Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive691

Is this a legal threat?
In Talk:Frank Dux, a new editor, claiming to be Frank Dux, posted a semi-rant that included "Directing people to and repeating the slander and libel of me is unlawful." He then tries to allege that I am an "agent" of some organization that is involved in a plot involving "managed misperception of me, demonstrative of ACTUAL MALICE".. (Note that this article has a history of socking by Dux supporters.) Not sure if this has crossed the line into WP:NLT yet or if it's just heading that way. Perhaps some uninvolved admin might like to opine. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Editor notified . Niteshift36 (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I admit that I'm confused. I can't tell if he's trying to threaten you, or if he's referring to material in the article about a previous case where he sued someone for defamation.  I really can't tell. --  At am a  頭  00:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds kind of like both, but he's not very clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So he returns: "you are acting in tandem intent on tortously interfering with my business opportunity by preventing correct information from being posted." "I am the person you are seemingly defaming and oppressing". "It is a starting point to detrermine why you possibly bare me actual malice". . Niteshift36 (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Dux has also posted on BLPN: "I request to prevent me from being further damaged Escape Orbit & Niteshift36 identities to be disclosed so that I may hold them legally accountable. I insist given they be banned from editing my page as they act with actual malice towards me. If the situation is not corrected and these individuals are NOT prevented from inflicting further emotional distress and defamation of my character I can only conclude you endorse and ratify their tortuous, unlawful acts that may include trade libel since this page is being cited and used to compare me to my business competitors who go unscathed and not forced to endure unfair treatment and defamation I am experiencing."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that removes all doubt about whether or not he is making a legal threat.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked him for issuing a legal threat. -- Jayron  32  04:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A user talk page consisting of a welcome notice, and 3 hours later an indef notice. How quickly things can go downhill. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Bugs, when your very first contribution is to come in, start making threats and allegations that people you haven't even bothered to speak to are working in concert with some mystery organization....well, yeah, it starts downhill. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request
Since I'm in the area, The REAL Dux has requested an unblock of his indefinite block for making a legal threat. CycloneGU (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure he gets it, but I'll leave him a message. Cheers.  lifebaka++ 14:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This doesn't sound like a legal threat to me. It could certainly become one, however.  I believe he should be unblocked, but an admin should keep an eye on him.--76.106.233.222 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Mega nomination of Pokémon articles at AfD
I always feel like posting here is like pulling a fire alarm, but I'm not sure where else to post something that will get multiple admins' attention. created Articles for deletion/Gotta delete em all! as a sort of mass nomination of articles on Pokémon species. Instead of actually following WP:AFDHOWTO, Tyw7 simply transcluded Template:Pokemon directory. The title of the AfD discussion in and of itself shows that this editor has some sort of vendetta against these articles. There is no way such a massive nomination of articles will result in a productive discussion. Can I get some admin eyes on it as to an appropriate disposition? I had been considering posting a "speedy close" !vote, but I wonder if a G6 deletion with instructions to nominate specific articles individually is in order. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I speedy closed it, since there was essentially no way to know which specific articles were being discussed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is because there are too many "non" essential pokemon articles there. It would be tedious to open a nomination of EVERY article... --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You can WP:BUNDLE, and using a tool such as WP:TWINKLE could speed it up...GiantSnowman 18:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Using IE9... Reopned request with a list of "non essential" pokemon at bottom --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And reclosed. "All including but not limited to" is not a valid list either.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A bundle nomination of this scale will easily lead to chaos and confusion. Each article is of a different quality and may or may not meet notability criteria; they need to be evaluated individually. Plus I still don't see a valid deletion rationale here beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How's this? Articles for deletion/Gotta delete em all! (2nd Nomination) --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Still wrong because you missed a bunch of steps. It will not end in these articles being deleted. They exist because they are notable in real life, not in the series. You are nominating articles that have plenty of sources, and strongly show notability. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Using the phrase "including but not limited to" in an AfD will not dismiss any concerns about exactly how many articles are up for nomination. GiantSnowman 18:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, the deletion rationale amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and frankly, the inclusion of File:Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png tells me that this is a pointy nomination. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Final warning: these nominations are disruptive and invalid. If you can't follow proper deletion procedure and can't be bothered to actually post a valid deletion rationale that is actually tailored to particular articles, then you have no business starting an AFD. postdlf (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Clearly disruptive and intentionally so, I'd suggest a preventative block if he tries a third time. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * again! Because there is a tons of Pokemon which I think are not important but I would like to nominate a little at a time so as to find our what you think first. Also, we have a seperate Pokemon wiki already! So are we up to posting individual Pokemon articles for deletion? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * a. This is not a pointy nomination b. I think those Pokemon articles are certainly not encyclopedic. c. We already have a Pokemon wiki (bulpepedia) --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is POINTy – repeatedly posting unacceptable deletion pages with iffy titles is disruptive. And who is this 'we' with a Pokemon wiki? Does it have any formal link with Wikipedia? ╟─TreasuryTag► without portfolio ─╢ 18:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll have to provide a better deletion rationale than WP:IDONTLIKEIT...GiantSnowman 18:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ...or WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have clearly been told here that these articles exist for a reason (established notability, for example) and your nominations are highly disruptive and based solely on your own opinion rather than policy. That there exists a non-Wikimedia Foundation wiki for Pokémon is irrelevant. I wouldn't suggest you nominate them for deletion again. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's start off at Espeon and Umbreon. Couldn't they be merged with Eevee as they are in the same evolutionary lines. Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan also have no notability within the series. Same applies to Girafarig and almost half of the other articles. Whatever I give up! Let it be! --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, good, you've agreed to let it be? We accept. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you would listen to anything I have said, you would know why these are notable. Sources have commented on them. Being "rare" or having "notability within the series" means nothing. Glad you have given up. <sub style="color:#00008B;">Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

On a side note: how ARE Pokemon notability counted if not notability within series? That's the ruler I've been using. --<i style="font-family:Kristen ITC; color:green;">Tyw7</i> (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:N. --  At am a  頭 18:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that was a bit terse. This might be better... If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. --  At am a  頭 18:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but all Pokemon and its in game object is covered by tons of articles. Do we really need to "Catch/Keep em all"? Also please come over to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pok%C3%A9mon where we (I) am trying to work out Pokemon notability --<i style="font-family:Kristen ITC; color:green;">Tyw7</i>  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, I do believe I have royally screwed up.
So earlier today, I performed...a cut and paste move of a section on April_25–28,_2011_tornado_outbreak to List of tornadoes in the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak. At the time, I had forgotten why this was not a good thing, until User: Carlossuarez46 kindly reminded me on my talk page and asked me to revert my blunder. Tragically, I was at school at the time, and by the time he posted that on my talk page I was no longer on Wikipedia. He doesn't appear to be here at the moment to respond to my questions, so I'm taking it to the next best place: here! Obviously an administrator is going to have to perform a history merge, which is the main reason I am posting here (I'll be glad to help, by the way, if requested). I would also like to know what I should do, in the future, when I deem moving only a section of an article to a different article necessary. Thank you in advance Inferno,   Lord of   Penguins  21:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * History merge isn't needed. See WP:SPLIT. -Atmoz (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)History merge isn't appropriate, the articles werent merged. -- ۩ <strong style="color:#B13E0F;">M ask  23:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's all good in the hood. GiantSnowman 23:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Righty-o then. Thanks to all of you. Inferno,  Lord of   Penguins  00:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just one more thing. A split does require the editor to post the copied template on the talk pages of both the old and new articles. Additionally, an edit summary must be made identifying the copying of that text. This is a requirement of our Copyright Policy -- it provides proper attribution to the contributing editors whose text has been copied. In this case, I've gone ahead and posted the talk page templates as well as made the null edit summaries to both articles for you. It's something to keep in mind for te next time. — Cactus Writer (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For future reference, the relevant guideline is WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Requests for oversight: General
It's obviously unhelpful for such requests to appear here; however, over-reaction doesn't help either. Here's what I think should happen: Hengist Pod (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) An admin should assess whether the links provided (if any) justify RevDel, and apply it to the linked edits, including any other contribs by the involved editor and report to Oversight if necessary.
 * 2) The admin should notify the reporting editor that the issue has been dealt with.
 * 3) The admin should then hat/hab the report here, note that it's been dealt with, and quietly close the issue.
 * Not sure what you mean by "over-reaction", but sensitive requests should never be posted here. Period. —DoRD (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior of IP user 195.28.75.114 (AKA User:Bizovne)
Usually I don't resort to reporting users (or preceded by someone else :P), even heavy nationalists, but this time I feel like I have to make an exception. The reason for that is the fact that this IP user User:195.28.75.114 is getting out of control. First he began with reference removals on the Maurice Benyovszky article: Then after getting on the verge of being reported for 3RR he backed off for about a month (with only 2 additional reverts in the meanwhile). Then he came back and began "chattering with" (read: annoying) me first on Wladthemlat's talk page, then on my talk page. I've decided to ask your assistance after he posted his reply today and then another one. These last two replies of his were almost pure anti-Hungarian hate speech with the obvious intention of offending me and any other Hungarian editor who stumbles upon it (and speaks Czech/Slovak). Since the user's comments are exclusively in Slovak, I'd like to ask for the assistance of an admin who can understand Czech or Slovak to confirm this, as I don't have the willpower nor the time to translate the whole text. Let me give you a few samples of his views though: "Hungarian is a retarded, disparate and ugly language - it sounds like a dog's bark. Whereas euphonious Slovak is a gem within Slavic languages. [...] Hungarians don't have anyone, they don't belong to ANY group of nations, strayed tribe of Asians, which is already extinct - the only thing that has remained is their dirty language. You aren't Hungarian either - you're only magyarized." etc. I'm sorry but I just simply don't feel like proceeding to translate the rest, because I already feel like splitting my desk in half. After his last comment I didn't feel like replying either.

To make it worse, the editor has also engaged in an edit war with User:Nmate over content in Brezno article which he desired to vandalize (i.e. he replaced a link to King Béla IV of Hungary to King Belo..., which broke it):. On the top of it he has even demonstrated the typical extremist nationalist attitude of like-minded people by making the comment "this is english wikipedia not hungarian". This is akin to the arrogant nationalist phrases in the likes of "you're not in Hungary and hence you're NOT ALLOWED to do this or that" (e.g. speak Hungarian in public, use Hungarian signs or speak Hungarian NEAR a Slovak nationalist, because it's offensive to his/her ear etc.) commonly uttered by Slovaks which hate Hungarians.

Considering all the facts above I doubt that this user would engage in ANY polite, peaceful and objective edit. His edit log seems to support this suspicion as well, since essentially ALL of his edits are either nationalistic POV pushing, removal of Hungarian names/terms and disregarding anyone who begs to differ. His notes on my talk page (discussed above) show that trying to have a calm discussion with him would be pretty much pointless. Please take this into consideration as well.

As for the sanction itself, banning this IP address might inconvenience the whole village of Nový Ruskov, because the IP seems to be shared by all subscribers of the local ISP. However considering the facts above, it's likely that letting this user be without any sanctions would do more harm than good. -- CoolKoon (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional information: While reviewing the edit log of User:Bizovne and comparing it to this IP account's edit history, I found just far too many similarities between the two. Actually it seems more like one account complements the other (while one of them is active, the other one's "dormant" and vice versa). I was about to start an SPI against the two, when I found that another SPI has been started by User:Hobartimus a month ago:. Unfortunately User:DeltaQuad didn't take any actions back then stating that it's just a logged out IP, which doesn't necessitate CU action. However by now it's pretty apparent that Bizovne is simply abusing his IP account for making outrageous (and really offensive) personal attacks (see above) and letting Bizovne be for another month has just made the situation worse. Sure, User:HelloAnnyong's two-week block DID help a bit, but Bizovne has obviously started right where he has left off when his IP account was blocked. There's also this interesting fact that even though Bizovne's edits were just as POV, pushy and authoritarian in their nature as those of his IP account (albeit with much more finesse), he has managed to make his IP account look like the "naughty boy who has done bad things", while kept his registered account clean. Therefore if the SPI confirms that Bizovne=195.28.75.114, sanctioning both account might be necessary. CoolKoon (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The behaviour of the IP address is atrocious, I have warned it to stop the name calling and follow our civility rules. If you are concerned about the similarity of edits of User:Bizovne and that IP account, I would recommend you to start new SPI and mention the old one there. - Darwinek (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually put in the comment below that that I was reviewing and HelloAnnyong made the block as part of the case. And if an IP ever becomes more disruptive, please reopen a case. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  22:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * uhm, I actually already did open another SPI, but it was refused on the grounds that it's not permitted to link IPs to accounts. I've also mentioned the old SPI there as well. So was I supposed to reopen the old case instead?
 * On the other hand it might not be necessary after all, since Bizovne has confirmed HIMSELF that he indeed IS behind the IP: Bizovne (talk) 21:99, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.28.75.114 (talk)
 * I shall therefore thank Bizovne himself for helping me resolve this dilemma. Thanks, Bizovne. CoolKoon (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for a month and the master for two days. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

User:PandP2go
This has proved to be a single purpose account created solely to try to get Pearl and the Puppets deleted (or to get 'PandP 2 go' if you like). The AFD for this article has been disrupted with edits such as this and this for which they were warned to stop, and this was followed by this edit to my user page. I suspect I may have been safe to block this user myself, as there's nothing but disruption coming from them, but at the risk of being accused of blocking when involved, could someone else do the honours please. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Michig's analysis, and that a block is proper here.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indef-blocked. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. --Michig (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Judging by the unblock rationales, this incarnation may be confused over which account they were using. suggest a familiarity with Wikipedia. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo  12:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparent hacking
The Nailsea article now contains an obscene image. Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know why I can't just roll back the article history. Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I undid Jaguar's edit, but I can't figure out how that image got in there. It's very strange.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted myself. Jaguar had nothing to do with this.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Now when I look back at the older version. The image doesn't appear anymore???--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Can someone have a look at Kettering. I keep seeing porn on there in Opera, but not Internet Explorer.  It shows a man's shaved testicles and a circumcised penis. Betty Logan (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a vandalized template It's been reverted. 76.244.155.165 (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, for future reference, things like this are usually template vandalism. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All template namespace should be semi-protected by default. There's no reason a brand new editor would have a legit edit for something technical like that.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you forgotten the "anyone can edit" mantra? Malleus Fatuorum 03:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And only brand-new editors are vandals? Hunter, the history sheds light on any permanent protection debate. It was protected, despite never having been vandalized before, and then unprotected apparently following discussion at ANI (I remember a big ho-hum). It's protected now, but calling for all templates to be protected is probably not going to find general consensus. BTW, copulating dogs? it must be spring! Drmies (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What percentage of changes to templates by new editors are constructive? My guess is less than 1% but I am open to being proved wrong. --RaptorHunter (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an unfashionable question, so hush. Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a testable hypothesis, not an unfathomable question. Protonk (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Its template vandalism. It happens, though far less than it did before the edit filter was turned on.  Many templates are fully protected and many more are semiprotected.  There is no real good reason to protect EVERY template out there as hundreds of good edits per week are made by anonymous editors to innocuous templates.  If you see this in the future, click "related changes" and look for changes to templates. Protonk (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There should be some sort of standard. For example if any template is on over a hundred pages, it get's automatically semi-protected or something.--RaptorHunter (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that particular template is now fully and indefinitely protected. Considering its straightforward function, frequent use, and the improbability of it ever needing to be edited at all, I think this is good. I can't remember recently having a good reason to want to edit a template, protected or otherwise, but templates such as should not be protected by default. 76.244.155.165 (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your example template is only transcluded 8 times . The template that was vandalised here was transcluded 13,594 times!!! It's amazing this thing was ever unprotected.--RaptorHunter (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe. You could propose one.  Or you could find an admin willing to protect those templates and start protecting them.  I think most templates over 200 transclusions are indefinitely protected and many others are tracked under an edit filter. Protonk (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if the "Meepsheep" inserted by the vandal is referring to the one posting dox of teenage girls on the ED.ch site. (By the way, someone should really see if that's illegal.) / ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, which is a double-edged sword; that means while people are free to edit it, people are also free to vandalize or outright abuse it. –MuZemike 06:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, they are free to try - they are not allowed to by consensus... LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus doesn't stop them. The first few times, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Wikipedia does not have jurisdiction over the entire internet. Count Iblis (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

New round of attacks
User: Phoenix2923 had an issue with personal attacks on me discussed here before. Now he has returned to contribute nothing but personal attacks. First he started out mild: "Niteshift you are one seriously ignorant individual lol", then "People like you shouldn't even be editing this page or this discussion section. This article could use some editors with common sense at the very least. You, my friend, lack that to a horrific degree." . An uninvolved editor warned him about his attacks. Phoenix eventually builds himself up to adding physical threats to the mix: "I stand by my convictions that you are the undisputed world heavyweight douche bag of the internet. Say what you will fuck face, I tire of these conversations with your fake military persona. Mr. High-and-Mighty Mr. Niteshift, you can go fuck yourself. Go ahead and report me because my words hurt your widdle feewings. You wouldn't be such a smart ass to my face. Hide behind your computer monitor and be a smart ass little faggot. If you have the balls, and still serve I Corp, meet me sometime. I'm never too far away.". Then added another attack and threat while this was being entered. "Somebody too incompetent to be stationed anywhere else. Yes I do know quite a bit about the military and I would absolutely love to demonstrate that knowledge with you first-hand. I wasn't in some pussy CID unit friend." User notified here: Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The only edit I see to Phoenix2923's User page is the notification of this discussion...no warnings regarding personal attacks or uncivil behavior, not even in the page history. I have taken the liberty of posting a on his Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While there are no template warnings, I have asked him twice to cut it out and been ignored. Also, while not as bad, Niteshift36 hasn't been entirely civil in response to Phoenix2923. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  17:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I freely admit I haven't been as civil as possible. Nor do I think I need to be all smiles and sweetness every time he decides to revert to form. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected...apparently Firefox 4.0 is having issues rendering popups. Next time I'll know to actually look at the Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Aww poor little Niteshift, runnin to go tattle again. HAHAHA, you worthless piece of shit. Phoenix2923 (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess that sort of sums everything up, doesn't it?--Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This particular nugget earned a no-brainer 72-hour block. I haven't the present time to delve further into this dispute, so I have no problem with any other admin adjusting the block as necessary. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * After further gross incivility, talk page access has been revoked for Phoenix2923 for the duration of the block. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Phoenix, I reported your repeated violations. What should I do? Thump my chest and randomly challange people to fights? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a new template. The first diff I posted here is the previous ANI discussion where the editor was made fully aware of the NPA policies etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, if someone uninvolved could either refactor or hat the insults at Talk:Frank_Dux. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  17:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

He should've been indefinitely blocked IMO. –MuZemike 18:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Be my guest... &mdash; Scientizzle 18:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at Phoenix2923's contributions, and the similarities with The REAL Dux, I wonder if they are the same person? Particularly with the repeated questions about "who Niteshift36 is" and what organizations he belongs to, etc. Something fishy is going on here. They might also be reincarnations of someone else who used to contribute to that article talk page, though I don't have much familiarity with its history. --  At am a  頭 19:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect that as well. Note that Phoenix didn't re-appear until the RealDux account got blocked, then, moments after Phoenix got blocked the Dux account started toning down their unblock requests. I strongly suspect both are actually socks of another blocked user, but I hate the tedious SPI process. Might decide to do it anyway.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The REAL Dux retracted his legal threat, and so I felt an obligation to honor the unblock request. However, I believe I will pursue the SPI report. I wasn't going to bother if both accounts were indefinitely blocked. --  At am a  頭 22:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigation filed here. --  At am a  頭 00:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Blocked indef for continued attacks . Clearly not an asset to the project.  Sandstein   19:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Dux continues to talk in pseudo-legalese and continues to talk about being "defamed". In short, he's not backing off from his attempts to intimidate via legal threats. The fact he's also likely a sock is another story. In any case, he needs to be shut down for good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeated Additions Of Bad Citations sex symbol


201.52.233.97 had been notified by numerous editors that the additions to sex symbol requires citations, or that the citations s/he added where not sufficient quality.

Sandra021075 has the same editing pattern. As s/he may be the user behind 201.52.233.97, she has received these messages as s/he was editing as 201.52.233.97 as the last edit before Sandra021075's first edit (it was even on sex symbol, and currently, it is the only article she has edited; on top of that, it is the only page).Curb Chain (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm looking and I see no discussion about the quality of Sandra021075's references. Where is it? -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  00:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Sandra021075 as I only got involved several days ago, but 201.52.233.97's edits were all reverted by myself and other editors, stating very clearly both in the edit summary, the page's talk page, and the IP's talk page, that we consider these sources insufficient. Multiple attempts at discussion were made, by multiple editors. I see not an iota of discussion from the IP's direction. Again, this is saying nothing as to the relation with Sandra021075. --Muhandes (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Dr._Blofeld
Hi,

Whilst seemingly a established editor of WP. I'm a little concerned about a mass of new pages that he is creating. I saw most of them on Special:NewPages. I don't feel they deserve CSD but it looks to me like it's just a copy and paste of the entire village list of the Kunar Province!

Is it really necessary for WP to include every entire village of a province/county or country -if said village(s) are not necessarily notable?

Thanks,

<span style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;padding:1px;">&#0149;martyx&#0149; tk ct gy 13:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You are supposed to notify editors if you start a discussion involving them. I have done this for you now. Fram (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Think I may have gotten there just before you. Thanks for your attentiveness to this Fram. MarnetteD | Talk 13:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dr. Blofeld is in general an extremely prolific and useful editor. However, regularly he creates sub-standard articles in large batches, where a simple list of redlinks would have been more useful. E.g. at the end of March, he created most of the articles in Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Carmarthen & Dinefwr. These all consisted of unsourced, identical articles like Corsydd a Rwyth Cilyblaidd. I tagged them all as unsourced, but in fact they would have been better as redirects to a central list until something could be said about them (and a source was provided as well). In cases like this, redlinks or redirects are more useful than loads of bluelinks without useful content. Fram (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This probably has been discussed before, and I would agree with the original poster (Martyx) on villages, but not at all on towns, townships, etc. – HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  13:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In regards to notability see Dara-I-Pech and one I picked at random Baladay. Check out the settlements on a google map, look notable settlements to me which exist. Image of Baladay here. Might not have much on the web about it but that doesn't mean it isn't a notable. I trust I'll have better luck with some of the other places. But isn't there something wrong that sources only write about a place if a US troop was killed there or launched an attack there? They are certainly notable to the Afghan people living in them and in the districts. I think wikipedia should be striving to see the world evenly, the problem is abundance of sources about such places...♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBot has the coordinates downloaded to be added asap, otherwise I wouldn't have started them. Some of the articles started are district capitals and I'd imagine particularly for Helmand and Kandahar province the articles have relevance with the US military... Verified human settlements are usually notable, we have tiny hamlets in the UK and US which are full length. Generally i don't mass create geography articles as I used to anymore and generally prefer to create them start class more slowly and using a wide range of sources if I can find them but given that Anomie has been waiting for me to start these because he especially downloaded the coordinates then it would be a shame not to create them. A lot of the villages will be mentioned in USAID sources or US gov and even in google books. Some may not as of yet, but that's an uneven Internet development thing, not that they are not notable. I'd estimate that there are hundreds of thousands of people in total living in the villages I've started today. It is more of a priority to expand the articles like I did with Samangan Province and improve the districts I agree but its all part of the building process.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies I didn't notify Dr. Blofeld. I agree with Fram and HXL49's comments.
 * This is not meant as a personal attack on you. After viewing your contribs it's very clear you are excellent editor! I'm not saying each village with has no purpose on wp just that unless there is a particular [historical] reason they should just be listed on Kunar Province. I guess this is much the same reason me or you are not listed personally on Wikipedia because although we are important in our own right - we aren't of a high enough importance to be included. <span style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;padding:1px;">&#0149;martyx&#0149; tk ct gy 13:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Would I like to edit every article to GA quality each time, sure? But I also see these occasional mass stub creations as planting seeds in areas of the project and in fitting with our long term goals on wikipedia. There's only so much patience and time you have to edit each article as fully as I'd like.. I try to attain a certain standard of quality nowadays but I am also acutely aware of the real world content that is missing enmass so given I haven't the time to edit every article I occasionally inject a few to be worked on as an ongoing process. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think (but I may be wrong) that the suggestion is not necessarily or primarily that these places don't deserve articles, but that such an automated, info-less creation is not the way to do this. One can also wonder how accurate this creation is, when the second one I checked, `Eyn ol Majar, is in the source given only written as `Eynol Majar (without the space), and the third, Halqeh Kowl, has three different locations in your source with that spelling, and three as Halqa Kol as well. Fram (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Blofeld on this one. With a war on, these places need something here, sparse as it may be. We're still lacking towns in Libya, and some of them were only written once a battle starts there. We should be more proactive when it comes to locations.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If his info was correct, generally reliable, and the articles had a bit more info, I would agree with you. As it stands, I don't. Fram (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking further: you created Darreh-ye Pich as a village, but everything I found (not much) suggests it is a district.. If your information is not reliable, you shouldn't be creating these articles. Fram (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Darreh-ye Pich is likely the vilage capital of the district of the same name Fram, i'll look into it. Look, I know mass creation is NOT the best way to create articles which is why I rarely do so anymore in this way. At least it would be better to use this source to add a bit about those which are mentioned within it. But Anomie has downloaded these coordinates in good faith for these articles listed in our missing encyclopedia articles to be started and the sheer amount missing is pretty serious. One could argue that wikipedia does not have to cover Afghan villages but based on editing experience f other similar size Asian villages and indeed African villages as Kintetsubuffalo points out they are almost always notable. The immediate problem my Afghan stubs have created is that quite a few of them currently have nothing online so are rendered useless. I definitely think the best way is to work on them one by one like Gwebin etc and finding scraps of info to build a half decent articles. But the amount of subjects missing on places in Asia and Africa is extreme and I think wikipedia should at least be trying to work towards covering them.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Further searching shows that you also created Dara-I-Pech in the same batch run, and that you changed Dara-I-Pech District to claim that it was governed from Dara-I-Pech, instead of from Manugay. I have no idea if the latter is indeed true (I haven't found any evidence for it yet, and some suggesting that the earlier text was correct), but it surely means that you created two articles for the same (presumed) place. Fram (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Manugay IS Dara I Pech. And I only created one article but simply moved it to match the district and expanded it. Look can we be a little less belligerent here Fram and assume good faith?♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith? Where is your evidence from reliable sources that Mano Gai is Dara-I-Pech? The only reliable source I have found so far doesn't support this, and gives Mano Gai as the district capital. Which was in the Dara-I-Pech District article before you changed it to match your newly created Dara-I-Pech article. Fram (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be more precise: you used a source that stated "Wata Pur District togather with Manogay District are also known as Pech District" to claim that the town of Mano Gai is the same as the hypothetical but unverifiable town of Dara-I-Pech, when all your source does is state that the Pech (or Dara-i-Pech) district is an entity which also contains Manogay district... Please be a lot more careful before you scramble to correct your errors, as you seem to be making things only worse. Fram (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This says districts of Mano Gai (Pech). We have proof that Mano Gai is another name for Pech District. See this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As a side note/throw-away comment, WP:KITTENS appears to be relevant to the situation. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a late question, but Martyx, did you think to just talk to Dr. Blofeld before starting a report here? What you said before:  "This is not meant as a personal attack on you. After viewing your contribs it's very clear you are excellent editor! I'm not saying each village with has no purpose on wp just that unless there is a particular [historical] reason they should just be listed on Kunar Province. I guess this is much the same reason me or you are not listed personally on Wikipedia because although we are important in our own right - we aren't of a high enough importance to be included."  That was very cordial, well-worded, and would have been a nice way to open a discussion with the editor before opening up the door to ANI drama.  I don't mean to be critical here, rather this is just a suggestion for the next time that you run into a similar situation with another editor. --  At am a  頭  15:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

According to Geonames Mano Gai lies about 10 km east of Dara I Pech even if the district is a dual name of both, BUT that river section contains some spread out settlements which may often be seen as part of each other I guess. This tends to happen a lot in Afghanistan with districts and capitals which makes editing very difficult. For instance Samangan is also known as Aibak. Aibak is more a suburb of it. Its difficult to know exactly what the situation is, all we really have are US miiltary or aid articles. But these places are notable, I'm sure of that. And it doesn't take a suicide bomber or nasty attack to make them so.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've shown that Baladay and Walakan, two I picked at random are notable. I think it is necessary to have stubs started especially given that there is a war going on in the country with US troops. I will continue creating them until they are all started, I see no reason why I should be stopped from doing this. 3/4 of the batch are done already. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Asqalan, Afghanistan another one easily expanded. Right I'm resuming on these, they are certainly worth having articles for.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Where on WP is it stated that newly-created articles should not be stubs? As long as the notability is established, the length is not crucial. That's the concept of Wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld should be appreciated and thanked for his efforts instead of seeing his work and contribution belittled on ANI. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this: Martyx asked a valid question but in the wrong place. This is not a matter (obviously) for administrator's intervention, and I will assume that they posted it here because they thought it was an important enough issue but are perhaps not yet experienced enough to know that ANI is for very specific kinds of issues. It is certainly not the place for a de facto review of Dr. Blofeld's edits. Shall we move on? Dr. Blofeld, De Hulk and Bangert (North Holland) are still redlinks, to say nothing of Eurometaal and Risdam. Get to it or I'll have you blocked for sloth, with thanks to User:Bongomatic. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Stop x nuvola.svg You have been blocked for sloth.

