saying that Gibraltar is a British overseas territory. This is not sufficiently ambiguous to demand that we make a statement supporting either of the competing POVs regarding self-government.
 * I want to be clear here: a bald statement that Gibraltar is not self-governing is POV, and a problem. Equally, a bald statement that it is self-governing is also POV and also a problem - especially since the sources you provide are actually rather less good than those supporting the opposing POV. The logical thing to do is to simply remove the self-government status from the lede until a proper form of words can be decided, not to enforce one POV that is liked by the article WP:OWNers. To state that Gibraltar is self-governing based on these sources and ignoring - indeed without reference to - those which dispute it, is tendentious and disruptive.
 * I have done what you should have done in the first place, which is to start an RfC: Talk:Gibraltar.
 * I would ask that uninvolved admins should watch the article and swiftly enact blocks and topic bans against editors who display single-purpose and advocacy behaviour. I see several editors whose entire history seems to be around promoting the views of one or other side in articles where sovereignty is contentious, including Gibraltar and the Falklands. This needs to stop. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, to be polite, you intervention has been unhelpful and your comments naive and ill-informed. Not only that but you've edit warred to impose your will on the article.  As I have already indicated on your talk page I have no intention of edit warring.  But I'd nontheless support those editors who return it to a NPOV.
 * Seeing as you mention the Falklands, where I am active, I have worked constructively with a number of Argentine editors to improve those articles. The improvements share information to ensure NPOV is maintained.  I actually  feel quite priveliged to address Darius as old friend.  I have also gone to great lengths to explain the matter to a number of editors who have sought to skew the POV of the article, great lengths, yet they return to the same point again and again.  Now that could well be based on the fact that they've only been taught 1 POV but there comes a point, when you see someone claiming that UN resolutions asssert that Gibraltar is Spanish, then you realise they're not interested in NPOV.
 * Again trying to remain polite, you've blundered into an area you don't know anything about, have ignored the point that editors have been misrepresenting those UN sources, funnily enough the one UN source you missed confirms that. But don't worry as I took the trouble to add it to the article.  I'm not ignoring sources as you assert, seeing as the UN C24 list was introduced into the article as part of my edits, but rather ensuring they're treated with respect to NPOV.  You're excision of those terms actually favours the editors who have tendentiously edited the article to skew the POV.
 * Not only that but ignoring the presumption of good faith, you've labelled the editors who work constructively in this area as "POV Warriors" to favour those editors who would pervert sources to advance an agenda and use Wikipedia as a platform to support their POV rather than maintaining a NPOV.
 * From my perception, all I see is an admin who hasn't looked at the problem, has jumped to conclusions and is failing to recognise their initial mistake. Ironically the only editor to breach 3RR is yourself.  Do we take from that, that you're calling for uninvolved admins to impose a topic ban and a block upon yourself?  Justin talk 14:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just two points, Guy. First of all: "I see several editors whose entire history seems to be around promoting the views of one or other side in articles where sovereignty is contentious, including Gibraltar and the Falklands." As Justin kindly mentioned, we have been working in several Falkland-related articles. Even when my position regarding the topic is, obviously, pro-Argentine, we managed to keep the NPoV on the pages we have edited by checking both British and Argentine sources and discussing their reliability. Thus I think it's very unfair to include Justin in your 'list' of edit warriors.
 * Second point: the issue of self-government. My personal opinion is that the words speak for themselves; self-government, by definition, supposes a form of administration "not completely sovereign or independent". Therefore, I see no need of further clarification in the narrative, since self-government is at midway between "direct rule" (by a foreign power) and "total independence". The British sources questioned as 'partisan' are quite reliable as they only describe the naked fact of a political decision, not a posture.--Darius (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The idea of topic banning editors simply because someone has a different view and wants to enforce it sounds rather draconian and contrary to openness on the Internet. I and not advocating banning JCRB simply because he has been waging a single issue campaign to make the article on Gibraltar more supportive of the (dead in the water) territorial Spanish claim by denying Gibraltar's political progress.


 * Guy, do you realise when you attack the BBC, that it is not Gibraltar's national broadcaster? They most certainly have no bias towards Gibraltar and accept corrections to their online content when it is wrong. In order to make some editors happy, ones who believe Gibraltar should be Spanish, you could kill the present population its only a few thousand people who stand in the way. I trust you realise the point. But like censoring the fact that Gibraltar IS self-governing some might disagree with you. --Gibnews (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Darius, that is the problem with editors such as Justin and Gibnews. When they don't like certain information which is supported by (highly) reliable sources like the UN itself, they switch to personal interpretations or opinions. Please don't go down that path. The term "self-government" does not speak for itself. In fact it is quite controversial. Some would think it means autonomy, others complete independence. In both cases it carries a British POV by subtly justifying its colonial status or foreign rule. The question here is neutrality and verifiability, not personal opinions. The term "self-government" is inappropriate according to both these policies. Either both the British and Spanish POV's are included, or the issue is avoided altogether. JCRB (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You have yet to demonstrate there is any Foreign rule exercised by the UK Government. I don't see any and frankly would not put up with it. --Gibnews (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, don't make people loose their time. Gibraltar is a British territory, therefore it is ruled by Britain. You want to define "Britain" now? Or should we look up "foreign"? JCRB (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rdm2376 starting mass deletions
''This very long discussion has been moved to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rdm2376's deletions. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // ''
 * Discussion seems to have stopped on the above thread (actually it's moved elsewhere), putting a time stamp here so this gets archived. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So when are the articles going to get restored? We cannot be the source of all human knowledge if we delete stuff.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.174.71.124 (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Block review on User:SuaveArt
I just blocked for a week for disruptive editing of other editors' userpages. One of the diffs I cited was his attempt to delete links he disliked from User:Filmcom -- the change has been reverted by 3 different users and a couple of IPs. He was also told to stay out of disputes with User:Seregain, but he apparently to edit it today, claiming votestacking. Does anyone (besides the usual suspects) want to take issue with my assessment of the situation? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Increase it to a month. IconicBigBen (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support proposal by IconicBigBen-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  00:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * IBB has been indef-blocked as a sock, so let's not be taking his advice automatically here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He reported his own sock at Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol. Testing the system, I suppose. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support editing other peoples user pages with out consensus is frowned upon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - Same reason as James, above. He can't just go around unilaterally deleted stuff off other editors' pages. He should bring it here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (copied from SA's talk, per request)So which is easier? Say I see 10 users with inappropriate content on their userpages (ex. a link to their online music store). 1. I start 10 AN/I topics on each of these users for different reasons, but all related to what they have on their userpage, or 2. I just remove the content and cite the policy that the user violated. Personally I think we should just create a new policy stating officially that only admins are allowed to edit other users' pages without consent, because that seems to be the unwritten rule around here anyway. A user uses their page to host a spamlink for their online store, I removed the spamlink citing policy - the link gets put back and I get a temp ban for "disruption" because I removed a promotional spamlink from a userpage. I'm still trying to figure out just how this all works here. But if editing other users' pages is always or almost always disruptive, then please just take my policy proposal into consideration.--SuaveArt (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Option 3: Report all 10 of them here at once and let the group discuss. Don't take it on your own to delete stuff from other users' pages. That's nannyism. And you wouldn't like somebody deleting something from your own page on their whim, I'm sure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There would be a case to answer here if SuaveArt was removing fair use images, or something else that we ban from user pages. But removing a link to a blog from a user page is not supported by policy. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No objections. Amerique <sup style="color:darkred;">dialectics  01:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Question I thought part of the deal here was that SA and Seregain were supposed to be leaving each other alone. If that's the case, what is Seregain doing removing a comment of SA's from someone else's talk page. I'll grant you, the comment he removed had a certain snark level, but wouldn't it be better to let American Eagle tidy his own talk page, especially considering how hot things have gotten? (Note, I haven't discussed this with Seregain as I have no desire to step into that hornet's nest.)--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * D'oh! So much for that no-contact order between the two of them. I'm going to leave a notice to Seregain that he's being discussed here in this ANI. --  At am a  頭 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters, but I likely would've removed the message anyway. (Or, as SuaveArt himself would do, warm him for using a talk page for forum discussion.) Seregain probably should've left it alone, simply because it looks like he's battling with SuaveArt again, but it doesn't matter to me. I endorse whatever block is decided upon for SuaveArt. The user has been disruptive to no end, and he's been warmed enough. <font color="#6B8AB8">American Eagle  (<font color="#6B8AB8">talk ) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am on a no-contact restriction with one particular user, and if it gets broken, a block will follow. If either of those guys is on a no-contact restriction, and they violate it, then a block should be automatic. And besides, that's nannyism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Atama for letting me know my name and behavior came up here. Yes, I admit I probably shouldn't have made that edit. It was one of those "That's wrong, I'm here, so I'll remove it, oh crap, I just did it" moments when you hit the button that submits things online and you can't take them back (though technically I suppose I could have in a sense here). Though I felt the comment I removed, which was there for over 6.5 hours, was egregiously and gratuitously inappropriate and its removal by anyone else would've been completely non-controversial, I still should have left it for someone else - American Eagle, preferably - to do it. I actually did not remove the comment out of any vendetta against SuaveArt and I apologize to both him and anyone else who may have seen it that way. I apologize to everyone, including SuaveArt, for that edit, which, despite what I or anyone else thought of its content, I had no business removing after being urged to disengage. Seregain (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, though I wish I didn't have to. SuaveArt has shown up here at ANI under threads by 3-4 different OPs for 3-4 different issues in the past month or so.  Its getting rather bothersome that his behavior has not changed despite all of that.  -- Jayron  32  04:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support This is getting ridiculous. I am running out of good faith <I>NativeForeigner</I> Talk/Contribs 01:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

When does something stop becoming a !vote, consensus, or debate, and turn into someone trying to make a point?
Before someone comments on the fact that I closed The AFD, I know that I was a little bit bolder than I should have been. However, as I stated in my closing rationale, the deletion process was completely ignored. Those who want the article deleted seem to have somewhere from a small to a large COI and/or a one sided POV. I felt, that as I read through the debate, that while the nominator and one or two other individuals were trying to hang onto every last thread, that there was a major consensus against them to keep the article. Now, can someone take a look at the article and the AFD and PLEASE tell me what you think? <font face="Segoe script"><font color="#ff0000">D <font color="#ff6600">u <font color="#009900">s <font color="#0000ff">t <font color="#6600cc">i SPEAK!! 10:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As you closed it and someone else re-opened it, it would probably be wise to allow the debate to run the full 7 days, then allow an admin to close it. Mjroots (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Has it not? I believe today was the 7th day? <font face="Segoe script"><font color="#ff0000">D <font color="#ff6600">u <font color="#009900">s <font color="#0000ff">t <font color="#6600cc">i SPEAK!! 11:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am the editor who reversed the NAC on Articles_for_deletion/The_Skeptic%27s_Annotated_Bible_(2nd_nomination), which is the crux of this concern. The closure was done one day early and it did not take into account that there was a measurable quantity of Delete !votes as part of the debate. In my understanding of non-admin closures, these issues made this particular NAC inappropriate, and that is why I reversed the NAC. Since this is the seventh day of the discussion, I would welcome an admin's review of the discussion. Thank you. Warrah (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely not appropriate for NAC. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  15:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there was nothing close to consensus there. Advise you take a step back from NACs Dusti.  Also, review the guidelines for NACs Throwaway85 (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Those are some serious accusations, Dusti. I don't know who you think is making a 'point' or what point they are supposed to be making, but I disagree that the 'deletion process is being completely ignored'. An AFD is not a vote, it's a discussion, and when there is a question as to which side has made the stronger argument, we rely on administrators who have, in theory, earned the trust of the community to make the more difficult calls. Yes, there are several people who !voted to keep the article, but there are also several who gave substantial reasons why it should be deleted based on Wikipedia's notability criteria. This is not a question of "I don't like it"; in fact, if anything I'd say there is a certain amount of "I like it" going around. This was not an AFD that should have been closed early by anyone, and it was not a good candidate for a non-admin close, because it was not a clear-cut decision. I think you may have allowed yourself to be swayed by the frequent and inappropriate accusations of bias from one editor who very strongly wants the article kept. Also, it'd be a good idea (that is, it would reduce the likelihood of further drama) to let the AFD run long by whatever time it spent closed when it should have been open; that's often done in cases like these. -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 15:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue of Dusti's non-admin closures is a recurring one and they have been advised in the past that it is not a good area for them to pursue. Apparently they have returned from a long wiki-break without taking into account the changes to AfD that happened in their absence. Non-admin closures should not be something that editors go looking to perform. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As a long-term acquaintance of Dusti's I am little concerned over where his non-admin closures are going to take him. I and several other editors raised concerns before he went on a wikibreak; given that improper closure are still happening; I would advice him to step back a bit and do some other tasks for the project. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to go on record (first of all) and say that I was wrong in doing the NAC, and I feel that the individual who re-opened the Afd was also incorrect. Secondly, I appreciate those who have been respectful in their suggestions for me. Thirdly, I would like a little bit more respect here, as a fellow Wikipedian, I did something in my judgement. The Afd was closed as a keep, only to be turned over to Deletion Review, but I did something that I thought was right. If you look through my contributions, rather than second guess them, you will see that Afd isn't something I have been focusing on. I also did offer to reverse what I did out of respect for the nominator. Now, with all of that aside, I respect each and every one of you to the highest degree. You are all wonderful people, but please, understand that individuals will always have a different opinion than you do somewhere in the world. We can stand behind usernames and debate all night, but in the end, we're still here for one thing, to build this encyclopedia. Standing here and yelling at me for a minor mistake isn't going to change the fact that I did it, and I have apologized. Now, let's cease this thread and move on, I'm sure there are bigger fish to fry. And no, I will not stop NAC closures, I will merely be a lot more careful. How else can I learn? <font face="Segoe script"><font color="#ff0000">D <font color="#ff6600">u <font color="#009900">s <font color="#0000ff">t <font color="#6600cc">i SPEAK!! 08:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can learn by watching other people close AfDs correctly for a while, then going back to it. I really don't think you've been demonstrating good judgement in your recent closures, so some time away would be a Good Thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is yelling at you, Dusti - you brought this to ANI, not anyone else. I would highly recommend taking Sarek's advice. There's a thousand other tasks that need to be done here, all equally important. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  14:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to pile on, but that closure was fairly ill thought out. Although some keep votes weren't well thought out, at least asking another admin would have been a good idea.  Of course i'm not an admin, but this is how I see it as a neutral third party. <I>NativeForeigner</I> Talk/Contribs 02:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's questioning your motives or your good faith, Dusti, but even good faith edits can be problematic at times. You've had several people here suggest you stop doing NACs for awhile.  While I understand your desire to improve, perhaps it would be best to observe some more and review the guidelines before jumping back in.  Even if you do everything correctly, you don't want people who disagree with your closure to be able to say "Dusti closed it, he has a history of bad closes, his decision should be ignored."  Let things cool down a bit and take the opportunity to beef up on policy while attending to other matters. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Addition of links to National Institutes of Health GeneReviews
An IP editor is adding a large number of links to the NIH GeneReviews articles to our articles on genetic diseases. For example adding Adenosine Deaminase Deficiency to our article Adenosine deaminase deficiency. Since these are free-access articles written by experts on these genetic diseases, which have been peer-reviewed (see GeneTests page) and hosted on a NIH website, I think these meet our external link policy. However, there has been some discussion as whether or not to block this editor for adding these links - an idea I object to. Do other people think this is editor is acting appropriately or inappropriately? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - these links have previously been discussed here. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * has been adding these links to about 300 articles, starting 28 August 2009 (as far as I can tell from the edit summaries). To complicate the situation, it appears this account is being used by another person at the same time, leading to the block in Sept'09. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The project has gained useful content on 300 articles. Why is this a bad thing? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that is an IP address, it is by design shared. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if the new links end up being valuable, it creates awkwardness if we are endorsing the actions of an editor who refuses to participate in discussions. They have never commented at User talk and they have only left one comment on article Talk ever. (This seems likely to be a private individual and not an office at NIH. The IP geolocates to Louisville, KY). Do we have the ability to add these links on our own? I would suggest we seriously consider a 1-week block but not revert the edits, unless they are individually checked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So by not blocking, we are endorsing? Beach drifter (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you worry that adding useful links might create awkwardness? I'm not feeling in the least awkward, in fact I'm considering giving them a barnstar! :) What possible reason would there be for blocking them? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tim. Common sense and good faith trump any spam guidelines. It is troublesome that the editor is not communicating but that is no reason for a block. Beach drifter (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've checked about 20 of these links and they are being added carefully to the correct articles, eg the IP editor added the NIH article on Adult Polyglucosan Body Disease to our article on Glycogen storage disease type IV (which is an alternative form of the same disease also discussed in the GeneReviews article). Tim Vickers (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see nothing objectionable about these links and agree with Beach drifter and Tim Vickers that blocking is unnecessary. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to agree with Tim et al. We had a similar issue some months ago with respect to the IUPHAR database. As long as the links go to a reliable, scholarly source, are added specifically to the page to which they belong (rather than just plastered across pages), and improve the information value of our pages, all of which are true in this case, then it is not spam. The issue comes up because it looks like spam. In the IUPHAR case, it proved helpful to talk with the IP and educate them about appearances, and perhaps that would be helpful here. A punitive response would not. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think at least some of the unfortunately bitey response to this editor was prompted by their adding links to genetic disease articles at roughly the same time as this spammer who was adding commercial spam to a genetic testing company. Perhaps a case of friendly fire? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed the spamming, reviewed the discussion at WP:ELN, noticed the editor hadn't responded to the discussion, and determined that his behavior fit WP:SPAMMER. From this, I thought a uw-s2 or uw-s3 would be appropriate.  Because of the extent of the spamming since the WP:ELN discussion, I chose the s3.
 * As I discussed, my concern is what to do if the editor continues. I'd like to see him consider the recommendations from WP:ELN and WP:SPAMMER, but at least acknowledge the discussions. --Ronz (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would indeed be nice if they choose to talk to us, but if they don't the consensus so far seems to be that, since their edits are helping and not hurting the encyclopedia, we shouldn't do anything that might discourage them from continuing to contribute. Templates warning them that they might be blocked would certainly not appropriate for an editor making good-faith and constructive contributions. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was involved in the original WP:ELN discussion, and I favor these links.
 * Wikipedia doesn't actually prohibit its volunteers(!) from improving the encyclopedia only in one way. There is no rule that says you have to add at least one sentence of text for every valuable and wholly guideline-compliant external link you add, or that tiny improvements are somehow actually damaging, or that people should be punished for merely looking like a spammer when they actually are not violating any of Wikipedia's standards.
 * It's unfortunate (for us) that the editor isn't talking to us -- if the editor reads this, then WP:MEDGEN and WP:MED want you! -- but a person that silently improves the encyclopedia should never be punished for making valuable contributions, however small the contributions may be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible Admin Abuse
I was blocked by User:Materialscientist for 'abuse of editing privileges.' I politely contested my block on my user talk page, as I am allowed under the terms of the block, and the admin User:Beeblebrox not only extended my block, but he locked my talk page from editing. You can find out why I think my first block was unjustified on my talk page. I can see absolutely not justification for the extension of my block. My IP address is dynamic so luckily I can post again (I hope this isn't in violation of the rules). Anyway, my issue is with User:Beeblebrox and not User:Materialscientist, even though I found his original block to be unjustified. Thanks for any help! 209.235.156.28 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, this is my user talk page! User talk:209.235.156.67. 209.235.156.28 (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have notified both users of this discussion. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 23:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Time to close this. Not worth even worrying about.  Funny, though.  WP:PLAXICO, anybody?  Avoiding a block will get you blocked for a longer period of time.  Woogee (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This user is only here to disrupt, and has been removing whois templates from numerous talkpages and stalking another editor who adds them. No evidence of any intent to actually work on, you know, Wikipedia itself, just a "protestor." Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahaha "Plaxico'd" I'm definitely going to start using that. Nefariousski (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like has been used exclusively for this sort of nonsense, recently; rangeblocked for a month. – <font color="#28f">Luna Santin  (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Passport-related edit war
I just blocked 1 hour for edit warring. made two requests dif dif by on his talk page that he stop mass reversions of Happenstance's edits and resume discussion at Talk:Passport. If anyone feels that my block was in error, feel free to unblock. I did not block Happenstance for edit warring as he did not try to revert Ozguroot. I have to run for an hour or so, so this is a quick post. -- Flyguy649 talk 01:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is almost certainly a sock of the banned User:Izmir lee. A look at the contribs of Izmir lee  and his socks User:Aegean Boy and User:Turkish Flame  screams WP:DUCK. Same bot-like behavior on diplomacy articles.  Athenean (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This account has also started editing in a similar pattern rather abruptly - Special:Contributions/Eu6. I would suggest a block for the sock-puppets. — what a crazy random happenstance 10:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I really didn't mind the ban. All what i did was reverting the deletion a bit earlier than the editors of those articles. Because nobody seem to agree with deletion of those sections. see: Romanian passport reverted by El Otro. Mongolian passport reverted by Edward Vielmetti, Serbian passport reverted by Avala, etc. They spent their hours, days, months, for them. Are they socks too? Now you call me "a sock" of the banned user Izmir lee. Who is Izmir lee? I totally have no idea. Administrators: Please --> Talk:Passport. Too many angry "X passport" editors there. Regards. --Ozguroot (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Errm the user in question was going in line with consensus while the other user that complained Happenstance as well as RashersTierney were equally abusive and reverted him then he reverted them etc. I find it absurd to block him for these edits. User RashersTierney has run what I believe to be a canvassed straw poll to establish consensus but soon after the "consensus" was noted by regular editors it became apparent there was no consensus to remove large amount of info from 200 articles. The "consensus" was thus gone the very next day. Ozguroot might be angrier then the rest because unlike us he didn't just loose months of work but also a lot of money he gave to receive prompt updates on the subject so that he could update Wikipedia. Finally I will quote one user from the talk page, I see no signs of consensus from the dozens of diligent editors who maintained those pages and were blindsided by their removal without so much as a notice on the corresponding talk pages of the articles affected.--Avala (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we may have averted this edit war by deciding to fork the content that was being hastily deleted into its own set of pages. As with any diplomatic mission the fine details are being worked out on Talk:Passport.  If there are any remaining angry "X passport" editors with pages that have been multiply reverted there is a workable, though not perfect, solution at hand to copy the table in question to a new article "Visa requirements ... "   Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Inuit18 and User:Tajik
from the Germany-Holland region (who has a long list of blocks) is using IPs to insult, provoke, and attack ethnic Pashtun editors and Pashtun articles. See one example of many Kussmadar...Lol...your mom was fucked by Tajiks and Momngols for centuries, dirty bastard, son of dirty semites, mongols, dal-eating dog...PigTuns, who were fucked and raped by all invadors for millions of years, prove their dirty bastard origine with their dirty language and culture.. I assure you that banned User:Šāhzādé, User:Germany2008, and User:Draco of Utopia are sockpuppet of this same individual who tries misleading adminstrators by changing his level of English and writing style.

