Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive705

Abuse of TW anti-vandalism tool

Resolved

 – Twinkle user warned to be careful of what button they're hitting. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit beside being disruptive edit warring constitutes a personal attack as well as abuse of the Twinkle tool. At minimum the editor should be harshly warned against such behavior in future. I recommend to revoke this user's rights to use the Twinkle tool. (Igny (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

I hit the wrong button bu mistake, a shame IGNY has not mentioned I self reverted immediatly upon realizing me error. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nor did Igny mention his/her edit summary prior to that, "undo disruptive WP:POINT edit",diff which is hardly an example of collegiality and assuming good faith. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Re which is hardly an example of collegiality and assuming good faith. That is because I am not assuming good faith of The Last Angry Man. (Igny (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

I completely agree with Igny here, on both counts. First, that The Last Angry Man should be harshly warned against such behavior, so here it is. Try not to accidentally click the wrong button please, thank you. It was in bold text, so I hope that was harsh enough. Secondly, that Igny wasn't assuming good faith (as should have been done), that was also true. Are we done then? -- Atama頭 00:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering his self-revert (which I haven't noticed until after I placed this report), I agree that this warning is enough. I no longer recommend to revoke his TW rights unless he makes this "mistake" again. (Igny (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

Just to clarify summary of this diff. I generally do not like when an editor who has just got reverted] by me starts stalking my recent edits to other articles looking for what he can revert to make a point. (Igny (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

... and just to clarify, WP:BOOMERANG. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at Orc (Middle-earth)

IP 68.205.7.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has started something that evolved into a sort of edit war. The trigger was this disruptive revision where the word "scholars" was changed to "nerds". That was promptly reverted by 4twenty42o (talk · contribs) who also issued a vandalism warning. The IP went on with an argument that "There is not reason people who read fantasy writing should be called scholars" and changed the text back to "People". Silvercitychristmasisland (talk · contribs) undid that then. Only 2 minutes later the IP was back: "Then put that guy, don't try to say that this book is discussed by english professors and some book they would study, it is a great story, but it is horribly written, it is almost like reading a text book".

Because of the previous bad faith edit and admittedly also because of the arguments in the summaries I stepped then in, reverted that change and dealt out another vandalism warning. Edit warring itself may not be vandalism but the IP had a previous record of disrupting Tolkien-themed pages (article on The Hobbit films) and the IP's edit summaries were showing no good faith either so I decided to remove also the following changes by 68.205.7.47. Which brought me the accusation of being biased [1] because I like Tolkien's theme (WP:Vandalism: Edit summary vandalism - Making offensive edit summaries in an attempt to leave a mark that cannot be easily expunged). Because of this and because the IP went still on I reported them to AIV – although I did not explicitely report the "nerd" thing there. Meanwhile 1966batfan (talk · contribs) and Bluefist (talk · contribs) had also reverted some of the IP's continuous changes.

However, Courcelles (talk · contribs) has declined the vandalism charges (see also the following comments) and accused me of edit warring [2]. Half an hour later he also revoked my rollback rights. He did block the IP for edit warring after they went on changing the article but he wrote on their talk page that "the accusations of vandalism above were completely wrong". So, while I made four reverts using the rollback tool I am still not under the impression that this qualifies as edit warring and/or content dispute and that vandalism did take place here: removing the aftermath of what began as a bad-faith edit ("nerd") made me think that I was right to do so and there are other editors who used rollback to revert the IP in the course of this incident. Most of the IP's edits may just look like simple POV pushing which is not vandalism but overall I am convinced that all those were essentially made in bad faith, trying to use "arguments", when the first bit of vandalism was removed by 4twenty42o. I'd like to have a second opinion in this matter after explaining it to Courcelles on his talk page. De728631 (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with De on this one, Courcelles clearly hasn't looked at the history of the article edits: looks like an over zealous and anal interpretation of WP:3RR. The IP was clearly editing in bad faith, and ignoring requests to discuss the matter on the articles talk page. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Courcelles has looked into the edit history, only he doesn't think that the rest of the IP's edit were bad: "this wasn't a particularly hard case, one bad edit, three good ones". De728631 (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oo, those awful orcs. Courcelles was absolutely right here; while the initial edit was inappropriate, the succeeding ones were legitimate. Frankly, the IP seems to have been right on the substantive issue; the cited source devotes most of its space to discussing claims by newspaper critics and popular culture writers (including right-wing extremists eager to find racism to embrace); very little traditional scholarship is mentioned in the text[3], and the footnotes mix scholarly and nonscholarly writings. The disputed sentence is a poor representation of the cited source, which appears to have been uncritically chosen to address the general topic in a sort of hand-waving way; a piece mostly discussing brief newspaper pieces is hardly a good source to demonstrate the existence of lengthy scholarly debates. The fact that the IP doesn't hold the prevailing view on the merit of a literary work is hardly evidence of bad faith; and being inarticulate and superficial in edit summaries is hardly proof of vandalism. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

For me this has nothing to do with anyone's views on Tolkien's literary work or being against prevailing opinion. Nor has it something to do with the quality of the cited work. I was and I still am under the impression that the IP began this with a clearly disruptive edit and then changed to sneaky vandalism trying to use arguments and to gaming the system (akin to hiding vandalism and to "recreating previously deleted bad faith creations under a new title" per WP:VAND). If it had been the IP's intention to contribute constructively to the article then why did they start off with "nerds" in the first place? I have a hard time assuming good faith in the follow up edits by 68.205.7.47 to that one. De728631 (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So objectively valid, non-vandalous edits should be reversed because the editor might have had a bad motive? Are you really making that argument? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the argument is that the IP editor tried to denigrate the subject matter as non-scholarly. The first attempt was crude, the next ones less so but still making the same intellectually dishonest arguments that scholarly treatments of Tolkien's work do not exist. This IP wasn't simply "inarticulate and superficial in edit summaries", esp the one that was directly insulting to another editor. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Tarc has summed it up. De728631 (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Bah...let it be. - 4twenty42o (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Has De's rollback right been restored? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. De728631 (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've re-inserted this thread over here since it was already archived. De728631 (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I restored your rollback privileges. I don't think Courcelles was totally in the wrong by taking them away, per Hullabaloo Wolfowitz above, and that privilege is one of those "easy come, easy go" things that does often get taken away from a single mistake. But from what I saw at the article's history, you were just one of many people reverting the IP, and I believe you felt the edits from the IP were in bad faith, so I think taking the privilege away was a bit heavy-handed. -- Atama頭 18:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Atama, and everybody else for commenting on this. From my point of view this thread is resolved. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

edit war at the vandalism board!