All started. Now get expanding, otherwise I'll block you too!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What is being underestimated here is the value of these stubs. Alishang, Siah Chub Kalay etc. These are certainly encyclopedic and if one can find info in old gazeteers and in history books it makes it quite exciting I think.. Virtually everyone I started earlier I've looked at so far can be expanded... Once they are created with proper infrastructure it becomes so much easier to edit them and build on what was started. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There is more than one valid way of working here. Some people prefer to create only high quality articles, even though they may do very few of them. Some prefer to create  many verifiable articles of clear notability even though they may not be of initially high quality. As this is a communal project, I think every individual person is fully entitled to do whichever they prefer, and the thing to do about people who prefer otherwise than oneself is to let them work their way, while you work yours. The only choice which is not productive is to argue about how to do it, rather than going ahead in the way that one finds suitable. . In creating material, there is similarly no consensus on  whether it is better to do it as a list, or as small individual articles; I could give good arguments for either, and the conclusion I draw is that both are suitable. The only thing not suitable is trying to tell people who do it one way that they should do it another. Someone who does not like to work on Dr. Blofeld's system has two good choices: to add themselves to the articles (which includes correcting errors), or to work on others they way they prefer to work. Nobody is expected to work error-free--that's why this is a cooperative project. The alternative is to work on an editorially-directed project, but that wouldn't be Wikipedia. If anyone wishes to direct other people how to work, they should start a project of their own, or join an existing one and rise to a position of authority. There's nothing wrong with such a wish, but Wikipedia is to the place to realize it.  DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with DGG here, but would like to add the observation that our diversity of approach in creating articles helps improve the quality of Wikipedia content. The evil Doctor's approach, creating geographic stubs scattered hither & yon, actually encourages creating certain articles which may never otherwise be written. I can furnish one example of this: the other day I was working on improving Modjo River from a stub; without having that need, I would not have discovered that it is considered one of the two most polluted rivers in Ethiopia -- a very significant fact! (Actually, the source claims it is one of the two most polluted in the world, but until I find that it caught on fire -- as one notoriously polluted river did -- I'm not going to push the claim that far.) And if these stubs are never improved ... well, one of the features of Wikipedia is that articles that aren't important will never be read, & if no one improves them, they must not be that important. -- llywrch (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * After reading the comments above I realise I acted too hastily in reporting the problem to ANI. I should have discussed it with Dr. Blofeld before this. I also realise that I acted with POV. Just because I feel it may be unacceptable to create a large quantity of stubs doesn't mean that's everyone elses view. I feel I've learnt more today about wiki policy than I have done in the last 4 years as a member! <span style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;padding:1px;">&#0149;martyx&#0149; tk ct gy 02:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: ban on creating articles solely based on www.geographic.org
While I agree that all real populated places deserve an article (or a redirect to a larger populated place if nothing more can be said than the name and location), and that we are lacking articles on many places, even truly notable ones, for large parts of the world, I stringly disagree with the method these are created. It is clear that a list is taken from www.geographic.org, but that site is equally clearly not a reliable source to base articles on. I have given some examples at Articles for deletion/Dara-I-Pech, I can provide many more if needed. A list of populated places from this website needs thorough checking before it can be used to create articles with.

I propose that weno longer allow the mass creation of articles based on this website, so that we don't have to clean up the mess this creates afterwards. It is better that we have no information on some places for a while, than to create clearly incorrect information as a stopgap. Fram (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"we don't have to clean up the mess this creates afterwards". LOL, it is usually me who expands the stubs I create and builds them with reliable sources as I've illustrated many times yesterday. I have a very good experience with geonames and almost always identify a real settlement on a google map.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It can't be too hard to identify one, when in the case of e.g. Qasem Kheyl your source let's you choose from four different locations, but Google returns not a single reliable source on them... Fram (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll agree with you its a tricky subject, especially because of differences in transliteraitons and indeed if multiple settlements exist on the same name which can get confusing. Qasem Khel turns up loads of hits in google books but they require serious reaearch to identify which is which. One it seems has geological significance... From what I gather it is indeed this Logar Province location according to Annales de la Société géologique du Nord: Volume 97. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The only one I could verify was in Parwan province, not in Logar, so... I couldn't verify your source. At least, this means that there are two different villages (and a tribe) with this name (in another transliteration), so the article should need to be moved, disambiguated, ... The actual benefit of having such articles, where so much research is needed to verify whether it exists and how it should really be named, escapes me. 13:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yesterday, you rushed to "correct" Dara-I-Pech when I pointed out the problems with it, only to have to revert many of your incorrect changes, ending with redirecting it to the district. Now, you again rush to "correct" Qasem Khel, adding info from other sources. Again, there is no evidence that the info you added is actually about this village in Logar province (assuming it exists), and not about e.g. the village in Parwan province. I have removed the info accordingly. Please don't jump to conclusions when a source seems at fierst glance to be perhaps about the subject you created an article on, but check and doublecheck that what you present is correct. Fram (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

SO this is more an attack on my editing then? This is the way it seems to me and I'm pretty sure other people are getting that impression from you. Information I found in google books talks about the geological formations in Logar and it being southeast of Kabul which is exactly where this village is. ANd no you are wrong, my changes to Dara-I-Pech were not incorrect. Rather the sources don't specifically discuss it as a village which was the problem, even if it plainly obvious a settlement exists at that loocation on google maps. The information was correct and and has since been added to the district article.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You added as a source for the Qasem Khel article about a location that should be in Logar. The source you added mentions "Fossiliferous Permian sequences also were described at [...] Qasim Khel [...] in the eastern part of the country". Both Logar province (where you place this village) and Parwan province (where we are certain that there is a village with this name) are in the east of the country, so there is no reason you can be reasonably sure that this source is about the village where you used it. The second source you used is about a "Qasim Khel Thrust", without evidence that this is named after this village, the other one, the tribe, or something different (it looks at first glance to be in Pakistan, not Afghanistan). The fourth source given is not verifiable by me, so no comment on that one.
 * As for Dara-I-Pech, you stated that it was the district capital and that it was the same as Mano Gai, and then you stated that it wa not the capital, and that it was not the same as Mano Gai, but was some 10 miles away from it. At least one of those was obviously incorrect... Fram (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose ban, per everyone's got their own way of editing, resolved above.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "everyone's got their own way of editing", this is stopping someone creating clearly incorrect articles, based on an unreliable source, and in violation of the bot policy: "The community has decided that any large-scale automated or semi-automated article creation task must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval." This is clearly "semi-automated article creation", with rates of 5 pages per minute, created with the identical text of "Infobox settlement |name = |other_name = |native_name = |settlement_type =Village |image_skyline" Fram (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A "Ban" would be extreme given that the vast majority of listed entries are valid in my experience. However to advise individuals to refrain from mass generations without proper research I'd agree with. But I and others should be feel free to create whatever they want if it sourced,♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Again you are wrong about any articles being clearly incorrect. Show me one single article which as yet have been proved to be incorrect which was created from geonames? Where is your proof that Dara I Pech village does NOT exist, given that the coordinates point to a major settlement on google maps which is plainly obvious.. Are you basing your view because the internet has no coverage of an Afghan village? Shock horror that, certainly not eveidence of its not existing. You can't prove a bloody thing. As for "semi-automated article creation", that really is not semi automated creation. Should you be especially difficult and claim formally that it is then entering the page title requires little extra work to evade that "policy". Now please let me get on with something useful, this is completely the wrong place to make such a proposal.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't stop you doing anything useful, I am talking about the incorrect things you do. Your page creation is mindless, very fast and extremely repetitive (with the exact same code used for the body of all these articles). Not really what one would call "manual"... The burden of evidence is not on people trying to prove that something doesn't exist, the burden is on you to prove that it does exist. How should I try to prove without a doubt that Molla Vali-ye Valeh doesn't exist or is normally known as something different? For most of these articles, there isn't enough info to actually identify the potential matching reality. As for the location of this proposal: topic bans and the like are usually proposed here, and since there was already a thread on these edits, and you continued making them, it was only logical to continue the discussion here. Fram (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

One more, as an example: your most recent edits were to Zabrak, Afghanistan, adding some info based on the same source. However, the basic info you give is incorrect: Zabrak is not in Jowzjan Province, but in Sar-e Pol Province, in the Balkhab District. But wait, you also created Balkhab, which you locate in Jowzjan a well, instead of in its own district... Of course, it could be, just like with all the other examples, that there is also a Zabrak in the other province, and a Balkhab in the other province, and so on. Fine, convince me, show some actual evidence for these two villages being in that province. Fram (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullying and stalking? That's extremely sad don't you think? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to be helpful then google search OCHA Afghanistan Settlements Index and you'll find a decent list of settlements and state district capital or whatever which I've added to Balkhab. But it is far from being a complete index... From what I gather Sar e Pol was created out of Jowzjan province which accounts for the overlap. The provinces adjoin each other.

A sentence from this book from 1987 says something like we walked in the village of Balkhab in Jowzjan Province. So clearly it was in that province but is no longer in that province..♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a perfect solution to this: Dr. B will create whatever articles for which he has basic data from a reliable source, and anyone who thinks they can improve the articles can do so--keeping in mind that in many cases there will be some ambiguous data and that the way to handle it is not to try to do the research to figure it out, but simply report the ambiguity and the sources. There's always going to be such ambiguity about at least some of the content in most Wikipedia articles, but we don't stop writing because we might make an error. Very few things can be "proved beyond a doubt", which is why we simply rely on the sources, not on trying to determine the truth. The responsibility of someone adding material is to provide a reliable source, not prove the source correct, or to " actually identify the potential matching reality", which in most cases -- including this topic-- would clearly be Original research.    And I think Dr. B does well to use standardized text for standardizable topics--it helps comparison and understanding. Not every article requires or would even benefit from carefully tailored writing. The way he is working is the best way of covering the many neglected areas, as anything else is too slow to be helpful. There are two aspects where Wikipedia does shamefully: our poor attention to updating and verifying on important articles, and our sub-minimal coverage of areas subject to cultural bias. Fixing them take different approaches. If a ban is needed, it should be a bilateral ban against continued interaction between him and Fram here, or anywhere else other than on article talk pages.      DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying, in good faith, to figure out just what this proposal to ban use of geographic.org is supposed to accomplish. Looking at the website, it's clear that it is little more than a lot of data scraped from other websites & wrapped with a bunch of ads -- so at face value there's nothing objectionable to Fram's proposal. After all, the evil Dr. Blofeld can then simply go to where geographic.org took its data & use that -- the Geographical Name Server. And while I don't find the GNS to be a reliable source unless it is verified by another independent source, banning all use of the GNS will hurt more than it will help. (I often use it to determine the latitude & longitude for locations in the articles I write.) And if Fram simply is acting as a proxy for 007 in his decades-long fight against the evil Doctor -- well, doing that isn't going to fly. The best solution would be for Fram, & anyone who doesn't like the results of Dr. Blofeld's article creations is to help him find better sources. Official census results would be a good alternative to the GNS -- but where would one find the most recent official census results for, say, Afghanistan? Solving problems like that would be better for everyone & Wikipedia in the long run, as well as making everyone involved happier & more likely to keep contributing. -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * and the method Fram reports to be using, near the top of this section, of searching Google, is not all that likely to reveal good sources in this field.    DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I intend to also cover Iran (which is extremely poorly covered given its size) and using old gazeteers I can at least find a mention of the settlements in. The best way is to peruse google maps find a clearly notable settlement by size and start it with a source or two and some basic facts if google books picks up hits. In regards to Afghanistan I've requested that (google search OCHA Afghanistan Settlements Index) PDF is downloaded to wikipedia and all the settlements are organized by district and province. I can then enter them into the nav boxes by province and give it some organization. After all the majority are lacking district location as the old databases only say province and even those might be out of date now. This seems an up to date UN source which will prove very useful as a guide. But Thai tambons (sub districts) I've concentrating on right now as I have data from the 2005 census and looking on goole maps they are usually the major villages in rural Thailand which is also very poorly covered on wikipedia... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think there can be any doubt that Dr. Blofeld is acting in good faith, so the question then becomes whether these semi-automatically-generated (but manually inserted) articles benefit or degrade Wikipedia's coverage of obscure places.


 * The GNS, which is the ultimate source of many of these geographic database sites, is itself far from free from errors, but, as a publication of the relevant U.S. federal government geographic agency, is the nearest thing to a reliable source that exists for many of these places. Nevertheless, I believe that these articles are a net benefit, even if they include the occasional error, as the amount of good information they add greatly outweighs the addition of errors, which can easily be corrected later.


 * Even before creating them, I can see that Dr. Blofeld makes good-faith efforts to manually cross-check these articles for nonsensical or duplicate data, so these are not mere data dumps. Once inserted, these articles (occasional errors and all) are visible to the entire Wikipedia editor community, and can start to be enhanced with more information and vetted for errors, both by human editors interested in these topics, and by geodata-driven bot-based scans. Once established, these legitimate stub articles can become the basis for good articles.


 * For many places in the world, Dr. Blofeld's articles are invaluable for kick-starting the article-writing process -- even the wrong entries will drive human beings to correct them, thus increasing the quality of the information available in the public domain.


 * Based on all of these considerations, I conclude, and believe, that these edits should be allowed to go on.


 * I think the biggest problem here is that Dr. Blofeld does not have enough assistance in this thankless task. Instead of berating him, we should be considering how we could help or augment his efforts. -- The Anome (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to firmly disagree here. Is Blofeld acting in good faith? Certainly. Does he do more harm than good? Certainly. Automatically generated sub-stubs about specks on maps are a really bad idea, and I would favor a robotic deletion engine to remove all of these things. People complain all the time about people not following WP:BEFORE on deletions, and there's an equivalent responsibility to do the basics before creation: find enough information about the topic in multiple reliable sources to be able to create more than a stub. If you can't create more than a stub, then don't create anything at all. I firmly disagree with the concept that every geographic place name in the world warrants a standalone article: most places don't need more than a redirect into a list of settlements in the region. All of this geographic information could reasonably be placed in larger, well organized lists, with these independent articles being created only after there is a reason to do so.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Does he do more harm than good? Certainly. LOL. Yeah because referenced stubs on villages in Asia which can be expanded are SOO extremely harmful to wikipedia as a resource and far more damaging than disguised libel attacks in BLPs, discreet vandalism and articles genuinely containing false information and POV. I can't take anybody seriously who thinks I do more harm than good in building wikipedia.. Its only harmful to those people who can never be bothered to build upon what I start and sit around moaning and never develop articles and think wikipedia is complete... . ♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They do harm by being a widespread example of incorrectly built articles, and making new editors believe that creating sub-stubs like this is an acceptable method of editing and presenting information. Building so many bad articles so quickly isn't anything to be proud of, and certainly doesn't provide you with some kind of high ground to insult others. I never said that your efforts were more harmful than libel, vandalism, or falsehoods, so I don't know why those points even get brought up.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The only person doing the insulting here is you. Who said anybody was proud them? I rarely create "sub stubs" anymore and if I do its usually for a damn good reason, because people are working on them or I have a bot ready and am prepared to work on them myself at a later date. But do you honestly think that the "thou must not create any article under 10kb" approach is really in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia? DId not virtually all the FAs and GAs we currentlt have not start as stubs? There is nothing wrong with stubs which contain a few lines with basic facts and some reliable sources, those are constructive and its what I mostly achieve. Its the one liners generated enmasse without any facts which none of us like myself included but are only usually done when attempting to venture into a vastly uncovered topic with a LOT of red links which makes the task too daunting to do one by one. I am not content for that amount of subjects to be missing... As for little specs on maps. Most of them are clearly visible solid villages and are certainly not "little specs" to the people who live there or the soldiers who have had friends killed there. Please try to see the world properly and the true goals of wikipedia that all geo articles are attempting to start to piece together a fuller coverage of our world. If the articles exist at least they stand a chance of being added to and build up gradually. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

IP handing out random barnstars
IP has been handing out hundreds of "Modest barnstar" awards, apparently at random, including to at least one blocked user with no contributions. Not sure if it's actually a problem, but it's really not very constructive. Thoughts? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is somebody a little jealous they haven't got one...? ;) GiantSnowman 19:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and user notified BTW. GiantSnowman 20:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well obviously the ip should be blocked for failing to fill out the proper barnstar requisition form 28-B. If we allow anyone to give out barnstars they wouldn't be meaningful!--RaptorHunter (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If the barnstars are to have any meaning, its probably wrong. However, the guidelines on when to hand out a barnstar are pretty liberal. I suppose you could request a change in who is allowed to give barnstars maybe. Beyond that, though it seems a tad excessive, its not really uncivil or disruptive. -- Avanu (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Curses, GiantSnowman has me sussed :-) But yeah, I guess there's no wrong being done - it just seemed rather bizarre, and I was wondering if there might be something mischievous afoot, what with barnstars being given to known baddies. Anyway, I'll go back to sleep (Oh, and thanks for doing the notification - I completely forgot) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, a registered account shows a similar pattern of contributions. It would seem to be a campaign conducted in good faith, but I imagine it won't be long before it tweaks some noses. <font face="New York">Skomorokh 21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It reminds me of the chap who was handing out "manly man" awards that included File:PalmercarpenterA.jpg in March. Regretfully I was not considered manly enough for said award -- Diannaa  (Talk) 21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I came across this earlier today also. As many of you have said there isn't anything wrong with this. One of the weird things is that some of them are being presented to editors who don't edit very often. IMO it does devalue barnstars a bit since they don't seem to be for any specific editing. The only thing that would be a problem is if they were doing these edits just to get autoconfirmed but I can find no evidence of that at this time. Ah well this on top of the wedding is just too much drama for one day :-) MarnetteD | Talk 21:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You got married? Congrats :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was me. I was giving out barnstars but didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Why is this a problem again? Barnstars are a form of wikilove, and apparently most of the people who I gave barnstars to were definitely deserving of some recognition. Some mistakes were made (not checking the block list, apparently) but I hope I didn't case any harm. Mike Restivo (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In his last edits, he is taking editors in alphabetical order from A-Z, then starts from A again. Maybe he is going down lists of members of wikiprojects, or something? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed I wasn't logged in, then when I did I got back to the start of the page. My browser has a problem with cookies? Anyway, it was Friday afternoon, I was trying to avoid as much of my real work as possible... :-) Mike Restivo (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Replying to my own post - sorry I can't get the hang of whether I should interject in between where other people have commented? Anyway, looking at this more closely, I see that there are many other forms of wikilove, like cookies and smiley faces. I'll try to use these instead next time, and also make sure that I'm not inadvertently feeding the trolls and vandals. It makes sense that a barnstar should be recognition for specific acts, whereas there are other ways of awarding random acts of kindness. Best regards, all. I am not very active in the WP community but I love it and hopefully I'm not causing too many problems. 17:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Restivo (talk • contribs)  (forgot to sign before...sorry!) 17:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't want anyone to quit my Modest Barnstar. 4 contributions this month (now 5) has been a hard work. Please respect it ;)--Ssola (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Is saying "Google" outing?
“Google "Samual Antoine Moser." Yep, that's the guy I'm being harassed by.” was just posted by Ian.thomson 14:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC) at ANI. Why has Ian.thomson not been blocked for “outing” Samual Antoine Moser? I was blocked for saying “Google” someone, and Farawayman was blocked for questioning my block.

Let me guess. Ian.thomson has more edits than I did at the time? Or did his “Google” have a different inflection than mine? Or possibly someone “A.G.F”.ed Ian, unlike me?

Still johndearhart@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.131.158 (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe because the guy had already outed himself here on WP.  He  iro 04:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not outing if a user reveals what their name is, as Samual did, if you read the discussion you're referring to up above. Did the person you were referring to reveal their name on Wikipedia? Silver  seren C 04:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was an admin's USER NAME, which they sign to every post. I have no idea if it is their real name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.131.158 (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the link: IP has a point.Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care about Ian, I want my past block, and history, reviewed. I believe I am the subject of admin abuse. I'l be blocked any second now, it always happens.Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.131.158 (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want your block reviewed, log into the account you were blocked under, and ask for a review using the unblock template as described in the block notice. You aren't going to get anyone to say your block was incorrect based solely on some oblique references to it.  If we cannot directly review your block and all of your editing history, there is nothing at all we can do for you.  Don't ask "was my block appropriate" if we cannot view the blocked account itself!  -- Jayron  32  05:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't log in, I am always blocked. If either Wm5200 or the pluton's talk was visible, you could see for yourself, but the same admin I refered to disappeared them both. I don't know wiki, I've been asking for help for months, but since I'm blocked and using "socks", every plea gets deleted. I'm not really important, but I feel that the abuse is, and it keeps getting covered up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.131.158 (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see a history of some disgusting personal attacks by the Wm5200 account, which seems to be quite a different thing than "I inocently asked someone to google an account name". This edit right here:  is pretty awful, and I see a long history of hounding a specific user over a long period of time.  I see a return of that hounding under The Pluton as well.  If you were to return to Wikipedia, I would expect a) An agreement to a full interaction ban with Gwen Gale; that is you are not to talk about her, or directly confront her, or edit any article she does, or interact with her in any way and b) An agreement to a full topic ban on all issues related to Adolf Hitler, broadly construed.  You should also read WP:STANDARDOFFER, which says, roughly, honor your initial block for an extended period of time.  -- Jayron  32  05:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Were the history of disgusting personal attacks before or after the outrageous accusations of "outing", possibly used as an excuse by the admin. I have repeatedly confessed to anything after.
 * I also had an almost complete memory failure in mid January, know nothing about Hitler, and have little interest in any more editing. I've been pretty disillusioned, on both sides. As for dealing with a specific admin, I have not said, written, or even thought (as much as possible) about them since Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:44 AM, nor do I ever intend to. That admin has no credibility to me, and I won't address them again, under any conditions. I will gladly discuss this in what detail I can, but would prefer for someone to email me with advice. I believe many posts are compromised by an "admin culture" which I am outside. Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.131.158 (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, I shouldn't have to stay away from Hitler, I improved the article, in spite of the admin. Someone else should recluse themself, as I suggested long ago. And how is the involved admin personally disappearing my talk not a conflict of interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.131.158 (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's late, busy day tomorrow. Maybe others might take some time to think about my position while I'm gone. And thank you all for talking with me this long. Also, I don't mean to be "socking", I'm at home, and have no idea why I'm not blocked. Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.131.158 (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is just another attempt by some curiously motivated persons (or person under various guises) to try and legitimise their harassment of Gwen Gale, via reference to their real life identity. That identity can easily be found - and knowing it gives some indication what the motivation might be, which I feel is sufficiently disturbing of itself - but the case is that Gwen Gale's identity within WP is her own affair and is not an issue in respect of her work here. Volunteers to this project may choose to acknowledge their real life identity or not - and Gwen Gale chooses not to. End of. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No it is not. It is only me, and always has been, I have signed my real name many times, John D. Earhart, johndearhart@gmail. I keep trying to explain my motivation, noone will listen. I do not want to harhass an admin, I want to hold them accountable to their peers. Any time someone says "you have a point, we'll look into it" I will be glad to only address direct questions. I have been begging for months for someone to address me privately. The admin leaving, although giving me great personal satisfaction, has never been my goal, I was only interested in one article. Have you read the discussion at "Death of Adolf Hitler"??? Am I the only person who has questioned that admin's work on that specific article??? Would this all have been avoided if the admin had either acknowledged either of my (PURE GOLD) sources? Not even buy, simply acknowledge? Has the article not been greatly improved by real editors using my sources? Should that admin have reclused themselves? Was personally disappearing Wm5200's talk paqe NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST for the involved admin.???
 * Once again, I believe I am the victim of admin abuse. I don't really care about being unblocked, I am trying to address a system problem. I admit to harhassing the admin, but if an honest, uninvolved, objective admin ever acknowledged my issue, I wouldn't have to. Civil disobediance. Protest. Guerrilla warfare. Revolution. I am not very important. Neither were the Watergate burglers, it was the cover-up which brought down Richard Nixon. Do you condemn Woodward and Bernstein? No, I don't really compare myself with them, I am one of the nameless poor who have gone to jail for protesting injustice. If you want to think of me as a petty burgler, fine. But please don't miss the big picture.
 * I am still John D. Earhart, A.K.A. johndearhart@gmail, always have been, and I am proud of my moral commitment to Wikipedia. Are you??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.131.158 (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When you find yourself saying stuff like "... noone will listen" and "Any time someone says "you have a point, we'll look into it"" perhaps you should actually accept the problem is with you not others. Lots have people have expressed and opinion contrary to yours, from that perspective it's you who is not listening. Lots of people have expressed and opinion contrary to yours, yet you aren't saying "You have a point, I'll look into it". If of course you want to convince yourself that there is some great conspiracy against you (and you can get past occam's razor), then really why are you staying around, surely that great big conspiracy should tell you this isn't a "nice" place for you to be and you'd be better committing your energies elsewhere? --82.7.44.178 (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 178, I like you. I believe you may have listened. I would like to talk back to you, but right now I have to cut "Grandma's " grass. Can I do today, then think and ask?
 * I don't know what the problem with email is. Is it morally wrong to go private? I see others leaving email notice posts. Are you possibly afraid of me having your address (seems reasonable to me)? If so, could we set up some blind drop deal? I have a couple of other accounts, but it's probably you who would need one, right?
 * This looks good to me, you guys haven't blocked me, and I seem to be getting answers I may understand. Thank you all so much!
 * I believe that I'm finally John D. Earhart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.131.158 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment was a passing observation and not intended to open a broader dialog, there is no point in endless debate and discussion. Things come to an end, sometimes you win sometimes you lose, sometimes you have your understanding affirmed, othertimes you have to reevaluate it. My point really was you need to accept people have listened and simply not agreed (for whatever reason), you've repeated yourself and they still don't agree. So within the context of the society's "rules" you are wrong, you either have to accept that or decide this isn't the correct place to be since you can't work within that society's norms. Either way you need to move on, merely repeating yourself is not going to change things, you are just beating the proverbial dead horse. As I said no point in endless debate so I don't intend to engage with this further. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for failing to get the point

 * I think we've given Wm5200/99.18.131.158 ample opportunity to make their case here. Several uninvolved people have reviewed the case, and determined that Wm5200's behavior was problematic and the block was fully justified.  I have blocked the 99.18.131.158 IP address for block evasion and referred them to the unblock mailing list AND the arbcom/BASC mailing list.  As always, my blocks are open to review and overturning, since I always assume I am in the wrong.  -- Jayron  32  20:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page Abuse by blocked user 92.21.240.212
User is posting some biographies on his talk page [1] Bentogoa (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk page privileges revoked. Thanks for reverting the disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Need closure of deletion review, copyvio investigation
We need an uninvolved admin to close Deletion review. After some contentious back-and-forth, I discovered that the deleted article, which was deleted as OR and then userfied at User:George Serdechny/Last-minute rescue, was rife with copyvios: full blocks of text lifted nearly verbatim from multiple sources. Its creator,, has copped to it by basically explaining that he did it intentionally to make a WP:POINT, and removed a huge portion of text, claiming that it's now resolved.