who is restricted to one-revert-per-day is used as a proxy account and I assure you it's another sockpuppet of the banned User:Anoshirawan. It's possible that Tajik is using it as a proxy connection to log onto Wikipedia using USA's IP from the Germany-Holland area, which works but with slow internet speed. Both Tajik and Inuit18 have one point of view when editing Wikipedia and they always edit the same articles relating to Afghan races and ethnicity, critisizing all Pashtuns anyway possible while giving Tajiks good names even if they were labelled warlords in mainstream media. Tajik and his anti-Pashtun racist gang is not only spreading racist POVs about Pashtuns here in Wikipedia but he's also involved doing this at Youtube, blog forums, chat rooms, and etc. I believe that banning these trouble seeking users (or user) will serve a good purpose so that other unbiased editors can come in the future and cleanup the articles that these racist guys (or guy) have vandalized. Thanks!


 * Would anyone actually feel provoked by such a ridiculous rant? It sounds like the French guard at the castle in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There may be a cultural thing here. The original poster should open a Sockpuppet enquiry. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I blocked the IP for a week, anyone want to change that, feel free. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It might be ridiculous to you, Bugs, but it hardly reminds me of "your father was a hamster & your mother smelled of elderberries". Instead, it strikes me as flat-out hate speech (substitute the ethnic terms for any more familiar ones, say referring to Germans, to see what I mean), & the individual deserves a permanent ban. -- llywrch (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You may well be right. I'm just saying that if someone grossly insults you, and you react the way he expects you to, then you're letting him control you, which seems counterproductive. Never let 'em think they got you, or they win. Unless, of course, you have a secret weapon, such as a nuclear bomb, or a friendly admin. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If this is an IP socking campaign, a WP:SPI report may help.  Sandstein   19:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A possible editor for hire?

 * . According to their Twitter page, Alden Media is a small web media company specializing in clean, simple web design with websites, social media profiles, and more.  According to their website, Along with creating websites, we work with clients to integrate tools such as Twitter, Facebook, and Linked In, etc., into the website that is created, and create a more interactive experience for the people visiting the website.  A possible editor for hire? Woogee (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't be the first.  raseaC talk to me 00:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)




 * Given that their first contribution is to create Down in the Valley (Retail Chain) which I personally would have tagged for deletion as advertising, perhaps so. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia tolerates lots of paid editors. Why should Aldenmedia be treated differently just because it's honest about it? I'm against paid editing in general but... I prefer honesty and sunlight, at least. If I have to deal with paid editors, better paid editors who are honest and straight forward rather than dealing with game playing and lots of whining about "outing" and "harrassment."Bali ultimate (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I also wonder if it's a single-editor account. Woogee (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm actually thinking it's a one man company - and if it designed this its a - web designer to boot.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed BLP violation. -- 32.174.160.76 (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mind! I was referring to the company.  It is by no means a BLP violation to offer the opinion that if the company designed that page it's not a very good design company - or not very good at HTML, which comes to the same thing in web design. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that relevant? If he had an awesome webpage would you allow the paid editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.174.71.124 (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One has nothing to do with the other. Woogee (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * IP editor - are you Aldenmedia? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP sources to Florida, Alden Media is in Maine. Woogee (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Might be wintering-over in Florida. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok,Ok let's all just calm down and not make this a bigger deal than it has to be. I've blocked the account because regardless of whether they were being paid, their name represents an organization. So, let's just call it good and leave the accusations out of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change proposal
The articles on climate change have been a drama-fueled mess for too long. I think it's time we all stand up and say that we respect people like Kenosis and WMC. As such, I propose that the following editors be topic banned fron the subject.


 * LHVU - One bad block drove away one editor. How long until WMC follows?


 * TheGoodLocust - Nothing but harassment against WMC. Better to remove.


 * ChildofMidnight - Also, nothing but baseless reports against WMC. Drama-mongers aren't needed.


 * ATren - See the climate change enforcement page for attempted outing of WMC through off-wiki comments.


 * Unitanode - Personal attacks against WMC at the enforcement as well. To claim WMC is some sort of child incapable of learning is inappropriate.


 * Ricky81682 - Telling people that BITE is relevant when talking to septics is uncalled for. There is no good that can come from treating both sides as equals.  -- 166.190.175.183 (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This entire post above is one big personal attack, request it be removed and the user warned for personal attacks. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 05:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So now you are going to remove MY comments? Very mature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.190.195.1 (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * IP hopping, nice. To answer your question, no comments were removed, just reverted the addition of the headers.  You have been warned for personal attacks, move on. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 06:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you don't have any solutions, fine, but I'm sure they are plenty of editors who think we'd all be better without those editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.134.114.18 (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying again
Does no one think there are problems with the climate change articles? Why is discussion being collapsed? -- 32.174.160.76 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are a great many problems in the climate change articles, which is why we now have General sanctions/Climate change probation. See Help:Diff for technical information on how to present a link showing who made what edit; WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civility are policy - please respect your fellow volunteers even when you think the project would be better if they were to direct their energies elsewhere. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing edit war
There is an edit war ongoing at Messiah Foundation International. Both users have been advised of the fact that this is an edit war and the issue is persisting. Preferably at least protection would be applied to the page. It appears WP:3RR has been severely violated, as well. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 08:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The users involved are and . Additionally, please note that I only randomly came across this article in my antivandalism efforts and don't have any major insight into what spawned the dispute, only that it is ongoing. -- Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 08:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this is more appropriate for WP:AN3 and WP:RPP <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="#ff0000">C <font color="#ff6600">T <font color="#ffff00">J <font color="#009900">F <font color="#0000ff">8 <font color="#6600cc">3 chat 08:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted to WP:RPP but given there's a little backlog there I posted it here in hopes of a faster resolution, since it was quite severe. Since it has seemed to calm down since the posting here, perhaps the thread can just be closed without further incident. I have no reason to believe action is necessary here if it's stopped, despite the fact that the users haven't yet responded here, as blocking is not punitive. For such reasons, I won't pursue reposting to WP:AN3. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 08:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please be noted I dont want wikipedia to read false information, that's why I have humbly requested to above to provide the 3rd party reference, which he/she is not providing. This is in accordance with wikipedia rules & regulations, your job which I am doing. The user is a lier and his all articles are pile of falsehood. Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.15.61 (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * IP please remain WP:Civil and don't attack the other user....I'm going to WP:AGF that this was removed by mistake. <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="#ff0000">C <font color="#ff6600">T <font color="#ffff00">J <font color="#009900">F <font color="#0000ff">8 <font color="#6600cc">3 chat 08:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Messiah Foundation International, Younus AlGohar, Sufism, Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi (until this page was recently protected), and The Representative of Gohar Shahi have, in the past couple of days, been constantly vandalized by numerous IP addresses which seem to be using the same edit summary for their edits. see the Younus AlGohar history, the MFI history,Sufism history,The Representative of Gohar Shahi history, and Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi history. I have left comments on the IP user's talk pages regarding their edits, but mostly they responded by bizarrely re-pasting my comments to them or throwing random insults. both Messiah Foundation International and Younus AlGohar were protected previously due to similar vandalism. However, in Talk: Messiah Foundation International it was discussed what needed to be done to improve the article and soon after whatever constructive suggestions made by the users involved were taken into account and more information was added to the "Controversy" section of the article. On Talk: Younus AlGohar, I made a section whereby it could be discussed what issues the IP addresses had with the article, and I notified them on their talk pages. See User talk:116.71.15.61, User talk:119.160.19.13 and User talk:119.160.27.188. It seems possible that it is the changing IP address of one user, as they have identical edit summaries and edits. In addition it has been mentioned by editors previously disputing MFI's credibility on Talk:Messiah Foundation International that they are from Pakistan, where, apparently, IP addresses change frequently. The vandalism done by these users include adding CN tags even at places where there are already citations, adding NPOV tags (Claiming that their issue was that there were not enough references), and removing a whole section including references on Younus AlGohar. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
 * If I may, I'd like to revert the articles back to their original forms before the IP user edited them, as right now both Younus AlGohar and Messiah Foundation International are littered with NPOV tags, numerous "citation needed" tags where there are already citations, and Younus AlGohar is missing the "Activities" section. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Here is the last reported incident regarding both articles, which was about 2 weeks ago. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
 * The above user is not providing 3rd party and reliable reference to support his articles but the user seems to be playing with wikipedia rules & regulation, he is not providing reliable references, you may check yourself that most of the references were their own websites. Please take necessary action. Thanks & Regards,
 * I have mentioned to the IP users the references I used here, though they seemed to disregard it. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC))


 * The above user is trying to revert my edits. Please take action accordingly. Thanks & Regards


 * I feel that the best way to deal with this is to provide some sort of protection for the articles, as even though I try to explain why I am editing and why what the users are doing is considered vandalism, they simply revert my edits with strange explanations. see here, where the user has removed a whole section, and here. This is becoming frustrating, as this is happening more and more frequently in recent days. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

User:Markjeremy12
Please revoke User:Markjeremy12's ability to use his talk page. Said user is continuing to post spam despite being indeffed. Thanks. (Apologies if this isn't the correct forum.) MER-C 08:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually this would go to WP:RFPP, or possibly WP:AIV. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  09:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Restoring deleted unsourced BLPs
I believe that restoring of BLPs deleted in the recent deletion of unsourced BLPs incident is uncontroversial, provided that someone is volunteering to reference the restored article ASAP. To make this as smooth and quick a process for editors as practical, I've started a section in the article rescue squadron at wp:SJR. Suggestions as to better homes for this, extra admin eyes and of course any feedback as to appropriate limitations or better homes for this would be welcome.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like something that WP:REFUND should be handling, rather that the Article Rescue Squadron. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well in normal times yes it should. But as these were deleted out of process, if we simply ran through the normal process wouldn't they all get restored? Whereas setting up a temporary separate process where they only get restored if someone is willing to bring them up to BLP standards doesn't formalise the out of process deletions, but it does give editors a way to rescue some of these articles that I believe is acceptable even to those who deleted them.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They should only be undeleted on a case-by-case basis, and only after at least one editor offers a firm commitment to providing sources immediately. There is no emergency situation in restoring the articles, so there's also no rush to do so. Unit  Anode  00:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Send them to article incubator. I would be happy to help. Ikip 08:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Simply ask if you want to restore deleted unsourced BLPs
I have gotten up to 10 userfied articles from administrators before, let me be the first to ask.

And anyone else can ask WereSpielChequers to incubate 10 articles for them too, right here, for themselves. We will all be responsible to find sources for those 10 articles we ask for:


 * 1)  Ikip  08:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Please incubate the FIRST 10 red linked articles for me at ARS/BLP. Thank you.

A bad move!
I would think this is a bad move, unless you are adding in valid references. ArbCom have already said that what the admins who deleted the articles is valid, so restoring like this could be construed as wheel warring. Isn't there discussion about this going on somewhere else though? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Restore individual articles if sources are provided, fine, but don't just arbitrarily reverse the previous actions that got us into this mess. ArbCom was very clear; BLP enforcement is a paramount concern. Deleters got a slap on the wrist; people restoring are unlikely to be treated so kindly. Ironholds (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If "provided that someone is volunteering to reference the restored article" isn't enough reassurance for you that this is not wheel warring, please see the discussion at User talk:Scott MacDonald, or watch what is happening at wp:SJR.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to undo any out of process deletion if you bring it to my attention, and this includes BLPs that meet the notability guidelines (in my judgement anyway, I tend to be a bit stricter than many) and were deleted for being unsourced. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  03:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So you'ld be willingly recreating unsourced BLPs, without any intention or indication that they will be sourced soon afterwards? That would indeed be a bad move. Or did you mean that youare willing to undelete any that look to be notable and where someone (the one asking for undeletion, presumably) indicates that they will add sources more or less immediately? Fram (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Both, until such time that policy is properly changed. Unsourced BLPs are not a CSD, and any PRODed article's deletion may be contested post deletion. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  13:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But WP:BLP is a policy as well, and it contains things like "In order to ensure that information about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Editors adding or restoring material must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources." So the burden of proof that the article is based on good quality reliable sources is on you if you undelete the article. Fram (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Seoulight keeps going after 24-hour block
, fresh off 24-hour block for edit-warringm keep going: Special:Contributions/Seoulight.