has the world gone mad? Noformation and Archiveman2011 are edit warring at the AIV board!! archives keeps trying to remove noformations reports and is trying to apologise for something--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll handle this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

ok thanks, lol your name is upside down! XD--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I have been waiting for an admin to deal with this for a while now but it's managed to slip through the cracks. I'm really surprised ClueBot doesn't catch a user removing an AIV against himself as vandalism N^oformation ^Talk 09:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Question: Shouldn't Edit warring be at the WP:AN3 noticeboard? (Just wondering, since I see why it would apply here too, just seems a bit out of place) + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 09:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

probably should have filed there, but there are bigger problems, archiveman is trying to apologise to Noformation for something and if you look throug his contributions he has got upset over something--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it's technically edit warring, but that's not really what's happening here; it's pretty clear to me from his edits that Archiveman2011 is not being malicious and is just a little clueless. A quick warning to not aimlessly revert everything should sort out the situation. If he keeps reverting then I'll block him. The report's not really in the wrong place. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

upside down user name is making me nauseous, are you Jake Tucker from family guy or just Australian? XD just kidding your signature is cool--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't like Family Guy, and I'm definitely the right way around (since I'm English and live in rainy Manchester). --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, why was this user warned again and not banned? He's been harassing me with apologies (sounds odd, I know, but it's annoying), removed multiple CSD templates from a page that he wanted to keep as "an archive" because the original was getting deleted, is possibly a second account of User:Liam20112011, made personal attacks against my intelligence, said "fuck administrators" on his userpage and vandalized a WP admin board. I've seen people get banned for much less. On top of that, his communication skills are so poor that it's unlikely he would be able to contribute to an English language encyclopedia. Please reconsider? N^oformation ^Talk 09:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd block him for the 'F*@£ administrators bit alone' if I could--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Noformation, per your comment I have all four of this person's accounts (Archiveman2011, Joshuaending, Liam20112011, and Elmo2001) since it is clear that he has been logging out to vandalise and then back in to edit. This, combined with the behaviour on the Archiveman2011 account, has demonstrated that this person is not clueless but is in fact malicious. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do that. Is there somewhere where I can bring up users being able to remove their own AIVs? Cluebot talkpage? N^oformation ^Talk 09:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be a good place to start. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have created Abusefilter 419 to deal with this issue. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection of a user's talk page

User:J3Mrs is being harassed by an IP over a dispute about the historical boundaries of Lancashire. The IP is absolutely in the wrong and has hinted at threats of physical violence. I'm asking for J3mrs's talk page to be semi-protected. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, Malleus. I've put semi-protection on his talk page for a week, nobody should ever have to put up with this. If this needs to be extended, you or J3Mrs can drop a note on my talk page. -- Atama頭 23:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll keep a weather eye on that IP...it's a /20 range, which is going to be a bit of a headache, but not impossible, and it'll be good practice for a couple of upcoming interviews. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Atama, and to you Alan. What makes this worse is that J3Mrs is a woman, and we need as many of them as we can get, not scare them away. Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I should have known from the username that he was a she, my apologies for the unintentional gender assumption in my earlier note. It's probably due to the fact that yes, we have far too great a male to female ratio on Wikipedia (I'm usually more careful than that). -- Atama頭 00:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of equity, I'd like to be referred to as "Mrs. Drmies". Thank you. In other news, this IP just came off a six-months block, and immediately picks up where they left off on Metropolitan Borough of Bolton. Moreover, J3Mrs told them to stop posting on their talk page, and the IP did so twice more. Given the content of their edits, I have no faith whatsoever in their intent to contribute positively, and they seemed to have learned nothing since being blocked for being "unable to edit collaboratively", as Floquenbeam put it. To cut a long story short, I am going to reapply Floquenbeam's block. If any of you admins think that's going too far and you want to give them more slack, that's fine, but I see no reason to give them more hope to hang themselves. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just want to thank you all, especially MF. By the way I don't edit as a woman when I come to wikipedia and don't expect any special treatment but I do appreciate protection from this pov pusher.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Mrs. Drmies, I concur with your reasoning and support your block. -- Atama頭 19:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

user 94.69.228.49

IP user 94.69.228.49 (talk · contribs) has been adding the category:History of Greece to pretty much any remotely Greece-related articles today. I pointed out that this was counter-productive and contrary to the relevant guidelines (which I pointed him to), and the only response was blanking the talk page and calling me names ([4] & [5]). The additions of the category by themselves are mostly harmless, but then he moved on to edits such as adding that Constantinople was renamed to Istanbul "only in Turkey" or removing the History of Albania category from Cleitus the Illyrian, Malësia, and other Albania-related articles and adding the History of Greece category to places like Category:Thraco-Illyrian. Incivility coupled with extreme nationalist POV and apparent trolling around with categories. Constantine ✍ 13:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop following them around for a bit, let me see if I can get anywhere. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Be my guest. Constantine ✍ 14:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't necessarily disagree with their edits. They just removed the History of Albania cat from the author credited with the first Albanian sonnet. Shakespeare doesn't have a History of England category. This needs to be discussed, not just reverted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Especially since Category:History of Albania states "This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, articles and should mainly contain subcategories."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, on some cases he/she may have some point. However, when I see someone adding "History of Greece" willy-nilly and the going around and removing "History of Albania" etc, I become suspicious whether they are motivated by accuracy or by other reasons. Especially if, instead of discussing, they throw a few swear words at you and blank their talk page. Constantine ✍ 14:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I tossed a {{uw-balkans}} in his direction for good measure.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well done, but if this IP is who I think it is (have a look at the history of Zeibekiko) then that won't mean anything. Constantine ✍ 14:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And anyhow, the solution is not to remove the category but to change it into a more relevant sub-category. Constantine ✍ 14:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, what would you say the relevant subcat is for Kanun is, considering it already has Category:Albanian culture and Category:Albanian law? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I would say that we could leave "History of Albania" here, since the Kanun has been a central aspect of Albanian identity through the centuries: it covers medieval, Ottoman and modern periods. Constantine ✍ 14:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

--SarekOfVulcan we speak for the total sense someone has vandalised all this category  : history of Albania - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.228.49 (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And blocked for 24 hours. Hopefully, they'll take the feedback they've gotten on board when they return. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not likely: new IP address active in the same category: 188.4.19.18 (talk · contribs). And I think there's evidence for persistent sockpuppetry too: this new IP has an edit history at Hasapiko in what is a clear block-evasion after 79.130.92.92 (talk · contribs) was blocked... It appears that this is the same person who's been causing much grief on the Greek music-related articles (see my comment son Zeibekiko above). The user's level of English also tends to support WP:DUCK. Constantine ✍ 16:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 24 and reverted edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Given these IP's histories, I am not sure whether 24h are any good. This user has a long history behind him ([6]) and regularly switches between half a dozen IPs. Constantine ✍ 16:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

sock puppet Anthem of joy's history of speedy deletions and PRODS

As you can see by [[7]], a sock puppeteer who constantly plagues Wikipedia with deletion nominations also PRODed and speedy deleted dozens of articles in the last 3 months. While I know they don't reconsider AfDs for sock puppet nominations once normal user start voting, should all his PRODs and speedy deletions be reconsidered? Mathewignash (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Both will have been reviewed by the deleting admin who agreed in good faith that the article should have been deleted. Reyk _YO! 20:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. All the deletions have, by definition, been reviewed by at least one admin, so there's no need to revisit them at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed for the speedy deletions and prods, but given that the user was originally blocked for abusing multiple accounts in deletion discussions I have to wonder if this was their only sockpuppet active on AfD pages. --CBD 20:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I had brought HominidMachinae (talk · contribs) as another potential sock to MuZemike's attention. Account was created in March and has almost all of their activities has been in the deletion of articles. —Farix (t | c) 21:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have already commented on my talk page with regards to both; as far as AFDs, if he made a significant enough of an impact on the outcome of the discussion, get the closing admins to re-review them and then, failing that, send to deletion review. The same applies for any other relevant discussions outside of AFD.

From my quick spot-check on HominidMachinae, it doesn't look like he's related, aside the fact that Claritas normally does not do NPP if I recall correctly, just because someone works a lot with deletions doesn't mean they are socks. –MuZemike 21:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Notzrim

Could someone take a look at what is happening here please? 81.103.121.144 (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute that will probably get somebody blocked shortly if they don't start discussing the issue on the talk page. TNXMan 14:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Mephistophelian for advising to ANI.