Well, it isn't. From User:George Serdechny/Last-minute rescue: "the rescue that comes 'in the nick of time', the stock and trade of sensational melodrama..."; "the last-minute rescue (or the last-second rescue), and an escape scenario, in which the hero has to escape from a seemingly impossible situation...".

And worse, it seems like this is his normal editing method, rather than just disruption out of resentment towards the AFD. From his article, Evil Russian: "Reagan was the most vehemently anti-Russian President America had seen"; "between 1942 and 1945, the Soviet Union gradually underwent a makeover on American cinema screens..."; "The Mob tries to extort protection money from the father, and their evil Russian karate expert breaks Dad's leg...". From Arab terrorist: "From 1977 to 1993, the only Arab terrorism..."; "...the movie’s response to film terrorism is to deconstruct the Hollywood image..."

So we need someone to close the deletion review, the full deletion of the userfied page, a full investigation of all of his contributions for copyright infringement, and some decision as to how to deal with the editor from here. postdlf (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * After reviewing some of postdif's revelations, I made the request last night to close the deletion review as a copyvio situation, as well as a temporary block (though based on his behaviour, I suggest a longer block) against the user in order to give a chance for us to check the rest of his contributions. Since the page in his userspace holds many copyvio situations, we need to eliminate the page entirely if only to remove all of the copyvios that are saved in the history.
 * It should also be noted that this editor has posted abusively on at least one user's talk page (see this diff.). He went so far as to referring to editors in the debate as "stupid" and suggested that actions against his article would be a blemish on the administrator's record.  I posted a reply to the message later (after postdif's post there) pointing the admin. in question to the copyvio evidence and will notify that admin. now of this AN/I request.  CycloneGU (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, the things I get into after commenting in an AFD. This user has been persistent in his refusal or inability to understand that original research, in Wikipedia's sense of the term, includes novel synthesis. The connections he claims between cited sources are rarely fully realized in those sources, and have at times been provably false. But more importantly for ANI's purposes, those cited sources appear to be frequently -- if not universally -- copyright violations.  The entire "Hollywood Support" section from his version of National Council of American-Soviet Friendship was lifted from page 253 of his source.  The entirety of National Council on Soviet Relations was lifted from this here.  When he broke Jorj X. McKie back out from a redirect, adding cited passages, every passage he cited is a copyright violation of the cited source.  I reverted that article to a redirect, but have stopped short of trying to restore non-offending versions at this time, as use of revdel is probably called for in many of these circumstances.  Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In terms of the copyright issues, I've done a spot-check of his contribs and confirmed that at least three of his articles are unusable in current form. Given issues noted here, this is sufficient to warrant a WP:CCI: Contributor copyright investigations/20110429. This one is relatively brief. Please help. :) Some of our CCIs are over a year old, and we could really stand to whittle them down. Since I've opened this CCI, I suppose somebody else had better address the deletion review. As to what to do, in terms of copyright: I don't see a history of copyright text warnings. He has been informed now. If he continues copying content, then we will have to block. Hopefully, this won't be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at an earlier version of his talk page, he's had loads of problems over non-free images. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, he has that; but this seems to be his first brush with text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * After looking through the archives of his talk page, and looking at many other articles that he created, it seems that this is not a new problem at all. Despite claiming that this recent bout of copyvio was in order to make a point with his current debates, this is not true at all.  He's been creating pages that are just blatant copyvio for ages now.  Just for a few examples, the page he created of Chris Adams (character) was almost lifted entirely from this source.  The page on Calvera (character) was lifted from this source.  This seems to be a regular pattern with this user.  He'll create poorly written articles, and the moment they are proposed for deletion, he'll immediately respond by adding in copyvio material directly copies from books.  This is a rather serious problem, as the user was a rather prolific editor, and has been creating pages like this for over a year.Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And as another example, the page he created on Institute for Information, Telecommunication and Media Law was copy/pasted from the institutes own webpage here. As I said, it seems that this is nothing new with this user, and everything he has ever contributed needs to be reviewed.Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Careful on that one, their is an OTRS permission on the talk page, I'm not convinced it covers the text used (as it's apparently a permission from somewhere else, though there is a connection) --82.7.44.178 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on that that one, then. I did notice that on the talk pages for some of the other articles' talk pages, the issue of copyvio was mentioned before, with instructions given to the user in question that direct quotes or summaries of other works were permitted with citation.  Unfortunately, the user neither indicates that the passages in question are quotes, nor rewords them, so they still just stand as copyvio.Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely not the editor's first involvement with copyright problems with text. I've been trying to check for and clean up this editor's copyright violations and novel synthesis for most of the day.  Dropping over to the Russian Wikipedia (via Google Translate) to try to locate one of the sources cited, I discovered that identical edits (accounting for translation) had been made to a large number of their articles.  The user there, ru:Участник:Георгий Сердечный, is unquestionably the same person as the en-editor under discussion.  Both the en-user and the ru-user formerly used the same name; the en-user for some time requested that communication with him from here instead be done there.  On ru, this editor has a long history of warnings for copyright violation and has been blocked several times (aside: the Russian Wikipedia gives out very short blocks, it seems), including a block on 5 September 2010 explicitly for (again, via Google Translate)  "systematic infringement of copyright".  From parsing through the talk page, I believe that the block on 28 June 2010 was also for copyright violations, although that's not precisely stated in the block log.  Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, that puts a different tenor on things. Coupled with his statement at the deletion review that his copyright infringements were deliberate, there's no real room to presume lack of familiarity with copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like grounds for an indiscriminate blanking. Any objections? MER-C 02:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * None whatsoever from me. I'd have done it myself already, but I wanted to leave the information for review.  CycloneGU (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The 28 June is this diff where the blocking admin says it's for copyright infringment and from what I can make out (automated translation) basically incivility/troll like responses to that. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Also seems to have faced problems on commons, apparently loading up images via his own Flickr account. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it would be wise for us to have him banned from Wikipedia entirely, even moving to an ArbCom case if it boils down to it. He is very contentious, makes up his own rules and refuses to abide by the rules, and is copying whatever he wants in here when told something isn't good enough, thinking he will get away with it.  CycloneGU (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He's really behaved the same across all venues, hasn't he? Copyright infringements every where he goes, and troll-like responses to serious deletion discussions, by calling those cite valid complaints liars, responding with irrelevancies, etc. I see no option here but an indef block. He knows what he's doing; he's just trying to get away with it. postdlf (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Indef blocked
I've blocked him. I've found copied content now in every article I've examined to which he has made substantial edits that have used English language sources. I see no reason to doubt that the bulk of his contributions have been pasted or directly translated. As he has been blocked on the Russian Wikipedia for copyright problems and has nevertheless continued this behavior there and here, WP:AGFC no longer applies, and I don't see any choice but to block him for the protection of the project. This kind of disruption can cause serious damage and waste considerable community resources in later cleaning up.

Indef block is, of course, not necessarily permanent. It is simply open-ended. We need some plausible reason to believe that he is going to stop the behavior and comply with our policies. Until we have this, I don't think we can permit him to continue placing content on Wikipedia.

I always welcome review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sound block. Reading back there are obvious issues with this editor; explaining them and rationalising them is not the job of the volunteer editors, but for the editor concerned. They can start by trying to convince a reviewing admin that they should be unblocked, and if successful take it from there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said. We still have his Deletion review to close, and his userfied version to delete at User:George Serdechny/Last-minute rescue; apart from the completely flawed intro, it is and was all copyrighted content.  postdlf (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to blank the appropriate page in his userspace and request speedy deletion of it. If there are other pages in his userspace containing copyrighted content, they must be rooted out as well.  CycloneGU (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The only other two subpages of his are User:George Serdechny/In the High Attention Area 2 and User:George Serdechny/Bernardo O'Reilly. postdlf (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do they also feature copyright material? I'll speedy those as well if they do with a similar message (linking here) to the one in the first.  CycloneGU (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Odds are, but it's not really worth finding out: they've been listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:George Serdechny/In the High Attention Area 2 + Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:George Serdechny/Bernardo O'Reilly. postdlf (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Abusive language
Would an admin have a quick word with User talk:91.10.40.1 in respect of the abusive language in this edit which they twice restored despite a warning. If you check on the trigger for this it was an error by the editor concerned, who quickly self-reverted. From the comment on the IPs talk page s/he obviously thinks such language is appropriate. Not a major issue, but a quick warning now might prevent worse in the future. --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  12:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've backed up your comment with a reminder of NPA and wikiquette, but your comment seemed appropriate, the comment has been reverted and hasn't yet been re-(re-re-)introduced. It's really down to the owner of the talk page to pick a response, but hey ho. The IP just likes to talk back, that's all. This can probably be marked resolved. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  14:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I realise I'll get the usual civility flak for this, but I gotta ask: who is that edit abusing, or how is it a personal attack? "Fucking" is not a version of "Go fuck yourself". It's a reinforcing... hmm... uh... adverb, maybe? Which I have frequently seen many an admin use on this site, without incurring any complaints, without being taken to ANI, and without being threatened with a ban. Bishonen | talk 14:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC).
 * Sorry for the revert. I accidentally hit the rollback when I was clicking onto something else on my Watchlist. All the fault of my jumpy laptop! Sorry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for f**k sake Jeanne, try and get it right next time! Anyone find my language abusive? I would hope everyone would and that is very similar to the ip's language. Carson101 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Abusive" and "offensive" are not the same thing... GiantSnowman 15:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "fucking AGF" is ambiguous as to whether the word "fucking" is used simply as an adjective or as an attack on the editor who supposedly didn't assume good faith. It doesn't help that the phrase is cryptic and ungrammatical. At the same time, the situation can easily be avoided by not using the word. In most other "working" environments, it wouldn't be tolerated. Still, from the little I've seen of these discussions, particularly on ANI, they never go anywhere as you have the civility (a dirty word I think for some) folk on one side and the non-censorship-freewheeling-it's-just-a-word folk on the other. The two groups, of course, never agree on the linguistic proprieties, and the argument devolves into a parsing exercise to see if the words constitute a personal attack. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm on the c******y side.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not an adjective, as it is modifying no noun or pronoun. It's just an idiomatic use of English, where a present participle (or possibly a gerund) is interjected into an injunction as a form of emphasis. In most working environments that I've come across the word is in common use. Try a Fire station or an Army barracks, a teacher's staffroom or even the shop-floor of an engineering company. Frankly I'm more offended by the coy pretence that people don't commonly use the word "fucking" than I am by anything else in this thread. --RexxS (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When people use the word "clearly", it usually means it's not all that clear. In my view, the phrase "assuming good faith" in this context acts like a noun, and fucking describes the noun. However, no matter what part of speech you think it is, I agree with you that it is being used for emphasis. You apparently work in different environments than I do. Nor do I see any coyness here. I certainly agree that use of the word "fucking" is common - that doesn't make it civil, though, or more important, constructive at Wikipedia. Usually, it's simply a form of self-indulgent venting. I also think it's easier to use in the virtual world than in the brick-and-mortar world. Finally, in this (italics used for emphasis) particular use, I think it's a hybrid of emphasis and a snipe at the editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I really did think that when an editor posted a section heading titled "Fucking AGF" that it could only be read as "Fucking Assume Good Faith". As you should now be able to clearly see, 'Assume' is the second person imperative of the verb 'to assume' and 'Good Faith' is the object of that transitive verb (the object being made up of the adjective 'Good' qualifying the noun 'Faith'). That leaves 'Fucking', which simply can't be an adjective here for lack of a noun to qualify, nor for that matter an adverb (as may be inferred from its position preceding the verb – a position that my colleague Bish favours), since the adverb formed from an adjectival 'fucking' would be 'fuckingly' – i.e. in a 'fucking manner'. I have to conclude that this particular use of 'Fucking' can only be a noun, and therefore the gerund of the verb 'to fuck' – completely lacking in any semantic function and wholly interjected as emphasis. On that latter point we clearly agree. While I would respect your point that even if treat 'fucking' as an interjection, it does not make 'fucking' civil, I would have counter that it does not make 'fucking' incivil either. Nor for that matter does 'fucking' have any bearing on the constructiveness of the request to 'Assume Good faith', IMFHO – and I'm afraid that I can't agree that it makes the word 'fucking' abusive as the OP complains. I have worked in a very large number of environments and have yet to find one where the word 'fuck' or 'fucking' was entirely absent, given sufficient observational time. At one extreme I remember being amused by an RAF serviceman, whose job was fire-fighting, and who managed to use either 'fuck' or 'fucking' every other word, but was otherwise quite intelligible, and not at all abusive. I can only suggest that editors who have problems with hearing inconsequential profanities really need to get out into the real world more. --RexxS (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If the IP wants to be a dick? he/she will quickly be treated like a dick. Kindess don't feed the bulldog. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Procedure when dealing with falsification of sources?
I discovered that one editor falsified a quote from a source.This is not a misinterpretation of quote-but a clear falsification-a key part of the sentence was changed in quote presented in the wiki article. What is the proper procedure and possible intervention regarding such activity? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, step 1 is to say what was falsified. If, for example, it is a translation, then the situation may be quite different from one where the source is in English.  Given your tendency to edit on articles that are ethnically charged, I don't think anybody should take anything for granted. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The text that was falsified was in English and is an English publication. It is not a translation. Where there cases like this before?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which article does this concern? Which source? And which editor? These details may help... GiantSnowman 23:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see now what I have done. This is intervention board where action is taken. I was more interested in general rules regarding such things.I apologize. You may close the thread, I will seek my answers elsewhere.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for help for a general question, maybe try Help desk. Regards, GiantSnowman 00:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks I will. Please close this thread.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Misconduct at "Ark of the Covenant"
I just looked in on this article and wanted to alert the Administrators to the behaviour of Steven J. Anderson and Hrafn. See: and especially The diffs you will need are from 25 April 2011 to 28 April 2011.
 * Contentious reversions without good reason
 * More 'Heavan' sources
 * Picture caption
 * Expert Critique

What they said to an expert on the subject is outrageous. I have posted a subst:ANI-notice to each of them. I just realized you can't be everywhere, but you at least deserve a "heads-up". I won't be back. --71.214.251.150 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * An anonymous self-professed expert on the subject made some disparaging remarks about Wikipedia and made some claims about facts without proper use of reliable sources. Earlier some people made some claims based upon sources known to be fringe. The editors you complained about explained Wikipedia policies to them. How is that a problem? At worst they were somewhat uncivil to people who were also uncivil, which is a wash. DreamGuy (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out on the talk page, this belongs at WP:LAME. What we have here is an editor who's been obsessing for weeks about the precise location of the rings on the side of the Ark and wants to edit a picture caption to point out that they're in the wrong place. Yes, you read that right. He claimed he was leaving in a fit of pique a few days ago (Paraphrased reason: Now I know why Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for University and High School work; other users won't accept my original research). But, no such luck, since then he's been editing from his IP and a couple of single-edit socks he's created for the purpose of talking to himself at the talk page and claiming special authority. I doubt that he's actually done anything blockable, but the other editors are starting to get a little sick of this shit. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The 'expert' has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of User:Michael Paul Heart by another Administrator. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh, his face is gonna get melted off. Half  Shadow  21:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The archive of Talk:Tahash has, I believe, a similar situation with MPH and User:Hermitstudy. This is an odd account, without a doubt.  The Interior  (Talk) 01:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * But I think it necessary to point out that in response to his argument, unacceptable language was used by an experienced admin, "Oh, and I don't really give a damn about the self-serving maunderings of somebody so monumentally clueless that they think WorldNet Daily is in the same universe as a WP:RS -- 'you lost' it years ago." Regardless of the merits, it is not wise to return insult for insult. It rather tends to make the two parties appear indistinguishable. A person who does have superior knowledge should rely on it.   DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually DGG, it isn't wasn't "necessary to point [this] out" at all, as the point you are making is based upon a fallacious premise. I am not an admin, experienced or otherwise. Per WP:SPADE, I stand by my description. It was made in response to MPH's comment on article talk: "Your argument has no intelligence. You lose", which in turn linked to a self-serving and tendentious 'leaving message' on his user talk -- a message rendered all the more ludicrous by MPH immediately thereafter returning to article talk as a WP:SOCK. I see no reason to take such blatant self-scripted WP:WIKIDRAMA seriously. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh for consensus
Hi, it seems that discussion for Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh is not going anywhere, not because of consensus, but because of no consensus is claimed, in spite of 3 different users saying so. The reasons are given and are finally replies are a new question: Extending Biographies of living people to organisations? ..., I think you have answered your own question! ... For other organisations, go to the respective page/talk page... and so on; In spite of giving reasons. So I would like to know where are the ironclad rules for first line of an organization? Where is the rule that usual principles can not be extended to first line of an organization?<font color="#FFD700">.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 20:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have put up the question over here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard.<font color="#FFD700">.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 21:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do I make my case here?  Yes Michael? •Talk 05:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem with User:Davide41
This editor is becoming a real problem on the article Giulio Clovio and the talk page Talk:Giulio Clovio. Working with this editor is close to impossible. He does not respond to any discussion. He is relentless in his POV pushing. He claims this artist is an Italian artist while the literature is quite clear in that he was of Croatian descent. He was born in modern day Croatia and later moved to Italy here he did most of his work. (For the record: I am neither Italian nor Croatian; I could not care less which way this goes besides the obvious point that I think the information should be factual.)

I have mentioned the following on the talk page: For a modern reference to Clovio being referred to as Croatian: "Ante Split also notes that a contemporary, Bernardo Guidoni, called him “Giulio Clovio from Croatia” (a Crovatia) and his gravestone labeled him also as being from Croatia, Julio Clovis de Croatia." from ‘’John Van Antwerp Fine, When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans, University of Michigan Press, 2006’’ [4]. He was a Croatian born painter, who moved to Italy and spent most of his professional career in Italy. Because of where he did his work he is often referred to as an Italian painter.

Davide41 in the meantime has violated several guidelines/rules: The edit warring got so bad that the page was protected. More people were involved in the edit warring, but Davide41 is a main problem.
 * WP:3RR April 27, ,   April 28 ,  , , , ,
 * WP:Concensus It has become clear that several editors did not agree with him, but he keeps going. (see talk page Talk:Giulio Clovio.)
 * WP:CIVIL He makes condescending comments and just calls any disagreement with him offensive. He makes silly remarks like " Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum " . Must admit I pointed out he should take his own advice and he responds by this
 * WP:RS We have been over and over the fact that websites and online encyclopedias are not appropriate. And even when he uses some of those sources he misquotes them. All of this has been pointed out several times by myself and other editors on Talk:Giulio Clovio. Nothing even makes a dent in his comments.
 * WP:NPOV April 27, makes a lot of changes, deletes references he does not agree with. He claims POV against everything he does not agree with and basically tells us that because he was a teacher we need to take his word for it (paraphrasing of course).

This situation is becoming very frustrating. --AnnekeBart (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the ravings...


 * All Clovio scholars, both his admirers and his detractors, recognize that he was Italian of Croatian descent.
 * All the encyclopedias of the world.

Sources:


 * Encyclopædia Britannica
 * Enciclopedia Italiana
 * 'The Encyclopedia Britannica: a dictionary of arts, sciences, literature and general information, Volume 6.'
 * The encyclopedia Americana: Volumi 7-8.
 * The Oxford Dictionary of Art.
 * The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists.
 * The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.
 * Catholic Encyclopedia.
 * Art cyclopedia.
 * Lib-Art.
 * Grove Art Online, a very reliable source: "Italian painter and illuminator of Croatian birth."

Leading Historians agree Giulio Clovio was primarily Italian. The voice is POV. Source: I am a historian (not a mathematician) --Davide41 (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

He makes silly remarks like " Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum "


 * Literally translated this ancient proverb means, "to err is human, to persevere [in erring] however [is] of the devil." At first one might think this proverb originated with the Latin Fathers, but it did not.  This quotation comes from Seneca the Younger. A proverb which has more than 2000 years.

" I wash my hands " - Pontius Pilate. Greetings. --Davide41 (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that proves my point I think. Pointing out problems is considered "ravings", not a single reliable secondary source, completely ignores all the references that have been provided to the contrary of his claims. I do know what the ancient proverb means, otherwise I would not have understood the insult that was aimed at me, now would I? --AnnekeBart (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I did comply with the requirements and notified Davide41 of this posting. He decided to remove it from his talkpage. --AnnekeBart (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a single reliable secondary source

Yes. Yes. You're right. Mathematician --Davide41 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not entirely sure why my background as a mathematician comes into it now? Now that this has been brought up, I do confess I am rather surprised that someone who claims to be a historian cannot find a single secondary source? How come a "historian" cannot do a JSTOR search, a google book search, a google scholar search (as I have)? How come a person who says he worked as a teacher at a university cannot look at the sources provided by others and come up with a coherent intelligent response? If as a researcher I can find these resources then what's the problem? I must say I am rather puzzled by this. --AnnekeBart (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Historians from many nations - Spain, Portugal, Germany, England, the Netherlands, Switzerland, France and Turkey - all speak of the Italian Clovio. Nor did their books and atlases gather dust in libraries. Some went through several editions. The reports contained and repeated in them were never denied. The glorious myth of Clovio has prompted some minds to hallucinate and some dilettantes to try to appropriate the myth for themselves. The debate ends here --Davide41 (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * So everyone who does not agree with your POV is basically hallucinating and a dilettante? How convenient for you. That way you can just ignore any article that says something you do not agree with. For others reading this, just a couple of hallucinating dilettantes (I think they would be very insulted by this kind of comment):
 * * Clovio left his native Croatia at the age of eighteen Quote from Elena Calvillo, Romanità and Grazia: Giulio Clovio's Pauline Frontispieces for Marino Grimani, The Art Bulletin, Vol. 82, No. 2 (Jun., 2000), pp. 280-297 JSTOR.
 * * Clovio was born in Croatia in 1498, and having come to Italy as a young man, studied under Giulio Romano and spent his life as a celebrated miniaturist until his death in I578. Quote from Julius Schlosser, Two Portrait Miniatures from Castle Ambras, The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 41, No. 235 (Oct., 1922), pp. 194-195+197-198 JSTOR
 * * Bernardo Guidoni, called him “Giulio Clovio from Croatia” (a Crovatia) and his gravestone labeled him also as being from Croatia, Julio Clovis de Croatia.  Quote from John Van Antwerp Fine, When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans, University of Michigan Press, 2006 Google Books


 * I am not going to waste people's time with more quotes. This is pretty clear and many more can be found. --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I should add that I do not see this as a discussion about Clovio's nationality. This post is about Davide41's deplorable behavior. And I think the nature of the problem is pretty clear from his posts here. --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Old Master Paintings and Drawings. Di Roy Bolton. P. 248.
 * Painting popularly explained: including fresco, oil, tempera, mosaic, encaustic, water-colour, miniature, missal, painting on pottery, porcelain, enamel, glass, &c., with historical sketches of the progress of the art. P. 102.

This episode deserved extended coverage not only for the sake of destroying a fiction, but also to duly recognize the seriousness of Dutch historiography.