Won't respond to notes left on talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW: notified. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked 1 week. Looks more like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT than anything. –MuZemike 16:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Extended to indefinite for sockpuppetry. The name-calling didn't help much either. Seems like a new editor with strong views, anyone feel free to unblock if you think there's sufficient (or indeed any) recognition of the edit-war issue and an agreement to follow WP:BRD or similar. Euryalus (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Kaiserble is back
So now the other guy is off *his* 24-block and keeps going...Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat
I have no experience whatsoever in this area; can uninvolved admins please have a look at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and advise me if there's a problem there, and if so, how it is handled? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, saying that an article is libelous is not a legal threat, no more than saying that an article is a copyright violation. Very many of your our (fixed, sorry) articles are libelous, copyright violations or otherwise violating applicable US law at any given time, unfortunately. It would be a legal threat if the editor said "It's libelous and I am going to sue you for it!" or words to that effect.  Sandstein   21:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, did you read the discussion? He was not saying the article was libelous; he was saying that my diff-backed statements about his edits "verged on libel". We're talking about him, not the article. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Be aware of waht the law says" "OMFG you threatened me!" is the caricature version of how I read that conversation. Made into a ludicrous paraphrasing of how it ran, can you see the difference now? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't actually find your response clarifies at all. It appears that you also think he was talking about the article, rather than my diffs about his editing of the article, which are characterized as "verging on libel" of him. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I tried. I often find using an extreme example a useful way of demonstrating a point, but I rarely try and make it work in the written form, so translating to text will be an issue. (edit conflict: it doesn't matter what he was referring to, the substance still stands, which is why I didn't mention that in my response) Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just using the word "libel" isn't really a legal threat, though I think it strays into WP:NPLT territory, as it could be construed as an attempt to scare the other editor. The word "libel" is a red flag for a lot of people, and is best avoided here.  I've left a note for Rd232 in case he cares to comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's important for editors to be able to point that out. Perhaps "I have no intentions of action myself, but be careful because..." would be better, however. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, libel should not be discussed in that way. It is a clear red flag, and the editor should strike the accusation. It has a chilling  effect and is contrary to the goals of the project. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>  chat  21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The implied corner of the policy (as opposed to the clearcut threat) is one I am not familiar with, that I will openly admit. Surely, there must be a way of nicely saying 'be careful' without chilling? Otherwise, you leave someone to get into real trouble. We don't know that user's intent, but I certainly think dropping such a mention should be doable in some way. Has there ever been a discussion on how? Might be something for the village pump if not. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There isn't much at the harassment policy; accordingly, read it for myself :P. It isn't perfect, but I'll accept it will do. I still believe my proposed wording works under that, though. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(after 3 ecs) I am reminded of why I don't enjoy coming to AN/I, but where else does one go with possible threats? Sandstein has completely misread the statement at BLPN, where Rd232 was saying that my characterization of his sourcing on the State Dept issue verged on libel. Can I at least get a response I can understand to the real issue? I haven't deciphered Sandman's response, and Sandstein missed it. Thanks, Verbal. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Er, I'll re-read it, but since this is not a request for admin intervention, and so as not to duplicate the discussion, may I suggest somebody close this thread?  Sandstein   21:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No! Can you please not complicate the BLPN thread with the legal threat issue?  The tendentious editing and reverting and edit warring issues there are relevant; why should that thread be complicated by a threat? Doesn't that belong here?  Also, if this is not the correct place for intervention of possible legal threats, could someone please tell me where that would be?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's unclear, let's clarify here before closing. First, I understand Rd232 was talking about something you said about him, not talking about the article.  Second, saying "I think that was libelous" is not a legal threat.  He is not threatening to sue you. However, it can be a perceived legal threat, as described at Harassment.  As it states there, repeated use of such language could lead to a block, but one-off's like this are, instead, met with requests to clarify the intent.  Rd232 has done so, on his talk page.  As long as it doesn't become a habit, it seems to have been resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, I think I'm clear now; thanks :) Was this the right place to raise the query?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO, yes, if you weren't satisfied with his response to you on his talk page. Until we create the Legal threats noticeboard, anyway (please, God, let that be a redlink when I hit save...). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Noting, for the record, that HalfShadow altered Floquenbeam's post above. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, as it says in WP:NLT: "Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or an administrator." Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 22:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks again everyone, good to close this thread whenever you want. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Per WP:NPLT, "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats" - key word being reasonably. To quote my original comment in full:

It's pointless to pick out all the inaccuracies in that comment (an obvious one: I said "mostly written about Venezuela's economic policies" just up the page - how does that translate to "confined to"?), though the misrepresentation of the State Dept sourcing issue alluded to verges on libel. Anyhoo, for some reason there is an upswing in interest in Venezuela articles, and I certainly agree with Sandy more people being involved would be excellent.

Yes, I apologise for using the word libel; but in the context I do not think it overly reasonably to construe an actual threat. What's really not reasonable is to waste people's time with this at ANI after I'd clarified the lack of threat on both my user talk page and WP:BLPN. And to add insult to injury, Sandy at BLPN repeated the claim which prompted the remark, despite it not having any actual relevance to the BLPN thread in question. Frankly if I was looking at this as a third party, there'd be trout flying around. One for me, one for Sandy. Bon appetit. Rd232 talk 22:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The apology is appreciated (although I can't say I agree with some of your other statements :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a trout needed, but not for Sandy. Unit  Anode  00:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Botched page move
Found via new user edits. during a series of page moves has moved talk page Talk:Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes to main space page Congregation of Sisters of Saint Agnes and needs an Administrators intervention to preserve the page histories during correction. Recommend checking the user contributions to see what has actually gone where.-- blue 520  17:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ As the user cannot actually move over existing articles, it was only a matter of fixing the cross namespace redirects. I'll leave to others the evaluation on whether this was intentional disruption. MLauba (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly just a mistake. Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

COI and BLP nightmare
A couple of weeks ago I discovered not one but thirty separate articles authored by all of which were about Spanish language voice actors (one of which was himself, the rest are his coworkers). I decided to make a batch AFD concerning these, as they are all interrelated. This was met with "close, renom all individually" and then closed as non consensus because of the mixed signals.

After this closed, I decided that the better thing to do rather than open thirty new AFD nominations was to prod tag all of them. One of the thirty was deleted by until  deprodded the other 29 and told me that because I made the first AFD, I would have to send them all to individual AFDs. I told him this was nonsense and all should be deleted (I decided against speedy deletion because they claimed notability but didn't support it). So, because of my actions and Jafeluv's there are going to be 29 more non-notable unreferenced BLPs sitting on the project for another five days after they've been sitting here for more than three years without any information added to them other than the subject spamming himself and his friends across the project. The following are the 29 AFDs.


 * Articles for deletion/Wolfang Galindo
 * Articles for deletion/Eleazar Osorio
 * Articles for deletion/JR Javier Rodríguez
 * Articles for deletion/Julio Cesar Mora
 * Articles for deletion/Klaudia Kotte
 * Articles for deletion/Bernardo Mayorga
 * Articles for deletion/Camilo Rodríguez
 * Articles for deletion/Carlos Alberto Gutiérrez
 * Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Eduardo Rojas
 * Articles for deletion/Harold Leal
 * Articles for deletion/Mario Gutiérrez (actor)
 * Articles for deletion/Mónica Valencia
 * Articles for deletion/Oscar Fernando Gómez
 * Articles for deletion/Renata Vargas
 * Articles for deletion/Rocio Bermúdez
 * Articles for deletion/Raul Forero
 * Articles for deletion/Andrés Palacio
 * Articles for deletion/Nancy Cardozo
 * Articles for deletion/Jose Manuel Cantor
 * Articles for deletion/Bayardo Ardila
 * Articles for deletion/Rafael Ignacio Gómez
 * Articles for deletion/Orlando Arenas
 * Articles for deletion/Dilma Gómez
 * Articles for deletion/Rodrigo Marulanda
 * Articles for deletion/Diana Beltrán
 * Articles for deletion/Nancy Cortés
 * Articles for deletion/Carmen Rosa Franco
 * Articles for deletion/Claudia Chavarro
 * Articles for deletion/John Grey Clavijo

Can something be done that does not allow these pages from remaining on the English language project any longer (none of them have pages at the Spanish Wikipedia and those that did have had those pages deleted for the same reasons they should be here).— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 13:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Confirming that Ryulong's description of the situation is accurate. I'd also like to note that I don't think these are quite A7 candidates, and that the articles are not new but from 2007. A few of them have already been deleted for various reasons:, , , . Jafeluv (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that mass AfD was closed correctly - it probably should have been relisted. But the deletion process is that if WP:PROD fails, go to AfD, so it seems like that was the right thing to do, although also an annoying thing to have to do. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  13:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My AFD came first, and after that was closed, I went to PROD as the close was "no consensus". It is a waste of time to start 30 new AFDs.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If a general agreement can be arrived at that a group listing is the correct way to go (and the arguments here seem to suggest that this is so), can we simply reopen/relist the original group AfD and move on? If someone raises a specific objection (something with credible third-party sources, please!) for any single individual on the list, we can stipulate that that individual's article can be separately relisted for a new AfD.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I support that. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Group nominations are handicapped when it comes to chances of success, because inevitably someone will question whether one or more of the nominated subjects is notable, and it gets cumbersome and goes into irretrievable no consensus discussion. The AfDs seem the way to go, 7 more days isn't going to do any harm.  Kudos to nominator for putting in the needed work.--Milowent (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * These should have just been speedy deleted. They're unreferenced resumes for non-notable people. A batch AFD would have been the second best chance. What exists now is just a bureaucratic joke that's almost beyond parody. I just had to manually cut and paste the same thing 30 times -- because the content i was dealing with in each case was identical.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me know when your parody is up.--Milowent (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection
Now I know this isn't the correct venue, but the matter is somewhat urgent and my post on WP:RFP is being ignored for some strange reason. User:Ragusino's IP and User:PIO (with both his ever-present and apparently invincible IP "incarnations") insist on editing the House of Bunić article and its talkpage. This article, previously deleted by Dougweller due to the constant edit-warring and its lack of relevance, has recently been recreated by the banned account User:Ragusino (via his sock, User:Mljet). Since then, it has been a constant focus of sock activity and a source of conflict.

To cut to the chase, the article and its talkpage desperately need semi-protection from IP socks. Alternatively it can be deleted as a sock-created article. Regards all -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection is Ok with me. Sir Floyd (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm completely fed-up with these "invincible" Italian nationalist socks that edit Wiki continuously for months and years regardless of their ban. A long-term semi-protection would probably be safest. Nobody needs another "Dalmatian edit-war". -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. I hate edit-wars. Debona.michel's input on the article (just my humble thinking) is important from here onwards. Sir Floyd (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've semiprotected House of Bunić. No objection to further deletion process. Admins can look at User:Ragusino's deleted contributions to see the past names he used for this article. A similar article was speedy deleted as an A7 by Dougweller on 17 December, 2008 at House of Bunić/Bona. This would be an almost-keepable article if the sources were good and were findable in libraries. Most likely the sources say that the family *existed* and won't have much substance about what the family members did. (Which could establish notability). EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston can I edited the page. Sir Floyd (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrigible, repeat-offender vandal
User: 70.158.235.38 recently vandalized Briarcrest Christian School. I was initially going to give the user a level-2 warning, but after looking at his/her talk page and noticing that this user had engaged in vandalism many times over the past two-and-a-half years, I decided to make it a level-4 instead. Actually, I think indef-blocking might be warranted in this case, since this user has been blocked several times the past and nonetheless continued to vandalize. Not only that, but I noticed that the user has posted this "manifesto" on his/her talk page:

Nobody likes Wikipedia. You guys suck and i will make it my lifes mision to mess up your entire website!

Wikipedia supports gay people and abortion!

This user appears to have a personal mission to vandalize Wikipedia, which makes me think drastic action may be necessary to prevent further vandalism. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, IPs are rarely, if ever, blocked indefinitely. The IP has made one edit today, so there is no need to block right away. If they continue to vandalize, they can be reported to AIV. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  15:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) He has received a last warning; the next piece of vandalism will probably get him a long block. WP:AIV is the more appropriate venue, by the way. Ucucha 15:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, this user has been deleting warning templates off his/her talkpage (as can be seen in the linked edit), which means that the real number of incidents is likely far greater than just those shown on the talkpage. This user appears to have a personal mission to vandalize Wikipedia, which makes me think drastic action may be necessary to prevent further vandalism. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing to keep in mind, as an IP as opposed to a registered account, theres a good chance these edits are coming from a number of people. May not be a single nefarious individual.  From the looks of the edits I'd guess that this is a school IP and we're seeing a number of bored students.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Geolocates to Kiln, Mississippi. It'll be Hancock High School. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless it's Brett Favre. :)  67.51.38.51 (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing but vandalism since previous 3 month block expired. Indeed, nothing but vandalsim ever, since August 2007.  Schoolblocked for 6 months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick AIV note
All the helperbots are down at AIV; anyone know who to contact? I think Chillum runs one, but I really have to go now and want to punt this to someone else. I've been working it pretty solidly for the last hour. The backlogged notice isn't going to go up until the bots revive, so a few extra eyes to delete reports of already blocked editors, stale or incorrect reports, etc. would be cool. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming there aren't any objections to a non-admin helping out, I don't see a reason I can't keep an eye on it to help you out too; let the admins do the work that requires an admin. Popups is pretty good at identifying blocked users, so I see no reason this should take too much of my time. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When the bots stop working it's almost always because someone has screwed with the header. Fixed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * D'oh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Levineps in violation of his editing restrictions
Immediately following his request above to have the restrictions removed because he had complied with them, Levineps just removed a huge chunk of the warnings and complaints from his talk page that had led to those editing restrictions being imposed here.,,. This is in clear violation of one of his restrictions, which state that he must "[n]ot remove warnings or notices from his talk page or anywhere else they are posted." postdlf (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ok my bad I will revert these. I thought I could what I wanted with my talk page, I guess not.--Levineps (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see that as a reasonable misunderstanding on your part, in light of the clear language of the restrictions, and the particular history of your talk page notice and complaint blanking that caused that restriction to be imposed. I'll leave it to others here to determine if this violation warrants a block; under the terms of your restrictions, it does.  But at a minimum, what you've characterized as your failure to comprehend very clear and simple restrictions will obviously impact if they will ever be rescinded.  postdlf (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake, sorry I'm not perfect. I put it back right away. If others feel the best move is to block me, then that the community's decision. I have enough faith in the community that they will see a good person made a mistake.--Levineps (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that this is the restriction as noted on his user page:
 * '''Warnings


 * '''Levineps must:


 *    * Not remove warnings or notices from his talk page or anywhere else they are posted
 * I fail to see how this is a simple mistake. The wording is rather clear and concise.  Personally it is too early to lift the editing restrictions.  March 1 is simply too soon, especially after this mistake.  I'd say he should not be allowed to reapply for 1 year starting today. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted it right away, apologized for it. I think this should be one of those "live and let live." I meant no harm in the process of doing this.--Levineps (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After it was reported here right? The point is that the notice of your restrictions is rather clear and you ignored it.  Since you are trying to have the restrictions lifted one would expect that you would be bending over backwards to make sure all edits are in compliance with the restrictions.  You did not do that which is not good.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Judging from this comment of his on my talk page, he apparently didn't consider it the "main restriction." postdlf (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said it wasn't important, I believe that the reason I got into trouble was mainly the categories. It's an opinion, I really feel like my words have been twisted (which will happen no matter what I say). I've taken responsibility for this incident. I don't think I exactly committed the cardinal sin.--Levineps (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The terms of the restrictions are very clear, and this is a straightforward violation of them which undermines any claim for lifting the restrictions soon.
 * It may be relevant that these removals followed this discussion with Levineps on my talk page, in which he was trying to persuade me to support lifting his restrictions. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You asked me not to write on your page, please stay out of my affairs. You can't have it both ways.--Levineps (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The issues can be discussed here in a centralised place. Your lobbying campaign of individual editors is unnecessary, and undermines the principle of centralising discussions so that other editors do not have to follow multiple pages to track discussions. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Levineps latest trick is revert-warring on my talk page. Not very impressive conduct. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * One revert doesn't exactly a reverting war, but good try on that one. But I would like to ask, why can't I write on your talk page?--Levineps (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As you well know, it was not one revert, it was two:, and restoring in part a comment removed earlier. The reason I don't want you posting on my talk page is that a) if you want your restrictions lifted, discuss it at a central location (here); b) The discussion on my talk page was a waste of time, because despite your belated claims to have learnt something, you still think that the edit-warring which led to your ban was because you were "provoked". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Geez, I made one comment on that. I feel as if your prosecuting me. Fair enough with the one centralized spot. I might not agree with it, but I am willing to do it. I think you overstate some of the things I say. You always find one little thing I say and use it against me instead of focusing on my entire message. Really let's move beyond this, I think both of us have better things to do--Levineps (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Levineps, I put in a lot of effort a month trying politely to engage you in dialogue, and got no response. When things eventually got to the point widespread by disruption by you, you repeatedly accused me of vandalism ... so at this point, you have ling since exhausted my good faith. If you really have turned over a new leaf, then take some time to show that that you can keep it up, and stop complaining. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The transgression has been self-reversed, and therefore I don't see the merit in blocking in this instance. However the administrative response to any future transgressions would probably take into account this incident. I think Levineps would be advised to be very careful about adhering to the terms of his restrictions, and seek advice in advance if he needs clarification. Rockpock  e  t  01:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From the comments above, I don't believe that restrictions should be removed yet. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted article after block for same
User:Armynews has created Michael corleone hill and variants thereof over and over again, (see his talk page), despite repeated warnings leading up to a block this past January 1. Today he's back at it with Michael hill (army officer).  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 07:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked again for a month. Next time should be indef - user makes no other contributions. If anyone feels this should go straight to indef, I would have no objection. JohnCD (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've salted a few variations of the article name. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 20:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:VirtualSteve
Admin User:VirtualSteve is helping the racist trouble maker and edit-warrior (new sockpuppet of banned User:Anoshirawan) who has violated his 1 revert-per-day  but instead of blocking this sockpuppet, admin User:VirtualSteve blocked a totally new user (User:Abasin) without any warning. Abasin has stated that he's behind the Netherland IP. Vandal Inuit18 and admin VirtualSteve are now working to ban him just because he's Afghan. It is a good idea to remove adminship from VirtualSteve because he's abusing his admin power and helping one race over another in a dispute. He has been helping this vandal Inuit18 for a long time now., There is nothing wrong with people who are proud of their race but all racist people who attack others should be gathered and shot on site.