Other editors, I should point out that the same content problems (modern academic sources vs a medieval rabbinical tract) are showing up over several articles: Apart from Notzrim, there is Toledoth Yeshu the source, Salome Alexandra, Nazarene (sect), Nazarene (title) and Knanaya, although I'm not sure that that last has any direct relevance to the medieval tract Toledoth Yeshu. The invitation to discuss the issue is on Talk:Notzrim which seems (?) to be the focal point. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Took a look back in after meal... It gets better, along with continuing, and WP:3RR edits, and along with "Mariolater" "bully" "childish", I am now a "Nazi", per change log on Birkat haMinim, and that in the same breath as deleting references here, latest. This is apparently a content dispute of some kind, but one where no sources are forthcoming. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't call you a Nazi. I suggested that the ideas you are promoting is from Nazi propaganda (not being a Jew you wouldn't be aware of how such things end up in some people getting contusions to the skull inside a Polish prison cell even in the 21st century). Revert wars are childish (although they seem to have stopped now). And you had been bullying me, although it also seems to have stopped now. As for Mariolaters I have no idea where you got the idea that I called you that.81.103.121.144 (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You compared the other editor to a Nazi; dancing around with "I didn't call you a Nazi, I just said you acted like one" won't fly here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

81.103.121.144 The "Mariolaters" was an edit over "Christian" on one of the pages you've been editing, I forget which one. In regard to another Nazi comment, "how do you know she's not a Nazi". This book review makes it fairly clear that source' Susan Weingarten (who is actually the translator from Hebrew) http://www.mohr.de/en/nc/jewish-studies/series/detail/buch/birkat-haminim.html is not a "Nazi," but the translator of a mainstream Israeli scholar. Whatever. I do not know enough about Knanaya Messianic-Jewish Christians in India to know whether your edits are coming from that standpoint. If they are please find sources from your church, and add them as sources to the articles. In the meantime you have to desist from deleting and altering content based on academic sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Admins. If anyone has any suggestions? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about this admins, it gets better, now the page has collected another anon IP 212.219.231.1 making edits based on the blog of a micro Messianic Jewish-Christian group (or individual) netzarim.co.il. How should WP:3RR work with dealing with continual deletion of mainstream academic references by more than one anon IP?

Unfortunately anything on the Judaism/Christianity interface tends to attract anon IP edits, but Wikipedia shouldn't be overflow for blog edits of this sort. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Some of the damage restored, new academic refs added... restored lede as per Oxford Hebrew Dictionary (= Notzrim is the Hebrew word for Christian, Nazarene) and pretty quickly a new third anon IP with no edit history appears 149.254.61.35 to remove references, and press for the view of this medieval tract Toledot Yeshu that "Nazarenes/Christians" were a Samaritan group from the days of Jeremiah. No sources.

I realise it's a marginal article, but would be appreciated if some Admin help/comment was forthcoming? Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Block review: Suckafree420

Resolved

 – User unblocked, doesn't want to change name. Mjroots (talk)

• Suckafree420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Suckafree420 was blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account by Courcelles (talk · contribs), and has requested to be unblocked. As reviewer of this request, I do not believe that their edits are vandalism, and I also don't share Courcelles's concerns that the username is so inappropriate (as a reference to oral sex or as an incitement to cannabis consumption) that it warrants an immediate indefinite block. As such, I believe that the block is not needed. Because I believe that it would be uncollegial and disruptive to unilaterally unblock an account against the wish of the blocking admin, I am referring the unblock request to the community for further discussion.  Sandstein  09:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My instincts tell me that this user is not as innocent as they claim to be; I suspect that their edits and username were carefully chosen to be borderline. In short, I'm not going to be much help to you since I find myself incapable of either supporting or objecting to this block. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Their first edit added unreferenced negative info to a biography. The second edit again introduced unreferenced info to an article, which could possibly be seen as negative info. The third edit removed referenced info from an article. AGF that this is a new editor, and that the intent was not vandalism, I can see both sides of the coin here. Re the third edit, the editor claims in their appeal that the source may fail WP:RS, which is something that needs to be examined to see whether the claim is correct or not. Re the username, I'd say that it doesn't warrent a block, but the editor should be encouraged to change to a slightly more appropriate name. I would support a unblock as none of the three edits were outright vandalism deliberately intended as such. Looks like this editor has had a bit of a bitey intro to Wikipedia. Hopefully we haven't scared them away. Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• A "new" user creates a borderline username, then adds BLP vios, claiming a source that's nowhere close to WP:RS? Combine the name with the edits, I would have been under the belief that this editor was only here to disrupt the project, so in my mind, the initial block was necessary. If the editor is willing to show a true understanding of both WP:RS and WP:BLP (plus a little nudge towards a new username) then I will be personally willing to unblock - of course, I had intended to say this when I reviewed their unblock this morning! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• The person at issue in the first edit, Rodney Dangerfield, is no longer living. The blocking admin overlooked this as well (see their talk page). The other edits do not concern living persons. I agree that the edit was poor with respect to WP:CITE and WP:RS, but that warrants a warning at most, not an indefinite block as a vandal.  Sandstein  11:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps it does not violate the letter of BLP, but does it violate its spirit? I would say it does; although Mr Dangerfield is unlikely to be offended, he only passed away 7 years ago and he may well have relatives who could be negatively affected by, for example, libellous entries in his biography. Of course I'm not saying that this user's edits were libel but I think the spirit of BLP should (or perhaps even does) apply here. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that's kinda my point: there were others with names implicated in Mr "I don't get no respect"'s purported actions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the username, the phrase "Suckafree" is possibly in reference to Suckafree Sundays, which was a program on MTV showing hip-hop videos and commentary. -- Atama頭 17:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I get no respect, I tell ya! When I got my adminship, all I got was a broken delete button and a plastic toy banhammer! –MuZemike 21:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The user has not, so far, explained his/her choice of username. Might it be helful if they were encouraged to do so? The edits, taken in isolation, are not blockable.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor has explained their username (it meant what I suspected it meant) and understand that they should use sources in the future. Given their explanations it's clear that the edits, while not great, weren't intended to harm the encyclopedia and so a vandalism block isn't appropriate. I can understand what led Courcelles to believe that it was vandalism so I don't criticize the initial block. -- Atama頭 19:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that consensus is that the block should be lifted, but the username has to go. I'll communicate this to the editor. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I see a few comments that the edits combined with name might have made the contributions look bad. I don't see any consensus that the name has to go, and I've seen no explanation about what part of the username policy it actually violates. Lift the block and warn them about using edit summaries to explain their edits. Suggest that a username change might help with how seriously other users might take them, but don't force it on them. --Onorem♠Dil 20:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I should have made it clearer in my last post here that I already unblocked Suckafree420. I don't have an opinion on the name, to me it's borderline. -- Atama頭 22:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Dangerfield's extensive use of (medical) marijuana was well known and he made no secret of it, as is reflected in the biography. We need to be careful about mis-labeling edits as "negative" when they simply reflect self-admitted issues.   Will Beback  talk  23:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• note - the users unblock request has been reviewed and accepted by User:Atama - diff - so this is pretty much resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• The user doesn't want to change their user name, and it's not that bad that we can force the issue. Therefore, this issue is now resolved.

thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suckafree420 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up: The editor's next two edits were to Origin of AIDS, where they inserted information not supported by the source, and List of British fascist parties where they removed sourced material without explanation or an edit summary. I certainly hope that the editors who assumed good faith and worked to unblock the editor will also be, at least in the short-term, monitoring Suckafree420's edits to ensure they are indeed here to contribute positively and collaboratively. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to say that I was coming here to point out the same thing. This doesn't look like constructive editing, particularly the deletion of sourced material. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

haitians, homosexuals, hemophiliacs, heroin users....yes, it was called the 4H disease in the early stages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suckafree420 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No it wasn't. → ROUX ₪ 18:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

enjoy being wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.144.36.112 (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this thread after removing some original research from Origin of AIDS and checking the user's contributions. There is a degree of quackitude to consider, methinks. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Forget the quackitude, there's a degree of 'we got played.' Reblock, permanently, and ignore. → ROUX ₪ 18:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

quackitude? In 1982, a year after AIDS had first been diagnosed but not yet named in a cluster of homosexual American men in Los Angeles, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, reported that a group of recent immigrants from Haiti had the strange opportunistic infections and immune problems that characterized the disease. Fears rose with reports of similar immune deficiencies among Haitians who still lived in that country. Soon, the mysterious ailment was being referred to as “the 4H disease,” as it seemed to single out Haitians, homosexuals, hemophiliacs, and heroin users.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5786/470.2.full.pdf

that link is #19 on the AIDS entry on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suckafree420 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, Science is a pretty reliable source. -- Atama頭 19:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

User 67.224.71.131

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Atama. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope I'm reporting this in the right place. If not let me know. I recently reverted an unexplained removal of an entire paragraph (link) by this user, and when I went to his/her talk page to ask about it I noticed several warnings for removal of content. At the bottom of the page is a "last warning" from April 12, 2011.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 23:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Drilling down in the WHOIS reveals it to be a school IP address. I see only a couple of edits at a go, and only one block on the Talk page. In future, this should be reported at WP:AIV, but I'm sure a friendly admin will sort this out in short order. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Noted. –Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 05:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest something more but Alan the Roving Ambassador answered before I could save my answer. It looks like the user /IP address has not edited or vandalized any articles recently. Thanks for asking. No, I am not an administrator. Bye Starionwolf (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The IP was blocked for a week after that "last warning" (blocked on April 14). Their previous block was on March 25. There was just no block template to accompany that block. I've blocked the address for 2 weeks. -- Atama頭 00:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Administrators/Editors help needed to resolve the War Crime Section on Sri Lanka Page

When I am trying to add War Crime Charges Civil War and War Crime , there are disputes and reverts constantly. I don't think we should come to a consensus when the apparent War Crime happened in the very own Sri Lanka. Some editors are trying to keep the Wikipedia Page of Sri Lanka as a promotional piece to show the good side of the Sri Lanka and want to generate another Sri Lanka's Killing Fields. Neutral editors/administrators involvement will greatly help on this regard to keep the content there.Hillcountries (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Insult and threat from IP User:88.233.98.18

Resolved

 – Contentious WP:PRIMARY information removed by expert User:Bobrayner. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

I was recently assaulted by an IP:number. The background is the following: the IP:number in question has recently rewritten and deleted information from several articles, especially the article of Safiye Sultan, withouth any references, or indeed anything but, as it seems, his or hers personal POW. One one the things was, for example, a deletion of a theory that Nurbanu Sultan and Safiye Sultan was related. The IP deleted this on the grounds that : "relatives must love each other and therefore they could not be related because Nurbanu hated Safiye": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Safiye_Sultan

This is obviously POW. Because this IP has deleted information from articles without any base other than POW, I have been reverting the IP:s changes. I have now been subjected to something which seems intented to be a threat and an insult of some kind, by the IP, on my personal discussion-page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aciram&diff=434274094&oldid=432663388

I suspect that this IP is infact the same IP which have been editing the articles of Nurbanu Sultan and Safiye Sultan many times previously in the same fashion and was warned that time. I am not sure how to handle this. I would like to report this user. I do hope this is the right place to do so. If not, can you direct me to the right place? Thanks!--Aciram (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's clearly an WP:NPA violation, and the user's tone on two different talk page comments (here and here) is pretty iffy. But the post to Aciram's talk page linked above is pretty obviously unacceptable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I warned the IP. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I also warned the IP regarding their deletion of the RP's comments above. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

IP expressed regret on my talk page and apologized (sorta...for the personal attack, anyway) on Aciram's page, so as long as his cooler head continues to prevail I think the NPA issue is relatively resolved. No opinion on the remainder of issues brought up above. Could be content type stuff best suited for article talk page discussion, unless there's a more serious problem here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering the subject of the content dispute dates to the 17th century, I think we're going to have to wait to see who can produce WP:RS material to support their position. I've commented on the article Talk page to that effect. I also think the IP was unclear regarding the described relationship, although I'm unsure of it myself...the article topic is described as being "captured by corsairs", yet the disputed material talks about "following in her cousin's footsteps". I think there's a disparity between the two, and it may take an expert opinion to resolve it. With all that said, I'm pretty sure there really isn't any admin action required right now, so someone wandering through can likely mark this issue Resolved. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think I found what caused the problem in the first place. The biggest of the issues is apparently described in the article Esperanza Malchi; Esperanza was Safiye's economic agent, or kira. An allegation was apparently made, by an official in the British Embassy of the period, that Safiye and Esperanza were lovers, and that seems to be what got the IP's blood pressure up. I can't prove or disprove the allegation, and I don't see anything in the single reference for the article on Esperanza that states whether the relationship was proved or simply an allegation. I think I've taken the only action that can be taken at this time: I flagged the allegation with {{citation needed}}. If there's an expert in medieval Euro-Asian history lurking about, feel free to chime in. Otherwise, given what I've dug up, this episode can be closed out. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You rang, m'lord?

The article, and the contentious claim, all came from this which looks basically OK but not the most reliable historical source. Digging deeper (though sourcing is probably not a matter for AN/I) I could find nothing. Lamdan's "Jewish women as providers in the generations following the expulsion from Spain" hints at a close and personal relationship, with Malchi handling certain discreet matters for Safiye, but mentions nothing sexual. Dursteler's "Renegade Women" is similarly mute. Kayserling's "Die jüdischen Frauen in der Geschichte, Literatur und Kunst" just calls her a "favoritin" - my German is very weak but I doubt that a sexual relationship is the only possible interpretation, and it's using a translation of the same primary source used by Lamdan. There are fictional texts too, but let's not go there.

I will update the article accordingly, and add a better source. bobrayner (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some letter which supported the claim, but it would be silly to trawl through huge archives just to find some gossip in a primary source. It's removed now anyway. I just found the original text of the letter to Queen Elizabeth I (in Italian); the "articles for ladies" she wanted to handle discreetly are oils and perfumes, rather than anything more salacious. Case closed? bobrayner (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Concern with user reverting speedy deletion tag on a category he created