" Penetrates the great labyrinth of Clovio court documents to gather arguments in favor of his preconceived theory " --Davide41 (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Roy Bolton reference mentions his Croatian descent, the other text is a seriously outdated source from 1859. Modern sources from 2000 and 2006 are pretty clear. Dutch historiography?--AnnekeBart (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary controversy. The 99% of Sources ? " He was an Italian of Croatian descent. " I- n- c- r- e- d- i- b- l- e
 * This is an encyclopedia is not your playground; the information must be accurate --Davide41 (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it is unnecessary. No one agrees with you. This is not your playground. Your information is demonstrably inaccurate. As has been pointed out with several sources. Your comment about "99% of sources" is a silly comment. It is clear that you do not have a very good grasp of the literature. You are not familiar with most of the publications and have no clue how to even find reliable sources. You have no clue what is in the sources and hence are entirely unqualified to make any statements about what is in 99% of them. Honestly at this point I see so many red flags that I do not believe for one moment that you are a real historian. You behave like a troll and your inability to find accurate sources or even understand what reliable sources are is completely incompatible with what I know of historians. The ones I know, have a deep knowledge of the literature and are up to date on the latest publications. They would never keep quoting from encyclopedias or make some of the silly mistakes you are making. --AnnekeBart (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Solutions?
I would like an administrator to weigh in about what to do here. As you can see above, any opinion not shared with Davide41 is brushed off as "ravings", "hallucinations", "dilettantes". There are problems with WP:RS and other issues as outlined above. Finding consensus and working with someone like that is not just difficult, it's impossible. I would like to at the very least see a warning, but I think a possible topic ban may be useful? Some guidance would be appreciated. --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So, if we sum all up:

1.) We managed to get a consensus, and Davide is still against a solution.

2.) Not only that he is against a solution, but he is obviously doing what I would colloquialy call "trolling" - he does not respond to our conversation, he does not want to talk, he does not offer primary and secondary sources (he calles his tertiary sources primary and secondary), and he is just repeating itself, misquoting his own sources etc.

3.) He is editing the page again and again without consulting with other users of wikipedia, who are, up to now, all against him (see "Giulio Clovio" talk page.)

4.) When someone wishes to reach a consensus with him, he ignores his statements and continues with his unsupported tertiary sources.

5.) He is offending all other users calling them "dilettantes", obviously considering them incompetent - just to make Giulio Clovio Italian, although that artist called himself "Croata", on his tomb there are words "Giulio Clovio from Croatia" etc.

6.) Also, he is offending all historiographies which don't share his opinion - for example dutch expert at south slavism John A. Fine, only because AnnekeBart is from Netherlands, croatian historiography because I'm from Croatia etc.

I support AnnekeBart's proposal (Davide should get topic ban because warning won't stop his edits.) Philosopher12 (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What's all this? BurtAlert (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not canvassing, if that's what you're getting at... GiantSnowman 17:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Does any of this fall under WP:ARBMAC? Every single topic on the talk page and the talk page archive deals with matters of Balkan ethnicity. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The historian's mission is essentially that of making the past come to life, of resuscitating the fact which has been forgotten in time; but to construct studies, which are only scientific in appearance, based on second-hand third-hand hypotheses, leads not to history but rather to a more or less gratuitous fiction. This is what AnnekeBart has done !

" It is not possible to follow him in all of his lucubrations. His fiery imagination pushes him into a continuous hermeneutics. " Speaks for itself. Thirty five years of teaching. The voice is POV. " You do whatever you want. " The debate ends here ( for me ). --Davide41 (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok Orange Suede Sofa, so imagine if you want to reach a concensus, and then editor comes and edits it all. When you ask him why, he says:


 * " It is not possible to follow him in all of his lucubrations. His fiery imagination pushes him into a continuous hermeneutics. " Speaks for itself. Thirty five years of teaching. The voice is POV."


 * And you ask him does he have sources he puts tertiary sources against primary and secondary sources. When you say that, he replies with latin proverb. And like that all the time. Is that how people talk to each other on wikipedia?

Philosopher12 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All Clovio scholars, both his admirers and his detractors, recognize that he was Italian of Croatian descent.
 * " Do what you want. " Free of change the voice. For me, is POV. Greetings. --Davide41 (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't even know what it means for you "The voice is POV." Are you saying that you are writing from your point of view or what? You repeated for the 4214325 time that all scholars consider Klović Italian, and me and all other users repeated to you that they don't, stating it in primary and secondary sources. On his tomb in Rome there are words that he is "Georgivus Givlivs from Croatia" : http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datoteka:Julije_Klovic_de_Croatia2.JPG


 * This is getting silly. Philosopher12 (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this would satisfy anyone, but what if the article just stuck to the facts of where he was born, where he lived, and where he died without calling him Croatian or Italian? That way readers can draw their own conclusions about what country gets to "claim" him. BurtAlert (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Burtalert. That's what I tried to do when I changed the intro to "Giorgio Giulio Clovio (or Juraj Julije Klović) (1498 – January 5, 1578) was an illuminator and painter who was born in Croatia, but who was active in Italy." All that did was just generate more abuse and insults. I think it's the straight forward way of dealing with this mess. That's what I tried to explain on the talkpage, but all that resulted in was a bunch of verbal abuse.  --AnnekeBart (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: ''" It is not possible to follow him in all of his lucubrations. His fiery imagination pushes him into a continuous hermeneutics. " Speaks for itself. '' by Davide41? That quote is entirely out of place. That comes from a reference in the Origin theories of Christopher Columbus article. I have no idea why that is included here. And as a quote it leaves the impression it was a quote of either myself or Philosopher12. Which is incorrect. This is the kind of ridiculous exchanges people are subjected to regularly. --AnnekeBart (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Davide41 appears to be a sincere but very stubborn editor. Those concerned about Davide41's behavior at Giulio Clovio might consider reporting him at WP:Arbitration enforcement for tendentious editing from a nationalist viewpoint. The sanctions of WP:ARBMAC could be applicable. It is best if he will agree to modify his behavior, but his responses here don't give much reason for optimism. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I left a warning for Davide41 using the uw-sanctions template. He replied at User talk:EdJohnston and has stated "I'm not going to change the page. I dropped the idea." Based on this agreement, we should consider this complaint resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sasha Grey
Can an administrator please have a look at Sasha Grey and see if protection or user blocks are necessary? There is edit warring at this BLP, with possible sock puppets. Peacock (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I blocked some socks and Hj Mitchell protected the page. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  13:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

User:CodyJoeBibby: WP:NPA and WP:POINT
In the last few hours, has edited in a consistently disruptive and tendentious manner at the Murder of Meredith Kercher article and its associated talk page. At various points, he has referred to other users collectively and in derogatory fashion as a "tag team" (in violation of WP:NPA), reverted the removal of a blatantly trivial piece of information so as to introduce insinuation in the article text (a dubious action with regard to WP:BLP - his intentions are clearly set out here, here and here), and, with consensus firmly against re-insertion of the text in question, threatened to remove other information from the article, in violation of WP:POINT (as can be seen here, here, here and here). Almost all the edits that this user has made in the last 24 hours seem to fall under the label of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and represent the latest in a whole series of uncivil edits (another recent example here) that seem to have made up the majority of CodyJoeBibby's contributions to Wikipedia since he created his account on 1st April. The history of his user talk page will reveal a large number of warnings and recommendations to refrain from attacking or insulting other users and causing other disruption - in particular, it has previously been made clear to this editor that resuming such activities would quite probably result in a block. Could one or more administrators please impress it on CodyJoeBibby that conduct of this sort, which includes pointed, ad hominem remarks, is unacceptable? Many thanks in advance. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  17:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My patience with him is beyond frayed at this point, so I might be being a little harsh. But right now my view is that his contribution to the talk page and article is a huge net negative (generating acres of endless discussion and IDIDNTHEARTHAT stuff) and he is best simply topic banned from the page. --Errant (chat!) 17:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I only went as far as glancing at his Talk page. Several attempts at cautioning him regarding WP:NPA have been met with "I didn't attack anyone. Don't post here again.", or similar comments. And his recent Contribution history seems to be 100% focused on the single article, except for Talk page commentary. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I have made very few edits to the article in question. The 'warnings' I have received have been mostly (not all) rude in tone and have been from heavily involved editors. I did not appreciate their aggressive nature. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (2ECs)I agree that Cody's tack on this issue has been disruptive, but I don't see significant incivility issues with his posts. Cody seems to veer between being constructive and disruptive, so I suggest an official warning that if he continues to be disruptive, a block or topic ban may be necessary.  We should try and push him towards contructive editing rather than push him away from Wikipedia.  As some context, this article has been highly contentious and in the past many users who disagreed with a particular version of the article were indeffed at the suggestions of what seemed to be a group of editors who agreed with said version.  Though the tone of discussions is now better than before, I'd rather not stir up old resentments with too heavy a hand here, especially as other disuptive editors (from a different camp) seem to get a pass.LedRush (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cody has a lot of enthusiasm for this topic. He is a SPA, but so are many other editors on that talk page.  For the most part, especially recently, nearly all of them are helpful.  This is a difficult article to work on, with problems from earlier editing, controversial case, happening in a foreign country and editorial coverage in sources can be slanted by nationality.  Cody seems to come with a strong POV towards the topic, and desires that the article more closely reflect that view.  Editors that disagree with him are denigrated in his posts, making it unpleasant to work on the article.  He seems to take some advice well, but I sometimes feel that happens only if it's from an editor that he thinks has a view similar to his.  LedRush's suggestion of a warning from an uninvolved admin is warranted.  The desire to push Cody towards good habits is laudable, but Cody has to see the problems others are pointing out before anything can change.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 18:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not as though I'm repeatedly editing the article in defiance of what others may think. I've made a few edits, none of which have been more than a few words here or there. I have been involved in some robust discussion on the talk page, I don't deny it. I wouldn't say I'm uncivil. That's a fine line, I suppose. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're seriously suggesting that you haven't been uncivil? Really? What about this recent edit - entering a talk page discussion for the sole purpose of taking a shot at me using a petty and fallacious argument, even though multiple user talk page messages had warned you to moderate your self-expression? LedRush is quite understating the problems at hand with the assertion that there are no "significant incivility issues" here - there has been little assumption of good faith ever since Cody's first edit less than a month ago, and even now it is still scarce. Who exactly is "stirring up old resentments" in the first diff that I have linked? I'm in full agreement with Errant. One or more firm warnings is really the very least that is merited in this situation. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  19:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * CodyJoeBibby, saying something snarky and insulting and saying "no offence" and "thanks for your input" and trying to be subtle doesn't work.  is the kind of comment I'm referring to.  Wikipedia is a collaboration and you have to make an attempt to work with other people, especially on a highly controversial subject.  If you "wouldn't say you're uncivil" then that's a problem. --  At am a  頭  19:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What this editor needs is a guideline on how to get out of a community decided indef block for disruption, assuming bad faith, personal attacks, refusing to get the point, not working with the community, refusing to take even well meant advise, etc. Overall they are certainly not a positive asset to the article and it's talkpage.TMCk (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're overreacting here. As i said, I've made very few edits to the article. I've had considerable incivility and aggression directed towards me from the same group who are posting here requesting that I be banned. The same people have also repeatedly breached Wikipedia policy on the article in question. This occurred from day one of my Wikipedia career. But as a new editor, I don't really know how things work here. I didn't know where to report the aggression. Instead I may have reacted to those people on the talk page. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Overreacting? Really? Quote:"I didn't know where to report the aggression." I answered your question here so don't play the silly "I'm new here and don't know where to file complains" game.TMCk (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is hardly an "over-reaction". With respect, Cody, your editing in general (at the Murder of Meredith Kercher talk page in particular) does not demonstrate a reassuring trend. Furthermore, claiming "incivility" and "aggression" on the part of others, which I am inclined to doubt, does not address the quite obvious incivility and aggression that your edits have directed at other users. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  20:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (ECx1) Non-Admin Nickel's worth of Advice You've wandered into one of the very contentious sections of Wikipedia with what appears to be a very significant collection of viewpoints already in your possession. The article in question is in the conservatorship of multiple editors that are familiar with both the subject matter and Wikipedia's Policies. For you to come in and repeatedly insert your own viewpoint, ignore advice from other editors, and to dismissively respond to concerns is why they are bringing this matter forward. Consider taking some time off to read the policies and understanding why people these problems with you. If you don't, you may find yourself banned from topics to prevent disruption. Hasteur (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I perceive you yourself as unnecessarily aggressive and patronising in tone, SuperMarioMan. I do not appreciate the tone you have taken with me since the beginning of my stint on Wikipedia. It's a shame I didn't know I could report you to this noticeboard. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this does little to address your conduct, which is forming the basis of this discussion. It is rash to expect an agreeable tone from others when one edits in a disruptive and tendentious manner on multiple occasions, refusing to get the point and listen to sensible advice - there is a limit to the extent that good faith can be assumed. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  21:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

CodyJoeBibby, consider that with this project being a collaboration that relies on consensus, you can't brush off others' comments about yourself. If everyone suggests that you're behaving improperly, the correct response is to ask for a clarification and request how to correct that behavior. To continually ignore such suggestions is to invite failure. You really can't function as a contributor if you refuse to listen to criticism. As an administrator, I'm not levying threats, but I'm trying to offer advice. If you ignore that, well, so be it. As to reporting others, please take a moment to read this. --  At am a  頭 21:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As an involved editor I support a topic ban. A WP:SPA who in a month has failed to grasp NPOV or NPA, and has made little positive input to the single article he is interested in. Would not be a noticeable loss if we topic banned him. --John (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As of today, I will take a voluntary two weeks' sabbatical to cool down and ensure I am fully conversant with all relevant Wikipedia policies. I will return to Wikipedia as an editor on this topic on 10th May 2011 if that is acceptable to the authorities. I have nothing further to say at this time. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a good course of action. With this pledge, there seems to be little more to discuss here. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  21:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's wise to postpone this problem

 * I strongly disagree with this closure. A SPA taking a two weeks brake to learn what they didn't learn in a month on-wiki is more likely to take a "vacation" to let things cool off and return with the same mindset. Since they didn't acknowledge any fault neither here nor in the past it is unlikely they'll do so in the very near future.TMCk (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We can deal with it then. What seems to frustrate everyone involved is the editor's inability to accept criticism; basically WP:IDHT.  They pledged to review our policies and guidelines before they began editing again. --  At am a  頭  22:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel that Cody should be offered one final chance to re-evaluate his approach to editing at Wikipedia. If, on his return, he once again adopts a disruptive attitude, then it will be quite clear that a topic ban of some duration is required so as to minimise harm to the project. Given the most recent events at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher (especially the absurd, overblown saga about some fruit juice, of all things), that would appear to be the only viable solution, should the incivility re-ignite. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  22:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (2ECs)Didn't he acknowledge that he needs (a) to edit less passionately (to "cool down") and (b) learn more about Wikipedia policies? I think that is a step in the right direction, at least.  Seeing as many of the editors commenting on this have been guilty of less civil comments than Cody is currently accused of (myself included), I think the real issue here was his disruptive posting in response to what he considered a misuse of WP policy.  One would hope that after reviewing WP policies that he would see that he was in the wrong, as he might have implicitly done already, and he would understand why is positions were disruptive.  If he comes back and makes mistakes, action can be taken then.  Perhaps I am assuming too much good faith, but I don't see the harm in taking him at his word and hoping that his desire to learn more of Wikipedia's policies (and suggesting a two week self-imposed ban) is rooted in an acknowledgement that he needs to learn more to be more constructive.
 * Also, I don't see why a topic ban would be the automatic next course of action. I would rather wait and see how and to what extent he makes mistakes before prescribing punishments.LedRush (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as I see it, the "extent he makes mistakes" is already quite large, and Cody has been given quite enough chances already. This really is the limit. His user talk page is filled with one warning after the next (and I'm not just talking about the ones that I've posted, either). Cody has been warned about the possibility of an ANI discussion as far back as 9th April, when he stated that he would endeavour to familiarise himself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. What with today's various controversies at the talk page, it seems obvious that this never actually happened - whenever helpful links to policies are posted for him to look at, his response is often aggressive and derisive, yet here he admits that some close reading of relevant pages is needed. I don't think that a hypothetical topic ban would need to be indefinite, but it would have to be of some length. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  22:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Any indef can be reversed at any time if the user can show that they understand and acknowledge what they did wrong in the past and pledge to not repeat those mistakes.TMCk (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing they have shown so far despite plenty of advise and warnings and I can't see a reason it would suddenly change after/because of two weeks being absent. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me.TMCk (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless the red-link user is a sock, normally new users are given shorter blocks at first. If an editor picks up whether they left off after the block expires, the next one could be much longer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll admit the S-word occurred to me (the repeated references to how new they are prompted it at first) but I don't think that's what's happening here. I think it's a clash between a personality and the Wikipedia consensus culture, which is common enough. --  At am a  頭  23:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that for sure, or much of anything, for that matter. I'm still trying to get my head around what the term "post-bone" means. Is that how to characterize a piece of meat that's been fileted? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't really want to know. Trust me. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I sorta do. --  At am a  頭 00:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see the section header has now been de-boned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just for you Bugs, just for you...TMCk (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're too kind. :) Please note I added an "anchor" to avoid breaking links. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thinking about this in greater depth: since CodyJoeBibby is more or less an SPA (and with 200+ edits, all of which are related to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, this is really just an uncontroversial statement of fact), a topic ban would probably be tantamount to a block anyway - I'm not sure what else he would want to edit outside such a restriction. As such, I see how a short block could serve as a better remedy if the incivility resumes. On a side note, I've seen nothing to suggest that the user is a  sockpuppet or that there is meatpuppetry at work here. Cody is an independent editor; unfortunately, his strong opinions about the subject matter have spilled over into his editing of the article and the talk page, and have led to frequent caustic remarks that achieve little except to poison the talk page atmosphere. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  01:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Continued disruption
Another personal attack (which repeats the "tag team" allegation) here, made despite the user's promise to step back for a while. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  16:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call that a disruption, just an unnecessary accusation, hopefully made in good faith, which I am also willing to extend to him. Hopefully, he will take the suggestion to refrain from making further accusations for now. BelloWello (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unneeded accusations seem quite disruptive to me (here's another one), and when one assesses Cody's contributions over the last three weeks, I find it difficult to believe that there is good faith. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  16:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Further tendentiousness, going against the earlier pledge to become familiarised with policies and guidelines. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  16:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SMM, would you please just lay off his case? Frankly, to me, you're causing as much of a disruption as he is, which is to say, not much of one. Please just stop egging him on with your little comments. BelloWello (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect, I doubt that, but certainly I'll heed your request. Apologies, and regards, <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  17:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BelloWello (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I take offense at this SPA's accusation and the immediate breach of his promise to stay away from this area and I now request a topic ban.--John (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban
On the basis that this user has:
 * Not contributed anything constructive towards our project
 * Shown no understanding of our core principles, nor any sign of trying to acquire such understanding
 * Is only interested in one subject
 * Continues to insult and abuse other editors
 * Seems only to want to argue
 * Has a definite agenda they want to pursue, regardless of what others think
 * Promised to avoid this area but then immediately broken their promise

I propose that User:CodyJoeBibby be topic-banned indefinitely from this area, broadly construed. Any support? --John (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The user participates in talk page discussion and simply needs to be given time to understand policies rather than getting attacked each and every time he does something. We shouldn't be WP:BITEing newcomers. The user does not seem to only want to argue, and I would say almost every editor in that section has an opinion on it. (I couldn't care less, I've only been attracted by the numerous ANI threads...) I may support this if the topic ban extends for a week, and only includes the article, not the talk page. BelloWello (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How much time? How many times does he need to be told?  Seriously, he's been asked by multiple editors to tone it down.  From his posts this week, he frankly doesn't give a damn.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, I may support it if it was for a limited time and only from editing the article itself, not the talk page. BelloWello (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This proposed topic ban is idiotic. I'm already on a voluntary timeout from the MoMK article and talk page until 10th May. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although not against policy, calling someone's proposal idiotic wouldn't be advisable given your circumstances, Cody. BelloWello (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Am i in violation of my self imposed timeout from the MoMK article and talk page by posting on this noticeboard, as John is claiming? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your statement saying you would take a "sabbatical" does not specify whether you're taking a sabattical from wikipedia as a whole or just the article. It seems some editors (myself included) when they first read that took that to imply that you would take a break from all of wikipedia, however, you did not implicitly say that. Hence, now that you've clarified you only meant it to mean the article and talk page in question, no you are not. BelloWello (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That does nothing to excuse the fresh incivility, though, does it? From his first edit to his most recent, all I can see are attacks, insults, smears, and insinuations. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  18:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A user's first edit really seems irrelevant. I'm not sure why we're trying to WP:BITE a newbie here. BelloWello (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong support - WP:SPAs need to be pried away from this topic area if it has any hope of being managed. Tarc (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't provide a rationale about this specific user. BelloWello (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does. Users who come here to zealously advocate for a single topic are not valuable or constructive additions to the project.  When their behavior becomes too problematic in their single topic area of choice, then the best course is to simply remove them from it. Tarc (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Total contempt for policies and guidelines, such as that expressed in the "idiotic" comment above, would seem to constitute a decent enough rationale. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  18:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Far too many excuses are being made for a whole catalogue of uncivil edits. It is quite plain now that this user will not be persuaded to contribute in good faith unless some form of restriction is imposed. As far as I can tell, the user has offered not a single edit to any topic outside the Murder of Meredith Kercher, and his strong POV has blatantly compromised his ability to be productive. This has dragged on long enough. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  18:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you were politely requested earlier to stay off my case, SuperMarioMan, and you agreed to do so. It doesn't look good when you immediately violate that agreement in a further attempt to get me banned from Wikipedia. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully argue that one hardly needs any excuse to impose a topic ban, actually - the edits that you have made speak for themselves. It is this persistent refusal to listen to good advice that has made it practically impossible to engage in any form of meaningful discussion with you. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would argue that he has shown himself willing to listen to advice, even when he disagrees, if he is approached in an amicable manner, something most on that page have failed to do. An example can be seen here, this is also my experience so far. BelloWello (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Does one small positive really outweigh a whole load of serious negatives? My experience so far is unfortunately rather different to yours. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  19:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering all I've seen you do is constantly trade accusations with him, I'm not too surprised he would respond differently. Furthermore, making dishonest allegations as you did below isn't conducive to editing amicably with the editor. BelloWello (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that you were asked to step back by another editor from engaging in a hostile manner with me. You promised to do so, then immediately broke the promise. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall that you made a promise to re-read Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:NPA, before returning to contribute to this project. Is this badgering of my "strong support" vote supposed to make the opinions that I have expressed any less valid? <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  19:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is inaccurate, he did not promise to take a break from wikipedia. He promised to take a "sabbatical" but did not specify that it would be from wikipedia as a whole, he meant it to mean just that article and talk page. Saying he broke his promise is dishonest. BelloWello (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Splitting hairs. I note once more that no refutation has been offered with regard to the concerns about uncivil editing. There are only so many excuses that can be made - please give it a rest. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  19:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You made a dishonest attack on the editor. That isn't very civil. BelloWello (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - We just discussed this above. Are we going to bring this up again and again until we get the result that certain editors want? Let's give him time to review the policies during his 2-week topic ban (self imposed) and see then. I don't understand this huge rush for action now, especially as the discussion has already concluded.LedRush (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The user has broken his self-imposed "topic ban" within 24 hours, and in an uncivil manner at that. Note also the phrasing "I will return to Wikipedia as an editor on this topic" (see the end of the hatted section above). As I understand it, this should have meant refraining from discussions about the topic at all venues, including WP:ANI (formal topic bans are precisely that - a ban on discussing the topic at all venues). <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  19:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are still making a dishonest smear against an editor. He technically is not editing the topic, and has gone even further and not edited the talk page. He even refused to post a source I asked him to post on the talk page because of his previous statement. It seems someone is acting in good faith, I can't say the same about another person in this conversation... BelloWello (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He has openly debated proposed content intended for the article at this page, which violates the conditions of the "sabbatical" in spirit if not in letter (as in "technically editing the topic"). His first edit today repeated a recent personal attack. Furthermore, even the briefest overview of Cody's general editing pattern makes nonsense of the idea that he is editing in "good faith". Please keep this discussion on-topic, about the conduct of the user. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  19:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't be editing or posting on the article talk page for 2 weeks. I promised to review Wikipedia policies in the mean time. Can't you be happy with that? I feel like you're persecuting me. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. Other users here have invited User:CodyJoeBibby to continue discussion at ANI, including at another thread "" where it was noted this user was 1 of 2 who had been contacted about a different ANI thread, and now the same user who noted CodyJoeBibby was contacted, about ANI plans, wants to issue a topic-ban for replying in the same ANI thread where the user was mentioned. I say let User:CodyJoeBibby continue the 2-week self-imposed break at MoMK, but also allow editing of other articles, or discussions on this ANI page, to learn more about WP policies, guidelines, and admin actions. We should continue to WP:WELCOME our new users. -Wikid77 22:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment After one month and ~250 edits, CodyJoeBibby is no longer a "new user". By this time, most folks have figured out what it is we do here. --John (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This user contributes and attempts to bring facts to the article. The tones I have seen carried by all sides. This is to be about editing an article, need I say the word "playground" again? Mr. Wales has took noticed of all the hostility on this article. It is that type of article, and there are no innocent here, this constant pointing the finger attitude is absurd. Now grow up and edit if your here to edit, if not do not keep playing a game. I would hope that many of the ones I see posting here would get involved as well. If one needs a topic ban they all need it.  Thank you kindly. --Truth Mom (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: From the "opposes" listed so far, I see little refutation of John's opening points, but much understatement of CodyJoeBibby's actions. WP:BITE and WP:WELCOME would carry more weight had the user indicated more willingness to listen to recommendations. Claims about a "different ANI thread" are irrelevant to this particular discussion - is there anything to disprove the above concerns regarding WP:SPA, WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE and WP:GREATWRONGS? Responding to such points with attempts to redirect the subject of the discussion onto other users does not address the matter at hand. This is not the first occasion that the user has promised to research policies and guidelines before making further contributions, only to resume uncivil and unproductive editing on their return. As for the content dispute which led the incivility, and then to this WP:ANI discussion, despite universal rejection of the proposed content and countless explanations being made, his latest edits (up to his last) indicate that his views persistently remain unchanged and I see little hope that two weeks of self-imposed restriction will do much to change things. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  11:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you need to give this a rest now, SuperMarioMan. This is starting to look like a fight where the only person fighting is you. You already have my pledge. Please find something else to do. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On 9th April, you stated that you would "have to ensure I'm more familiar with the rules as I don't want any trouble". Since that pledge has not materialised, and given recent edits, I'm not inclined to trust that this one will. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  12:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should actually give me the chance to take my voluntary timeout and further research Wikipedia policies. You don't give me much time for anything apart from engaging with your endless stream of comments directed at me. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose A number of editors here and their "underlings' (for lack of a more accurate term)are entirely too thin skinned. It may simply be a clash of British and American cultures, but a few sarcastic or disrespectful comments do not make a threat or an attack.. This is a very contested subject both here and out in the world. Emotions run hot at times.. Banning, topic or general, is not the 'go to', preferred remedy.. though its been used that way in the past by admins that wanted to be rid of opposing voices.. I think unless there's a clear ad hom attack on a fellow editor (more than a snide, a snark or a condescending tone), a simple word of warning or at most a 24 hour block to let things cool down would be an appropriate and measured response. I strongly oppose blocking CodyJB as being far too severe a punishment. Tjholme (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "a few sarcastic or disrespectful comments do not make a threat or an attack". Quite an understatement, especially when "sarcastic or disrespectful comments" are made repeatedly. What is it about edits like these that makes them excusable? Feel free to answer and refute the concerns placed at the top of the section, but please don't cite past events as a defence of some sort, when none of the administrators referred to are participating here. As for a "clear ad hom attack on a fellow editor (more than a snide, a snark or a condescending tone)", is an edit like this the sort of thing you had in mind? <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  14:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So far, all of the opposes are from the opposing side of the topic area. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, I have removed and edited much information from the article by the newer editors who want to include more information about the controversy, I have publicly and privately come out against certain disruptive and uncivil actions by such editors, and I have consistently worked with all editors who are willing to engage in constructive and civil dialog; I don't see myself as coming from a "side" of this discussion other than making sure the article conforms to Wikipedia policies. Secondly, if we are going to choose "sides", wouldn't your comment be more accurate about all of the "supports"?  Instead of trying to figure out whose side everyone is on, why don't we just discuss Cody's edits and the best way to deal with them?LedRush (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to request that this topic be closed as I am already on a voluntary timeout from editing the MoMK page or posting on its talk page until 10th May. Attempting to block an editor who is already on a voluntary timeout is extremely combative. Questions need to be raised about such behaviour. I would prefer not to be posting on Wikipedia at all until 10th May, and as long as nobody comments about me i will not do so. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Recommendation that this thread be closed. No admin action is likely forthcoming this time around. There is too much focus, energy and I daresay, emotions surrounding the many numerous threads happening here and on various talk pages concerning the topics of the article Murder of Meredith Kercher. All of that energy could be used to improve the article or other tasks on Wikipedia. I would recommend that parties break it off for now and let's see if a time for peace can be achieved. Allow AGF for Cody even if you think he doesn't deserve it. If, after he returns on May 10, he persists in the same behavior then his rope will be shorter with the expectations that he will abide by our policies. If he violates them, we can readdress this then...in the meantime, let's do something constructive. (To Cody) I recommend that you cease editing immediately...continuing to post here & elsewhere on Wiki is actually perpetuating that which you want to cease. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 16:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a major contributor to this discussion, I'll second all of that, even though the concerns at the top of this section have received no actual rebuttal. For one last time, I am willing to extend good faith - from this point on, further disregard for editing norms will be indefensible. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  16:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Due to developments following this comment that I made, I no longer hold this opinion, and as such am striking it through. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  16:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The other side
I have not taken a look at the recent edits from the editor in question about this matter, but I am quite disturbed by the general tone here of many comments above. This article is a known problem, with Jimbo himself weighing in to say that editors in the past took over the article to promote a specific view against WP:NPOV policy and using blocks and so forth to do so. The above comments calling for a topic ban are coming from all the same editors who got the article into the sorry position it was in. Frankly, their complaints about another editor making uncivil comments do not mean much coming from editors who have consistently tried to portray anyone who disagrees with them as being WP:FRINGE (against what those rules actually say) and worthy of being wholly ignored, both in the article and on the discussion page. We need good faith discussion and action on this article, not simply people owning the article to advance their own agenda. Even some of the comments above (especially the one about the article supposedly being under the stewardship of experienced editors, etc. -- translation: WP:OWN and other violations) should be enough to show that there is a serious problem here. New editors are likely to be frustrated at the constant red tape being thrown up to prevent any meaningful changes to an article identified by Jimmy Wales as violating NPOV and BLP policies. If we are looking for enforcing a topic ban on an editor, there are plenty of other editors who probably deserve one as well. DreamGuy (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The other other side of that is that Jimbo royally screwed up a decent article by insisting that an activist blog be taken seriously. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for written agreement