If you file request for W:SPI investigation I gurantee you that Inuit18 will be confirmed sockpuppet of banned users User:Anoshirawan or User:Šāhzādé, User:Germany2008, User:Draco of Utopia, User:Tajik, User:Beh-nam. Please look into this matter, thanks.--Tyrone Watkinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.1.61 (talk • contribs)
 * VirtualSteve? The sysop that originally blocked Inuit18 indefinitely? Uh-huh... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support the block of Abasin, and suggest to make it indefinite considering this obvious block evasion and the fact that this seems to be a trouble-only account. --  At am a  頭 17:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Nothing to see here, very suspicious that the anon has come here with full knowledge of SPI, but does not know how to sign their name nor login under an account. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 20:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignore this nonsense  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1
Eyes on this user, please. Either they retire, or they don't. I don't know what behind-the-scenes shit went on here, but between the suicide threat, the constant retiring, and the rant on the userpage full of personal attacks I keep deleting, this situation needs attention. Again. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  15:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see what retirement has to do with it; the template is not some binding promise to never edit again. Several respected users have happily slapped up retirement messages and continued editing.  Second, the only attention required is a lack of it.  Leave it alone and it will diffuse.  <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din \talk 15:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is the quite obvious personal attacks on the userpage. "expect from a heartless, merciless robot?" And, apparently we are to provide therapy for this editor and let them rant, simply because they have provided quality pictures in the past? It's Giano-itis. and the situation did NOT diffuse; in fact, the user clearly states they are going to add to their list of reasons they don't like the project. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  15:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) It would have diffused, but for Jac16888's inflammatory response to Mbz's apology. Tanthalas39, if you're going to edit her talk page, would you please unprotect it too? -- Avenue (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Has this editor been problematic in the past, or is it just since they got checkusered due to Pickbothmanlol's creation of a sock named Mbz2? I would be very upset if Pickbothmanlol succeeds in his attempt to get someone blocked through no fault of their own.  -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 15:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When I filed the SPI originally I made it clear that the primary objective was to, first and foremost, make sure that it was Mbz1 behind the two accounts I added and not Pickbothmanlol. I, for the most part, have apologized to Mbz1 for everything that happened, and the response I get is an indictment? —<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Boribori!) 20:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Maedin here. I don't think that this situation needs attention at this point. Mbz1 is an excellent, long-term contributor to Wikipedia whose fantastic photography has greatly contributed to the quality of the encyclopedia. Sadly, she apparently decided to retire following a painful discussion at ANI yesterday. Even worse, it seems she was personally distressed by the events. I think that the shorter this thread is, the better for everyone involved. At the moment, nothing is happening. I think it is best to leave Mbz1's user page as it is, to avoid escalating the situation which, as Maedin says, will diffuse if left alone. Best, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, we allow personal attacks in certain situations. It's become extraordinarily clear that this is the de facto policy here on the project. We should probably change policy, since it's descriptive. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  15:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The comment you've referred to twice now has been present on Jac's user talk since 9 o'clock last night and neither you, nor Jac himself, have bothered to remove it. If you're really not trying to inflame, you could have removed just the comments you found offensive.  <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din \talk 16:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that's a fair statement. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  16:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This user is claiming that they asked for their talk page to be deleted per RTV, they obviously haven't so their talk page needs to be restored. Sorry, I cannot see what possible justification there is for a bunch of back door discussions that result in allowing some user to be sheltered, their behaviour white washed, and then get to sit there and snipe at other users from their user page.--Crossmr (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting it justifies anything, but an invasive check user was run without good evidence, in a short period of time, because she was suspected of being a sleeper sock, while being ridiculed for her poor English (which, btw, is only poor when she's upset). Didn't anyone realise that she doesn't have an SUL account and could have logged into Commons to prove her identity?  Shoot first and ask questions later?  <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din \talk 16:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to just leave this be. Digging at it won't help. The checkuser shouldn't have been run so quickly, but there has been a lot of overreaction. A lot of the comments are making the situation worse. Sometimes what is needed is a good dose of mellowness. I don't want to single anyone out unnecessarily, and there were other people that could have done better, but I found Jac16888's comments somewhat insensitive. ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we might hurt their feelings. Better let the personal attacks stay. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  17:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you care so much? Just leave her be. How many people would have even noticed the "personal attacks" if you had not brought this up here? I think she is being overly emotional, but I can understand why she feels and reacts this way. Can you try to look at this as a human being and not just a Wikipedia admin? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#C11B17">nableezy  - 17:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a case where human decency, courtesy, compassion, and common sense far, far outweigh any putative blind allegiance to guidelines that themselves have within them the realization that there are times that said guidelines do not apply. This is not a recidivist sock puppeteer, a vandal, or a troll; this is a well-meaning contributor who has had a hard life, who is very sensitive, and who has more need of the courtesy and decency with which we should be treating everyone. Admins are expected to use their common sense and judgment; if all we wanted was blind obedience to guidelines, we could have Prodego and Werdna write a few admin-bots that read filters and we could dispense with all of the maintenance roles on wikipedia. I have dealt with Mbz for over a year now here and on the commons, and while she may need to be blocked/take a forced wikibreak for her own good, treating her like a common vandal is both incorrect and indicative of a lack of compassion. I am confident enough to say that of those people in wikipedia who are aware of my work (and I have been here since 2005) I would venture that 95%+ of them will confirm that I am a stickler to wikipedia policies and guidelines under all cases, almost Lawful Neutral, if you will, but this case is one where the SPIRIT of the wikipedia weltanschauung dominates the letter of any policy (which, I reiterate allows for deviations when deemed necessary), and I am doing so. If you would like to call this an IAR, fine, but I find it disheartening when I see people treating Wikipedia like a bad case of Nomic. Always remember: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A GAME AND WIKIPEDIANS ARE NOT GAME PIECES There are real people with thoughts, emotions, and feelings behind the usernames. And when someone is not a vandal, not a sockpuppeteer, but a person with some issues, we should be working WITH them, not against them. If you have issues with my actions, I invite you to open an RfC or an RfAr, but I will continue doing my best to help the project and all of its members, as I still believe in the ideal of "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia", and not "Wikipedia: the role-playing game." -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What he said. People need to mellow out. If there are things Mbz1 has done that you think need fixing, ping me about it and I'll see what I can do, if you must but stop with the combativeness, please. Or I'll have to kick some butt. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In reply to Avi, since apparently the red, bold, squared verbage applies to me. I can't begin to tell you how much I disagree with pretty much everything you said. This is how I read this conversation:


 * Tan: "No personal attacks allowed."
 * Everyone else: "Stop being a meanie. She's had a rough life, and you shouldn't care that they have personal attacks on their userpage. Stop treating this like a game. It's treating her like a common vandal to remove those personal attacks."


 * Now, of course I put words in your mouth there, but that's pretty much the gist of this thread. We are apparently allowing this user to attack other editors (whether or not said editor(s) cares or not is irrelevent), simply out of... compassion? I think too many of you are letting past history or off-wiki actions influence your decisions here. Again, it's Giano-itis - if an editor has done good work, NPA is NA. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  18:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * @Tanthalas:
 * Actually, it was not in response to you, see my talk page
 * I deleted the rant on her user page; is there something else of hers that I missed?
 * She apologized to all involved on my talk page, as I protected both her user page and user talk while I am trying to work with her off-wiki.
 * She will not be allowed to attack other users, but, over the past 12-18 months, in EnWIki and the Commons, I have seen her respond, not instigate, for what it is worth.
 * Even if I am dead wrong on all of this, someone has to take the initiative and act more maturely and beyond the strict letter of the law. I would hope that wikipedians in positions of trust (admins, etc.) would naturally be the ones from whom to expect more.
 * So, I believe you are mistaken in your assessment, and if I remain unclear, please let me know what else I can do alleviate misunderstandings. -- Avi (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, out of curiosity, if the red verbage didn't apply to me, who was your target audience? <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  18:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, please see my talk page, it should be obvious. -- Avi (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I specifically did not name the person/people, hoping that s/he/they would understand it on his/her/their own. This goes in concert with my opinion that we need more compassion, decency, and CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and less destructive criticism and more concern for rules than (non-troll/vandal) people. -- Avi (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, okay. I still see no obvious target for your post other than me, but I'll take your word for it. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  18:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was directed at me because I didn't agree with the way this was handled. Which obviously makes me a bad person in Avi's eyes. No one can disagree with how they've handled it or they're out to turn wikipedia into a game or have no compassion. Sorry, how could I figure out how much compassion to give in this situation when every trace of what this user did/is doing is being protected/discussed behind close doors/deleted and salted with insufficient explanation? All I could see was this: An AN/I thread on the user disappeared very early. It took me a long time to track it down since it wasn't archived properly and then removed from the archive. The users pages were deleted with edit summaries that made no sense and no further information was given. I also found that a user who claimed to be retired and got an extreme whitewashing, was setting their user page up as a soapbox to attack and snipe at other users, which was also being protected by at least one other user. All of this because of off-wiki communication. Yes you've deleted the attacks now and locked it. My questioning the logic of this situation has now resulted in a couple of bad faith assumptions on your part about me. I don't treat wikipedia as a game, that is exactly why I insist on everything being transparent instead in the shadows and then just insisting it is being "handled". If they wanted to disappear and leave wikipedia that is fine. The moment they set up their user page to snipe at other users they completely changed what they were doing here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks, if such they are, should not be allowed to stand. But there are good ways to handle it, and bad ways. What's being called for here is more sensitivity and less abruptness. ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, "they such were". There's absolutely no other way to interpret what was there; I see no need for your qualifier. As for the abruptness, I'll concede that point, and take that under advisement for future issues. Given this users history of invoking RTV and then wanting a page-long rant, complete with NPA, I saw no further need for coddling, but I could be mistaken. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  18:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please give Avi the time and space to work this out. He is trying to be responsive to everyone's concerns and balance the needs and interests of everyone to the benefit of Wikipedia. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, if someone is obviously having trouble please take it easy. Fred Talk 18:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There are no personal attacks on their current revision, clearly the editor is going through anguish. Let's leave them be. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

False accusation of canvassing and reverting during consensus discussion by User:Gavia immer and User:Tbsdy lives

 * Moved here from WP:AN. —DoRD (?) (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is an attempt by me to alert others to two distinct behaviors by the above editors:

1. False accusation of Canvassing On my Talk Page, and on Talk:List of suicides, false accusations were made against me (by Gavia immer and Tbsdy, the second false accusation that Gavia immer has made against me regarding that article in a year.

I have refuted this accusation on Gavia's Talk Page by pointing out what the Canvasing policy really says, and how I have not engaged in any of the four behavior that that policy lists as criteria.

In addition, Gavia posted an extremely defamatory banner repeating this false accusation atop the List of suicides Talk Page discusssion. Rather than remove it outright, I moved it down to a separate section in case anyone else wants to discuss this accusation, separate from the discussion on sourcing for that article.

2. Reverting during a consensus discussion Reverting disputed material during a consensus discussion is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and a blockable offense. Despite this, Gavia reverted the material in question, without providing an inline citation to it, the very point of dispute being discussed, instructing readers to Read the Talk Page, when that discussion is ongoing, and so far, most people seem to agree that that article needs its own inline citations. In the edit summary of another of his/her reversions, this time for Hatazo Adachi, s/he says "Read Adachi; referenced", when the entire point of the discussion is that references in a BLP article are insufficient, and must be added to any other article in which that material appears.

This behavior is completely unacceptable. The first set of behaviors violates WP:AGF and WP:ATTACK, and serves to potentially defame me in the eyes of many other editors (especially all those who might read that banner), while the second violates policies such as WP:CONSENSUS, and the collaborative spirit in which we are supposed to work together on issues such as this. Nightscream (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of this needs to stay on Talk:List of suicides rather than being shopped around in the hope that I will get in trouble for disagreeing with Nightscream, but as to the assertion that Nightscream has canvassed: look at his actual contributions, e.g.,   etc. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just to be clear: This has nothing whatsoever to do with BLP. Every single person under discussion is deceased, that being rather the point. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nightscream, may I respectfully suggest that, per WP:NPLT, you find a more appropriate term than "defamation"- using words that could be perceived as legal threats is not helpful, though I'm sure you didn't intend for your comment to sound that way. <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJ Mitchell | <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">fancy a chat?   17:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Are the 'accusations' by Tbsdy this and this, or have I missed something? To me those look like friendly warnings that you might get in trouble with other users, and if you disagreed you could have just ignored them. Additionally, it seems pretty clear to me that Tbsdy was assuming good faith ("I suspect that you don't know about [the rule on canvassing], so take this as a friendly caution"). Olaf Davis (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Goodness. I was just giving them a friendly caution. I'm not going to dignify this with any other comment. Very silly. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Without delving into the larger issue, I would just say that Gavia, for future reference, probably could have avoided this blowout by using instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not implying, nor do I tend, to make a legal threat, so if you want to disregard or remove that term, go right ahead, with my approval. As for Tbsdy, he didn't say that I "might" be canvassing, he said that I did. In any event, if Gavia had a problem with my activities, he could've made an attempt at reserving judgment, and talking to me, rather than jumping to conclusions simply because they suited him, and flying off the handle with false accusations, and plastering them all over a consensus discussion, where they do not belong. He could've kept that discussion on my Talk Page or here, but instead chose to use it to attack me, the second time he has employed a false accusation when I did something he disagreed with, as there is nothing in those three diffs he provided that shows canvassing. He is again ignoring the criteria that WP:CANVAS gives for canvassing, despite the fact that I showed him on his Talk Page that my messages did not meet them. User:DJ Clayworth posted on Talk:List of suicides to agree that my messages were neutral. Gavia simply ignores this, and repeats the charge, without refuting any of this, or even mentioning it. This, and the fact that he has reverted during a consensus discussion, (which you haven't addressed yet), suggests that he is engaging in WP:OWN-type behavior, and employs such tactics to force his personal style on the article (ironic, given that he is accusing me of favoring a certain "style", when what I favor is based on the policy). This behavior by him is deplorable, and needs to be addressed. Nightscream (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that admins need to do anything here yet. I don't see where dispute resolution has been tried, as yet, and a board like WP:WQA or WP:3O should be a first stop before coming to ANI and "demanding satisfaction" in the form of sanctions against fellow editors.  Why not try to work things out in a civil manner rather than "running to mommy" as soon as things don't go your way.  Seriously, the shrill tone of this entire thread does not bode well towards a reasonable resolution, nor does it appear that there is anything remotely blockable here by any party to this dispute, and it would be nice to keep it that way.  -- Jayron  32  21:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't quite see the issue here. Nightscream asked a few people to comment on a sourcing issue. So far as I can tell, he asked people who had commented on these issues in the past because they were familiar with them. That's not what's meant by canvassing. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 00:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

ANEW
There's a report pending at WP:ANEW but the edit war is continuing, could an administrator please close the report and determine what action needs to be taken. <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJ Mitchell | <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">fancy a chat?   20:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Someone has some WP:OWN issues. Blocked for 24 hours. --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 22:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User 204.253.82.210 keeps vandalising iPad
The User:204.253.82.210 has vandalised the iPad article 3 times in 6 minutes, can they be blocked please? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - in b4 "take it to AIV" Kafziel Complaint Department 23:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Technologist9
I believe this user is engaging in conduct that is harmful to the project. Not only did he create Intelligent Europe, an article that was deleted with unanimous consent (with the only "keep" votes coming from himself and what could be his sockpuppets), but he keeps re-adding junk to European Research Area and European Research Council ( and are the versions from which he is reverting). His failure to understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a repository for EU policy memos lies at the heart of the matter. What might be the best way forward? - Biruitorul Talk 23:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that explaining it to him at User talk:Technologist9 might help. I don't see anything there nor has he been invited to discuss things at the articles talk pages. And I see you forgot to notify him of this section. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Paella Article
Please block the Paella article to anonymous users.

Three anonymous users have made an identical, erroneous change several times over the past few days. Since the edits are identical, I strongly suspect the that only one person is making these edits.

The problem is as follows: There are four citations that state the word "paella" is a Catalan word. However, users 81.37.179.51, 193.144.127.13 and 79.146.36.125 have removed the citations and edited the article repeatedly to say paella is a Valencian word:













I attempted to warn user 193.144.127.13 yesterday that I would report his behavior if he made the same edit again:



The warning did no good. I scanned the article today to find the same edit had occurred.



Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * RFPP submitted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Paella_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. In the future, things like this should go to WP:RFPP Frmatt (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Semi'd three days. Re-request if they keep coming back.  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn, you guys work fast. Thanks! Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OOPS! Thanks for catching that my full should've been semi! Frmatt (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection request
Thank you. History2007 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis was protected for 3 days, now may need several more days of protection to avoid a revert cycle. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That you would start making changes to the article after that articles protection has lapsed, only to request protection from reverts of your changes, is nothing short of disruptive behaviour. Ben (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And you would know from disruption, since you're pretty good at it. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ben Tilman has just entered the 3 revert zone, and 2 warnings have been issued to him now. Admin action is in order now, please. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on his comments on the article talk page, nothing will change 7 days from now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The discusion has been productive. Two editors are attempting to force through the version they prefer while the discussion is still going on. That is not right. And that's why it's been protected for a week in their version. Auntie E. (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about Ben and that other guy. FYI, I'm not watching that page any more because, as with the Noah's ark thing, it's an endless loop and a waste of my time. Ben is absolutely determined that the very first sentence of any Old Testament article is going to assert that the story is a pack of lies (or a "myth", as he calls it). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as you continue to misuse the terms in play, that's probably for the best. -- King Öomie  21:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You and Ben know full well that the average citizen understands "myth" to mean "fairy tale", and that's why you're so insistent on it being in the first line of the article, to push a particular POV on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, creation myth applies to any religious account of creation, whether it's Norse creation myth, Greek mythology or Creation according to Genesis. Just because some people believe one is true and the others aren't, doesn't restrict us from reporting what reliable sources say. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, to be fair, more than 75% of the world believe in some kind of Creationism, according to the demographics of religeous belief globally. To me it seems that this insistence on pushing the word "myth" in the article is a lot like poking the bear with a stick and then acting surprised when it wakes up angry.  There is no need to be intentionally antagonistic.  Rapier1 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Particularly when he's focused totally on the Old Testament and pooh-poohs any question as to why he's not aggressively pursuing the same issue in other creation stories. Or not at all, actually. It's like he has an obsession with this particular creation story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On the flip side, we don't see Buddhists aggressively pushing Creationism in their article, either. It's a side-effect of being an English-language, Western wiki. Given Christianity's predominance in our audience, that's going to be the contentious articles. As for not being "intentionally antagonistic", I'd say WP:NOTCENSORED. Creationism is inherently a creation myth. I can only say that I'm not pushing it to be antagonistic, but to stick to the facts. Just like the Mohammad image isn't censored, I don't see why we should back off on this issue either. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not censored. The mythology references are all over the article. It's even in the second sentence of the lead. The problem is that Ben and 1 or 2 others insist that it be in the first sentence, by itself, when it's already in the second sentence balanced with the fact that many Christians and Jews believe in it as a matter of faith. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Howard Zinn just died
and a fracas is brewing at his article. Let's cut this one off quick, please?? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So now I have jumped in, 'cause, what the heck. Carptrash (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the fracas exactly? Sad to say that Zinn's death is now obviously confirmed, so no problems with premature changes to the article or anything (perhaps there were earlier), and from what I can tell there does not seem to be severe edit warring going on. Is there a need for a specific admin action here, beyond keeping an eye on the article for awhile (which is probably a good idea)? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like something that probably should have been posted to WP:BLPN instead. <font face="Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur Plain, Fraktur, Old English Text MT" size="4">Wilhelm Meis <font face="Helvetica">(Quatsch!) 06:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not always all that clear about what goes where, to whom in the wikibureaucracy. But Zinn's People's History of the United States is getting a lot of editing and undoing too. Or should this be posted elsewhere too? Carptrash (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Zinn is NOT a living person, so would not they (WP:BLPN) just send me somewhere else? Carptrash (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BLP also tends to apply to recently deceased people. Dying doesn't immediately remove all of the notability rules. --Golbez (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think BLPN is the right place for this, however I'm still not quite clear what you are asking for. When well-known people pass away, usually articles about them get edited pretty heavily. There's nothing wrong with heavy editing (and even some undoing), so long as it does not devolve into all-out edit warring. If that happens you can report individual editors who are edit warring to WP:AN3, or if necessary you can request page protection. If there's something else specific you are looking for administrators to do please state it, otherwise if it's just a general "heads up" to keep an eye out on Zinn's page I would definitely echo that, but in that case there's no need for admin action. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I just panicked. That's why I don't do this sort of thing often. I saw edits and undos from an editor who been blocked from that article before and maybe from the book article too and just seemed that something was in order. Thanks for looking into it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat?
An anon has recently edited a talk page, threatening to 'sue' anyone who removes content he has just added. I'm not entirely sure how to approach this, though I will not overlook it, and am requesting some admin assistance. Connormah (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The user was warned and has been blocked, User talk:71.173.84.78. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So, are we going to do anything else here?--TrustMeTHROW! 01:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have something else in mind?--Cube lurker (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For an ironic twist, you could add to the warning that if he talks about suits again, he'll hear from your lawyer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Substitute tailor for lawyer? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Enough needling. We should close this thread. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you've got money to burn just take him to court for the pain and suffering caused by being an idiot on WP. But then I suppose we'd have to ban you as well, it would make for an interesting test case though and an epic one if you won.  raseaC talk to me 14:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Metro Gang Strike Force Minnesota
Administrative help requested at this article, to sort out BLP concerns. The subject of the article is now defunct, amidst allegations of irregularities. The article reports those allegations as fact. They are so intertwined in the piece that it would be difficult to establish what is supportable and what is not. The best solution would be outright deletion. The same editor also contributed this unreferenced attack on two prominent and well-regarded businessmen (now deceased), which has now been reverted. Will notify editor of this discussion. Kablammo (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Lphayne / User Talk:Lphayne
Not sure if this is the right place but would someone kindly take a look at this editors contributions: Special:Contributions/Lphayne. Many thanks. -Arb. (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The edits look rather POVish, but it doesn't appear that anyone has tried discussing them with the editor, nor were they notified about this thread. No admin intervention is needed now, but for future reference, I'll refer you to WP:POVN. Thanks —DoRD (?) (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Carlosar45
User is not a persistent vandal, but he is a persistent adder of unsourced material. He has been warned on numerous occasions for creating unsourced/OR articles or adding unsourced/OR material to articles. I posted a lengthy, detailed warning on his talk page ten days ago. Soon after this he received two more warnings, one of which was a final. He stopped posting for ten days and his first effort on his return was the addition of more unsourced OR, followed by the creation of yet another unsourced/OR stub, the only contents of which is "Guest on 2011". This editor is clearly ignoring the clear and detailed messages he is being given. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. I'd really hate to block a newbie for seemingly trying too hard.. however Competence is required and maybe a short-term block would get their attention.. -- &oelig; &trade; 08:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not too familiar with the situation (nor am I an admin), but might I suggest pointing the user to WP:REFTOOLS? Adding citations is a real bear without it, and when editing individual sections of articles without a  template, there's no way to tell from the Preview if it was done correctly.  If you make it easier for the user, they just might do it.... <font color="#0000FF">Me Three  (<font color="#6060BF">talk to me )  20:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:J.delanoy is a wonderful person
I reported this as a vandal only account. The AIV board removed the file w/o a block. I'm not sure if it was in eror but I AM SURE this is a blockable account. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That was a lovely switch on the subtitle. Kinda funny! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)Shows as being blocked to me. Not that the block log says who did it, but the account is indefinitely blocked for being an "Abusive user name" and does not have access to either email or their talk page. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When I go there, it says there is no such User registered, not that they are blocked. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're refering to the above name that is because someone changed it from the name that includes the offensive statement as a coutesy.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see a block log for it either (i.e. its original name), so I think the admin did some tricks to hide it, on the grounds of WP:DENY. Either that, or they only thought they blocked it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"The user you are trying to block has already been blocked and hidden. Since you do not have the hideuser right, you cannot see or edit the user's block." That explains all. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When the block log doesn't list a blocking admin, it means the account was global locked (and possibly hidden) by a steward. See m:Special:Log/globalauth. --Closedmouth (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

70.30.5.114
User 70.30.5.114 committing talk page vandalism. -- Kheider (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Vandalism has been reverted. I've semi-protected your talk page for a few days. Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * IP has also been warned re edit warring. Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If it continues, report it to WP:AIV, and they should be willing to issue a short-term block to discourage it (they can't indef IP's). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on the IP; if it's a proxy, they can, and school-IPs can (eventually) get blocked for years at a time. 'Regular' IPs not so much. Half  Shadow  22:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

JD Salinger has died
J.D. Salinger has died. Suggest people keep an eye on the article for mass edits, memorials, and flybys. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually did a quiz once. The question was "for which novel was JD Salinger best known?". I didn't know the correct answer though, but I did win the quiz! :) --Prodigy96 (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Threat of legal action
A threat of legal action has been made in an infobox on a Wikipedia article. WP:THREAT suggests such incidents are reported here: --MegaSloth (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry should have mentioned it involves to avoid duplicate reports. --MegaSloth (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked for legal threat; I look forward to hearing more about his upcoming lawsuit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked the other user who was reverting to that text too, for good measure. Jclemens (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a short SP? They've created at least one sock. Half  Shadow  21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll semi if I see it again. I have the article watchlisted. —<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Boribori!) 21:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Socks blocked, Sidney Cooke semi-protected, underlying IP hardblocked. –MuZemike 21:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jessica Liao
There is already consensus to add this user to the banned list. I would like to request an uninvolved admin to look at this and add this user to the list. If the user cannot be added, can you provide a reason? Thanks. Girafe53 (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So to be clear, this is just a housekeeping request, yes? User is already indef'ed and there's no discussion about removing that block. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We have the list to publicly humiliate banned users even though they use it to look for glory. But that's just so they can have their pride. 5 administrators declined her unblock requests. It's clear that no admin would be willing to unblock or make her block finite. Girafe53 (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:RBI seems like a better policy to me. Jclemens (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * She is already a long-term abuser. She has 47 confirmed socks. And don't give me that excuse of WP:DENY or WP:RBI. It's not policy and editors are not required to follow it. Girafe53 (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And whose sock are you? A new user does not go to WP:ANI on their 11th edit. They certainly do not discover WP:BANNED one hour after they register. Tim Song (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can smell the gunpowder.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 23:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone turn the quacking ducks down from 11? It's too loud in here. tedder (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Weird, problematic editor
Has been around, on and off, for a few years. They seem to make some useful (or at least neutral) contributions but they also have an ongoing problem with creating nonsense articles, as well as BLP violations and vandalism in the past. They have many warnings on their talk page. I think this is someone's "play" account and should be investigated and possibly blocked. The account name also violates the username policy since it's basically a slur against Native Americans. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good block, although I find the racial slur allegation quite ridiculous.--Atlan (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Complex hoax needs speedy removal

 * I accept my trout and will wear it as a warning. Polargeo (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew de Rothschild, Stefan de Rothschild, Rothschild Estates, James Mayer de Rothschild II and Nathaniel Mayer de Rothschild need speedy deleting as part of a mass hoax. User:Womblethereof should be blocked as an SPA hoaxer. I have spent some considerable time investigating this, there is a discussion on. I have email confirmation from Quinlan Private a company Rothschild Estates claims to have purchased confirming this is a definite hoax. Polargeo (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason we should circumvent the already running AfD process? A hoax appears likely, but it isn't "obvious". --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 15:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes an email from Quinlan Private to me

"<blanked private e-mail>"

Confirming that the claim on the website is bogus. Add in the fact that there is no trace of these supposed multimillionaire heirs anywhere. Polargeo (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear unambiguous massive hoax with potential in using the Rothschild name to defraud on a massive scale. Wikipedia should speedy clear this one up. Polargeo (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa, that was totally inappropriate to post here. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  15:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My real name is Julian by the way :) Polargeo (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't Tan Polargeo (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some guys name, phone number, fax number, with a quite obvious suffix that you are not allowed to release it under GFDL? "...it may contain privileged and confidential information". Probably need an oversight on this one. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  15:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was. I blanked it. What part of this didn't you read? "This email is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately and destroy this email. You must not copy, distribute or take action in reliance upon it." Besides that, e-mails are not released under GFDL and therefore cannot be posted here without express permission by the sender. -- Thejadefalcon <sup style="color:#03C03C;">Sing your song <sub style="color:#00A550;">The bird's seeds 15:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The disclaimer on the end of a private email is just standard. it is a public company I have full permission from Quinlan Private to sort this out so just becasue the disclaimer was there does not matter. I have permission to report that this is a hoax. Polargeo (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but did you have permission to post the e-mail here in it's entirety (especially with phone numbers et cetera contained within)? Summarise its contents next time. -- Thejadefalcon <sup style="color:#03C03C;">Sing your song <sub style="color:#00A550;">The bird's seeds 16:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed oversight to suppress that edit. You are wrong here, Polargeo. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  15:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I emailed Oversight too. -- Thejadefalcon <sup style="color:#03C03C;">Sing your song <sub style="color:#00A550;">The bird's seeds 16:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am right. Give me about 5 minutes and I will post complete confirmation from the emailer that I have full right to post that email. But rather than get into this craziness will someone do something about this. Polargeo (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Blank private information next time. -- Thejadefalcon <sup style="color:#03C03C;">Sing your song <sub style="color:#00A550;">The bird's seeds 16:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sort out the email, but could someone speedy those articles, or at least explain why not. We should not allow hoaxes like this to run for the full time of an AfD. Quantpole (talk)
 * Fully concur. As usual we are wasting time on percieved issues rather than dealing with the real problem. And please block the user while we are at it. Polargeo (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have informed the user who created these articles of this discussion, per the instructions at the top of this page. – ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. The user should however be blocked immediately. Polargeo (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not as if User talk:Womblethereof is not already covered in warning tags about this issue with no response thus far. Polargeo (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of that, it is common courtesy at the very least to inform a user when they are being discussed here and even more so when notification is required by the instructions on this page and in the edit notice. – ukexpat (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for taking the trouble to inform the user. They have now been blocked and informed of this. Polargeo (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm. Anybody who thinks that the Rothschilds are WASPS needs an education.  67.51.38.51 (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, Arthur de Rothschild (with the specified dates, parents, and much of the ancillary information included in the deleted article) certainly existed: the hoax element of the article was giving him a wife and children when he had neither, as can be determined by consulting the standard work on the Rothschild genealogy, Le Sang des Rothschild, by Joseph Valynsele and Henri-Claude Mars, (L'Intermédiaire des Chercheurs et Curieux, 2003), p. 97. The footnote (#158, p. 161-2) contains enough information for a factual article to be written (including some interesting comments by Elisabeth de Gramont about his misanthropy), so this deletion should be taken without prejudice to its re-creation. - Nunh-huh 18:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It may have been a hoax in the manner of this fake company, which was used to defraud Sven Goran Eriksson. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/mining/6431534/SCH---the-biggest-company-youve-never-heard-of.html
 * But then it couldn't have been used on anyone more than the most vulnerable pensioners etc, since anyone with suspicions can contact one of the family's real banks. It's more likely the fictitious blogger "Stefan de Rothschild" made the fake websites to promote himself, no doubt partly so that he could produce citations for his biography on wikipedia. 86.26.0.25 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The name Stefan rings a bell - I wonder if this is our old friend Stefan Roberts, a serial hoaxer who began as heir presumptive to various titles, progressed to being Viscount St Pierre complete with fake London Gazette page to show that his old man had been created an earl, and then became a hedge-fund billionaire. His "Roberts Investment Group" website was very like this "Rothschild Estates" one - glossy-looking but shallow with little solid information and no checkable contact details like address or phone number, only email. JohnCD (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly correct. Remarkable that two people should not only share a first name, but look so similar in photos on their social networking profiles. I must say, this is rather amusing. He's put a lot more work into this one then when he was pretending to be Lord Jersey's cousin and so forth, and judging from his Twitter feed, he has a lot of people believing he's jet-setting in Davos. Choess (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly is Stefan Roberts again - this "Baron Stefan de Rothschild" also has a father called Andrew, also was made a director of the family business while still in his teens, and, the clincher, has the same birth date - 2 July 1992. See his pictures here and here. JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This was the most amazing, one .. a Washington Post article ... -- The Rothschild Estates has pledged $2.5 million. This is a company that we could find no record of it existing apart from the hoax website, so whoever it is had managed to get that posted on a major publication, imo it was a major deception that was uncovered, not just a few artcles here, that was just more affirmation of existence that would aid the deception. Have a look at the website of the fictitious Rothschild Estates that pledged 2 and a half million dollars to Haiti it was professionally done Off2riorob (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And don't forget the other website Rothschild Arts huge potential to fraud. Polargeo (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and the Rothschild Global Foundation. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He's on twitter too: StefanDeRo. Cardamon (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed the (real) Rothschild Foundation to let them know about the fake websites. My first thought was the NM Rothschild bank, but their website gives no email address; I asked the Foundation to pass it on if they thought necessary. JohnCD (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Jza84 using his admin powers to steamroll his personal point of view.
Note: This was archived by the reporting user, thus presumably it's resolved or being handled elsewhere. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  15:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left a short note asking if everything is OK. Jeni is a pretty dedicated editor, I would like to make sure everything is resolved peacefully. Even if it's not on AN/I. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

On Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place, User:Jza84 made a comment "I intend to remove this function", despite there being no consensus for him to take this action from anyone involved in the conversation. Today he took the liberty of making the non consensus edit and is now refusing to revert himself, despite everyone involved in the discussion being against it.