Resolved

 – as per KWW's comment below.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Jj98 has twice now reverted a speedy deletion tag that I placed on Category:Animation portal selected lists, a category he created. I reverted with an edit summary explaining that it was against Wikipedia policy to do this, but that was apparently ignored because he reverted me again. Even if he believes this is the type of category that is exempt from C1, which he apparently does by his placing of the empty category template on the page, that is an argument he should have made using the hold on template. I would personally say that this is not the type of category exempt from C1 - this is not the type of category intended to be empty on occasion. If the animation portal has not "selected" any lists yet, then this category does not need to sit around empty for an undetermined amount of time until the portal has a list selected. In any case, the debate as to if C1 applies is secondary in nature to my main concern that this user is reverting my placing of the tag in violation of Wikipedia policy. If a neutral party reviews my tag and declines, that is one thing, but the category creator doing it is another. Thanks. 69.59.200.77 (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Category:Animation portal selected lists classifies as a featured topics category, which is exempt from C1. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that featured topics are different from "selected lists" (or any "selected" content) on a particular portal. Namely, I was under the assumption that everything that fits in that exception is in Category:Featured topics. 69.59.200.77 (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've created this category myself for each selected lists for the Animation portal. The selected list parameter has not been used yet for the WikiProject Animation banner. It's at the sandbox. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 22:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Also note that there many Featured lists like List of The Simpsons episodes and Avatar: The Last Airbender (Season 1). JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 22:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether the category is eligible for the CSD category is irrelevant. Jj98, as creator of the category, cannot remove the CSD tag. He can contest the speedy, but removing the tag is generally considered a blockable offense.—Kww(talk) 22:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, I've should have done that myself. I've working on WP:ANIMATION for months to try getting the Animation WikiProject riving for years to get many new members. Yes, I've violated a little bit, and I've should been blocked just like last time when I got blocked for messing around the non-free copyrighted images for three weeks. Still, I am not really happy about it, but its not going help me. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is over, so I'm not saying you should be blocked now. In the future, though, use the button that says "contest the deletion", don't remove the tag.—Kww(talk) 23:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin Abuser Barek

A wikipedia administrator named Barek(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Barek) kept banning me from wikipedia without warning or reason. I changed the the page armour to american english and it got reverted. I changed it once more and received a warning for doing so. I stopped immediately after, but still got banned for a day with a warning on my page. I blanked my page after the ban as the warning was redundant. Barek reverted the edits so I blanked the page once more. Then he proceeded to ban me again without a single warning. I've been banned 3 times by him so far and every time without a warning or reason. WP:BLANKING clearly states it's only against the rules to delete sanctions that are in affect. I just don't want to continue using a website with poor administrators. I hope something can be done about this. Thanks --70.186.166.251 (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess we could block him again if he continues to remove the ISP message on his talk page and other people's edits at Jimbo's talk page. He's been warned again today. Dougweller (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(section title has some ambiguity that amused me... Barek has been abusing admins? :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWB#37Observations on Wikipedian behavior #37. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I should add that it seems pretty clear that a page with the title 'Armour' should use British English, any debate on that is a debate over the title and belongs on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Why in (insert Deity of one's choice)'s name would anyone change an article with a British English title to American English text? (..and Barek, stop abusing admins!) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The IP did a suicide-by-admin and is now blocked again. Admins can check this revdel'ed contribution. Favonian (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh yes, that "contribution" reminds me why I blocked the IP. —DoRD (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(od)That was quick, he's got a new sock already [8]. Undox (talk · contribs) needs to be blocked. Any takers? --64.85.214.184 (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Taken. Favonian (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness to the IP, I reviewed the events involved, and did spot an issue with categorization of the tag on the IPs talk page. Per WP:BLANKING, fourth bullet point of items that should not be removed from a user's talk page:

• For IP editors, templates in Category:Shared IP header templates and notes left to indicate other users may share the same IP address.

I was surprised just now to discover that {{ISP}} is not included in the referenced category. The tag still shouldn't be removed because it would qualify under the second half of that bullet point, and in this case there are secondary factors including personal attacks and sockpuppetry; but I can at least see the potential for confusion by IPs in general. I'm going to be bold and add the category to the tag now - if there are reasons for it not to be on that tag, others can remove it and we can document the reason on the tag's talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

admin decision taken by HelloAnnyong

Hi all, three different people reported user :Tajik who has been banned 20 times but is now using sockpuppet (user: Lysozym) and admin HelloAnnyong refuse to take action.[9] Admin HelloAnnyong was told by admin Kingturtle in email that Lysozym is sockpuppet of Tajik. [10] and then admin HelloAnnyong said "I'm closing this case with no further action taken". [11] Can someone please explain what's going on here? Is it normal for someone to get 20 bans and then 3 months later come back and create a fresh new account name?Tofaan (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

By my count, Tajik was actually blocked (not banned) 15 times plus once per self request. Also, I have notified Lysozym of this discussion. —DoRD (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The decision seems quite reasonable and policy compliant. User: Lysozym has a note on his userpage informing of his previous account. It appears more of a case of remaming via a new account creation than a WP:CLEANSTART so nothing to see really. Off2riorob (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The user seems to have answered you at the bottom of the SPI and the answer looks legitimate. N^oformation ^Talk 10:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of full disclosure, the Tajik userpage and talk page should be redirected to his new account's pages. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP's concern is around this:

• user had socked, and had been blocked for it
• even if user requested their last block, was it an attempt to preempt an impending longer block being enforced
• was their new userid therefore considered to be evading that

At least that's how I see the situation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Somebody should explain to User:Tofaan the most basic Wikipedia policies (THIS, for example, is totally against Wikipedia policies!) as well as the meaning of a "sockpuppet". My major account is de:Benutzer:Lysozym in the German Wikipedia. A while back, I decided to take a break from Wikipedia - both the German one and the English version. A day or so earlier, I had - by mistake - created an additional global account (my current one) on WP-Commons in order to upload a few images (actually, I just wanted to create a simple account for Commons, but it turned out to be a global one). So, by mistake, I suddenly had 2 additional accounts, one in the the German and one in the English version. I immediately contacted admins and told them about it. In the German Wikipedia, I requested a permanent block of my previous account. In the English Wikipedia, I contacted User:Kingturtle and explained everything to him (including that I wanted to take a break). So, for a while, all of my accounts (including the current one) were blocked on my own request - in the German and in the English Wikipedia. Now that I am back (after a ca. 3 months longing break), I decided to use my new global account only and use the same nick for the German and the English version. My other 2 accounts - the German and the English one - remain permanently blocked. I am not evading a block, I did not use multiple accounts at the same time, there has never been a secret about this (in fact, admins were informed even before I asked for the Wiki-break), I did not have any problems before I took the break, I was not banned or blocked, etc. To keep it short: none of this was against Wikipedia policy or rules. I even "sacrificed" my rights to vote (at least until I have the amount of edits needed).
As for User:Tofaan: I am not sure if he is a new user or not, but what is certain is that he is an extreme POV-pusher, he has not the slightest qualification in respect of Islamic history, he has not the slightest knowledge what a "reliable source" is (→ WP:RS). He was putting false, unsourced, and misleading information in the article Ghurid dynasty. I removed that nonsense and used a quote by Jimbo Wales as a justification: NO information is better than FALSE and MISLEADING information. Misleading information - especially those that are explicitly disproved by standard academic reference works (in this case Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia Americana, Encyclopaedia Britannica, The Cambridge History of Iran, etc.) - should be removed aggressively and without any compromises. Not the quantity of sources is important but the quality. And I will continue to do so if he decides to insert that wrong and misleading information in the article once again. --Lysozym (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC) PS (@ Burpelson AFB): I think that's a good idea. Either redirect the userpage or put a sign in it explaining that the account has been deactivated permanently. --Lysozym (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the userboxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Related accounts might help, such as {{Template:User previous account|Username}}. Singularity42 (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This one looks fine. --Lysozym (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I reported Lysozym as well - obviously not aware of this story because I wasn't very active when his account was blocked by Kingturtle upon his request. Once a new account was created, there was no reference to his old account until June 14. And the other problem was that there were e-mails flying from one admin to another and we were kept in dark. The case was closed but no reason was given. It would have helped a lot (transparency wise) if the admins had used the SPI page. This way there would have been no reason for User:Tofaan to open this issue once again in here. Now that everything is clear, let's get back to work. (Ketabtoon (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