 * @ Cody regarding their last post and others: I would (out of experience) recommend a clear pledge that could look like the following: "I hereby pledge not to make edits related to the Murder of Meredith Kercher, broadly construed, until May 10. I reserve the right to respond in case my name is mentioned at user talk pages, at WP:ANI or at another appropriate conflict-resolving venue. Furthermore, my pledge does not extend to other unrelated articles if I choose to edit them while attempting to become more familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines." I think that would help a lot and you would have my support to close this thread after such clarity (in your pledge) and AGF, it never has to be reopened.TMCk (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a well-worded proposal (I've tweaked a couple of words - e.g. "approbate" to "appropriate"). <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  13:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SMM - I've read the comments that you cite. I dont see an attack. I see frustration in Cody's comments. I would suggest that Cody simply be asked to tone down the snark and keep the discussion friendly (sort of).. and we all just let this issue go and get back to butting heads over the MoMK article rather than this distraction. Smartassery is not (or at least shouldnt be) a banning offense. Tjholme (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No need. I would strongly discourage Cody from taking such a pledge. There is no reason to throw a bone to those who seem determined to drag your screen-name through the mud. BelloWello (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't we just let Cody respond to my last post and decide for themselves? I don't think further discussion is needed until they do so (and I've left a note on their talkpage so they're are aware of this).TMCk (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dismissing the content of his edits as mere "frustration" or "snark" or "smartassery" is an understatement that completely misses the point. At the time of this edit, made on 23rd April, there had been no interaction between Cody and myself for almost two weeks, but still the user joined the talk page discussion with nothing to offer but a misdirected attack against me, citing a guideline that does not even apply to talk pages. When entering the later WP:ANI discussion on 27th April, in his first sentence he characterises a mass of other users as a "tag team" or "pack", ad hominem remarks that could not possibly be interpreted as anything other than attacks. There is also no "distraction" from me here - as you will see from the section header, this ANI discussion relates to a user's conduct, concerns about which have not received the slightest refutation at all from those who oppose a topic ban. Instead, there are unsubtle attempts to turn the whole debate into something about other users - that is the only "distraction" that is apparent here. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  00:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * While a response to the proposal from the user does not appear to be forthcoming, this new edit to the Perugia article (note the WP:OR title of the section - there is a clear POV and the addition has questionable relevance to an article about the town itself) demonstrates precisely why there should be some sort of written agreement to avoid all articles and edits related to the Murder of Meredith Kercher, broadly construed, until 10th May. As it stands, the user cannot or will not keep their strong POV out of their edits to articles. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  16:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do agree that this is problematic. He is coatracking material relating to his POV about the murder into other articles. No sign of a sabbatical or of the learning we were promised. I think this user is unable to stop and needs a topic ban as I proposed. --John (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The other way of looking at it is that you and some others are simply reverting notable information from articles that might in any way support a view you strongly oppose and have consistently editing in such a way as to advance your own personal opinions on instead of doing the responsible thing and editing so that the notable content is worded more appropriately. DreamGuy (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, may I request that you look through this edit (content disruptively re-inserted here and explain how starting a section titled "Institutional Corruption and Repression of Free Speech in Perugia" ("corruption" and "repression" described as "institutional" on the basis of one situation alone) does not add POV to the Perugia article by "advancing personal opinions" and does not violate WP:UNDUE? <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  17:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not saying the edit is perfect. What I am saying is that people who blind revert entire edits from people they are in conflict with, without any attempt to improve the text or compromise, also have the end effect of pushing a POV. Certainly the topic is notable and cited to reliable sources. The wording was atrocious, but removing all mention of it is not a valid response there, and neither is the censoring of notable information about the murder in the main article that comes from multiple reliable sources from numerous experts. The pro-guilt side wants all mention of any contrary views minimized so as to give WP:UNDUE weight to their viewpoints while ignoring the many contrary views brought up by countless experts on the topic and well covered by world-wide news media. The pro-innocence side also makes bad edits, of course. Some of us wanting to treat the topic as the news sources cover it and document all notable sides. While there are some viewpoints on this topic that are fringe -- like the idea that evidence was planted to implicate a black man out of racism -- but the idea that the other two are innocent is nowhere at all even close to fringe. Hell, from recent reports I think that view is in the majority. Yet some editors want it downplayed so severely that it's clear they are doing so from POV reasons. I doubt for most of them it is a conscious agenda of knowingly perverting or ignoring policies, but there are some hardcore POV pushers there who came in from outside websites with the expressed intention of slanting the article, and admit as much on those sites. We are not going to solve this problem by focusing solely on the edits of an eager, inexperienced newbie. Rather, the experienced editors who make POV edits but get away with it by working together not only have far less excuse but are also more damaging. DreamGuy (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved/need for resolution?
The discussion has now been open since 26 April and, for the benefit of all involved, is in desperate need of some sort of resolution (whatever that may be). That it has become so drawn-out is due at least in part, I feel, to the fact that much of the commentary is from users (including myself, I'll admit) who are heavily involved with the editing at the Murder of Meredith Kercher topic, from which this dispute originated. Input from uninvolved users or administrators is sorely needed so that some sort of final decision may be reached soon. I won't repeat my own views, since I have made those clear more than once. Objective, outside opinions are what will help bring this discussion to a close. Many thanks. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  18:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On longstanding highly contentious articles, like this one, often no direct admin involvement comes from ANI notices. Another complaint related to this article was brought here just a couple of weeks ago with no direct response from anyone, and this thread was already closed once. Perhaps when they see that Jimmy Wales' attempts to directly intervene to improve the article fails and entrenched editors there argue with him, they feel unable to do anything substantive themselves. This article has been nothing but a minefield for a long, long time. Posts here focusing on the conduct of a single editor when the problem is far more widespread than that are not helpful. Indeed, anyone jumping in without looking at the full situation will probably make things worse rather than better.  DreamGuy (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we just close this thread down now. Cody already gave himself a self imposed break from editing. What is there more to say? Issymo (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While i am staying away from the MoMk article,I am currently editing other articles including the entry on Italy to which I added a new section on human rights, fully sourced to reliable sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy

User John came along and reverted the whole section with no sensible explanation as to why. He did not even have the courtesy to leave a note on my talk page. If that's not uncivil editing, I don't know what is. He is basically following me around Wikipedia reverting everything I do. If I revert his reversion, then one of his friends comes along and reverts it again so they don't violate the 3RR rule. Could somebody please take a look at the human rights section I added to the italy article and tell me what's wrong with it, thanks. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with it?...the user. What happened to this? You would have faired better to have stayed off WP till May 10. If you continue to push your POV, I won't have a problem endorsing a topic ban on you. You aren't fooling anybody by coat racking and you are exhausting the patience of those who have been trying to help you. What you've posted above is nonsense as John had correctly posted on the article talk page and you didn't engage until later. You owe him an apology. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 23:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I only promised not to post on Wikipedia if nobody posted about me, if you actually read my statement. Since they continued to post about me, I continued to edit Wikipedia. John removed my contribution to the Italy article at 17:42 my time, 36 minutes before he mentioned that the section had been added on the article's talk page. John's comment asking whether the article should have a human rights section does not mention the fact that he has just reverted it. The only other person who commented at that time thought the section should stay in. So you'll see it's he that owes me an apology for his incivility. I think you owe me one too. I don't think stating <<What's wrong with it...the user.>> is particularly constructive or civil. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you're willing to be a loose cannon without understanding of policies all because "they continued to post about me"? In this case, the onus was on you to post on the talk page per BRD...not John. Where are you getting the idea that John has been uncivil? Please post diffs and the corresponding part of the policy that you think he violated. As for my comment above, that pertains to a user who refuses to listen, doesn't make good on promises, edits disruptively, and has a convenient hearing problem. It is clear that you are an SPA that is here to push a POV and you tried to skirt around your promise and then try to carry Kercher/Knox issues into other articles. You aren't really trying to write something about Human rights in Italy, you are just trying to push your one set of issues. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 15:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I thought my human rights section in the Italy Wiki was pretty good. It was certainly thoroughly sourced. I intend to rewrite it, removing any alleged WP:COATRACK issues and put it back in tomorrow. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Close this whole thread then re-open for new concerns: I agree that this thread should be closed, now, due to becoming a WP:BATTLEground to dispute 1 editor's edits to various articles, and any debates about WP:NPOV (article text) should be made in each article, such as Talk:Perugia about this sourced edit, not here. For the record, I agree there are notable issues in Perugia (Italy) about censorship and injustice, regarding Prosecutor Mignini (convicted for abuse of office), Douglas Preston, Amanda Knox, Mario Spezi, and Francesco Narducci found dead in 1985 in Lake Trasimeno (so search for: Perugia "prosecutorial misconduct"). Meanwhile, I think concerns about User:CodyJoeBibby are about the article's contents, rather than user conduct. Please close this thread and allow re-opening with a link to this thread, as being in "WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive691". People should go to User_talk:CodyJoeBibby to discuss those opinions about injustice in Italy. -Wikid77 15:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I wish that this really were a simple dispute about content and WP:NPOV. Unfortunately, the whole episode about juice which prompted me to begin this discussion in the first place really does highlight entrenched user conduct problems - problems that, given attempts to WP:COATRACK material into related articles, have indicated no sign of being remedied just with a "voluntary timeout". <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SuperMarioMan, please discuss at Talk:Censorship_in_Italy (article created 5 October 2008) about your opinions that there is no censorship or injustice in Italy. Meanwhile, any continuation of WP:Wikihounding of editors for content disputes, about article text, is bloating this ANI noticeboard, and I think, again, this whole thread should be closed. -Wikid77 16:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have I actually suggested that there is "no censorship or injustice in Italy"? When responding to comments, it is generally good practice to provide diffs so that claims may be substantiated. As for "bloating this ANI noticeboard", may I request some clarification as to your opposition to a topic ban? Vague comments about a "different ANI thread" would not seem to allay the WP:NPA and WP:POINT concerns that are readily apparent in the numerous diffs that I have cited, and instead would seem to stretch out this ANI discussion for longer than necessary. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF3F00">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  16:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Close the thread. It's becoming tedious to have to constantly come here and respond to comments. I'd rather be getting on with constructive collaborative editing, taking on board the points which have been made on this thread. Let's move on. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:71.234.119.12 at Talk:William Lane Craig
This user has been blocked four times for disruptive editing on Talk:William Lane Craig, including editing others' comments and vandalizing the page by soapboxing. I was involved with this user's disruption, including reporting him to AIV resulting in a recent block. After release of the most recent block, his only edits have been to edit my user page by issuing false warning templates, and then go back to editing users' comments on the Talk:William Lane Craig article. Multiple warnings, and the behavior continues. This appears to be a static ip which is used only for vandalism, (as all of his edits have been, spanning to August). Obviously an indef would be inappropriate in case the ip switches, but another 6-month block may be prudent. I considered posting to AIV, but since his activity is slow, ANI seemed more appropriate. Thanks. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * IP has been blocked for 6 months--5 albert square (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

White Hispanic and Latino Americans
Article White Hispanic and Latino Americans is having questionable POV content placed in it daily (sometimes multiple times a day). Same content each time, different IP address each time. Can someone refer this to the correct forum for investigation and action? Thanks in advance Hmains (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm being harassed by a prolific internet conspiracy theorist
Google "Samual Antoine Moser." Yep, that's the guy I'm being harassed by.











My first encounter with Sam Moser was under the IP address 99.56.174.63. After it was explained to him that fringe original research isn't accepted here, he started spamming my page with accusations of being "a member of the Chruch of Satan and part of a World Wide Masonic conspiracy for a holocaust of Christians" on the basis that the numbers in some sentence fragments add up to 777 in different codes and because I reverted his POV Fringe OR on the Church of Satan article. He revealed that his name is Samuel Antoine Moser, so I'm not outing him. He then went and began an off-site slander crusade against me, which I know nothing can be done about, but it does show that this guy is unbalanced (I don't care if anyone considers that a PA, it's pretty fucking obvious). He came back later under the address 99.148.192.105 and spammed my talk page with more nonsense like "IAN THOMPSON'S SATANISM = 777 in multiples of 3," a bit upset because I linked to a site that discusses Moser's history of stalking, paranoid delusions, and harassment in response to someone ask why I was so dismissive of his fringe views in Talk:Samuel. He was banned for this. Dr CareBear immediately came out of nowhere and insisted that I made personal attacks for pointing out Moser's questionable off-site behavior. Dr CareBear admits to being Sam, so I'm not outing him. But if that wasn't enough, he had no previous involvement in any of this, happens to know Sam's exact facebook page, happens have a Dayton phone number (the IP addresses for Sam Moser are in Dayton, Ohio), also happens to have a wife from the Phillipines (Sam does according to the FB page he himself linked to), shares Sam's belief that antipsychotic medication is deadly (again, he linked his own FB page), and resumed Sam's discussion at Talk:Jehovah.

Dr CareBear is just another account of Sam Moser's, which was used to continue harassing me after his IP got blocked. Even if this somehow isn't enough, he certainly is a meatpuppet. This person (who has been detained by both mental institutions and the police in the past for various reasons) has a history of stalking and harassing people, and I've become his next target. I concede that there's nothing I can do about his off-site slander of me, but his on-site harassment and sockpuppetry to continue that harassment should not be tolerated.

When his ban expired, he ducked back into another IP address, 99.56.161.215 to continue his personal attacks based on his delusions that alphumerics prove everything and that I reverted a POV OR fringe edit of his last year. He's taken to spamming his facebook page to promote his views.

I've talked with the webmaster at masonicinfo.com, who has been a target of Moser's harassment over the years. Basically, as long as Moser isn't on his meds, he is going to harass me. Well, he doesn't have to, because we can block people, can't we? This person is too broken to be of any use to the site, since he will continue to harass me and see this site as a means to promote his delusions.

I don't want anyone to point to WP:NPA when I say he is mentally unwell. How else would you describe him? Sane? Functional? No.

It all boils down to one editor that tries to duck behind sock puppets with an agenda; against another editor who does a lot to prevent vandalism and OR, and has contributed a fair amount to certain obscure religion articles. The former is really disturbing the latter. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * o.o
 * This person is mentally unfit to exist in this world certainly acting in a mentally unfit way. Can you involve the police, or at least Google, in the off-Wiki slander?  CycloneGU (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried reporting it, but Google never responded. Another part of my discussion with the masonicinfo.com webmaster, Moser doesn't really seem to respond to legal threats, since he's been incarcerated before.  One time the police walked in Moser hitting "redial" to continue harassing the masonicinfo.com webmaster.  When he's off his medication, he's just lucid enough to do something really crazy.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Dr_CareBear indefinitely, and the most recent IP for a week.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I hope he gets the message that that sort of behavior just isn't right.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Under the circumstances, I'd say no. From what I've heard of this guy, one of you would have to die first. Half  Shadow  21:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the apparent connection between Dr_CareBear and the IP accounts, see this unblock request made by Dr_CareBear. He complains that personal attacks were directed at him, yet the Dr_CareBear account had sat idle for over two months; the alluded-to comments were directed at an IP. I'd say that's an effective admission that Dr_CareBear was editing as the unregistered accounts. —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's not close this just yet
I really think we ought to community ban this guy so that all his posts can be deleted on sight. There's no good reason to let him wind up serious editors for thousands of bytes on talk pages like he's been doing at Talk:Jehovah. It's all a lot of wasted noise that does nothing for the encyclopedia and takes up people's time. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC) This is starting to look fairly clear. May we have a formal closure? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - it's clear he's been disrupting various venues on the net for a long time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - After talking with the webmaster of masonicinfo.com, I would not put it past Moser to continue his activities on this site under different IP addresses, nor would I put it past him taking his harassment further (say, into stalking) if it's not nipped in the bud. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Unlikely to ever be a constructive contributor to the 'pedia, seems to add only drama, permaban IMO.  He  iro 21:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - reviewing this editor's past contributions & attitude fills me with no hope for the future. GiantSnowman 21:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And people like this are why my user and talk pages are SPed. Half  Shadow  23:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support In addition to previous comments, there are no apparent useful contributions for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The temptation was big to support just on the evidence presented here, but I also clicked around randomly in that guy's contributions. I only saw strange vandalism and religious delusions. Hans Adler 11:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - A ban gives the community an easier way to deal with future disruption through uncontroversial blocks and reverts. --  At am a  頭 17:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This kind of nonsense has to be stopped on sight. --NellieBly (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. And if it's possible, get this guy in a rubber room. oknazevad (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Uploads of User:JP0424
When uploaded another image over something I initially uploaded, I thought to myself, whoops. I guess THAT was a bit of a typo, however, when I investigated further I found that this individual has uploaded scores of images with little regard to our Fair Use criteria. Many of these are duplicates of copyrighted images we already have uploaded. Given the user's apparent disregard for any warnings on his talk page, I'm thinking we need to suspend his uploading privileges until that nugget of information gets through. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 17:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, user is out of control, I already had to tag several for speedy deletion. C T J F 8 3  20:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User indef blocked by User:Prodego C T J F 8 3  21:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! — BQZip01 —  talk 22:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Francis E Williams threatening to out an IP address on my talk page.
Over at my talk page, User:Francis E Williams has recently issued a threat to an IP address (not me) that either xe leave Wikipedia, or Francis will out xem. Frankly, I'm confused by the whole thing; I'd been fairly sure that the IP was Francis's sock until the threat (and I'm still not convinced it's not the case, although I'm less sure). But whatever the case, a threat to out is a personal attack per WP:OUTING, and I'd already dropped uw-npa4 on dude the day before yesterday, so I think this requires some sort of admintervention. Thnx. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, he's also reiterated the threat on his own talk page. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what is going on here - perhaps you could provide some more background information? Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  21:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really either. I'd been quasi-trolling the dude for a while now, when someone with a rapidly-shifting IP address jumped in on my game with much less subtlety or discretion. I'd suspected that it was Francis's sock, since he's engaged in sockpuppetry in the past, to the end of making a point. But I began to doubt that when Francis made the threat to out, so I brought it here. Anyway, dude's been indef-blocked until such time as he retracts the threat, so issue resolved, I guess, unless anyone feels like a checkuser is needed too. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why have you been 'quasi-trolling' Francis? And what do you mean by 'quasi-trolling'? Trolling is generally considered disruptive, and isn't particularly welcome on Wikipedia, so I'd consider that sort of behavior to be a problem in and of itself. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  21:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Past discussion of note: Wikiquette_alerts/archive103, perhaps this is more active. Guoguo12 <font color="blue" size="1">--Talk--  21:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (5xEC-- guys, use the 'Preview' button) Uh-oh, scope creep. First, status update: Francis has been unblocked, and the threat, apparently, stands. I'm very confused: is it OK to threaten to out IPs? To answer your questions: "Quasi-trolling" is engaging in actions that aren't in direct violation of wikipolicy, but which he disapproves of. I'm doing it because I'm a hungry troll, and he's feeding me. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though WP:OUTING is serious business and Francis deserves a ban (for one reason or another), I can't help but find it amusing that he thinks performing geolocation on a public IP is some sort of threat... --<font color="#228B22">Avillia <font color="#228B22">(Avillia me!) 21:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Geolocation isn't the threat; "I have requested the above hold his hands up and leave Wikipedia for good, or I name him and his location" is. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If your goal is to harass another editor, that specifically isn't allowed. So I'm going to have to ask you to stop doing that, and cease interacting with Francis. It also isn't allowed to threaten to out anyone, however, this situation seems to be considerably more complicated than a simple outing threat, and we wouldn't want to take any action prematurely. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  21:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, you misunderstood. My goal isn't to harass another editor. It used to be to help him improve his editing, but he turned it into a flame war and it went downhill from there. Were this simple one-way harassment, I'd not question your request that I stop interacting with him. But it's not: he just impugned the size of my penis! How can I let that go unchallenged? If I don't respond, people will see it and think "It's on the internet, so it must be true!" Then I'll have to go through life as the IP editor with the small penis, and that's unacceptable. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He shouldn't be doing that either. But that doesn't mean you can simply because he is. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  21:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:DENY, as a non-admin, can I suggest closing this thread? Kansan (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If it were simple, sure, but I still don't really know what is going on here, so I'd rather keep this going. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  21:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's too many IPs floating around. Who's this, may I ask? Guoguo12 <font color="blue" size="1">--Talk--  21:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the one the threat was issued against. Xe rapidly hops IPs in the O2 dynamic regions. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep this thread going, I`m not giving up on this guy yet. He knows he has been hassling me, check my user talk page and read it properly and do the research, if user 24.177.120.138 )with mulitple accounts) can prove he`s squeaky clean as he pretends to be on this page, I`ll eat my keyboard !Francis E Williams (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I do not like being addressed as Gurl. try saying that to my face and see what happens.Francis E Williams (talk)

Oh, bu the way, I do not like being addressed as Gurl. Nor have I thjreatened to out anyone on this users talk page, he is a liar.Francis E Williams (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please restore my comment that you blanked, I'm assuming, accidentally. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, calling me a liar is a personal attack. And it's silly to claim you didn't do something when I've already linked the diff of you doing it. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also also, here's another threat to out made by Frances that I just noticed. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And another. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, folks, that's enough. Throwing insults at each other is not going to settle this. Can we come to some sort of compromise here? Does a truce sound good? Guoguo12 <font color="blue" size="1">--Talk--  23:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: has been blocked temporarily.  Guoguo12 <font color="blue" size="1">--Talk--  23:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please unblock user 24.177.120.238 so that he can answer further questions from myself and any other parties who have been involved with him in the past. I never said that I would disclose the identity of any user on HIS page, that is to say that no user information would be posted on his page. That presumably is the basis of his complaint here today. I just advised user 24.177.120.138 that I had contacted the anonymous user that commented on both his page and my own page today, and that his identity and location is now known to me. We shall see if he persists in his behaviour in future. Can user 24.177.120.238, (formerly 24.177.120.74 and ??? ????? I am not allowed to out him here) provide any plausible excuse why he is doing what he is doing to multiple users and for what reason?. His claim to have "assisted me" in my editing practices is indeed a very "unusual" way to describe his comments made to me at our first encounter.Francis E Williams (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no reason this can't be continued at the IP's talk page, Francis, if it needs to be at all. The quickest solution is for you to just move along and forget the IP ever existed. For the next 60 hours, at least, that'll work perfectly. If he comes back and keeps trying to bother you after it expires, ignore him and drop one of us admins a little note, it'll get taken care of quickly. <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 01:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a complete waste of time with this individual, as civility has already been attempted by me previously. He is conversant with the technology of the Internet and structure of this web site admistration system. Perhaps a permanent block would be the only solution for him as he has a terribly large denial of culpability issue. I doubt it will be possible be able to block him successfully, I guarantee that he will reappear on your system. I know how to wireless link to multiple access points in the U.K., so I assume does he for the purpose of account creation. As for the other multiple I.D. dialup user, I don`t think he will be back with the same purpose in mind. I on the other hand am now leaving my user pages for other users to stumble on and ponder over. I initially found the Wiki experience rewarding and engaging, hopefully leaving useful knowledge to current and future audiences. Howevber, common sense, research and fact soon went out the window on most privately "owned" articles. I would not recommend any sane person to linger here too long. As for "John doe" 24.177.120.238, his future rantings and imaginary complaints aimed at users like me will be met with very little credibility for a while. Francis E Williams (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