This is despicable, it is a protected template and he is using his admin powers to ensure that he gets his own way, regardless of consensus from other users. It isn't like he even gave discussion more than 24 hours to take shape! Jeni ( talk ) 12:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note he has now taken this moment to self revert, presumably under the treat of this thread. He is still stating that he will make the edit at a later date. Closed this discussion for now, though I'm pretty sure this wont be the end of it. Jeni  ( talk ) 12:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Sarumio
The above was found to be using sockpuppetry back in November, at which point the four IPs listed were blocked. Sarumio claimed he "omitted to log into his account" as an "innocent mistake" and that he would "endeavor to make certain that [he is] logged in as Sarumio in every instance in the future". Since then he's used 87.113.90.204, 87.115.173.198 and, just yesterday, 195.195.247.144. - <span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif;text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.4em"> Dudesleeper  talk  09:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and 87.113.127.252. - <span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif;text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.4em"> Dudesleeper  talk  09:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely, for both the inability to log in - despite promises - and the practice of removing the "F.C." initials from football clubs. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned editor editing
Has anyone seen this? Some noxious banned editor seems to be vandalising a philosophy article as some kind of prank. Rupert of the New Age (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a new article. It's being sourced. Looks like good work to me. Let him edit away. If and when he switches from creating content to making some sort of point, action can be taken then. Meanwhile, perhaps don't call people "noxious" even if you happen to disagree with them. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Retracted, but all the same this looks suspiciously like User:Peter_Damian, public enemy number 1 (second to Gregory Kohs) of Wikipedia. He was recently blocked for this account.  Isn't there something about 'banned means banned'.  Are you saying that the quality of contributions could possibly outweigh a community ban? Rupert of the New Age (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A tad omphaloskeptic, are we? Both now blocked as Damian socks. --jpgordon:==( o ) 00:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think omphaloskeptic would indicate suspicion of or disbelief in one's navel. Is that what is meant? Or is navel gazing from the blocked editor being suggested. Sorry, these fancy words are unfamiliar to me. Oh wait, because Rupert is also the same editor? So one is the navel of the other? And he's indicating suspicion of himself? Or is it being suggested that raising suspicion of his own sock account is meant to raise suspicion in his own navel. I'm very confused. Will someone check out my question on the article talk page of the article that was created about eternity? I don't understand the lead. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I regularly feel skeptical about my navel. Should I get help? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At least you HAVE a navel. I have it on good authority that, like Satan, PD and GK do not. At least that's the impression one gets reading some stuff. ++Lar: t/c 11:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know not of past dramas, but seems like he misses Wikipedia.--Milowent (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As a matter of curiosity, what happens now with the article newly created by one of these banned socks, Eternity of the world? Bielle (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, if the emperor is wearing nothing but socks, and yet no one seems to care due to general fascination with his navel, can we all agree that a good article is worth a wink to a blind man? Steveozone (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well certainly a A Nod Is as Good as a Wink... to a Blind Horse. We all know that. Carptrash (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhhh...not what I had in mind, but I too wonder if the article is a go-er. Steveozone (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gone. Fram (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion as within policy. However, (copied from article talk) I've restored this article and the talk. It was properly deleted under WP:CSD by User:Fram as work of a banned editor, but after review of the material, I am willing to stand behind the edits. Also, a review of the history will show edits by others that I deem "substantial" enough to qualify, although Fram may not have felt that way. ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Damian was an excellent, very valuable content editor, he is easy to recognize. It is unfortunate that he became too obsessed about wikipolitics and one editor in particular, causing his banning.  His socks will probably just continue to contribute good content to show everyone else up, and like now, it should simply be accepted, with a wink and a nod.  Unbanning again in the future should not be ruled out, but might not be too probable.John Z (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ...or his contributions can deleted on sight, because we have no deadline, eventually someone else will create it anyway, so why would we encourage him to continue socking? If his articles are kept, it makes sense for him to continue socking here. If his articles and contributions are reverted or deleted, then this all becomes a waste of time for him and he may finally just leave. The exceptions some people make for good content contributors (they are allowed to be constantly uncivil, to sock to avoid a ban, ...) are beyond me. We are a community and a content provider, and sometimes the content is less important than the community, as in the case of people violating time and again some of our basic policies. He is banned for a reason, and as long as it stays like this, we should be clear to him and all other banned editors, that none of their contributions are welcome, no matter if they are poor or of FA quality. We can and will do without them. Fram (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a rabid eventualist, but there aren't many experts on medieval philosophy and logic here or elsewhere. Many of his contributions, about which there were never any problems, would not be created anytime soon if ever.  Unlike most banned editors, he clearly wants his good content to be deleted, to prove his pointless point, that wikipedia is flawed, like everything else real.  CSD G-5 is a may, not a must.  No one is suggesting he be allowed to sock with impunity.John Z (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Baseball1015
I think there's something up with this user. First, I just noticed in his talk page history that he removed all his talk page messages (except the welcome message) from a revert. Secondly, I made a couple edits to Template:Uw-voablock yesterday; he reverted them w/o a specific reason today. I restored mine about half an hour after that. I don't know what's going on with this user; I'm not bold enough to ask on their talk page, so I'm bringing this up here. Maybe they're a sock puppet? <font color="DeepSkyBlue">Schfifty <font color="OrangeRed">3 00:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you notified this user of this thread?--TrustMeTHROW! 01:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ive gone and notified this user. But YOU should have done so after making this thread.--TrustMeTHROW! 01:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry for that. I had to attend something after I posted this thread. <font color="DeepSkyBlue">Schfifty <font color="OrangeRed">3 01:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He has been blocked mistakenly, supposedly as a sock of MascotGuy, by J.delanoy, in the past. It has since been rversed. Maybe ask him for a CheckUser? Connormah (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to chime in, I've posted what I regard as a very nice talk page message which was again removed like this user does with all talk page comments. I know Wikipedia isn't a social network and that people with excellent content contributions, but this guy steps out of all bounds. If you look at his edit history, it appears to be consisting solely of reverting other user's changes without any comment or summary whatsoever. User:Krator (t c) 02:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from blanking his talk page, has he been disruptive on any other area of Wikipedia? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What I've initially wanted to talk to him about was biting newbies. He reverted a new editor twice, calling good-faith (but badly formatted) first-time edits vandalism and spam, and then reverting the new user's questions about those reversals on his talk page as vandalism. The new user then came to WT:VG, which is where I picked this up. This isn't anything I would normally be really angry about, except that he doesn't seem to acknowledge that this is a bad thing to do. He's a bit trigger happy on the vandalism button, that's all I think. Take a look at the guy's talk page and there's just a stream of people going "hey, what's up, I don't understand what you're doing" and this guy reverting it. User:Krator (t c) 03:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I came across the one he marked as spam and vandalism while I was Huggling. I thought it seemed odd, but, not being familiar with the topic, I decided to let it drop, presuming there was consensus on the talk page or something. -- Thejadefalcon <sup style="color:#03C03C;">Sing your song <sub style="color:#00A550;">The bird's seeds 10:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I came to file a report and discovered that a thread is already open. He reverted a number of 's edits to user talk pages with the edit summary "Arbitration enforcement: Spamming user talk pages.". Aside from the fact that he's not a admin or an arbcom clerk, I also can't find any arbcom decision that Ikip violated in his messages. Also, I checked his contribs and this does not seem to be a new user. Tim Song (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there is Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black. But that doesn't say anything about enforcement by revert. I have reverted User:Baseball1015's deletion of this "invitation" from my talk page, and asked him not to remove content from my talk page. DES (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Curiously, their userpage has been U1 speedied four times in the last month. But regarding the above, there are six different users asking them to not delete messages from usertalk pages. And, if I recall correctly, there was no consensus that Ikip's message was inappropriate, so the arbitration enforcement claim is nonsense. I think it would be best if Baseball1015 would come here and offer some sort of explanation. —DoRD (?) (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The only talk page contributions the guy has made are strange reversals and the only ever non-blanking comments he's made on his own talk page are "Whatever"  and this. Somehow I have little faith he will chime in here. User:Krator (t c) 15:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that guy for real have rollback, as one editor stated? If so, how did he get it? P.S. He's no relation to me, thankfully. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned with this user's editing pattern. If you're going to revert Ikip, you need to be willing to talk about what you did and why. Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are the userlinks for Baseball1015:
 * I noticed a very new editor accusing User:Baseball1015 of being a sock of User:Dalejenkins, who is indef blocked. Per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins there is a possibility there. One SPI participant said "Dale is a notorious delete-happy account that used the socks to antagonize members of the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (ARS)." Baseball1015's mass-reverting of invitations left by Ikip to join an inclusion/deletion debate would fit that pattern, at least. If the strange behavior continues, a new filing at SPI could be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Bugs: No they don't have rollback. —DoRD (?) (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good. This is where I saw it, and might have misinterpreted what he was saying. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Albeit that it probably wouldn't get results, has anyone tried simply asking him if he is a sock/has any other accounts, and if so, what they are? Very small chance it would work, but the simple stuff sometimes works the best against all expectations. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 20:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After a couple of fruitless attempts to get an explanation, I informed the user that I would formally request that access to twinkle be revoked if I saw a repeat of talk page blanking, or if no detailed justification were forthcoming. Given that I am clearly not an isolated example, I would like to at least float the suggestion here. Obviously it should not be the first step we take. But the bottom line is that if a user does not acknowledge that using rollback on talk pages can pose problems, the user should not have rollback in any form. Period.   WFCforLife (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After a couple of fruitless attempts to get an explanation, I informed the user that I would formally request that access to twinkle be revoked if I saw a repeat of talk page blanking, or if no detailed justification were forthcoming. Given that I am clearly not an isolated example, I would like to at least float the suggestion here. Obviously it should not be the first step we take. But the bottom line is that if a user does not acknowledge that using rollback on talk pages can pose problems, the user should not have rollback in any form. Period.   WFCforLife (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This may or may not answer the sock question, but it's of interest that his most recent edits have been to post stuff on blocked users - the notorious Axmann8 and another one (South Bay) that was just blocked recently. Maybe that's a clue as to what's "up" with that user? But don't rule out that it's a sock of the even-more-notorious Pioneercourthouse, who was apparently the one that tried to get Axmann8 (and others) into further trouble last summer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Another thing I just noticed is the history (admin only) of their monobook.js page. This is anything but what you'd expect from a new editor. —DoRD (?) (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I dunno ... I modified my monobook by copying something off of someone else's, once I learned that it existed ... maybe I'm WP:AGFing too much ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but yours wasn't created and deleted four times in less than a month, either. ;) —DoRD (?) (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ sock of - now blocked indef -  A l is o n  ❤ 05:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Alanya help
I'm looking for some help with a featured article, Alanya. I have a user who insists on deleting certain large sections of the article repeatedly, usually those that mention the role foreigners play in this southern Turkish city. It's very frustrating, and I'm not sure how to protect the article. The user is Omulazimoglu and their sockpuppet Ozgurmulazimoglu. I've tried repeatedly to engage the user on their talk pages and on the article's talk page, so they could defend these deletions, but they seem to have no interest in this, so I'm at a loss. How should I react?-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 21:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've fully-protected the article for 1 week and indefblocked the sock account (pretty obvious per WP:DUCK). I've also warned them that continued edit-warring or failure to engage constructively on the article talk page will be viewed very dimly and pointed them to WP:DR. If you don't mind me mentioning, you should also be careful about reverting their edits; it takes two to edit-war and reversions are really for handling obvious vandalism only. Using them for anything else puts you in danger of sanctions too. Stick to WP:BRD (as long as it's not a WP:BLP issue, it really doesn't matter if they make an unsuitable edit that's not immediately removed), retain the moral high-ground, and if the disruption continues when the protection expires either report back here, drop me a note, or request further page protection at WP:RFPP. Hope this helps, EyeSerene talk 09:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am frustrated to see how you showed me to the community as a racist person as everyone may see in the history page of Alanya. You are in a big mistake and you do not have the right to show me as racist. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What I'm seeing is a content dispute that started over some photographs and has got out hand. I have no way of knowing the motivations of you or Patrick, so no-one's accusing anyone of racism. What can't be argued is that you've been removing large, sourced sections of the article (and sometimes just sources) without a good explanation. If you believe some content is unsuitable, it's up to you to convince other editors of that on the article talk page. You may succeed; you may not... but what you can't keep doing is disrupting the article. EyeSerene talk 12:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Lets say you are all right about the Alanya. Pls do not change the topic. He is clearly saying that i am racist. Is it ok in Wikipedia? MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to this edit? Liquidluck ✽ talk  13:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The topic is disruption to the Alanya article (see the title of this thread). However, since you seem to be wanting to focus on something else, so be it...
 * Question: Is it okay on Wikipedia to call someone a "racist"? Answer: Not without very good evidence, no
 * Q: Did Patrick call you "racist"? A: No
 * Q: Did Patrick imply you might have xenophobic motives for your edits? A: Yes
 * Q: Why did he imply that? A: You seem to be removing information about foreigners from the article
 * Q: Do I agree with Patrick? A: No, it looks more to me like you're removing anything that might show Alanya in a bad light, some of which is about foreigners
 * Q: What am I going to do about it? A: Ask you both nicely to work constructively on the article talk page to resolve your content differences
 * Q Statement: But I've been falsely accused! A: That's regrettable, but you've been subjecting Patrick to considerable provocation by ignoring his messages and disrupting the article. Your best option would be to read our editing policies and move on.
 * EyeSerene talk 14:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Mulazimoglu, I do not mean to call you anything, but it does seem that from your edits going back to October to this and a variety of anti-Armenian articles, that you do not want Alanya to discuss "wrong info" about Iranians, Europeans, the PKK, Jews, Africans, the AK Party, or any negative sides of the city. Foreigners may have only a small impact on the city, and for example, the majority of the city does not celebrate Nevruz, but in a discussion of holidays celebrated, it too has a place. The user has claimed repeatedly in edit summaries that deleting this information is "taking out racism", but that just doesn't make sense to me, and I don't think they understand the problem with it.
 * I would love to talk content, but this is what I get, dramatic accusations of ownership or racism. I tried to engage with a list of questions on the talk page that was never responded to. Questions like what's wrong with noting the mayor's political party or the various causes of the economic downturn? But instead of reasonable discussion on the talk page of this featured article, I see edit waring, and I'm not sure how to proceed. So thanks for the article protection, hopefully this won't be an issue again.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 16:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly I don't see the racism/xenophobia stuff (real or imagined) as something worth spending time on, because while we are all free to draw our own conclusions as to why someone edits the way they do, it's generally politic to keep such speculation to ourselves. We are asked by WP:NPA to "comment on the edits, not the editor", and adhering to that helps to keep focus where it matters; on the article content itself. In my experience editors that are here for motives other than to collaboratively build high-quality content constantly run into policy difficulties and sooner or later find Wikipedia a frustrating and unwelcoming place. They tend to hoist themselves on their own petard.
 * Anyhow, I've tried to address the socking and disruption to the article and Omulazimoglu is now aware that further edit-warring or removal of sourced content will lead to a block on their account. The content disagreement is beyond both the admin remit and the scope of this board and is for you and Omulazimoglu to work out. If Omulazimoglu is editing in good faith, they'll be happy to abide by Wikipedia policy and engage in constructive discussion to try to create a talk-page consensus for removing that sourced material. If not, we'll know soon enough and can act accordingly (see my first post above for some options you can take). All the best, EyeSerene talk 18:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Skinmeister gross incivility
Their most recent edit is edit summary Read the original source the quote is from faggot. Appears to be a personal attack aimed at User:Jared Preston who changed it before. Regardless on whether the edits are correct or incorrect, Skinmeister should not have used such language in edit summaries.

Previously they have also been blocked many times before, most recently three months ago.

Their edits are almost never constructive, just trying to create arguments, such as removing Welsh language translations of place names from place name articles, just because they are located a few miles into England, e.g.. WP:BATTLE

Not logged in, because I don't want to receive any personal attacks from them. 82.152.207.251 (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The editor is a problem but has only edited once since his last block, a 2 week block in October (to which he replied "Pay attention dipshit, there is consensus, to remove it.". His edit on the 18th is clearly unacceptable and I'm happy to warn him about it, but I'm not convinced he should be blocked - yet. If he goes back to his old ways he may warrant an indefinite block. I'll notify him of this discussion and warn him. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally don't understand this at all. A user uses an epithet such as faggot should be shown the door immediately. Maybe you don't understand how that word resonates; it's just as bad as... I don't want to say, just think of the most offensive words for various peoples based on skin color, ethnicity, etc. and know that his word is in that league to many gay people.--14:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I concur with the wholly improper use of "faggot", a quick glance at his entire talkpage shows significant past issues with edit summaries such as "I fart on your grave". I would suggest that perhaps an WP:RFC/U be undertaken to address and discuss the general attitude and gross incivility of the editor.  I might have been a little more willing to issue another short break, but I shall defer to Dougweller at the moment. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this editor is heading for an indefinite block. Since the edit in question was 11 days ago and the last edit before that was 3 months ago, a 'short break' doesn't look like it would be effective. If people think given his history he should be given an indefinite block now, I'm happy to do so, but I'd like to see some consensus on that. My guess is that his next edit will in any case be his last. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh don't be so ridiculous. Blocked indef.  Back to retirement now.  Bye. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 18:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Panic! at the Disco vandalism
The Panic! at the Disco article is being vandalized, and when attempts to remove it are made, they get reverted. Near the bottom, there is a painting someone put there of circus performers claiming it's from a P!@TD concert. There was an attempt to remove it but a user said "Not sure how that's vandalism". Also, on the article's Talk page the issue is brought up and the user who reverted the removal says "How are you sure that's a painting?" Can someone protect the page or at least tell the person that keeps putting the picture back to stop? NevershoutBarney! (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a painting, it's a photo and one that arguably has a lot of encyclopaedic merit given it's position within the article (in the performance section). The license is fine and unless there's better quality picture (this one isn't great) it should stay. This certainly isn't an AN/I issue.  raseaC talk to me 13:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a photo. (There's a painting in the background.) Does the group have a copyright on their performances that this photo might be violating? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The removing user has not explained how this picture is fake or how it is a painting. Valid and useful pictures are not pieces of vandalism. Tim meh  20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:71.254.178.92
User at IP address has consistently vandalized articles. See recent history for Matthew Underwood.Bjones (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your report. However, they haven't been active for a few days, and because the individuals behind IP addresses can change we need more recent activity (or evidence of long-term abuse from the same IP address) before we'd think about blocking. If you happen to catch them at it while they're active, the best place to report would be at WP:AIV. Hope this helps, EyeSerene talk 14:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information. I'll keep that in mind.Bjones (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:King of Mercia
Thoroughly unpleasant editor. Full of vicious personal attacks, and more often than not, unproductive edits. There's already a couple of editors following their edits, but any extra admins purely for the sake of neutrality would be appreciated (he has attacked the last admin who blocked him by calling him a "pathetic C*nt" here). I'm sure if they persist, it won't be long before they are indef blocked. Willdow (Talk) 16:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I blocked him for 48 hours, and straight back off his block he's back with POV edits and personal insults directed at me. Although I'm used to it, I wouldn't object if another admin decided he is not fitting in here and should be shown the door. I'm fed up of directing him to our policies and guidelines. Rodhull  andemu  16:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked for this, if nothing else. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  16:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Reporting Abuse/Vandalism - Article needs to be temporarily locked from anonymous edits
The Kansas State basketball page is being vandalized by KU fans in anticipation of the upcoming basketball game with Kansas State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_State_Wildcats_men%27s_basketball

Changes are being repeatedly made to the venue, calling it "Allen Fieldhouse West"

The correct name for the venue is "Bramlage Coliseum"

Can an administrator please look into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.203.246 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted to the correct version. I'm only seeing the one vandal edit today.  My personal opinion is that it's worth keeping an eye on, but we might want to hold off on protection until we see if any further vandalism occurs.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Although the same edits are being repeated. It may well be that this does need to go to WP:RFPP--Cube lurker (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Requested protection at WP:RFPP--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's being hit really bad.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 20:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Today22
There's a sockpuppet of Xtinadbest (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtinadbest, WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtinadbest/Archive),, that I can't keep up with. Removing speedy and AFD templates from every article she's been involved with, primarily articles that are being speedied because she created them.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reported to WP:AIV. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 19:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

starblueheather, pointy edit warring, harassment claims
This issue really needs a neutral party to look at it.