"What talk pages are for"

I am always willing to learn. But since I have a history with a certain one-agenda user on English WP and thus find it very hard to deem his repeated attacks on my work here (for years now) as good faith edits, what I need today is some neutral input as to what talk pages are, or are not for. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I concede that "one-agenda" may have been a slight exaggeration - but "favorite-agenda" would be spot on. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like what you posted to the talk page was in an effort to help improve the article, which is exactly what talk pages are for. The only reasonable objection to that information would be length, you could always add a collapse template so that it doesn't overwhelm the talk page. -- Atama頭 21:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't those childish cap locked edit summaries be deleted too? Seriously. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I decided to put in the collapse templates myself, it really is a huge chunk of text. I'm hoping that mollifies Pieter Kuiper too. -- Atama頭 21:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bio about me keeps accumulating demeaning and Defaming material

Trevor Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I am Professor Trevor Marshall, the subject of a BLP which was created in 2006 or 2007 (I didn't take much notice at the time). It survived a notability deletion attempt in Dec 2007. But every few months a WP editor comes by and defaces the Bio by adding material which, in total, make me look like a scientific cretin. On 1 June a discussion ensued on Ronsword:Talk between two editors about the validity of the Science contained in our many peer-reviewed articles. In particular, editor WLU said "if you're looking for counter-sources and criticisms of these types of articles, the blogs at sciencebasedmedicine.org .." On 9 June an article from sciencebased medicine.org duly appeared on the BLP about me, posted by WLU, and therefore presumably intended to defame. Here is the total diff of the changes made by WLU on that day. The defamation by editor WLU was executed in at least the following ways:

1. My academic affiliation was removed, all mention that I was a Professor at a recognized university. It is still missing from my Infobox

2. My profession was changed to "an Australian engineer" while for the last decade I have been notable for my work in Translational Medicine

3. A blog from sciencebasedmedicine.org was cited, apparently with intent to demean or defame

I raised a flag for adminhelp on the bio talk page, and admin Atama kindly dropped by on 10 June. I continued to try and discuss with WLU the problems on the discussion page, but was getting nowhere, so I raised the issue on the BLP:Noticeboard. You can see from WLU's recent post to that noticeboard that his intent seems uncompromising (here is the diff). His edits continually citing WP:CRYSTAL, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, which are patently not applicable when so many peer-reviewer opinions and prestigious conference presentations exist. Records of the conference presentations of myself and my colleagues are archived at the Foundation's non-profit YouTube channel. Yet WLU even dismisses a Journal review of my keynote alongside Nobel Laureate Avram Hershko.

WLU has expressed his motivation for defaming my character and my achievements at my own Trevmar talk page earlier today. As you can see from this diff he is promoting the concept that our work

1. "isn't "medicine", it's speculative research that hasn't been subjected to a randomized, controlled trial. Your interpretations of the human genome/metagenome and vitamin D are not mainstream. Possibly yet, possibly never."

I spent many hours trying to explain our science and our achievements to WLU on the Talk page, to no avail. He apparently believes that it is his responsibility to expose "junk science" even when he apparently has no comprehension of its complexities. Our last two peer-reviewed publications have been an article in a Nature.com journal, and our invited chapter on Autoimmune disease in the new Springer textbook edited by Karen Nelson, operational head of JCVI.org, arguably the most prestigious genomic research institution in the world. The introduction to the book was written by no less than J.Craig Venter himself. WLU wrote off both papers as being "unreliable". Any impartial observer would disagree. Yet WLU has continued to insist on edits which denigrated my character and my works. Further, his presence and his interference in every discussion has had a chilling effect on the other editors who have visited the page to offer their help, for example, this diff

WLU is clearly in no position to assess the many peer reviewed papers. He says he hasn't bothered to look at the records of the many mainstream scientific conferences that I attend every month or two. He doesn't care that I am frequently invited to chair session at these conferences. Prima facie, he seems to have a reckless intent to defame, he certainly is doing that.

Sadly, WLU's actions potentially harm Wikipedia. That he is absolutely wrong is easily proven. That his negative editing over the years has done harm is also provable. Additionally, I suspect that editor Ronsword may have a conflict of interest when editing, or colluding to edit, any bio in my name. However, I am assuming that Ronsword will revert to a low profile once an admin starts to take an interest in stopping this defamation.

I still hope that the situation can be resolved by discussion between the editors, but the two posts by WLU, which I diffed above, seem make that likelihood remote, particularly this one.

Can WLU be banned from editing the bio? He continues to insist on making changes to edits of other editors, and the sum of all those edits is apparently to ensure that I look more and more like a fringe scientific cretin. I am sure that lawyers would have a better description of it, but I hope you understand why I am concerned about having to waste so much of my time every few months dealing with educating yet another editor who has wandered by the bio. Maybe WLU could be locked out, the bio made NPOV, and protected, I don't know? What options are available to a Wikipedia admin?

As for sending out ANI-notices, I am a scientist, not an editor. Just putting the links into this post were a challenge for me. Can somebody please help me with sending out those notices?? .. Trevmar (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• I will let the users know. notified - User:WLU - I have a degree of sympathy for this issue, the reporter, I assume good faith and from their well meaning comments is the subject of the article struggling with wiki process and attempting to provide support for positions and content that is being editing at his BLP. Recently an anti fringe position has been edited into the article. I also note that Trevor has been adding admin help templates at BLPN and the article talkpage and to my understanding has so far received no admin assistance. The subject is being edited to appear as a quack - there is as I have seen a lot of medical students here editing aggressively against anyone who appears alternative. Could we perhaps allow the subject the respect of deleting his blp so that he is no longer attacked via the project. We really need to discuss and support allowing living subjects to opt out if they feel they are being attacked and misrepresented through their articles here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• I am uninvolved. I am also ignorant of the subject area. I read what's above with considerable sympathy: nobody should be portrayed as a charlatan (let alone a cretin) unless he really is one, and Trevmar doesn't sound at all like one. But then I read more closely; and the more I read, the more I doubt that Marshall is being portrayed as a charlatan. Further, I do not see any intent to demean or defame Marshall, or to demean his work. To my (uneducated) mind, there can be a difference between an (a) interesting, publishable, even promising theory of disease, and (b) medical treatment acknowledged as efficacious. And to say that (a) is not (b) is not necessarily to demean the former, let alone to defame its proponents. Now, even if I'm right so far, it's imaginable that WLU has been axe-grinding, and that WLU should lay off. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hoary, I agree with most of what you are saying. But have you not not seen the bio at its worst, before my intervention on 9 June, after all mention of my academic affiliation had been stripped off (for example)? I primarily want to make sure that WLU does not come back and do this again, as he has in previous years. Or indeed, another 'WLU', intent on 'jousting with the bad guys'.. Trevmar (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you're talking. This version again does not paint TM as a charlatan, but it does seem to harp on the negative. Two examples: (i) the positioning in the introduction of the material The MP has not been tested in a randomized clinical trial and is not officially recognized as a treatment for any disease. [...] (incidentally raising the question of what officialdom might mean here), and (ii) in 1988 [he] founded the California-based graphics and printing company YARC Systems which went into bankruptcy in 2001; if just about all that can be said about it is that it went bankrupt (a common fate of companies), why bother? ¶ Well, let's see what others say. -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and since Yarc Systems was a publicly traded company for several years before it went into bankruptcy, and I no longer had effective control, and a decade has passed since the event, the citation of the bankruptcy is extremely unusual in a personal bio.. Trevmar (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A bit strange, yes. I'll drop a note on the talk page about its relevance, and if nothing is forthcoming I'll remove it in the next couple of days.