IPs involved
For clarity of thought. Guoguo12 <font color="blue" size="1">--Talk-- 22:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Started this thread, also threatened
 * Threatened by Francis E Williams
 * Sock of Francis E Williams (SPI)
 * ???, commented on Francis E Williams's talk page
 * ???, commented on Francis E Williams's talk page
 * My supposition is that all of the IPs involved from the 82.132.0.0/16 are the same user. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this investigation might help throw a little light on things for all concerned.Francis E Williams (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already established that the O2 D.H.C.P. server dynamic i.p. addresses starting 82.132.N.N. have been used by the same user, there is no need for supposition, just do the research or follow the links given. The person who is making these edits is known to have communicated with me in the past on more than one occasion. We are where we were some time ago with me as the villian of the "peace", but still NOBODY is listening and properly looking into what is really going on here. Do I have to stay up all night typing again to make my point? Francis E Williams (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Those IP's are editing pretty obnoxiously and edited should be asked to stop bothering Francis E Williams. Francis E Williams in turn should take the OUTING issue under advisement, and not out anyone on-wiki.  Francis, if you've got some socking evidence that you think needs attention but that would impinge on an editor's real-world privacy, email it to a checkuser instead of posting it publicly.  69.111.194.167 (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment from blocked IP
"I'd like to report User:Francis E Williams's recent veiled threat to out me back to AIN, as he's already been repeatedly warned and was indefblocked once already regarding threats to out, but I can't, because I'm blocked. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)" (Copied from IP talk page while IP blocked) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet edit warring
at this article various users have been adding unsourced information regarding ethnic slurs, i suspect the two users and the one ip are all the same person

see- Sockpuppet investigations/Isuzu1001 for my evidence of his sockpuppetry, now what I want to do here is to get a concensus that his unsourced claims should be removed from the article. See the sockpuppet investigation for my explanations.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

BelloWello
I am attempting to place the WikiProject Conservatism banner on the talk page of Southern Adventist University. I am a member and have determined that the article falls within our purview. The project includes all conservatism, as well as religious. Bello is repeatedly deleting the banner. I will not be drawn into an edit war, so I came here. I informed Bello of WP:PROJGUIDE: "if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner." There are in fact 2 discussions of banner placement on the project talk page. Will Beback wrote there, "Project tags can be applied to any articles that have even a tangential connection." Binksternet wrote, "my criterion for deciding whether this project had an interest was simply whether conservatism was discussed by editors on the talk page." He steadfastly refuses to allow me to place the banner. I would appreciate if an editor would inform Bello that if a member of a wikiproject places their banner it should not be removed. Lionel (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Resolved. That was fast. Lionel (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A new sock puppet?
This user's first few edits display a fair amount of knowledge of past Wikipedia affairs, and seems to fit the pattern of Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99/Archive pretty well. Zakhalesh (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't see this entry until now, so I already reopened the SPI. Againstchauvinism's opponent is an obvious sock of Iaaasi and has been blocked. Favonian (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So we've got a banned user vs an indef blocked one, assuming Againstchauvinism is a sock. Perhaps articles within their scopes should be semiprotected? Zakhalesh (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, rather like King Kong vs. Godzilla. Againstchauvinism has now joined his predecessors. Regarding the semiprotection, I'm afraid that would need to include a rather substantial number of Balkan-related articles.  Tempting but probably not feasible. Favonian (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * [Interested.] Monster fight? Who won? <font face="comic sans ms">  bishzilla    ROA R R! !     07:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Leaving the articles unprotected makes is easier to spot the socks. The pages are heavily watched. -- Diannaa (Talk) 19:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Karl1587 refuses to acknowledge or act on suggestions and warnings
has been warned countless times, and given advice on other occasions about a number of issues including incorrect text formatting, not using edit summaries, using inappropriate sizes on images etc. He has never once acknowledged or explained his behaviour and carries on unchanged. It has gone on long enough and it is about time an administrator was brought in to put right his bad behaviour. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 18:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at some of the problematic edits highlighted on the talk page, it seems like Karl1587 has a good faith but misguided set of opinions about infobox layout, images and a few other things, which he combines with a failure to use edit summaries. For example he seems to be of the opinion that if an infobox has "Manchester Cathedral" in huge text at the top, then an image of Manchester cathedral immediately underneath it, it doesn't then also need a caption explaining that the image is Manchester cathedral immediately underneath that. This is a not entirely unreasonable viewpoint, and as far as I can see, he's not edit-warring to keep these changes in articles.


 * It's not correct that Karl1487 has "never once acknowledged or explained his behaviour", for example this diff where he responds to another editor's concerns and rightly takes umbrage at obvious good faith edits being described as vandalism.


 * Is this really a serious problem requiring urgent administrator intervention? His talk page indicates he's had maybe half a dozen disagreements with other editors over a period of nearly a year. In most cases these were other editors wrongly describing his edits as vandalism (and going straight for a level 3 vandalism warning "because other people have complained too" even though that was months ago). There seems to be some over-reaction - a few examples of "incorrect text formatting" is a crisis?


 * There also seem to be some allegations of sockpuppetry being thrown around, and this too seems rather over the top - Karl1487 should remember to edit while signed in, but I don't see any evidence of him using multiple accounts in a way prohibited by policy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This editor has been asked several times not to use small text, which is deprecated, but continues to do as he feels regardless of advice from other editors. That is not good faith editing.--Charles (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Note - this editor was canvassed about this discussion by Simple Bob with a non-neutral message. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, what on earth is this? Karl1487 adds an image of a town to the infobox of an article about a town, which didn't have an image of the town beforehand. He sensibly keeps the map of the town's location as well. A clear improvement to the article. But because he's committed the terrible sin of using small text for the image caption (which actually looks absolutely fine in the article in this case, despite being deprecated) you revert his addition of the image rather than just fixing the text size?!? This seems very WP:POINTy and not really constructive at all. This seems to be a content dispute about several editors disagreeing with Karl1487 about how infoboxes should be laid out. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No apology for that. I have wasted too much time sorting out his mess to stay tinkering about with it.--Charles (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. How many other times have you reverted valid content added by Karl1487, with a misleading edit summary, just because of this stylistic disagreement? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Charles, I think you're out of order reverting perfectly good additions for the relatively minor sin of using small text - his version with the photo and small text was better than your version with neither, and it took me just a few seconds to revert your reversion and then fix the text -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you address the generally disruptive behaviour of the editor complained of, which has annoyed many other good faith editors, instead of having a go at me. It is little wonder WP is failing to retain productive editors if we have to put up with this sort of thing instead of being thanked for the numerous unpaid hours work we put in.--Charles (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Charles on this. Editors go against established consensus on style, repeatedly ignoring advice or warnings and it is us who get into trouble for trying to correct it?--Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 21:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Charles, sorry if I sounded rude - I do in fact thank you for your clearly significant contributions. But that one reversion was, in my view, unconstructive (though I'm quite sure it was out of frustration and done in good faith) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Another one - Karl1587 adds an image of the town (but using small text for the caption), thus improving the article which had lacked an image before; Charles reverts the addition and gives no edit summary at all. (The pot is calling the kettle black?) Charles reverts an aeriel view showing the town (with small text caption) to rather poor image only showing one street in the town - no edit summary at all.  Charles removes a newly added image and puts back a map, but the edit summary doesn't mention removing the image.  Charles reverts a replacement image (with small text) back to the previous image - no edit summary.  misleading edit summary - reverts the image choice as well as the text size.  and another misleading edit summary - reverts the image choice as well as the text size. More recently, Charles describes this edit as vandalism, and gives the IP address responsible an only warning for vandalism on its talk page.


 * I think people need to accept that they can't WP:OWN the entire topic area of anything to do with UK settlements. I see the recent issue with Charles votestacking at AfD, and some of Simple Bob's edits having to be suppressed for privacy issues in the same dispute, as another reflection of this. Karl1587 obviously needs to change his editing approach (it has improved in at least some respects over the time he's been editing), but all of this seems to be a huge over-reaction to what is basically a content dispute. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Get your facts straight before attacking me Demiurge1000. An editor has been blocked twice, indefinitely now, for this edit, made against talk page consensus. it now keeps coming back under various new IPs. The Bradford page was recently locked for two weeks because of it.--Charles (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Attacking"? Hmm, WP:BATTLEGROUND much? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing from 125.162.150.88 (Jack Merridew)


An IP address is accusing me of "bad faith" and "harassment". The IP address has now received 4 warnings. Since the IP appears to be attacking me, I would like another admin to intervene and block if the IP doesn't stop. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what those warnings for edit warring is for. You seem to be doing the same thing? Nymf hideliho! 11:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the same old story. Jack makes a table sortable on year, which most folks consider an improvement. Gimme removes endashes from date ranges because Safari 4 (!) doesn't sort them properly. Jack puts the endashes back per MOS:ENDASH on the grounds that hardly anybody uses Safari 4 anymore - it's now on Safari 5, a free update. Gimme then perversely decides that "since the changes that allow sortability to work are repeatedly removed, consensus appears to be that sortability is not desired" and removes the sorting functionality. Jack puts the sorting back, and the cycle begins again. Gimme knows how to make the table sortable for Safari 4 (because I showed him how), but would rather escalate a situation to an edit war than do the fix or update an outdated browser. This combative behaviour really needs to stop: it's perfectly possible to have tables with sorting functionality on date ranges that also comply with MOS. --RexxS (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's often not as simple as just a "free update" to Safari - for example, Safari 5 for Mac requires OSX 10.5.8 or later, so people who have not bought 10.5 cannot use it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They can use Safari 4.1. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that - but the suggestion above is that Safari 5 is needed, and I'm pointing out that that is not always an option. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * either undermines the idea the " to " is warranted. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That IP address is apparently Jack Merridew. I first encountered him here on a Article Rescue Squadron page, where he was making unhelpful comments like this, this, and this. For the most part, the rest of us just ignored him and went on with the discussion. However, when this happened, I filled out an SPI report, found here. I didn't know the situation with Jack or whatever is going on with Arbcom and just thought he was a blocked user evading his block. Apparently, it's more complicated than that. As you can see from the report discussion, Jack was extremely rude and uncivil toward myself and Doc9871. There have also been multiple other incidences that i've noticed of recent hostility and incivity toward others recently. The history of his talk page could show some of that too, since he routinely blanks any warnings or notifications put on the page. Silver  seren C 11:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jack should use his account per his sanctions that are still in place. His many accounts are blocked so shouldn't he have to go to arbcom and figure out how to edit again since he last retired/quit?  Some of us can tell it's Jack editing with this IP but there are editors who do not know who this is plus with Jack being rude to some it just complicates things even further.  If Jack wants to continue to edit than he needs to get an account unblocked or some other acceptable thing done.  Right now it looks like he is socking around a block.  Sorry Jack but that's what it looks like.  Please go back to the arbitrators and get this sorted out, please.  Just my opinion of the situation but this is only going to get worse before it gets better if he continues to use this IP and behave like has been shown.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees all WMF projects including Wikipedia, has declared open editing to be a founding principle. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of this issue, that founing principle does not prevent Wikimedia communities from sanctioning, and stopping from editing, users who are disruptive. This does not mean that you, Jack, are so disruptive, just that the "anyone can edit" mantra is not a defense against accusations of shenanigans, which Crohnie appears to be implying.  -- Jayron  32  12:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But "they" don't stop most disruptive users; they're everywhere, making this project suck, driving away those who actually have a clue. The mob hates that.
 * @Crohnie; why the fuck should I allow myself to be tied to the Jack account with shite like this out there. The Jack account has been impersonated out there many times. What do you and the WHL coterie do when you spot me? Tie me back to that shite. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that's toxic in the extreme. As Fetch said, the problem with wikipedia is the *participants*. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Jack I have never been disrepectful to you like you are being right now. The reason is because the arbitrators, as far as I'm aware, haven't released you from using one account, the Jack Merridew account.  Remember you withdrew your request to have those sanctions removed?  This is the last I remember about this and though there is discussion about allowing you to have socks to play with, the discussion doesn't seem finished or accepted.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you in this thread? (it's a rhetorical question). Because I proved your friend WHL wrong across the board on a lot of issues; it's what's up Doc9871's ass, too, as he said on user talk:diannaa, and which she lit into him for. Look harder, the diff you're needing was already offered to you on Doc's talk. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The only thing you've proven, at least to me is that you can behave poorly to other editors and do as you want and no one cares so neither do I. Yea Jack, you're right and all the rest of us idiots should go away and let you do what you want, so have a good time, I'm out of here. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  17:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Jack isn't sanctioned. My understanding is that his main account is blocked because, apparently, it was hacked.  He is not personally under sanctions, and is free to edit under a new account or IP address, and may regain his account if he can prove to stewards who he is.  However, this edit warring behavior is itself troubling, and should be addressed. -- Jayron  32  12:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I scuttled the accounts; they're blocked because I posted the password; sul:locked, too. The password was scrambled again after that. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate comments both from Jack Merridew on the overall situation and from Gimmetoo on RexxS's description above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No I'm not since Rexx's post make it clear there is a technical fix here. Rich Farmbrough, 12:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Gimme's been dogging my edits for a year, surreptitiously reverting at first, but always finding something to take exception to. It's harassment. He creates a hostile editing environment, as do far too many here. He went way over the line trying to ban me from cites last year, and has generally been a prat in all manner of discussions (with RexxS and Rossrs, too). He's unfit to be an editor much less an admin. RexxS is right, as far as he goes. Brad, you and others need to fix the toxic environment; many have left, leaving the field to idiots. Jack 12:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm cross-posting (a redacted version of) Rexx's summary of the technical issue to WP:WPT. Rich Farmbrough, 12:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Rex's fix is this, which snots-up the wiki-text for a tiny number of users (ma'af).
 * Some statistics are available here. Rich Farmbrough, 13:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Safari 4.0 usage is well below 1%. Anyway, the Gimme-shite issue is across the board; he's targeted most areas that I've tried to work improving structure. He's not the only one nipping at my heels; doc9871, I/Okip grawp ... the wiki-mob never forgets anything and is always vicious.
 * Brad, perhaps you could read through Talk:Yvonne Strahovski which is one of the issues Jack is referring to, with RexxS and me. Gimmetoo saw a problem in the sorting in the filmography table at Yvonne Strahovski, but failed to define the problem despite being asked several times, over the course of 2 days. See how long the discussion is.  Gimmetoo should have said "The dash causes a sorting problem for editors using Safari 4".    Eleven words.  Easy to understand.  We could then have fast-forwarded through to a solution.  Any editor, let alone an admin, should be acting in good enough faith to provide an eleven word sentence to answer a question, instead of creating an atmosphere where other editors had to guess what he was on about, and then be ridiculed for failing to guess.  From Gimmetoo's talk page, his question Has it occurred to you yet that "that particular incompatibility" may be something other than what you think it is?  (Answer: No)  Obviously RexxS had no idea what he meant, and I certainly didn't.  And on and on it went with Gimmetoo refusing to give a straight answer. To RexxS's credit, when he finally realized what "the problem" was, he came up with a "fix".  Satisfactory, rather than ideal.   If Jacks's frustrated and fed up, I don't blame him, and going back to RexxS's comment above, I think RexxS sums it up well. Rossrs (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See RexxS was condescending and insulting, and stated without reserve that everything I had said was "patently untrue". Do you and RexxS admit you were wrong in any way? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you link to another long chunk of dialogue that you could have nipped in the bud by actually saying what the problem was. Other editors made similar comments there.  Both RexxS and I failed to read your mind, but you escalated it and kept it going.  I don't know how RexxS would answer your question, but no, I did nothing wrong.  I didn't understand what your problem was because you failed to spell it out, but that's your failing, not mine. Rossrs (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hold on. This is *Merridew*?! And the IP is accusing me of "dogging" his edits? Absolutely unacceptabe. First, if that's true, then some of the responders here are WP:INVOLVED and have failed to note their involvement. Second, Merridew has a long history of abusive editing, including arbitration cases for targetting a user and for abusive editing from multiple accounts. If Merridew is still doing this, it's more than past time that Merridew was banned. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please post some diffs of this behaviour. Thanks. -- Diannaa (Talk) 16:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm uninvolved here wrt to past disagreements and who did what to whom and when, so I'm ignoring all of that. What I see here is a positive attempt to improve a table in an article, which caused a minor technical problem for an old version of a browser, and which was quickly fixed once the problem was properly explained and understood. Besides that, I see hints of people trying to restart old arguments and settle old scores, but none of that seems pertinent - now that the technical issue is sorted, is there anything of actual relevance that needs admin action here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First, the technical issue has not been fixed on all involved articles. Second, the issue here is the IP/Merridew's targetting of my edits, and the IP/Merridew's accusations of harassment and "bad faith". Merridew has a long history of targetting other editors. If the IP is, indeed, Merridew, then the IP is continuing to edit without disclosing clearly who he is and the associated arbcom sanctions. The IP should be blocked at this point. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, regarding the technical issue, now that a fix is known then surely it just needs to be applied to the relevant articles, doesn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Two fixes have been known for months. If the IP is indeed Merridew, then the IP is well aware of those fixes, and has knowingly not implemented either of them. The IP undid my fixes, and, indeed, appears to be systemaically undoing my edits. The IP has not opened discussion, and shows no interest in opening discussion on this issue. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not anybody else's individual responsibility to implement the fix - now that a fix is known that will enable to table to be sortable in the problematic browser too, why not just do it instead of all this bickering? If there is still a dispute about the best fix, go discuss it on an appropriate article page and decide by consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as far as I can make out, the *user* JackMerridew is not blocked or banned - the *account* was blocked, but only because it was compromised. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When an IP knowingly removes a fix for a problem, that IP's editing is not good. When this is part of a pattern of targetting users, and with refusal to discuss the issues, it is WP:DISRUPTive editing and the IP should be blocked. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For instance , . Gimmetoo (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so will the fix detailed above by RexxS make the standard "dash" version work in Safari 4, yes or no? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the IP doesn't want that fix ; also notice the abuse in that edit. There are many other disputed changes involved in the IPs recent edits. If this is, indeed, Merridew, remember that Merridew has a history of targeting users. One lead to arbitration; there is also and . Gimmetoo (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, those 'fixes' for a dead browser are unwarranted. We don't support telegraphs or Campbell Soup Cans, either. If such a fix is centralised, mebbe, but snotting-up thousands of articles to accomodate a tiny number&thinsp;(an ever-diminishing#) of users is just going to make a mess and impede editing by editors who know nothing of this faux-issue. You "dispute" anything I've tried to do, and don't discuss in good faith; that's harassment. You've ownership issues, too, mosty re hottie celebrity bios. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about some diffs of the discussions you opened on this topic that the IP refused to join? Or some diffs of him targetting users? These are serious accusations, and you are calling for a block, so please post these diffs too. -- Diannaa (Talk) 17:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP has accused me of harassment. Why have you not asked the IP for diffs to support that very serious accusation? In any event,, and the IPs response was . Gimmetoo (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was you making a pointy and sarky comment, and the other guy removing it. What you are being asked for is some evidence of *you* or someone else actually starting a discussion on the relevant issues and the other guy refusing to join in - not evidence of your demanding that he start it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the technical issue, please stop evasively poking sticks at the other guy and just answer the question. If you have a content dispute (which is what this is) then show us where the discussion took place and show us your attempts to resolve it. Where were the alternative fixes discussed? Where was it decided not to go with RexxS's fix? Where was the discussion held that resulted in a consensus to replace the standard "2001-2006" format with "2001 to 2006"? Where was the impact on Safari 4 users discussed? How badly does it affect them? Does it just make that column sort wrong or does it screw up the whole table? Where was it decided to go with a non-standard date format to fix a sorting problem that only affects less than 1% of our readers? That's what you should be doing - discussing this on its merits, not arguing back and forth just because you don't like each other -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP chose to re-revert rather than discuss, contrary to WP:BRD. The IP then continued to make disputed edits to multiple other articles, also without stopping to discuss. On the technical issue, see Talk:Ursula_Andress, specifically near the end where RexxS said: "I've also restored the "1987 to 1988" format for the date range, as I can't see that producing any problems for any browser." Nevertheless the IP did . Gimmetoo (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:BRD is only an essay, and you're still not presenting us with what was requested - evidence that *you* tried to discuss the issue and the other guy refused to join in, and so support the accusations you are making against him. (I had the comment below ready to add when I got an edit conflict, so I'm going ahead with posting it as it was - if you genuinely wish to solve this problem rather than just carry on fighting with someone you don't like, I hope you will respond positively). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I opened discussion on the IP's talk page. The IP did not engage, and has not engaged. Instead, the IP has accused me of harassment and continued to make the same disputed edits. Why have you not asked the IP for diffs supporting that very serious accusation? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking back into some of the history of this table sorting business, I came across User talk:Gimmetoo from back in September 2010, where Gimmetoo was plainly and simply asked to explain what he saw as the problem. But he responded just as obtusely and tendentiously as he is still doing today, steadfastly refusing to just clearly state what he meant. I apologize if I'm wrong (and I hope I am), but what I think I'm seeing is a long-running personal feud rather than any genuine attempt to make Wikipedia better. Gimmetoo, I think you need to put up or shut up - start a discussion explaining the technical problem (not other people, and not your feuds with them, but the technical issue itself), and offer constructive suggestions for a solution so we can discuss it and get a consensus - I'm a Mac user myself, and one of my old machines still has Safari 4, so I can help technically -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And in the light of the above, how about we stop the "It's all his fault" game based on selective quoting, and instead start a brand new attempt to solve the technical problem with table sorting and get a consensus on what to do? Then it will be sorted (pun intended, sorry), and we can all leave the playground and get back to making Wikipedia better. How does that sound? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Boing, this issue here is abusive editing. The technical discussion has been had before, at for instance Talk:Ursula Andress. The IP editor is not helping. Technical issues could be discussed again if the disruptive editing by the IP is stopped. But if this IP is indeed Merridew, then there is another facet; Merridew has picked on editors before (see prior arbcom case, prior ANI) and has picked on me in the past. That needs to stop. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again I would like to call for some recent diffs giving examples. All you have here is some diffs of six-month-old ANI reports and references to a ban that was lifted in 2008. -- Diannaa (Talk) 19:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gimmetoo, I have no previous interaction with this dispute, so I hope you don't mind me being open and honest here when I tell you that what I see is egotistical dickishness all round - I see each of you just trying to win a willy-waving contest, and little or no willingness from anyone to actually get together and solve the underlying problem. The arguments on this technical issue and the related fallout have been going on for at least 8 months as far as I can see, and I think the only way forward is tackle the issue itself is in one consensus-driven discussion that involves more than just the same three or four people - and not one that excludes any specific individual you don't like! I honestly don't think you will succeed in making this a one-sided accusation of abusive editing, because I see just as much dickishness from you as from anyone else - and again, that's just an honest observation. Basically, I'm offering to help solve the underlying problem, and if we can get a consensus about that then there should be no basis to any further arguments. But if all you're interested in is kicking shite out of each other and don't really care about Wikipedia itself, then I'm afraid I'll be walking away and leaving you to it. So come on, why don't you take a major constructive step and agree to join me in a civil discussion on the technical issue? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Boing, I have been attacked by the IP in edit summaries, and in comments on this very thread. Are you going to do anything about that? Are you going to block the IP if there are any further abusive edit summaries or attacks? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My offer of assistance with a discussion on the technical issue still stands, but I thought I'd made it clear I'm not going to take sides in the dick war -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can get that editor to discuss civilly, fine, but whatever I may or may not have done in the past does not mean that I have to be subject to never-ending abuse from that IP/Editor. If you wish to support and enable the environment such editors foster, that's your choice. If this IP is Merridew, then Merridew was under restriction to edit only from the Merridew account, though apparently the editor indicated a week ago intentions to disregard the arbitration motion . Gimmetoo (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at quite a bit of this going back some time now, and I have to say I've seen bone-headed stubbornness that would be the envy of a Triceratops. So no, it is absolutely not a case of my allowing the other guy to carry on being abusive - and if you stick with the "I'm 100% right and the other guy is 100% wrong" attitude, then we are unlikely to get anywhere. If, however, all sides are prepared to discuss the problem openly as members of the same Wikipedia team rather than slugging it out like street brawlers, we might actually get somewhere. It's getting late where I am, so I'm going to get some rest - and tomorrow I'll find a suitable place for a discussion of the table sorting issue where we can hopefully get a consensus on what to do (and I've already downloaded copies of Safari 4.0 and 4.1 for comparison purposes). And I suggest you get some rest away from this dispute too - it is, after all, not real life. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * tldr: There have been discussion attempts w/gimme since about last August; they never go anywhere. This didn't even start with the sorting or dashes; it was citation templates at first. Gimme has decided to take-on Merridew, since no one else has the "guts" to; said so last August or so.. Discussions with him never go anywhere because he's not acting in good faith; his intent is to pin my ears back and thwart whatever it is I'm trying to do. WP:HA-101. I LOL re his feigning to not have realized that I'm me; . He's seen this before. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes more accusations of WP:HA from the IP. Ironically, the IP notes a "toxic environment". Since User:Boing! said Zebedee seems reluctant to do anything about these sorts of comments, is there any admin who will do anything to encourage the IP to contribute without creating and expanding that toxic environment? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Silver Seren accuses Jack of incivility
I suppose in order to have people actually discuss on the ongoing incivility that Jack is exhibiting, I need to make this a subsection, since people just ignored my comment and keep going on about Gimmetoo's incident (not that your incident isn't important). So i'm just going to re-copy what I said above here so people can actually comment on it.

"That IP address is apparently Jack Merridew. I first encountered him here on a Article Rescue Squadron page, where he was making unhelpful comments like this, this, and this. For the most part, the rest of us just ignored him and went on with the discussion. However, when this happened, I filled out an SPI report, found here. I didn't know the situation with Jack or whatever is going on with Arbcom and just thought he was a blocked user evading his block. Apparently, it's more complicated than that. As you can see from the report discussion, Jack was extremely rude and uncivil toward myself and Doc9871. There have also been multiple other incidences that i've noticed of recent hostility and incivity toward others recently. The history of his talk page could show some of that too, since he routinely blanks any warnings or notifications put on the page."