Recently, added results of an ongoing reader poll from Washington Post to a bunch of online comics. (examples:, , , ). After brought it to the user's talk page, a discussion ensued. Consensus among other editors (Rjanag, myself, Conti) was fairly clear, but the editor chose to see things differently.

The editor proceeded to add the content back to the comics with a pointy edit summary (examples:, , ), then began pointy edit warring on an image used on the Xkcd page. (examples:, , , )

Rjanag warned the editor about edit warring, Starblueheather then invoked WP:NPA, tag-teaming and harassment in the response to this warning and also issued a NPA warning against rjanag. (examples:, , )

While I admire the stubborn enthusiasm and wikilawyering by Starblueheather, the whole thing is a dramafest that shouldn't have had to happen, especially after consensus was shown. More importantly, it isn't an issue that has been dropped by Starblueheather (ongoing edits to xkcd). I'm really hoping an outside admin can look at this and handle it however necessary. Starblueheather has exhausted my supply of AGF, and I assume the other editors who have had the patience to deal with this editor must be getting close to that limit. tedder (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, Starblue's first NPA complaint was not totally out of line; in my edit summary at the article I did say that she was editing out of "jealousy that her earlier edits weren't included", or something like that, which could be construed as something of a personal attack (although I think it's still relevant). Although I agree with you that her later complaints (specifically "harassment", when all I had done was leave a message saying that she's welcome to seek other opinions through the talk page or 3O) were over the top. The real issue, of course, is edit warring. Starblue getting mad at me at her own talk page is something I can live with so I'm not too concerned about incivility, but if it prevents her from engaging in discussion (and if she keeps edit warring in the meantime, against consensus) then it would be a problem worth worrying about. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 20:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In that manner, the second NPA complaint isn't terribly out of line, either, as you did make a throwaway comment in your editsummary. However, it's another example of the tendentious nature the user is employing to not address the root issue. tedder (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's where I disagree with Tedder and friends: Tedder and friends claim that performing simple counting is original research and who can really say that there are 22 semifinalists for best webcomic of the decade when the Washington Post blog explicitly says there are 22 and anyone with two hands and half a foot can count them and see there are 22. According to Tedder and friends, we limit article content based on notability, despite Notability saying explicitly "notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." Tedder and friends further believe that Teder's blog is as notable as a Washington Post blogger, despite Tedder and friends failing to provide a link to Tedder's notable blog, and despite WP:WEB saying that blogs published by the Washington Post are notable. ("web-specific content is deemed notable [if] The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine ...") Not sure why these people believe notability limits article content, not sure why they think the Washington Post blogs are not notable, not sure why they think the Washington Post is not a reliable source for a Washington Post reader poll, not sure why they think counting to 22 is original research, not sure why they think information about being a semifinalist in The Washington Post's readers poll of best webcomics of the decade doesn't belong in an article on a webcomic, and I'm not sure why they've been harassing me and making personal attacks, but I sure which they'd stop the attacks and improve their encyclopedia writing. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * TL;DR. This is not a place for reiterating the old content dispute (most people watching this board are, unfortunately, not interested in it) but for dealing with the behavior issues. If you can briefly state your case about your recent edits to xkcd and your talk page (i.e., your edits about the image, not about the poll, which is a separate issue and on which consensus has already been reached) I am sure the people at this noticeboard will give them full consideration. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 20:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Online, unscientific reader polls are not reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you direct me to some policy or guideline, rather than just your personal opinion, that says reader polls and other Open access polls are not reliable sources for information on those polls? It is contrary to my understanding of sourcing policy, and contrary to Wikipedia practice such as Films_considered_the_greatest_ever. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Starblueheather, thanks! I guess I've made new friends in Rjanag and Conti, according to you. In any case, the mention to my personal blog was a literary device (analogy) to show why a poll-in-progress from the Washington Post is not to be treated the same as, say, an article from the front page of the same paper. The issue isn't "simple counting", it's the poll itself. However, you are missing the point of this ANI thread, which is about behavior, not the RSness of a given poll. tedder (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Stablueheather is by no means the only person who has had these kind of problemsfrom Rjanag. I had to | ask him formally to stop hounding and PA - his response was to archive this request so it did not appear on his user page. NBeale (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry, I took this off-course with the RS issue, but to answer Starblueheather's question, it is generally understood that web polls with no controls against multiple voting or other fraud are completely unreliable. But, for some more thoughts on the matter, here is a discussion from WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.


 * Back to the central topic, though, I can see why Tedder has thrown up his hands in the matter. I'm not sure that another admin can do much at this point, but between the diffs above and this gem of an edit summary, it's clear that neither side is entirely faultless. —DoRD (?) (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

IP editor from New York State Unified Court System
, which sources to the New York State Unified Court System, is repeatedly removing sourced material from the Michael Allen (journalist) article. They're currently working on their 3rd vandalism warning. Woogee (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thing is, for all we know, it's the janitor.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He was also removing a slur from the lead sentence which you restored. "A stenographer for the political establishment" implies he writes what they tell him to. Holly25 (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true, and I thank you for correcting that. Woogee (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Woogee, have you actually read the content you're battling to keep in the article? Stuff you claim is sourced like:
 * the subject is "a stenographer for the political establishment" (no source, outrageous BLP violation)
 * a large blockquote with no source.
 * a section that reads "Often the material quoted is unsourced rumors or unsubstantiated claims, and often has a malicious tone." - the "ref" that follows it is just an article that whoever wrote this hatchet job thinks is "unsourced rumors or unsubstantiated claims, and often has a malicious tone", not an actual ref
 * The whole controversy section is a POV nightmare supported by partisan blog entries, not WP:RS
 * So the IP is entirely correct in removing this garbage; it's all a flat violation of WP:BLP. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks sourced to me, but ymmv. Woogee (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you go back to that version and check the sources, it wasn't actually sourced criticism. One source was an article by Allen; the sentence it backed up was a POV criticism of that article. Another source showed that he'd interviewed Cheney; the sentence it was backing up basically said that Cheney agreed to the interview because he knew his spin would be more or less reproduced verbatim. The IP was actually removing contentious BLP material, not vandalizing. Holly25 (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Woogee, are you seriously claiming that when you restored a large section with a "citation needed" tag, and no ref, as you did here, that this "looked sourced"?  Blind reverting like this does nothing but harm Wikipedia. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it wasn't just the unsourced quote which was removed but the whole section (which appears to be well-sourced). I would probably have reverted as well. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't well sourced at all, the provided sources didn't back up the claims being made. If a revert is restoring "sourced" material to a BLP, then it's important to take the time to check the sources are what they claim to be. One of the sources even jokes about the "stenographer" vandalism in the first sentence. Holly25 (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Per discussion above which seems to have concluded that the editing of this anonymous user was constructive, I have removed the vandalism-related templates from User talk:207.29.40.2 and placed a thank-you note and a welcome template. Cheers, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Human Rights Believer
Human Rights Believer was initially blocked by myself for 12 hours, then made a personal attack against my person, so I extended the block to 24 hours. The reason for the block was a topic ban on any Balkans related articles. They then expressed regrets at this, so I unblocked. Soon thereafter they started again. I have now extended the block to an indefinite block.

I am taking this block to review. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Butcher of the Balkans couldn't have been a more blatant violation, in my mind. Block endorsed. Blueboy96 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur: This editor has a long history of WP:POINT violations, most recently here. The creation of an article in the face of a specific topic ban was just another example, for which he was blocked for a week. I think overall, he is not a net benefit to this project and should be shown the door. Rodhull  andemu  17:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be wise however to consider previous ArbCom rulings. Note this case.  Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley  Principle #4 reads:

4) In non-emergency situations, administrators should not issue blocks in response to personal attacks or incivility directed at themselves. Passed 7 to 0 (with two abstentions), 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC). :--Cube lurker (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The standard block length is normally 24 hours, I chose 12 hours in a good faith attempt to allow them back to editing as soon as possible. When I saw the response, I realised that wasn't going to happen so I increased it. I probably should have been more clear in my response. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse - This user has taken up an inordinate amount of time, and is very good at "I can't hear you." This was a very clear, very blatant breach. <font color="Blue">Canterbury Tail <font color="Blue">talk  17:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse block Between changes like and, edit summaries like , and refusing to work out problems, it's evident that this block is not a "retaliation" under any reasonable person's definition and is simply to protect the project. -- Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If that was a reference to my comment I just want to clarify, I mean no accusation that this block wasn't earned. Only that at one point there was a deviation from best practices. While in this case it may not be a big deal, it's a good thing to remember for the future. That ruling is a protection for admins. I'm only giving advice to take advantage of it in the future.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being unclear; it wasn't meant to be against you, it was more of an "I agree with Cube lurker in that these situations need to be handled carefully, but this is why I endorse it...". I think it was quite clear you endorsed the block, and my statement was not intended to rebut you in any manner. :) -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all good. It's the ever-present dificulty of written text.  The tone of comments can be read different ways and sometimes it's a guessing game.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse block The editor is either willfully disregarding clearly communicated consensus rulings against him or is extremely incompetent. I highly suspect the former to be the case. A Balkans-related topic ban pretty clearly precludes the editor creating articles with the word "balkans" in the title. <font color=#AAAAFF>ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ <font color=#D50000>bomb 17:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse Editor completely reneged on the multiple promises made on their talkpage. —DoRD (?) (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally endorse the block, and the comments on the blocked user's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse - looks good to me. User appears to be bound and determined to POV-push as hard as possible, despite well-intended warnings to the contrary. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Peter Dorey moving his talk pages around
I just saw that User:Peter Dorey moved his talk page to User talk:Yerodretep, which is an unregistered username. Probably not the best of ideas, so I thought I'd bring it up here rather than taking any action on it myself. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved back and left message (it's his username in reverse...) ninety:one  20:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also left him a note pointing to WP:CHU, in case that is what he is after. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 20:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he's a new editor. Nobody welcomed him :-( I've done this now and pointed him to some useful guidelines and policies. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

False accusation of canvassing and reverting during consensus discussion by User:Gavia immer and User:Tbsdy lives

 * Moved here from WP:AN. —DoRD (?) (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is an attempt by me to alert others to two distinct behaviors by the above editors:

1. False accusation of Canvassing On my Talk Page, and on Talk:List of suicides, false accusations were made against me (by Gavia immer and Tbsdy, the second false accusation that Gavia immer has made against me regarding that article in a year.

I have refuted this accusation on Gavia's Talk Page by pointing out what the Canvasing policy really says, and how I have not engaged in any of the four behavior that that policy lists as criteria.

In addition, Gavia posted an extremely defamatory banner repeating this false accusation atop the List of suicides Talk Page discusssion. Rather than remove it outright, I moved it down to a separate section in case anyone else wants to discuss this accusation, separate from the discussion on sourcing for that article.

2. Reverting during a consensus discussion Reverting disputed material during a consensus discussion is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and a blockable offense. Despite this, Gavia reverted the material in question, without providing an inline citation to it, the very point of dispute being discussed, instructing readers to Read the Talk Page, when that discussion is ongoing, and so far, most people seem to agree that that article needs its own inline citations. In the edit summary of another of his/her reversions, this time for Hatazo Adachi, s/he says "Read Adachi; referenced", when the entire point of the discussion is that references in a BLP article are insufficient, and must be added to any other article in which that material appears.

This behavior is completely unacceptable. The first set of behaviors violates WP:AGF and WP:ATTACK, and serves to potentially defame me in the eyes of many other editors (especially all those who might read that banner), while the second violates policies such as WP:CONSENSUS, and the collaborative spirit in which we are supposed to work together on issues such as this. Nightscream (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of this needs to stay on Talk:List of suicides rather than being shopped around in the hope that I will get in trouble for disagreeing with Nightscream, but as to the assertion that Nightscream has canvassed: look at his actual contributions, e.g.,   etc. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just to be clear: This has nothing whatsoever to do with BLP. Every single person under discussion is deceased, that being rather the point. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nightscream, may I respectfully suggest that, per WP:NPLT, you find a more appropriate term than "defamation"- using words that could be perceived as legal threats is not helpful, though I'm sure you didn't intend for your comment to sound that way. <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJ Mitchell | <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">fancy a chat?   17:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Are the 'accusations' by Tbsdy this and this, or have I missed something? To me those look like friendly warnings that you might get in trouble with other users, and if you disagreed you could have just ignored them. Additionally, it seems pretty clear to me that Tbsdy was assuming good faith ("I suspect that you don't know about [the rule on canvassing], so take this as a friendly caution"). Olaf Davis (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Goodness. I was just giving them a friendly caution. I'm not going to dignify this with any other comment. Very silly. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Without delving into the larger issue, I would just say that Gavia, for future reference, probably could have avoided this blowout by using instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not implying, nor do I tend, to make a legal threat, so if you want to disregard or remove that term, go right ahead, with my approval. As for Tbsdy, he didn't say that I "might" be canvassing, he said that I did. In any event, if Gavia had a problem with my activities, he could've made an attempt at reserving judgment, and talking to me, rather than jumping to conclusions simply because they suited him, and flying off the handle with false accusations, and plastering them all over a consensus discussion, where they do not belong. He could've kept that discussion on my Talk Page or here, but instead chose to use it to attack me, the second time he has employed a false accusation when I did something he disagreed with, as there is nothing in those three diffs he provided that shows canvassing. He is again ignoring the criteria that WP:CANVAS gives for canvassing, despite the fact that I showed him on his Talk Page that my messages did not meet them. User:DJ Clayworth posted on Talk:List of suicides to agree that my messages were neutral. Gavia simply ignores this, and repeats the charge, without refuting any of this, or even mentioning it. This, and the fact that he has reverted during a consensus discussion, (which you haven't addressed yet), suggests that he is engaging in WP:OWN-type behavior, and employs such tactics to force his personal style on the article (ironic, given that he is accusing me of favoring a certain "style", when what I favor is based on the policy). This behavior by him is deplorable, and needs to be addressed. Nightscream (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that admins need to do anything here yet. I don't see where dispute resolution has been tried, as yet, and a board like WP:WQA or WP:3O should be a first stop before coming to ANI and "demanding satisfaction" in the form of sanctions against fellow editors.  Why not try to work things out in a civil manner rather than "running to mommy" as soon as things don't go your way.  Seriously, the shrill tone of this entire thread does not bode well towards a reasonable resolution, nor does it appear that there is anything remotely blockable here by any party to this dispute, and it would be nice to keep it that way.  -- Jayron  32  21:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't quite see the issue here. Nightscream asked a few people to comment on a sourcing issue. So far as I can tell, he asked people who had commented on these issues in the past because they were familiar with them. That's not what's meant by canvassing. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 00:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, Gavia has a history of attacking me with false accusations, and refuses to respond when I refute them. You can't "work things out in a civil manner" with someone who has decided that he's simply not going to do so. I pointed out to him what I did to alert people to the discussion, and two others have now stated that what I did was not canvassing. Did he respond, either to rebut, apologize, or explain why he still thinks it's canvassing? No. He simply ignores this, so he can go off and do so again. People like this need to be counseled that this behavior is not acceptable. Serial incivility such as this, and refusing to acknowledge when you've been told you're wrong, is indeed a blockable offense, as is engaging in WP:OWN-type behavior, such as reverting during a consensus discussion, and/or against that consensus, as Gavia has done. If Gavia is willing to talk this out with me, and start fresh, I am more than willing to do so as well, since he obviously has the article is obviously one of his "babies", but so far, he has not indicated this. Nonetheless, perhaps I'm wrong about him, so I'll try to speak with him on his Talk Page about starting anew. Let's hope it goes well.