What this article probably needs more of, Trevmar, is eyes. I've watchlisted it, and I encourage a few other uninvolved editors/admins/space gophers to do the same. We'll get this sorted to everyone's mutual satisfaction, probably, though it's likely going to take a little while. In the meantime, feel free to drop me an email at lifebaka@gmail.com if there's anything you'd like me to explain about Wikipedia; I'm always happy to help. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Lifebaka, I have sometimes felt so alone these past few days. Like I was talking to a brick wall. More eyes would have helped, although WLU seemed to pick a difference (I will refrain from imputing 'an argument') with every editor who tried to help. The main problem which remains is the quote from Dr Crislip, who never contacted me before he wrote the blog, never sent me a draft for comments (a usual professional courtesy) and failed to correct the errors after he was notified of them. I have left a list of secondary sources which should outweigh his opinions. Thanks for giving me your email address, mine is trevor@trevormarshall.com, perhaps you could whitelist it.. Trevmar (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, we do not give undue weight to theories that have absolutely no confirmation in real peer-reviewed journals. Just because this guy has a real life and has "published" one article on this "theory" does not mean that BLP stops us from providing the huge amount of real science (say Germ Theory, but I could go on) that stands in opposition to this. Fringe theories are fringe theories because they stand outside of real science. John Edwards (not the politician, the guy who thinks he can speak to the dead) is subject to BLP, but that doesn't mean we can't show that his bullshit is bullshit. Same here. Until such time that "Doctor" Marshall, who has no training or education in a real natural science (electrical engineering is applied science which means...not real science. And if everyone is going to get all upset about BLP, read up on AIDS denialists like Lynn Margulis. She discovered one of the great ideas in evolution, endosymbiosis. But she thinks that AIDS is caused by syphilis. So, her BLP gets to show that she doesn't know what she's talking about. I don't know if "Dr" Marshall is a well-intentioned, a crook, or has some insight into germ theory that changes our whole idea about the universe (and I doubt that), but these ideas are fringe until significantly published in real science journals. And yes, sometimes the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, so no one researching this is indicative of how badly this is dismissed by real scientists. The article does not demean "Dr." Marshall, it doesn't say he's a fool or an idiot. It merely states what is available as reliable sources, and there are none. If real science comes about, then we'll change our mind. But seriously, the logical fallacy of his claims are amusing at best, and harmful to patients at worst. Very harmful. If he's wrong, and based on the science, I'm almost certain he is, he should be ashamed at the harm he'll cause humans. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, again, will you please stop editorializing and using profanity? If you can't edit science, pseudoscience, alternative medicine, and medical topics with some degree of objectivity and decorum, then you need to stay away. Seriously. Cla68 (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I ask admins to watch and if OrangeMarlin keeps making unsourced edits like this or this to a BLP, that he be blocked. Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Those may sound contentious but they are hardly worthy of a block and they are likely correct statements. N^oformation ^Talk 04:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And Cla68, you've made a personal attack based on.....bullshit. So, unless you have reliable sources that say it is real science, please show it. I know you can't, because I already checked. Now, if you can tell me how to post a reliable source that says "there are no reliable sources", I'll be glad to do it. Otherwise, retract your personal attacks. They are getting boring. I know, my Asperger's Syndrome must be going full blast. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

1. I've read through the last few revisions and I'm not exactly sure that the defamation claim holds any water. As OM elucidated above, this person's work is on the fringe, is in opposition to mainstream science and hasn't been clinically tested, so those are clearly things that have to be mentioned if we want the reader to walk away with objective information. It would be a disservice to the readers to let them believe that these ideas have credibility within the scientific community. That is not to say that the ideas are wrong, just not credible and not tested and thusly not science, yet, or never.
2. I'm more concerned about the WP:BOOMERANG bringing a WP:COI back to Trevmar. Should he really be involved with this article? After reading his complaint I've come to the conclusion that the article is negative but doesn't violate any NPOV critera, and yet the subject is upset that it doesn't reflect his POV. I understand this, as if there were an article about me I can think of a few things that would be in there that I might not want, however, this is irrelevant to the encyclopedia.
3. One thing I don't get is why his status as a professor was removed, if he is in fact a professor then I can't think of why this wouldn't be included in the article. I did not read more than 4 diffs from the current so if this was explained I have not seen it.
4. Regarding the profession change, I don't know for sure but I'm guessing that this was changed to reflect the subject's background as an electrical engineer since he does not have a degree that relates to the field he is discussing. This change may well be inappropriate.

N^oformation ^Talk 04:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You can find some clinical case series and case histories from the clinical validation in the Nature.com journal. Our work is 100% in line with mainstream. The new textbook book edited by Karen Nelson of JCVI.org, about as main stream as you can get, with the first chapter by J. Craig Venter himself, can be viewed at Amazon.com. Chapter 1 is worth browsing, as is the chapter we wrote, chapter 12.. Trevmar (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doctor, I have no doubt that microbes have the potential to play roles in dozens of areas we never thought possible (hence why I'm studying microbiology!). Correct me if I misread your biography, but the statements relating to your work being fringe are not in relation to microbial pathology in regards to autoimmunity, but to the so-called Marshall Protocol, which as of yet is certainly not mainstream science. Also, I have not read your Nature article yet (I will, it looks fun), but does it publish your recommendations for treatment or is it about the potential pathology in general? If my assessment is incorrect, I apologize. N^oformation ^Talk 05:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Our resaerch over the last decade has been open-published, whenever possible. Our collaborative study used both traditional meetings and telephones, as well as a study website. The actual therapy is described by third parties in some of the secondary sources I listed on the bio TALK page, variations have been around since 2002, although it has been changing as the science underlying the pathogenesis became clearer. There is a Wiki which acts as the repository for the current practical Knowledge Base, that wiki is at MPKB.org and no, I don't maintain it. Our collaborating clinical centers and some of my colleagues look after that Wiki. As for mainstream acceptance, I did post the review of the keynote of Nobel Laureate Avram Hershko at WCG-2008, and also of my keynote on the same stage, albeit following his :) You can find it here. I posted many more good secondary sources on the bio TALK page. And although Wikipedia apparently doesn't consider YouTube as a source, you will find video recordings of most of the (mainstream) conference presentations from my colleagues and myself in the Foundation's archive here. Yes, I know it looks like self publishing, so listen to the question and answer sessions at the end of each presentation, and see what real scientists and physicians are saying :) .. Trevmar (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to insist that for the tone of the article to change, the published science has to change. I just read through the talk page and briefly checked your secondary sources but found them unsatisfactory to present what is still clearly fringe as mainstream or even semi-established science. I think WLU gave you a lot of good reasons why your sourcing was not satisfactory. I'm also going to insist that this discussion be closed and moved to the bio talk page. There is clearly no need of admin intervention here. This is a content dispute and no BLP violations have occurred in my estimation. N^oformation ^Talk 05:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The list of trivia you just posted, seems to distract attention away from the very serious WP:BLP concerns that Cla68 just mentioned right above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that I organized my response into numbered points makes it easy to read, not trivial. I responded to Cla68 above; those statements are likely true. Jimbo himself just edited OM's additions to the article and found it fit only to remove the comment regarding the germ theory of disease, saying that it needed a source, but he did not remove the rest. They are not BLP violations if they accurately reflect published science. N^oformation ^Talk 04:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Noformation. Remember Cla68 is just mad at me all the time, and has a 4 year hard on about me. He even accused me of having Asperger's Syndrome. I tend to ignore his personal attacks, he's kind of obsessive about me. Back on topic, I read over Jimbo's changes (I'm still shocked he edits these kind of articles), and although I completely disagree with his one change, it's kind of a throwaway. As to Demiurge, "Doctor" Marshall is pushing a Fringe theory. Sorry for hurting his feelings about it, but he completely lacks any supportive sources. NONE. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Per MastCell on the BLP talk page, [12] because of sourcing problems, I would agree that the BLP be deleted or replaced by a stub. There is no wikipedia article on Marshall Protocol, just a redirect to the BLP. MastCell has indicated that this proposed treatment and the theory behind it have not been discussed at length in mainstream medical reviews (or none have so far been cited in the BLP). It is inappropriate to have a detailed dissussion of this topic in a wikipedia BLP unless independent reliable sources like that can be found. Mathsci (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur. While every biography on Wikipedia must avoid unsourced negative material and other BLP violations, there is no requirement that we devote space to explaining all of the views of their subjects. Sometimes it's best to stick to listing biographical events instead of trying to describe theories, especially when secondary sources are unavailable. Unusual medical claims, even those in biographies, need to be presented with care.   Will Beback  talk  —Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC).