Jack has been extremely uncivil to multiple people over the past few days. I strongly advise you to look at the discussion in that SPI report. Silver seren C 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Further evidence of incivility would be here. This led to an edit war with Qwyrxian who thought it was an unconstructive comment, though Bishonen ultimately kept it. Ultimately unimportant compared to the stuff above. Silver  seren C 20:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * [Embarrassed, Bishonen hastily updates her Safari 3.] I "ultimately" kept it, Silver Seren? What does that mean? I wrote to Qwyrxian to stop reverting the IP as soon as I saw the edit war on my page. By then, however, Nikkimaria had already asked Qwyrxian why he was so insistently reverting the post on my page, which didn't look anything like vandalism to her (or to me), and Qwyrxian had already realised that he'd made mistake and apologised nicely to the IP. And this you describe as "further evidence of incivility" (by the IP, not by Qwyrxian), and hint that the edit war was the IP's fault, not Qwyrxian's "who thought it was an unconstructive comment"? Yes, well, he thought so until he realised he'd made a mistake. Then he very properly apologised. You didn't think that worth mentioning, I guess. Silver Seren, your post about my talkpage is completely misleading, in a particular direction, which makes it uphill work to assume the slightest good faith of you. Clicking on your other diffs makes your "extremely uncivil to multiple people" look ridiculous, too. (And you feel impelled to let us have your text twice? What's that about?) I encourage everybody to click on those diffs and form their own opinion. Silver Seren, please go read WP:BATTLE. Slowly. Carefully. P.S. I have changed your header to a more neutral and truthful one. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Um...that comment wasn't meant to be an attack on your or to say anything about you either. It was meant to point out that Qwyrxian's trying to remove the comment was a little pointless (because I was sure someone else would have pointed that out if I hadn't said it myself). That, however, doesn't change Jack's incivility in the comment directed toward this ANI discussion. I apologize if I upset you, I never meant the comment to be negative toward you at all. I've gone ahead and removed it, so there isn't an issue. Again, I apologize. Can we instead focus on Jack? Silver  seren C 23:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Thank you, but it's a misdirected kindness to remove the words I quoted, as it makes some of my reply incomprehensible. This is something you should never do in a discussion. Please put them back. What you should do if you regret something you said is cross it out with the code. Please don't bother to cross out anything whatever on my account, though; I didn't think you said anything about me, so we're in agreement there. I merely thought the "ultimately" comment was somewhat contributory to the misleading way you described Jack's role on my page. And I see you now (as a counsel of desperation?) suggest he was being incivil towards ANI on my page. Wow. Good job you can't see what people say about ANI on IRC, you'd probably faint. Bishonen | talk 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
 * I added it back in, as you've asked, but struck through the entire comment, since it is unimportant compared to the diffs I have at the beginning and below. I'm not sure if you're purposefully trying to direct this away from Jack, but can we please focus on the comments that Jack has made and I have linked to above and below? Silver  seren C 00:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And let me just add that Jack making comments like "another “anyone” hauling out one of the usual wiki-weapons. all part of teh toxic-wiki" and "wp:boomerang 4 teh trolls ;)" is not helpful at all and is what I mean by incivil. Silver  seren C 23:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention "you're not trying hard enough; you should be asking me to assume good faith, pointing out some of teh diffs on your list-of-bad-acts, that I call you a troll and an asshole. that's the wiki's core problem; it's open to all and fails to remove the likes of you." Silver  seren C 23:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Silver, I'd have thought you'd learned your lesson about jumping in feet first by now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, seriously, I know that we have past disagreements, Elen, but trying to redirect this onto me without addressing the topic of the section is rather unhelpful. Silver  seren C 00:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * People who loudly accuse the community of some vice are almost invariably guilty of, but blind to, some variant of that vice themselves. → User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior –MuZemike 00:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Silver seren is simply an ARS partisan who's taking shots at an ARS critic. Mostly this is left over from my sorting the A Nobody issue. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC) (sorting problematic editors for seven years;)
 * Have I ever really interacted with you, Jack? If so, it's been a long time since then, since I really don't remember you at all. The only reason i'm making this report is because of your hostile actions and words toward myself and others, nothing more than that. Silver  seren C 03:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This shite count? I'll have to look into whatever Elen and Bish are on about; Mike seems to see it, too. hint: flee. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just in case there was any lack of clarity, I was wrong (and admitted as such) to revert the IP's comment on Bishonen's talk page. I mistakenly thought I was seeing a pattern of disruptive behavior by an IP editor(s) across multiple pages via Huggle (there was a multi-page attack allegedly from the GNAA going on at the same time); this was compounded by edit summaries that appeared to confirm bad intentions. However, after the issue was raised on my talk page and I looked more carefully, I agreed that I was mistaken to call the edit vandalism, and apologized on my and the IP's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. You really need to not be so aggressive with the Huggle-matic. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * * sighs* This is why I dislike starting sections on ANI, because it's just like lighting a lamp to all of the editors that dislike me. I notice that no one responding to this section has yet to actually address anything in regards to Jack or the diffs I presented. Silver  seren C 01:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you dislike it, and are unable to fathom what causes the WP:BOOMERANG effect, maybe you shouldn't do it. Funny how often we get this on ANI: Stop talking about me, we're talking about that guy ! See WP:BOOMERANG: "Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny." Compare your experiences in the Noleander RFAR case, which I suppose is what Elen is referring to above. Bishonen | talk 07:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Except all of you aren't specifying anything that I did wrong, you're just insinuating things about me. What exactly have I done wrong here? I'm not the one that has been making comments like Jack has above. Tell me straight off, what exactly have I done wrong here? Silver  seren C 09:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what you're doing wrong here; a) you're being a civility-prig. When I criticize editors, people take notice and teh subject usually fares poorly over time. b) people look unfavourably at editors doing the pile-on to an ani-cluster-fuck thing, which is what this little sideshow amounts to. ANI magnifies one of the wikis major problems; it offers a platform to anyone who wants to play the talk-like-an-admin game. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean, you're the one making comments like this. Silver  seren C 09:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack is a strange duck, he can be tough to handle, but he does good work. I have nothing remotely good to say about Silverseren, and plenty of bad things to say about him. However the greater point here is that this is an incredibly stupid situation. After what must be months of this battle playing out, the proper solution would have been to hold a binding RfC on the sortable tables issue, (another one on color use is in order as well), and then whomever's edits were going against said binding RfC would be warned then blocked. It should never have gotten this far.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  01:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The RfC on colour has been had; twice, actually. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you show us where the RfCs on the tables were held? (I'm planning to start a new one, so the old ones would be very useful). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 5
 * Wikipedia talk:Consensus/RfC
 * the first ranges over a bunch of issues and is about a quarter meg ;) The second had a pretty wishy-washy close. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gee, thanks. What are you talking about with sortable tables? Is that Gimmetoo's thing from up above? I'm not involved in that whatsoever and know pretty much nothing about it. I made this section to discuss the incivility Jack has been showing toward multiple editors. Silver  seren C 01:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the problems (caused by all sides - this is not one-sided) all stem from a disagreement about sortable tables -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not about tables, or sorting, or colour, or cite templates, specifically; it's about my having been critical of a lot of poor users and poor editing over years and they and their friends endlessly nip at my heels and oh-so-much want to see me dinged. The mob loves to have a user offered up on the pillory. Wiki is a blood sport, with live targets. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is Doc9871 involved in this dispute? Is that why Jack was bad-mouthing him in the SPI case? If not, then I don't see the relation at all between Gimmetoo's incident and mine. Silver  seren C 09:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't you mention him first here? You notify him? The moar, the moar toxic ;) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sortable tables RFC
I'm planning to start an RFC on the sortable tables issue, which seems to be a long-simmering cause of aggravation. It's a content dispute, so it's not something to be fixed here at ANI. But as the main protagonists seems to be present here, if anyone knows of any previous RFCs or other attempts to get a consensus, would they please provide some links. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mean to say, RexxS has provided what seems like a good basic summary of the technical issue, at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee (though if people want to add to that, please save it for the RFC itself) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is needed; WHL's the only one who was strongly against sorting and she folded. This is about editors harassing me and that the AC's left old sanctions gathering dust for years. Moar broadly, it's about the extreme toxicity of this project. It's not getting any better, either. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we have you saying it's all about other editors harassing you, and others saying it's about you harassing them. And we're certainly not going to get anywhere with the two sides just sticking their fingers in their ears and butting heads - frankly, whatever the origins of this dispute, you're coming across as bad as each other right now. If at least part of the root cause is disagreement on a technical issue, then resolving that technical issue has to be worthwhile, don't you think? Otherwise the headbutting over it, which has been going on for at least 8 months, will not stop. Anyway, thanks for providing the links above - I'll read them later and see where they lead -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On first glance, the two previous discussion you linked to above seem to be wide in scope. The specific disagreement here is about whether to accommodate Safari 4.0 in table sorting, and if so, how, as that seems to be what people have been edit-warring over. But it's all useful, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I referred to colour RfCs, and you asked after table RfC; the one at ACTOR is both, and huge. It got into sorting rather late-on, and gimme was not involved in any of it. He came in a bit later and is reverting my on mere newlines (horizontal format of table, which is necessary for adding proper scope attributes to the headers). And anything else I do to his articles.
 * A much more important issue to settle would be the citation templates and list-defined references one.
 * 125.162.150.88 (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds good too - if we can define the problem clearly (as a technical issue rather then a "He did, he said" spat) then that might also be productive -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Draft RFC
I've started a draft RFC at User:Boing! said Zebedee/Sandbox/RFC - please make any comments at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Sandbox/RFC. Please do not start any discussion in the RFC itself yet - I just want comments about any errors or omissions that should be rectified before it goes live. Actual discussion of the issue itself should wait until it's live. (And please note that any personal attacks or incivility at this stage will be removed) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR blocking for reverting back to consensus-agreed version?
On Day of the Moon a recent Doctor Who episode, part of the plot involves a resolution that is unclear to the viewer (any statement made about it is engaging in OR). Earlier today there was an IP along with a few editors including User:U-Mos that discussed the wording of this section to avoid consternation on the phrasing and avoid OR. (see Talk:Day of the Moon). The change was implemented per how consensus operates by U-Mos here. Note the invisicomments to highlight the issue to new editors.

Some time later editors changed this sentence to readd the language that was contested before, at least a couple times. U-Mos proceeds to revert back pointing to the talk page discussion. At this point User:SarekOfVulcan warns him of violating 3RR (which, if one didn't see the talk page discussion, certainly can be interpreted as that) and then after another U-Mos revert back to the talk page consensus version, Sarek blocks him, and the review of the block was denied because apparently reverting back to a consensus version after something has been contested is not a valid 3RR reason. . Note that there was no 3RR report filed, Sarak took this initiative, apparently related to an earlier similar problem with the 7th Harry Potter book or movie. Now, there may be other issues going on personality-wise and past history, but I'm not looking at the people involved, only what actually transpired.

Now, since then, a registered but infrequent editor - uninvolved with the talk page discussion - has added back the text that was in consternation in the first place, basically nullifying the whole take page discussion. I am afraid of reverting it for the same reason of being blocked despite the fact this text had consensus from the talk page. Is this really how 3RR is supposed to work? I could understand that if U-Mos simply reverted without any talk page discussion that the 3RR block is warranted, but when consensus has come to a conclusion and that conclusion is overridden by an unaware editor (acting in good faith), I cannot see how a reversion back to a consensus-agreed (particularly as recent as that was completed) version with appropriate change notice to the talk page can be seen as a strike towards 3RR. But as the reviewing admin noted, there is no "written" allowance for such revisions within WP:3RR, nor could I expect that to be codified because it will be gamed. But I don't believe U-Mos was gaming anything here. It feels like people are jumping at this mechanically and not considering the entire issue... --M ASEM (t) 02:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And again, to be clear, before the completion of the discussion on the proper phrasing U-Mos was approaching 3RR-like editing and appropriately warned about it. --M ASEM (t) 02:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR is part of WP:Edit warring for a reason. Reverting to a version that has a demonstrated consensus should not be completely exempt from being considered edit warring (it's not a stated exemption), but it should certainly be given a lot of leeway. That doesn't seem to have happened here. Rd232 talk 03:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that there could be editing warring, and am not seeking a full exemption for that type of use (again, chance of gaming is high). But as you note, a non-mechanical analysis of this situation would show that 3RR doesn't immediately apply. --M ASEM  (t) 03:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am tempted to unblock here, per WP:IAR. There is no User:3RR Blocking Bot; there is a reason administrators are supposed to use judgment when blocking. And I don't believe that Sarek's judgment was correct, at least with regards to the final strike. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 04:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support unblocking here, based on Masem's report (haven't checked all the details/context). Rd232 talk 04:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. U-Mos (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To clarify the comment about Harry Potter 7, I hit 7RR while attempting to keep an article about a newly-released movie accurate and neutral the day after its release. When I realized what I had done, I insisted on receiving the same block that anyone else would have received in the same situation. My initial warning to U-Mos indicated that I was sympathetic, but that he was (significantly) over the line. He agreed to step away from the article, but then returned to make his 13th revert (just on the Undos, ignoring any reverts as part of other editing), at which point I blocked him. While I have no problem with the unblock, I fail to see why this was a lapse in judgement on my part. If there was a strong consensus for this wording, that means there were other people who could have made the revert. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to remember what 3RR is meant for; it's meant to prevent singular editors from insisting on their version of the article compared to what consensus has said or without seeking additional consensus. In this case, consensus had been gained, and U-Mos was reverting to that version from a random IP/infrequent editor's change. Though for all practical purposes it looked like a 3RR over the course of 24hrs, it was special circumstances (the intervention of consensus discussion) that interviens here. I don't know the details of your case at HP to know if there was discussion towards a consensus, but as you simply describe it, I can certainly understand why you requested the block.
 * But again, I think the comments above highlight the heart of the matter - 3RR is not some mechanical rule. It is meant to discourage editors from edit warring to a preferred version, and thus the circumstances of the 3RR need to be investigated before it can be slapped down.   Some cases are very easy (same article, we have one user StacyGMU who did just that and warned off on revert #3) but U-Mos' case here is far from that and is the type of case that judgement is needed as suggested per WP:3RR itself.  --M ASEM  (t) 13:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an argument that unilaterally deviating from a consensus could be perceived as vandalism anyway, which is exempt from 3RR. It's up to the admin's judgment whether that is a valid defence in the case of this article. Betty Logan (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At the same time, a new IP editor or infrequent registered editor coming to make the change against consensus once is difficult to call vandalism (if anything, its more than likely a change in good faith). I'm not trying to fit U-Mos' actions into the mold of what is an acceptable 3RR exempted allowance, only that the situation is more complex than just counting the number of reverts and block if that's more than three. --M ASEM  (t) 13:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. Don't let's redefine "vandalism", please. Half the POV pushers I know falsely claim consensus for everything they do. There's no way we need to open up editing against their actions to charges of vandalism. – <font face="Cambria"> OhioStandard  (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that my 3RR block was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring, which I missed at the time. I don't see that a clear consensus was formed for or against maintaining consensus as a 3RR exemption, but I suggest continuing discussion there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:3RR is a mechanical, or at least bright-line, rule. There are very specific exemptions: the edit warring page explains "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert." U-Mos claimed "talk page consensus" -- this is not an exception to 3RR. And now that I count your reverts, Masem, I see you made 4 reverts on Day of the Moon yesterday, every one of which you marked as "reverted good faith edits". You were quite right to be afraid of being blocked as you stated above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Paedophile
If Wikipedia takes child protection seriously, and especially stomping out pedo-advocacy, then why oh why is the howlingly-inappropriately named not blocked?? Needs a prompt block, admins. I report it here because "Usernames for administrator attention" says "Accounts that haven't edited in 3 weeks or more should not be reported." I happen to think User:Paedophile should be blocked anyway. WP:CHILDPROTECT and all that. 203.118.185.117 (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest a soft block is in order, despite the length of time.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked as clearly inappropriate. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

Good block, but the account apparently never edited anything, so it seems a case of Chicken Little. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a case could be made for WP:U violation, but it would require a better lawyer than me. Doubly so since I'm not a lawyer. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The probability that a sleeper account with that name is ever going to be a positive contributor, is considerably less than the probability of my getting elected Pope. Good block. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Jack Kevorkian
Recent schoolboy IP vandalism (two rounds so far today), targeting classmates by name and identifying the school they attend. Targets are apparently private persons and minors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 1 month, revdeleted as appropriate. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Eyes requested
Could we get some admin eyes over at Talk:Gay? I'm afraid there's a need for some RevDel work... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was fast. Many thanks. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Chess dove
Please sort out this imposter. Chesdovi (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like that dove is now a dead pigeon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR blocking for reverting back to consensus-agreed version?
On Day of the Moon a recent Doctor Who episode, part of the plot involves a resolution that is unclear to the viewer (any statement made about it is engaging in OR). Earlier today there was an IP along with a few editors including User:U-Mos that discussed the wording of this section to avoid consternation on the phrasing and avoid OR. (see Talk:Day of the Moon). The change was implemented per how consensus operates by U-Mos here. Note the invisicomments to highlight the issue to new editors.

Some time later editors changed this sentence to readd the language that was contested before, at least a couple times. U-Mos proceeds to revert back pointing to the talk page discussion. At this point User:SarekOfVulcan warns him of violating 3RR (which, if one didn't see the talk page discussion, certainly can be interpreted as that) and then after another U-Mos revert back to the talk page consensus version, Sarek blocks him, and the review of the block was denied because apparently reverting back to a consensus version after something has been contested is not a valid 3RR reason. . Note that there was no 3RR report filed, Sarak took this initiative, apparently related to an earlier similar problem with the 7th Harry Potter book or movie. Now, there may be other issues going on personality-wise and past history, but I'm not looking at the people involved, only what actually transpired.

Now, since then, a registered but infrequent editor - uninvolved with the talk page discussion - has added back the text that was in consternation in the first place, basically nullifying the whole take page discussion. I am afraid of reverting it for the same reason of being blocked despite the fact this text had consensus from the talk page. Is this really how 3RR is supposed to work? I could understand that if U-Mos simply reverted without any talk page discussion that the 3RR block is warranted, but when consensus has come to a conclusion and that conclusion is overridden by an unaware editor (acting in good faith), I cannot see how a reversion back to a consensus-agreed (particularly as recent as that was completed) version with appropriate change notice to the talk page can be seen as a strike towards 3RR. But as the reviewing admin noted, there is no "written" allowance for such revisions within WP:3RR, nor could I expect that to be codified because it will be gamed. But I don't believe U-Mos was gaming anything here. It feels like people are jumping at this mechanically and not considering the entire issue... --M ASEM (t) 02:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And again, to be clear, before the completion of the discussion on the proper phrasing U-Mos was approaching 3RR-like editing and appropriately warned about it. --M ASEM (t) 02:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR is part of WP:Edit warring for a reason. Reverting to a version that has a demonstrated consensus should not be completely exempt from being considered edit warring (it's not a stated exemption), but it should certainly be given a lot of leeway. That doesn't seem to have happened here. Rd232 talk 03:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that there could be editing warring, and am not seeking a full exemption for that type of use (again, chance of gaming is high). But as you note, a non-mechanical analysis of this situation would show that 3RR doesn't immediately apply. --M ASEM  (t) 03:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am tempted to unblock here, per WP:IAR. There is no User:3RR Blocking Bot; there is a reason administrators are supposed to use judgment when blocking. And I don't believe that Sarek's judgment was correct, at least with regards to the final strike. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 04:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support unblocking here, based on Masem's report (haven't checked all the details/context). Rd232 talk 04:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. U-Mos (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To clarify the comment about Harry Potter 7, I hit 7RR while attempting to keep an article about a newly-released movie accurate and neutral the day after its release. When I realized what I had done, I insisted on receiving the same block that anyone else would have received in the same situation. My initial warning to U-Mos indicated that I was sympathetic, but that he was (significantly) over the line. He agreed to step away from the article, but then returned to make his 13th revert (just on the Undos, ignoring any reverts as part of other editing), at which point I blocked him. While I have no problem with the unblock, I fail to see why this was a lapse in judgement on my part. If there was a strong consensus for this wording, that means there were other people who could have made the revert. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to remember what 3RR is meant for; it's meant to prevent singular editors from insisting on their version of the article compared to what consensus has said or without seeking additional consensus. In this case, consensus had been gained, and U-Mos was reverting to that version from a random IP/infrequent editor's change. Though for all practical purposes it looked like a 3RR over the course of 24hrs, it was special circumstances (the intervention of consensus discussion) that interviens here. I don't know the details of your case at HP to know if there was discussion towards a consensus, but as you simply describe it, I can certainly understand why you requested the block.
 * But again, I think the comments above highlight the heart of the matter - 3RR is not some mechanical rule. It is meant to discourage editors from edit warring to a preferred version, and thus the circumstances of the 3RR need to be investigated before it can be slapped down.   Some cases are very easy (same article, we have one user StacyGMU who did just that and warned off on revert #3) but U-Mos' case here is far from that and is the type of case that judgement is needed as suggested per WP:3RR itself.  --M ASEM  (t) 13:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an argument that unilaterally deviating from a consensus could be perceived as vandalism anyway, which is exempt from 3RR. It's up to the admin's judgment whether that is a valid defence in the case of this article. Betty Logan (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At the same time, a new IP editor or infrequent registered editor coming to make the change against consensus once is difficult to call vandalism (if anything, its more than likely a change in good faith). I'm not trying to fit U-Mos' actions into the mold of what is an acceptable 3RR exempted allowance, only that the situation is more complex than just counting the number of reverts and block if that's more than three. --M ASEM  (t) 13:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. Don't let's redefine "vandalism", please. Half the POV pushers I know falsely claim consensus for everything they do. There's no way we need to open up editing against their actions to charges of vandalism. – <font face="Cambria"> OhioStandard  (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that my 3RR block was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring, which I missed at the time. I don't see that a clear consensus was formed for or against maintaining consensus as a 3RR exemption, but I suggest continuing discussion there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:3RR is a mechanical, or at least bright-line, rule. There are very specific exemptions: the edit warring page explains "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert." U-Mos claimed "talk page consensus" -- this is not an exception to 3RR. And now that I count your reverts, Masem, I see you made 4 reverts on Day of the Moon yesterday, every one of which you marked as "reverted good faith edits". You were quite right to be afraid of being blocked as you stated above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Paedophile
If Wikipedia takes child protection seriously, and especially stomping out pedo-advocacy, then why oh why is the howlingly-inappropriately named not blocked?? Needs a prompt block, admins. I report it here because "Usernames for administrator attention" says "Accounts that haven't edited in 3 weeks or more should not be reported." I happen to think User:Paedophile should be blocked anyway. WP:CHILDPROTECT and all that. 203.118.185.117 (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest a soft block is in order, despite the length of time.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked as clearly inappropriate. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

Good block, but the account apparently never edited anything, so it seems a case of Chicken Little. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a case could be made for WP:U violation, but it would require a better lawyer than me. Doubly so since I'm not a lawyer. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The probability that a sleeper account with that name is ever going to be a positive contributor, is considerably less than the probability of my getting elected Pope. Good block. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

IP range making nationalist edits
I'm not entirely sure where to go with this, but it's not entirely about nationalism because it's also going to move into edit warring and also throwing extraneous flags into paragraphs, so I bring it here. There's an IP range that is insisting on being verbose about the difference between the People's Republic of China (commonly "China" in English) and the Republic of China (Commonly "Taiwan"). Here are some examples of the range's edits:


 * - Insists on adding "Taiwan" after every mention of the ROC
 * - Adds flag icons to every mention of China, even changing the position's name, also adding "(PRC)" after every mention of the country.