I have not, however, said anything about "demanding satisfaction", or "sanctions", as those are your words, not mine. I came to WP:AN because I was familiar with it, but in the future I'll keep WP:WQA in mind, so thank you for your suggestion. As for WP:3O, I was under the impression that that was for editorial disputes, and not breaches of policies related to behavior like WP:Civility, WP:Attack, etc. (Correct me if I'm mistaken.). The matter of the editorial dispute is being handled on the article's talk page. Nightscream (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that you are in a dispute with Gavia... was there any real need to drag me into it? I was not telling you to stop, I was only giving you a warning. Others may not consider it canvassing (see Slim's comment above), but the last time I was blocked it was because I was trying to bring info to the attention of participants in Facebook. I was giving you a friendly caution, you commented that you didn't agree that this was the case and I had thought that was the end of it. Then I got told by another admin that you'd taken this to AN/I. Firstly, where was your attempt to work things out if you thought I'd attacked you? I would have cleared up matters pretty quickly I think. Secondly, why didn't you notify me of this thread?
 * I think you might want to consider asking for this thread to be archived now - I think you've caused enough wikidrama already. Up to you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing and vandalism
Dear Administrators,

I would like to report one user,, for ongoing POV pushing on several Yugoslav-related articles and removal of referenced chunks of text without any discussion, which are pure acts of vandalism. From Rochass' contributions, it is more than evident what's going on here:


 * War crimes in the Kosovo War: His edits entail complete removal of the "Background" section, removal of part of the list containing articles concerning attacks on Serbs, rewriting text that is referenced to his own POV of the events, without providing a single reference,...


 * Tuzla Massacre: Complete removal of the "Background" section of the article, which is referenced, and then, after he was reverted, he removed it again, without a word written on the article talk page.


 * Role of the media in the Yugoslav wars Complete removal of the "NATO propaganda" section in the article, without explanation. The section was very well referenced.

I can go on, but it's getting really frustrating to deal with this user. I have contacted him about these matters, but he has not replied and, instead, has reverted my edits that re-added the chunks of text he removed without explanation. I would like to kindly ask the Administrators of Wikipedia to look into this matter, as I've tried talking to the user, but he just continued vandalizing articles.

Kind regards,

-- Cin é ma C 21:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Admin,

Cinema is lying. He is a Serbian propagandist who is trying to include false information in some articles related to War Crimes committed by the Serbs. Here is an example: He tried to justify 1995 Tuzla massacre with 1992 Tuzla column case. He wrote that Tuzla massacre was a reaction to Tuzla column case that happened ten days before Tuzla massacre, but that case was 3 years before the massacre, so this is obvious example of his actions. Rochass (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a look over both editors claims. Rochass has made those edits and removed the material. But, Cinema C also put in the paragraph about the 10 days before and sourced non-english articles. (This was an rv of vandal, comment modified 02:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)) Cinema C tried to talk with Rochass on his talkpage. I suggest waiting for both users to actually talk about it. -- / MWOAP &#124;  Notify Me \ 22:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Rockass'? Half  Shadow  22:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Typo Fixed, my bad. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124;  Notify Me &#92; 23:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You have addressed only one example I have given. What about the rest? -- Cin é ma C 01:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Rochass has replied to my comments with "I addressed your vandalistic edits in edit summaries", even though I have written to him beforehand that "Edit descriptions is not enough when removing such large chunks of text". I am willing to engage in a discussion about any article, but what Rochass is doing is not at all in good faith or in the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Cin é ma C 01:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd advise you to stop communicating via user talk pages. This makes it hard for others to know what the issue is. Please confine your discussions to the talk page of the articles in question. You are all under notice about this. If you want us to review the edit wars, then I think that we'll all want to see some discussion on the talk page before we do anything. If I don't see that, I'm going to recommend that you both receive a ban on Kosovo related articles. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cinema C has acknowledged this on my talk page. That's an extremely good start, I have also asked Rochass to do the same. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have closed up all talk on my talkpage about it. BTW, I was only trying to help ANI out here, I was not previously involved; i don't know if you meant me with being under notice. I also retracted one of my earlier comments as I investigated more (it is striked). -- &#47; MWOAP &#124;  Notify Me &#92; 02:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry - that wasn't directed at you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Walls of text
Just a short note (appropriate, no?) that I'm making a suggestion on some changes to the Incidents header and the edit notice. See Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * tl;dr LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. ts;dr. Half  Shadow  00:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * dr could mean ANYTHING. ;)   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 00:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * dr;dr. Now what're you gonna do? 01:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Too many tildes - FAIL :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * dr/d&theta; <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How derivative. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Malke 2010
There has been a discussion going on for some time on the Sarah Palin page under several different sections concerning whether sections should be "scaled back". We've been having a discussion on many similar matters for a long time and I thought the matter could use the input of some uninvolved users with regards to one specific section that we had been discussing on and off.


 * So I started an RFC --->.
 * Then the user Malke 2010 undid my edit saying that I need consensus before I start an RFC>
 * I then undid his edit --->
 * Malke 2010 then undid my edit again --->
 * I then undid the edit again --->
 * Then Malke 2010 undid my edit again --->

Why can't I start an RFC? I didn't even get a chance to explain why I think we need one. But even if all the users on the page disagree with my reasoning why should any of them be able to block me from doing so. PS. I should also add that this same user was last blocked for making legal threats against me and making disruptive edits on the Karl Rove talk page reported by Jusdafax. I suspect this might have something to do with this behavior above. Malke 2010 has also previously started an unsuccessful ANI on me and then an unsuccessful wikiquette. It strikes me as inappropriate behavior. What should I do?Chhe (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if you read WP:RFC, the first step is to discuss things with other users. I haven't looked at the article but it does not sound from your own statement like you've been doing that.  And I also gather from your statement that all other editors disagree with you.  I'm not thinking RFC is "calling in reinforcements".  I suggest you go back to the talk page and talk about it.  Also, you should have notified the other user of this thread.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to notify the other users but I kept getting errors from wikipedia. It was locking up. I finally managed to notify Malke 2010. As far as having discussed the matter, we have at length. This has been discussed in two different sections of the talk page. Also, completely analogous topics have been discussed at length too relating to condensing sections. I wanted to start an RFC to get some uninvolved users inputs. Whats wrong with that? PS. Just for the record there are three sections all about in general scaling back sections.Chhe (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, we've been having a discussion on the Sarah Palin talk page about various issues that editors have regarding sources, the scale of the size of sections that have sister article links, etc. Chhe has not really joined in that discussion.  I believe he is here right now because he wants to get me blocked from editing.  You should also know that Chhe has been following me around to other articles.  He's come over to Scott Brown too.  He doesn't edit or make contributions.  He only disagrees with anything I say.  In addition, on the Sarah Palin article, he did not ask any of us currently discussing things if we felt we needed an RFC.  The other editors there right now who have been using the talk page, including myself, have all been discussing things and going back and forth in a cooperative manner.


 * When Chhe followed me earlier, I went to Moonriddengirl for advice and he followed me there and went on and on with things that made no sense. I will provide the diffs so that you can see that, but I wanted to put this comment here first.  The Sarah Palin article is on article probation and with editors talking and cooperating, it seems more that Chhe is looking to find editors to agree with him and stop the process.  I think Chhe's motivations are not the article or any article, they are to get me blocked.  I've been working hard to add to the project and I would welcome suggestions for solving this.  Thank you. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  03:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Also I wanted to add, I've never been blocked for making any kind of legal threats. As a new user, Chhe baited me into violating the 3RR and he went to an admin, not a noticeboard and I got blocked. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  03:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * also, chhe never attempted to notify any of the editors before he called for the RFC. He just announced it. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  03:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are the diffs from Scott Brown and Moonriddengirl's page. You can see where he even gets into an argument with Moonriddengirl.  Diffs:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010 03:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not following Malke 2010 around and I'm not acting vindictively. I suspect Malke is accusing me of that to try to threaten me whenever I disagree with him/her. I'm not the only one Malke 2010 has done this too:

The Magnificent Clean-keeper
 * 
 * 

Scjessey
 * Chhe (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's my input. Both of you need to back away from that page before we get another lame edit war. Seriously guys? You can't even agree on if you should have an RFC? How about you both take the rest of the weekend off from the subject and then come back and talk to each other with a third pary overseeing the whole discussion so that way things do not get out of hand-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  03:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to both mutually stop editing at Sarah Palin article. But I think you should know that I honestly started the RFC to try to prevent an edit war. Maybe that was a stupid thing for me to expect. But at the time it seemed to me that others were going to keep repeating the same talking points that would lead to edit warring and it required some neutral outside opinions. I thought an RFC would provide that.Chhe (talk)
 * | Your reasoning for starting the RFC however has no basis. It falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF. Perhaps you should have been more clear in stateing as to why you started it in the first place.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  03:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Coldplay Expert. Right now, there is no need for admins to get involved.  Please get a good night's sleep and make sure it stays that way.  If you want an RFC, Chhe, it might be a good idea to read up on them.  It does look like you both are teetering on the edge of 3RR.  Both cool it down.  I don't see anything more to do here, let's mark this resolved.  Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, agree. Another editor on Sarah Palin expressed the desire to discuss it again on Monday.  Sounds good to me. Malke <font color="#0000FF">2010  04:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wehwalt. And now, @ Chhe, | If you remember correctly? way to cover your bases dude. We alrady have enough of this stuff going on that will not stop. I suggest that both of you take my advice and cool down. Get a good night's sleep and calmly talk about the issue tomorrow.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  04:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, its not appropriate that you are contributing to this ANI in an official manner. You have been extensively involved in edit discussions on other pages with Malke 2010 recently involving disputes. I'd like a second opinion from another admin. Also, am I ever allowed to start an RFC at the Sarah Palin page? If not how am I supposed to resolve disputes?Chhe (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * AN/I is an open forum. I've taken no administrative action, but given advice to both parties I believe to be sound, and that no one seems to be disagreeing with.  That's what happens here, a lot of the time.  Please do not assume that Wikipedia runs by cabals and conspiracies, that way lies ruin.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, you gave me the impression by your last post that you were acting in an official manner. My bad. I was only saying that because this edit seemed fishy and for the stuff on the Scott Brown talk page that we were involved with.Chhe (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you want to know how to deal with images for an article? You can email me if you want to know that one.  I had not heard your name until tonight and have never (I think) edited the Palin article.  I noticed this section because, like most admins, I have AN/I watchlisted and the name of an editor who sought my advice last night popped up.  Any other questions?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said I'll take your word for it. But why are you asking about images (I do know how to handle images)?Chhe (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * | You just will not let things go will you? Just drop the stick and move on with your life. Malke has disengaged, as should you.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  04:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just want an opinion from an uninvolved admin thats all; with an explanation for what I should do with regards to placing an RFC on the talk page. I'll shutup after that. I promise.Chhe (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for you to shut up. After all, Wikipedia is not censored. I'm just asking for you to go and edit an article or two. Not waste time here and getting into endless disputes over an RFC! Go and read the page WP:RFC and then come back. In the mean time, go off and build an encyclopedia.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  04:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You should read up on how RFCs work before taking an article to RFC. You should try for discussion before an RFC - they are really for intractible disputes, though can be used in other cases if expert attention is being sought (which is not the case here). You should also disengage from that article for 24 hours, and I suggest that you also understand that as this is a content dispute there is very little that administrators can or will do in regards to your concerns. The following is advise from a totally uninvolved administrator. I do hope this is helpful. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved eyes needed at the Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov article
A few days ago I created the article Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov, a professor and holder of a chair at Moscow State University. Two days after creation the article was discovered by the admin User:Malik Shabazz who took an interest in the article, added a speedy deletion tag and several other tags. What makes me wonder here is that previously I have interacted with User:Malik Shabazz in a less than enjoyable way during discussion on the Richard Tylman article. There he strongly defended the current state and the existent of the Richard Tylman article, whereas I was on the other side of the conflict, arguing that the Tylman article was dubiously sources and does not satisfy the notability criteria. Malik also strongly defended User:Poeticbent who created the article and is the subject of the article. What made this worse than normal interaction on Wikipedia where several false accussations and borderline attacks on me, including the accusation that I deleted a suggestion for an RF/C (which I did not - I removed personal attacks that explicitly stated that there is no need for an RF/C), and then accussed me of WP:GAME by reading my mind (in response to my suggestion that this article needs to be taken to an AfD after the closure of the EEML arbcom case closed).

It was this interaction that makes me wonder why Malik discovered this article created by me (two days after creation - I could understand if it would show up in the recently created list, but two days later seems rather unlikely), and then went on to decorate it with a plethora of cleanup and speedy delete tags. There is additional evidence available that could sheed lead on this coincidence, but I am unable to post this evidence here due to the confidential nature. I can email it to an interested and uninvolved admin. Pantherskin (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I never knew it was a Wikicrime to nominate a poorly sourced, peacock-laden biography for speedy deletion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * May I suggest AFD the article, as that will stop the dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, but stalking and harassment is. Can you explain how you found this article, despite it being obscure, two days old, in a topic area you normally do not edit? The excessive tagging almost looks like a retaliation for me adding a notability and a secondary sources needed tag to the Richard Tylman article. And as I said there is additional evidence available, that I can send to an uninvolved and interested administrator. Pantherskin (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Further comments removed. Ucucha 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

Your personal squabble aside I did look at the article, run a Search Engine Test and review the meager results and post my thoughts on the talk page of the article. Nefariousski (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I came to the same conclusion earlier today. There may be some Russian-language sources that help establish notability under WP:ACADEMIC, but if I doubt it. I would expect Borisov's own CV to include his highest honors. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be somewhat surprised if the AfD didn't end in a keep. Certainly speedying an article under A7, no indication of notability, that asserts the subject to be a professor at Moscow State Univ. is so questionable an action as to invite scrutiny about the possible motivation.    DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but professors—even department chairs—are a dime a dozen. They are routinely speedied under A7. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. Certainly, not full professors from places like Moscow State University or, say, Harvard or Princeton. Nsk92 (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have been doing that, you're speedy-ing articles incorrectly. Nsk92 is correct here. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 23:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll keep that in mind in the future. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You still did not answer how you found this obscure article that you then excessively tagged and nominated for all kinds of deletion. Given our past interaction which showed some extent of hostility towards me I am not convinced that this is a coincidence. Pantherskin (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And why are you, Malik, threatening me with outing? Do you know who I am, or are you just guessing? It is disgusting that you are willing to go down that road. You should know better, and it does not make it look like you accidentally stumbled upon this article and nominated it for deletion as an uninterested party. Pantherskin (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He is not threatening to out you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right because he did that already. Pantherskin (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see where. You can email me directly if you have evidence of this and you don't want to note it here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It has thankfully been deleted, see above. And the question is still unanswered by Malik what his motivation for the speedy deletion nomination of this article. An article that is very, very unlikely for him to encounter during his normal editing activities. And why he continues to harass me with template warnings on my talk page. Note to Tbsdy, the evidence was in plain view here, and emailed several uninvolved authorities already. Pantherskin (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Still no answer. Instead more template harassment on my talk page. Pantherskin (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You got an answer. I can't help it if you deleted it because you didn't like it. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not the answer. I do not care whether articles I create get deleted or not, but I do care about speedy deletions, tagging and a thinly veiled outing are used as tools of harassment by an admin. So the very simple question again. How did you find out about this article? Pantherskin (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've answered your question. Now go away. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As usual you have not. You claimed that you do not really know the notability criteria, but you did not explain why you picked this article, and flooded it (and my talk page) with a multitude of tags and templates and attempted a thinly veiled outing. But I am repeating myself as you evidently do not want to explain how you found out about this rather obscure article and why you saw a need to invoke WP:OUTING. Pantherskin (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had it with your Chekist nonsense. This is the last response you will get from me. Stop harassing me. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite a chutzpa to accuse me of harassment given what you did. Pantherskin (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Any administrators here that are university faculty members or American Ph.D's?
There is a heated debate in the Talk:Barack Obama article. Some insist on calling him professor. Some don't. My main issue is if the general public understands the difference between Professor and professor. Professor is the very high rank, like general. professor is the generic term. The neutral way, I think, would be to respectfully mention that President Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago; he was a Lecturer then later a Senior Lecturer while teaching constitutional law.

Any administrators here that are university faculty members that can help with what they have experienced with the general public? Is a teaching assistant a professor? Isn't that stretching it and resume inflation. On the other hand, simply stating he was a Senior Lecturer is very factual and gives Wikipedia credibility.

I found some Ph.D. but they may not be editing right now. I found them by just typing in some chemical or math theorem and seeing who edited those articles. JB50000 (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:ANI is not exactly the right forum for this.. but you should check out Category:Wikipedians by profession if you're looking for specific Wikipedians.. unless there's some reason why you only want to hear from specifically administrators? -- &oelig; &trade; 08:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You should probably use the definition provided at Professor, particularly those that apply to the definition in the United States.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 10:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Professors in the United States article says Although the term "professor" is often used to refer to any college or university teacher, only a subset of college faculty are technically professors.


 * If Ryulong's advice is to be followed, the Obama article should be clear and not cause confusion by calling him professor. Just say he taught law.  If you want to say he was Senior Lecturer, fine. JB50000 (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an oft-repeated topic on the Obama talk page, stemming from a particularly disingenuous "OMG he's not really a professor!" right-wing talking point in the last general election. There is no universal rule or policy to say who gets to be called "professor" and who does not; it is something that can vary from one university to the next.  If the University of Chicago calls him a professor, and reliable sources reflect that, then that is what goes in the article.  FWIW, I personally would never address a person as "professor" if they did not have a terminal degree, that's just the way it was at my ol backwoods liberal arts college.  But personal opinio doesn't count for much here. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is so open to interpretation. At my school "professors" made it clear whether they wanted to be called professor or something else, and it had a great deal of correspondence with the predilection to wear tweed, so maybe we should be focusing instead on Obama's suit material to answer the question;-)--162.84.166.253 (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Notice how this question never even came up during the previous administration. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bush can't even chew a pretzel, much less give a lecture. That's why it never came up. JB50000 (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please Note: The University in question considers him a professor: "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined." From http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media The horse's mouth. ThuranX (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)