Since it's a large range (with IPs including 208.157.149.67 and 208.168.230.177) and because he's now begun to revert my reversions of his edits, I wanted to bring it to the wider community, and ANI is always the first place I think of to do that. :) --Golbez (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit: The main reason I came here before leaving him a note was because of the fact that the IP changes so often, but I have left a note at the most reason one [tersely] expressing my concerns and linking here. --Golbez (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They're also insisting on, among other things, listing Martha Stewart as a Polish American businesswoman in the lede of her article, rather than, you know, American. And reverting to get this through. This is a clear violation of WP:BRD and is now approaching edit-warring, of which I have become a party. Please see my contributions to see the articles I've encountered this range on, as I will be approaching 3RR and would like backup. --Golbez (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've made some reverts too, and gave a 3-rr warning to the IP Golbez warned, but it has moved on to another IP now. Thanks Jimbo for one of the many "joys" of open editing. - BilCat (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Coming soon to G4 TV...Celebrity Whac-A-Mole(tm)! --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I have now reverted three times on, I'd appreciate some guidance before continuing. I could just go blocking, but since there's a large range involved... --Golbez (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you've been reverting the IP, best to get another admin to rangeblock if required. Exxolon (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted the flags from China Medical University (Taiwan) and an returning user/administrator User:La goutte de pluie who is in dispute with me about an AFD I have opened on an article he is interested in has begun reverting me there, stating  - non neutral edit. Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with the fact that I am in dispute with you. The guidelines on ROC/Taiwan go back a looonnng time, and I looked at how other articles about Taiwanese/ROC institutions and cities are formatted. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 20:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also I didn't mean to revert you twice. My internet is being really slow and obnoxious and I simply hit the send button twice. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 20:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As a returning user you should step back a bit and get a feel for how things work round here these days. Where is this link to the guideline that flagcruft in article body text is correct in this case where you are reverting? I see the user has self reverted and seems to have accepted the situation. Please don't follow me around from article to article when in dispute with me, its conflict escalation, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My issue was not with the flag icons, but rather with ROC/Taiwan naming issue. Just a note: it is usually common decency to use cruft in much lighter, more civil and more humourous fashions.Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 20:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Jack Kevorkian
Recent schoolboy IP vandalism (two rounds so far today), targeting classmates by name and identifying the school they attend. Targets are apparently private persons and minors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 1 month, revdeleted as appropriate. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Eyes requested
Could we get some admin eyes over at Talk:Gay? I'm afraid there's a need for some RevDel work... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was fast. Many thanks. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Davidglen77 at Maurcio Macri bio
I apologize if this is not within the remit of this noticeboard, but it seems the most appropriate place. This came up at WP:BLPN some time ago which is why I watchlisted it.

shows up once a week or so at Mauricio Macri to add negative content about him based on personal recollections. This is a slow motion edit war and WP:3RR has not been violated while I've been watching the page. He has been warned many times and apparently blocked once for 72 hours, and consistently re-adds the identical content every time. I put the AN/I discussion tag on his page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked, there's no place for vendettas here. If he pledges to use RS and avoid OR, he can be unblocked. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can someone who speaks Spanish fix their version? They've protected the "wrong version" with the unsourced material included: http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mauricio_Macri&action=history. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, I can't believe they where online for over a month. I'll watch it. <span style="font-family:'Harlow Solid Italic',cursive; font-size:16px;"> pmt7ar (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'm not autoconfirmed over there. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Chess dove
Please sort out this imposter. Chesdovi (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like that dove is now a dead pigeon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Objection to the use of a certain image in an article
Article: Earlier today, IP removed File:Metroliner OLT D-CSWF.jpg from the Manx2 Flight 7100 article, leaving a legal threat in the edit summary. I issued the IP with a uw-legal. I've now received a message on my talk page claiming to be from OLT Gmbh stating that the airline objects to the use of an image of one of their aircraft in an article about an aircrash that they have nothing to do with, basically the objection is that by having the image, they are shown in a negative light. A counter-argument is that there are plenty of images of the crashed aircraft available. Indeed there are plenty of images, but none of them on a compatible licence. I fear that any attempt to use an image of the actual crashed aircraft would result in the deletion of that image as not passing all the NFUR rules. There are other images in Commons:Category:Fairchild Metroliner that could be used, but the image that was being used (removed again by the IP) was chosen for its quality. What advice can we give the IP/airline as to the use of the image. They claim the use images of their aircraft on Wikipedia are unauthorised by them. This may well be the case, but the image is licenced by its author as PD. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did the author of the image indeed release it as PD? If so, OLT can't do squat about it because they aren't the ones who took the picture. And if *they* released it as PD, they can't put use restrictions on it because PD is more or less waiving copyright. —<font color="228B22">Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 21:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From the licencing of the image:-
 * ''I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide.
 * ''In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so:
 * I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
 * Looks pretty clear to me. So, restore the image and semi-protect the article? Mjroots (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think their objection is fair. We should not use an image of an aircraft with a different Airline's logo on it to illustrate an article about a crash unrelated to said airline. While not a copyright issue, I think the image should stay out of the article. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  21:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Adopting that would strip many aircrash articles of infobox images. Mjroots (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do most aircrash infobox images have such a prominently displayed logo of an unrelated airline? Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In lit I've read about airline crashes, any pictures of aircraft either illustrate the crash in progress or an aircraft of like model in the livery of the same airline. —<font color="228B22">Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it is nice to have a photo of the actual aircraft. Failing that, one from the airline (actual livery is better still). Unfortunately, there isn't always a photo available that meets these criteria. So we go for a photo of the model of aircraft involved, picking the best quality image that we can get. Mjroots (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you find this photo manipulation an acceptable substitute: File:Metroliner_identifcation_removed.jpg? Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Only one way to find out! Mjroots (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My highly unscientific review of the first 20 transclusions of the Infobox aircraft occurrence found one example of a photo from another airliner being used as an illustration, and imo the logo was not as visible. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  21:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Make a copy with the logo blurred or Photoshopped off for such use in the crash articles. postdlf (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good solution, let me try to come up with something in that regard. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got some experience at that sort of thing, so feel free to post a link or two on my talk page if there are any you get stuck on. postdlf (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Signature of India Politician
I have some doubt about Signature of popular living people. Are signature is public domain material or can any one upload signature of any popular living people like politician claming that his work??

see the list of Signature of India Politician by User:GaneshBhakt. - Jayanta Nath (Talk 09:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Claiming it's his "own" work is never going to be appropriate, unless he's the individual, but the question about whether the content is public domain is a bit of a legal grey area, I believe. See Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag and Signatures of living persons (proposed). I have no idea where India stands on the issue. The template he's attempting to use, Template:PD-signature, does not exist on Wikipedia, but does on Commons. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a grey area. I helped draft that proposal (I am not a lawyer!), we never got around to finally trying to get consensus for it to be adopted as a guideline. And yet, plainly those own templates are not true, for example Sting would be miffed at someone claiming to own his signature: File:Signature of Sting.svg. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * p.s. You didn't alert GaneshBhakt on this thread or even discuss the matter with them afaics. I've done so. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably not an ANI problem but would the signatures be original research without some reference to a reliable source, not sure how these signatures can be used without some evidence that they are in fact the correct signatures. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * True. The proposal mentioned reliable sources, but didn't specifically mention WP:V. I've updated it. Without a source to demonstrate that these are the correct signatures, they fail WP:V and should be removed from the articles. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * thank for comments, yes ANI is not discussing such about this king of problem. So please let me know,Wikipedia talk:Signatures of living persons may be right place for discussing. How are we treat this kind of signature without verification ?--- Jayanta Nath (Talk 06:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bizarre case of WP:OWN


This editor seems to have taken it upon himself to police the talkpage of the reference desk, closing all the threads for no clear reason and deleting other editors' comments

Unless I'm missing something, I think an admin should tell him to cut it out? <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► cabinet ─╢ 17:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also relevant are these diffs:  – <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ─╢ 17:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, he's also well over the WP:3RR (or '6RR' in this case!) – <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag► most serene ─╢ 17:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nimur has decided to take ownership of the ref desk talk page. He needs to be told that he cannot do that. He's currently engaged in an edit war with at least two of us, to hide comments and questions he doesn't feel like looking at.

This is an outgrowth of a heated discussion about how to handle a long-standing ref desk troll named Light Current. There has been lots of back-and-forth on it, but it was confined to that page. Now, with Nimur deciding to take ownership of that page, it has tipped the scales. It is not his place to tell others what to talk about on the talk page, especially as the topic is the ref desk.

I've already warned him I was going to bring him here if he made one more edit-warring move, and he did, so here we are. I predict he will gripe about my behavior and downplay the activities of the LC troll. So be it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nimur is a longstanding RefDesker, he evidently thought the multiple discussion threads were going nowhere and was trying to calm the storm in good faith. I've asked him to stop, as others obviously disagreed. That should be the end of it. Franamax (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It has always been my understanding, based on very limited but adequate observation, that the ref desks exist here purely as an venue for people to troll or be trolled. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of RefDesk traffic is people asking legitimate questions and getting (mostly) good answers. You may just be looking at the talk page, where the spillover shows up from the few bad questions that get removed. The people who like drama hang out there, and the serious answerers ignore it and get on with the questions and the research. Franamax (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite so, I gave up on the RefDesk talkpage years ago. I strongly recommend anyone else who loves the desks to do the same. DuncanHill (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that when an obvious trolling question gets deleted, there is a small group of users who demand that it be retained, and that's where the "drama" starts. Following the off-wiki advice of an admin, I've decided to do no more deletions, no matter how outrageous the question is, and to just let the troll(s) have their/its way, and to let the clique handle the troll(s) as they see fit (or not). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank god for that. Your continual sticking your nose in was getting right up peoples noses. You just avoided becoming wabbit stew. well done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.100.75 (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above is an unfortunately not-so-rare sighting of the bird under discussion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've found it best to Template:archive top or Template:hat the offending question. That way it's still there, but clearly marked as inappropriate in the template summary. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Slow-burning edit war
At: George I of Greece, George II of Greece, Constantine I of Greece, Constantine II of Greece, Alexander of Greece, Paul of Greece.

User:Fry1989 insists on adding monograms colored blue to the articles above. There are no sources showing the monogram in blue, and so consequently I remove them as original research. Compare with the monogram which is the most familiar in the modern world: that of Elizabeth II (shown right). The monogram does not have to be colored, but when it is colored the lettering is always in yellow. Like company logos, flags and coats of arms, the color of monograms is set. If altered, the file is no longer that person's royal monogram, but is instead an inaccurate pastiche.

I have tried to explain this to Fry over several weeks, articles and talk pages without success. I have repeatedly asked him to provide a source showing the monograms in blue. He has never provided one. I have asked for the files to be corrected, and I thought we had agreement here that he would remove the color but he has now refused.

I have attempted to engage him and explain my reasoning for removing the inaccurate files, and in return he has replied with comments like: you're so thickheaded I don't trust anything you say You were wrong You WERE WRONG You're too lazy Can you read? you clearly have problems You're being disruptive childish, you're a troll and piss off.

As a result, our interaction has now descended into a tit-for-tat Fry inserts file; I remove file. I cannot disengage because I feel attached to George I of Greece, as it is a featured article that I brought to promotion. If the file remains, the article will no longer meet the FA criteria as it will contain original research. DrKiernan (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The only issue regarding these monograms that DrKiernan actually contests, is the colour. Yet he has never given proof that the colour blue is not right. He claims that a Medal, which is made of gold, is proof the monograms should be either gold or colourless. But that is not proof. Monograms come in a variety of colours based on use, such as in stationary. There' is plenty of proof of this. such as  this pic  which shows that monograms are used in even rather unorthodox colours in stationary. In this case, the creator of these monogram files on Commons for the Royal Family of Greece, has chosen blue, the national colour of Greece, which makes sense. Meanwhile, DrKiernan continuously remoees them claiming the colours are wrong. He doesn't contest the fact they exist. His only claim to inaccuracy is a medal and necklace made of gold, which of course then is going to be coloured gold. Unless he can prove that another colour was used in the stationary use of these monograms, the user who created them has no obligation to change the colours. Also, DrKiernan, in his constant removal of these monograms from their rightful pages, also removes Royal Titles infoboxes, claiming they're unneccesary. This in itself is a contradiction because the infoboxes have been there for months, and contained an image of the Royal Coat of Arms of Greece, and DrKiernan had no issue with them, having made numerous edits to those pages and leaving the infoboxes there. However, when I replaced the Coats of Arms with the Monograms, he suddenly claims the infoboxes are unneccesary. DrKiernanis making a childish attempt to deprive these pages of the monograms for an idiological issue he has with their colour. He has not made an effort to prove the colours in use are wrong, he simply says they are. I don't take his word for it, I want proof. He even admits in talk that he would "let" the monograms stay on the pages I have added them to, IF they are changed from blue to either gold or black. But he has NOT provided any proof towards his claims. aAgain, without proof, we have no obligation to change the colour of the monograms just to please him. His behaviour is contradictory, and baseless. He needs to be instructed to stop removing these monograms, which he admits are correct and belong there, simply because of an issue of colour, without making an effort to back his claims. Fry1989 (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a definitive heraldic source that can be cited one way or the other? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The creator of these monograms has marked sources on each of their file pages. Most of them are traced from medals and awards, which again, being made of gold, are ofcourse going to be coloured gold. DrKiernan has resisted that both myself, and the files' original creator do not feel that is sufficient proof the change their colour from blue to gold. Therefore he just removes them from the pages. It's childish, and rude. Fry1989 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't answer the question...a question which speaks directly to WP:V. Is there a definitive heraldic source that can be referenced and cited one way or the other? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not been able, so far, to find direct sources of the monograms outside of the medals they are traced from. However, neither has DrKiernan, IF he has even tried. His behaviour regarding this issue is however, worthy of note. Fry1989 (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then if his version at least has a verifiable source (the medals) but yours does not, why do you just not leave the monograms as they are until you find a reliable source? --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fry, if your point is that there is no reason for them to be any particular colour ("Monograms come in a variety of colours ... an idiological issue he has with their colour") then could you please explain why you are so adamant that they should be blue? Why could you not just let the status quo stand if it really doesn't matter what colour they are? At a first glance – and I stand to be corrected by any source you can point us to – your behaviour seems to be rather POINTy. <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► estoppel ─╢ 21:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am adamant for two reasons. One is that monograms come in a variety of colours. Denmark's are commonly blue, the Netherlands are often orange, Norway's are mostly red. In this case, being that blue is the national colour of Greece, it makes perfect sense, which is why this is the colour the files original creator chose to render them in. The second reason is because DrKiernan is so vehemently certain they aren't blue, but has yet to prove it. Fry1989 (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "The creator of these monogram files on Commons for the Royal Family of Greece, has chosen blue". Therein lies the problem. You need to show that this colour is used in monograms by this royal family, Glasshouse's original colour choice was by his own admission according to his own whim. Go to the sources, not each others' opinions. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My $0.02:
 * A is not B just because "it makes sense."
 * While I personally don't think blue is objectionable for Greek royal cyphers, why can't it be just black? Colour printing was not as popular when most of these kinds were reigning.
 * -- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  22:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Therein lies the problem. Blue is not objectionable, nor has it been proven wrong. The only problem is ONE user, who claims without evidence, that blue was never used, something he can't prove. I have the ability, but do not like to completely change another user's files on the whim of someone who has behaved in the manner DrKiernan has. His contradictory edits remove their validity in my eyes. I feel this is in the personal discression of the creator, unless proven otherwise. DrKiernan has not shown how their being blue hurts the article, even though he has claimed such nonsense in the past, and again admits the monograms are real. Why should I change them without proof just so he, in his "personal grace", will allow them on a page where he already admits they belong?. Fry1989 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have archived the discussion above about which color should be used for royal monographs. This question will not be resolved on this page. To the extent this issue requires admin intervention, it is about the edit war and other editor conduct issues, not the color.  Sandstein  22:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've restored the comments, that was pretty presumptuous Sandstein. Some of the comments, including my own, are an attempt at dispute resolution. ANI is not just for handing out blocks, bans and page protection you know. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A look at the history of the articles above shows that and  are actively edit-warring with one another across these multiple articles, and that Fry1989 is also strongly incivil about it. I see no evidence of proper dispute resolution as provided for in WP:DR. I invite both editors to provide reasons why they should not both be blocked for edit-warring (and, in Fry1989's case, also for personal attacks and incivility).   Sandstein   22:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as Fry has just reverted for a 4th time in a 25-hour period, I think that's going to be a tall order. DrKiernan (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have only called DrKiernan a troll once, at great frustration. He goes without let about how the colours are wrong, but he doesn't prove it. He removes infoboxes that he has absolutely no issue with BEFORE I have anything to do with the pages, but suddenly as soon as the coat of arms in them is replaced with a monogram, he feels they're "unneccesary". I have contacted him several times in the past on his page regarding this mater, asking him to find proof of his claims, and that I will happily change the files if he does. He refuses to do so. I am in an edit war yes, but I am not the one removing files that even I admit belong there, because of my personal conviction that their colour of choice is wrong, and refuse to back it up. If you want to punish me because I wont change someone else's files without evidence, then that's your decision but I would greatly disagree with it. All I've ever asked in this matter is proof from DrKiernan. He won't even try to give me any. Fry1989 (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You say you called me a troll once, but on the 1st May, you called me a troll 12 times. DrKiernan (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I called you it once, and copy/pasted that summary in each revert edit on the 6 articles in question. Even if each edit counts seperately, then I only called you a troll 6 times, NOT 12. Fry1989 (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 123456789101112


 * My 0.02, behaviour-wise:
 * The colour of the royal cypher is by itself de minimis, especially Fry1989's preference of blue would not cause a misleading result. I see no reason why DrKiernan would consider this a high-priority issue, nor do I consider DrKiernan's first removal of these images as appropriate.
 * The resultant edit war, however, is the fault of both of you.
 * I think the current images can be put on the pages while you two discuss about WP:CITE issues.
 * You two should cool yourselves down.
 * -- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  22:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am calm. I have consistantly throughout this problem asked DrKiernan for proof, so that I can change the files colours to suit him. He won't do it. Instead, note now on his talk page he's calling me a pusher of inacccurate files. Wh y is this such a personal issue for him, and why won't he give any proof? I've asked politely so many times, and all he does is cite the medal. I don't think that's proof, and neither does the creator. I don't like this edit war, but what I don't like more is his contradictions. If anybody should be calming down, it's him, a person who constantly removes files his only issue with is colour, starts incident reports on users who disagree with him, and won't try and engage in correcting what he feels is an problem. I've tried, whether you like my reverts (yes I'mpart of the problem too) or not, atleast credit me for TRYING to correct the problem, something DrKiernan isn't interested in. Fry1989 (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One other note, for Samuel Curtis. Blue isn't my preference. My preference is respecting the file's creator's choice in colour for his files until proven otherwise. I agree the issue should be de minimis, however DrKiernan is obsessed with it. I'm guilty of edit warring. I'll admit it. But I'm not obsessed with something as trivial as the colour of a file(which I won't even try to prove was a different colour) that I constantly remove it from pages, and start discussions about other users over it. Fry1989 (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, and as Sandstein hints at, Fry1989 and DrKiernan are both guilty of edit-warring and therefore both should be blocked. Seems rather straight forward actually. DeCausa (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's the punishment, so be it. But atleast I'm willing to admit where I'm wrong. Someone else has chosen not to. Fry1989 (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We are not in the punishment business. We try to prevent disruption that bothers the work of others. I suspect that a block would not lastingly resolve the conduct problem, which is two editors unreasonably edit-warring over what seem to be mere personal color preferences. Fry1989 and DrKiernan, I propose the following solution to your problem. You both agree not to revert each other again on these articles or over issues of color. You also agree that whoever of you disagrees with the color of the monogram the articles are now left with may start a WP:RFC on the article talk page to settle the question, and that you will both abide by the outcome of that RFC as established by an uninvolved administrator. Fry1989 also needs to agree not to be uncivil to others again, and particularly not to use disparaging terms like "troll", "thick-headed", "piss off" etc. If both of you do not expressly and unreservedly agree to this, I see no option other than a block to prevent your continued disruption of the editing environment.  Sandstein   23:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no problem with those terms. All I have ever desired, is for DrKiernan to stop removing monograms that he has in the past admitted are correct, under false claims that if they're they wrong colour, it's "dishonest" and "hurtful", even calling it a a "pastiche". Fry1989 (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To make sure that you understand these conditions, I ask you to please repeat what you agree to here, without further commentary.  Sandstein   23:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, "dishonest" and "hurtful" are Fry's words, not mine. DrKiernan (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree to refain from using disparaging terms towards users of whom I am in conflict with, and to not engage in edit wars. Fry1989 (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but these are not the conditions I proposed above. Please repeat the exact conditions to which you agree so that I am sure that it is not necessary to block you at this time.  Sandstein   23:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree not to revert DrKiernan again on these articles or over issues of color. I also agree to engage in WP:RFCs on the article talk page to settle the question, and abiding by the outcome of that RFC as established by an uninvolved administrator, as well as to remain civil towards other users. Fry1989 (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

All Sandstein's points fine by me. See Talk:Constantine II of Greece. DrKiernan (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. To summarize, both have agreed not to revert each other any more, to abide by whatever outcome an RfC may bring, and Fry1989 has agreed to stop being incivil. As such, no administrator action seems to be needed at this point and I suggest that this thread be closed. Should any party fails to live up to this agreement, the issue can be brought to ANI again and should result in blocks.  Sandstein   10:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A comment
I remember seeing this discussion months ago, and I suggested that the editors look to the definition of the word monogram. Per Wikipedia:


 * A monogram is a motif made by overlapping or combining two or more letters or other graphemes to form one symbol.


 * A grapheme (from the Greek: γράφω, gráphō, "write") is a fundamental unit in a written language.

Since the composition of the monogram is solely an assembling of graphemes to create a symbol, and graphemes (aka letters) have no particular color, the ONLY non-Original-Research color they could be is black. But really I don't see how color would matter at all. Unless Wikipedia is mistaken on the definition of what a monogram is, I think this entire issue of color being Original Research has no basis. -- Avanu (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And DrKiernan is wrong about Big Liz's monogram. Where it appears in colour on a document eg here, the lettering is yellow (or uses gold ink) and the crown is 'proper', but it can also be gold paint on blue ground silver on a black ground with the monogram separate from the crown or even entirely painted red. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, no. As already discussed at Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom, I'm using "colored" to mean the crown and writing being different colors, i.e. the emblem being multicolored. We've already established that "not colored" means monochrome. DrKiernan (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that it can actually be in any colour. The coronation tin demonstrates that it doesn't have to be in gold, even on a polychrome artifact, as it's silver on that, not gold. Personally, in the absence of an official version (and I checked royal.gov.uk for one - there isn't one), I think it would be preferable to use a photograph of something with the monogram on it, or a b/w line drawing. 13:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Elen of the Roads (talk)
 * On your last point, yes, I've already agreed to that three months back. DrKiernan (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Joseph C. Hoagland
Can someone restore the edit history for Joseph Christoffel Hoagland. Someone made a manual move from Joseph Christoffel Hoagland to Joseph C. Hoagland by cutting and pasting which doesn't move the edit history and is a no-no for preserving the copyright. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and hist-merged them, since it doesn't take long. I'll leave Kraxler a note about not doing cut and paste moves again.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 10:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please check this edit?
Hi, this edit contains two changes, of which at least the upper one looks suspicious. Would someone please check if it's vandalism, and if so, remove it? If it's not vandalism, the link should probably be shortened/adapted to match an appropriate article. -- 78.43.60.13 (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone already fixed it. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism, a good faith attempt to disambiguate with two Christian music artists. A quick google search suggests they aren't notable enough to have their own article - although editors with access to christian press sources might be able establish it. Per WP:MOSDAB the redlinks should be removed unless it can be established they exist in some prose article somewhere - which lifebaka has already done. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Early closure of DRV about a User talk page
User:Spartaz has closed early a DRV about User talk:David Tombe. I object to the early closure, and would appreciate review by others. DuncanHill (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Duncan Put the stick away and go find something productive to do. Spartaz Humbug! 11:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no view on this issue, but Spartaz – that's simply not an acceptable answer to a reasonable concern raised by an editor. See Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► Speaker ─╢ 11:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I already explained the reason for the early close on my talk page but rather then continue the discussion Duncan chose to come her straight away. I think reasoned discussion requires two people to function so I think its reasonable to respond. DRV has no ability to review this deletion. We cannot and will not overturn it and the discussion is moot. End of. Thrashing this over is classic stick waving. Spartaz Humbug! 11:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Spartaz, at the top of your talk page is a message telling editors that you aren't interested in discussing deletion decisions - "I'm no longer interested in working in deletion areas - the toxicity of the inclusionist - deletionist divide has reached the point where even reasonable actions are subject to hurtful nasty and unfair comments by proponants who disagree with the outcome. Even experienced admins working in that area are part of the problem. I still believe in wikipedia but I'm not sure that I believe in DRV/AFD anymore. If you want to discuss a previous deletion discussion that I have closed - don't. I'm not interested. Go to DRV/REFUND/ask someone who cares - just not me." Now, I don't agree with you that DRV cannot review the original deletion - others may disagree but perhaps they would like to make their points at DRV. DuncanHill (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless you left me a message and I responded so that's a facile excuse for deciding to abandon the conversation. Spartaz Humbug! 11:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You as good as told me to go elsewhere, so I did. DuncanHill (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * and you chose a drama board rather then emailing the arbitration commitee as I suggested. :-/ Spartaz Humbug! 12:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As you know, because you read the DRV before closing it, I had already emailed ArbCom to tell them about the DRV. The arb who thanked me for it did not say that I should have restricted discussion to email. DuncanHill (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did they advise you to go to DRV instead? If you are going to insist on discussing it on wiki WT:RTV is a better venue then DRV since DRV will never be able to give you the relief you are seeking. But never mind carry on your crusade. Spartaz Humbug! 12:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Jimbo Wales told me to go to DRV. I emailed ArbCom out of courtesy to tell them that I had. DuncanHill (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Admins can still see the deleted content if necessary, right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Spartaz Humbug! 11:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I could see it yesterday but now it is gone. -- Diannaa (Talk) 11:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Try it now after I fixed the page link from Duncan's post (apologies for fiddling with your post Duncan) Spartaz Humbug! 11:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, thank you for fixing my typo. DuncanHill (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec multiple)If there are genuine privacy concerns, then oversight would have been used. Courtesy blanking is not a problem, deletion, which does not protect privacy but does deny editors access to previous relevant discussions is not acceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Was Tombe ever blocked? There's no indication of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the block log is now under the username FDT. Tombe was renamed to User:FDT, as was noted in the DRV there are now apparently two contribution lists for the one user. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. FDT also has a red-linked talk page. Was that blanked also? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not according to this empty deletion log. Favonian (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so what was the justification for rubbing out his old user talk page? Did it contain sensitive information? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not hanging around to revel in this total waste of time but I have to step out to real life for a few hours so cannot continue to help wave the stick. Spartaz Humbug! 12:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't hurry back. Maybe someone with some useful answers will happen along here. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can close this with - its been noted that user Duncan Hill objects to the early closure of the David Tombe talkpage DRV. Off2riorob (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The deleting admin told me to go to DRV. So I think the DRV should be allowed to run its course. DuncanHill (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He also told you to enjoy yourself .... Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Taking this to DRV is like asking your bumbling local sheriff to tackle international terrorism; sure, he handles crimes too, but it's a bit out of his reach. Talk pages should never be deleted though; anyone, including Tombe, was well aware of that "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL" line down next to the save button.  If there are passages that need over-sighting, then do so, but wholesale purging was typically bureaucratic, heavy-handed solution. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Another idea I had to reduce the sometimes more heat than light situations that sometimes occur here and pile ons etc is to have on each thread opened here a random article for improvement atatched to the thread and anyone wanting to comment in the thread here would first have to make an improvement edit to the random nominated article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At the very least, that would clear most of the admins out of here. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We could give administrators an allowance of one comment a thread to record any administrative actions. :) Off2riorob (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ecx2) It is difficult to assess the contents of the talk page as the diffs can no longer be reviewed in the usual way. There were some 1263 posts to this talk page. Surely (as with Rodhullandemu) even asking the question as to what is being hidden can become an invasion of privacy? Perhaps sometimes it is best to trust those people who are in a position of trust. Tarc's idea is good though: specific discussions or posts could be oversighted. That might have been a better solution. -- Diannaa (Talk) 13:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * People in a position of trust who don't allow review of their actions should not be trusted. I did suggest oversight some way above, as I have done in previous similar cases. DuncanHill (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoever thinks it needed to be removed from public view must have a legitimate reason for it. (Tombe merely wanting it deleted arbitrarily is NOT a legitimate reason.) I would just like to know, as a lowly peon, what the general explanation is. Was he outed? Did he out someone else? Did he post something that would breach national security? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Sometimes it is impossible to review their actions without revealing the material that has been deleted and thus defeating the whole purpose of removing the content. I agree that it makes it impossible to review their actions. The only thing we can do about it is to make sure (when we elect them) that we actually trust those people that we place in positions of trust. -- Diannaa (Talk) 13:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That theory only makes sense if they also don't want the admins to know what's going on there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Since Spartaz is not interested in further discussing this, and since he is basically incorrect in his reason for closing the DRV early, I have reopened it. Per WP:DRV, DRV is the policy described place to discuss such deletions: "Any deletion, including deletion by bureaucrats, can be challenged and overturned at deletion review." Fram (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)