I've removed[13] all information about the Marshall Protocol from the article to ensure that both BLP and neutrality are upheld. Chester Markel (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is still a problem with the last sentence in the lede, since "Marshall's hypothesis" refers to the Marshall Protocol. That sentence could just be removed. Mathsci (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now removed that sentence from the lede. Mathsci (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin: (i) Remember Cla68 is just mad at me all the time, and has a 4 year hard on about me: Please spare us commentary on other editors' procreative organs. (ii) "Doctor" Marshall: putting "Doctor" (or similar) in quotation marks effectively lumps the person together with "Dr" Gillian McKeith -- or, as Ben Goldacre neatly describes her, "Gillian McKeith – or to give her full medical title, 'Gillian McKeith'". Goldacre can write this because he has already laid the groundwork for it, and because he's doing so in a newspaper column and a book. However, this, you'll remember, is neither but is instead a dry and neutral encyclopedia. So let's avoid innuendo. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I replaced the info about YARC just because it was there and the content is rather sparse; I have no issue with noting he's a professor, once a source turned up for that I didn't remove it again (same reason I removed the point that he has a daughter - no source); I think there should be some info about the Marshall protocol, even if it's one sentence, because that's really what he's known for. But the lack of attention in third-party sources is crippling. So far I've found one brief mention from 2007 and a letter to the editor, both critical. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I note that editor WLU continues to edit the bio, and that his/her edits continue to convey a negative opinion of our reputation and our works, and that they continue to contain factual inaccuracies. I have added to the talk page a citation showing that the US FDA has reviewed the Marshall Protocol, at the request of the Autoimmunity Research Foundation, has provided two orphan designations covering our longterm use of antibiotics for sarcoidosis, and has never raised any safety concerns.. Trevmar (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I further note that is seems to have been editor WLU who removed the FDA citation from the bio.. Trevmar (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Did the FDA express any opinion on the efficacy of the treatment? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

An orphan designation is granted if the FDA assesses that a therapy has potential for efficacy in a disease.. Trevmar (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not the way I read it:

Orphan designation qualifies the sponsor of the product for the tax credit and marketing incentives of the ODA. ... In order for a sponsor to obtain orphan designation for a drug or biological product, an application must be submitted to OOPD, and the designation approved. The approval of an application for orphan designation is based upon the information submitted by the sponsor. ... The approval of an orphan designation request does not alter the standard regulatory requirements and process for obtaining marketing approval. Safety and efficacy of a compound must be established through adequate and well-controlled studies.

I read that as basically a bureaucratic rubber-stamp of all properly submitted drugs, allowing for tax credits and marketing incentives, without regard to safety and efficacy, which still have to be established through the normal approval process. Given this, WLU was correct in deleting the statement from the article, as it was essentially misleading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for some more information on this on the article talk page, to help clarify its relevance. Perhaps we could move further discussion of this sub-issue over there? MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I have the impression that orphan designation paperwork (which is about taxes and market exclusivity) is often completed before the standard drug approval. That is, you can know that if the drug is approved, it will have certain financial advantages, without knowing whether it will ever be approved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To Noformation: It appears that Marshall's official job title is "adjunct professor". Although I have no information about the specific case, typically, this job title indicates a part-time, temporary teaching position with zero opportunity for tenure. Although I would report a current job title as being the current job title, even if it were "Grand High Poobah", it would not be entirely unreasonable for someone to interpret this as "not a 'real' professor", or to believe that a part-time, temporary job position was not the most important part of a person's career. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe one could just ask, instead of suggesting I might be a charlatan. That lack of concern about defamatory writings is, after all, why this incident was raised in the first place. Let me give you some other possibilities to think through. The position may have been offered as be an honor,maybe tenure is of no interest to somebody who is already notable? Do universities grant honorary adjunct positions, perhaps? In truth, there is a mix in this case, as I have some responsibility -- for supervising a graduate student, and representing the University at the many conferences I am invited to speak at, and chair sessions :) I hope that helps :) Trevmar (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And yet, you introduced yourself in this thread by writing "Hi, I am Professor Trevor Marshall," giving the impression that you are a full professor. An adjunct professor would normally write something like "Hi, I'm Trevor Marshall, adjunct professor at the School of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences at Murdoch University in Western Australia." As with the FDA issue above, the choice of wording seems designed to mislead.

I'm not seeing a significant lack of balance in the article, but I do see a WP:BOOMERANG problem with your apparent difficulty in writing about yourself from a neutral point of view. I believe you should read closely our policies on editing with a conflict of interest and follow the instructions there, including not editing the article directly, instead making suggestions on its talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Beyond_my_Ken, I have never edited the bio myself, I did revert some of the wholesale changes which were made on 9th July, that was to preserve the factual accuracy of the bio. So I am not sure why you addressed this comment to me. As for calling myself "Professor," If you listen to the archives of any of the professional conferences I speak at, I am introduced as "professor" and then, if the bio is read, I am described as an adjunct professor. there is no stigma attached to an adjunct position, and that seems universal, wherever in the world I travel. The conference presentation archives can be found here at the Foundation's non-profit YouTube channel .. Trevmar (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverting is editing. Please follow the directions at WP:COI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I was carefully following the instructions in WP:BLP .. Trevmar (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The larger problem in my mind is the "trust me, I'm an expert/the subject of the article/friends with the author" approach taken in this, and similar articles. We don't trust the subjects of articles to edit their own pages, we insist on reliable, independent, secondary sources (with exceptions that are exceptions, not an excuse to shoehorn in lower-quality sources). I can sympathize that this seems absurd, unfair and unreasonable to the subjects of the articles, who can't help but note inaccuracies and can't help but want them corrected. I understand the frustration. But that doesn't change our policies, which do a pretty good job of maintaining quality content if followed. The main complaint seems to be that the Marshall protocol isn't given a sufficiently positive review or portrayed as widely accepted but given the significant lack of sources to portray it as such, I don't see there being much to do. If Marshall's ideas are true, we'll find out about it in time and report this period as a bump on his road to fame. If they're not, then any portrayal of them as vindicated, accepted or even promising is wrong. Having dealt with a fair number of fringe articles and subjects trying to wrestle into mainstream acceptance, I can't see any reason to make an exception here. If the ideas are true, then take the time to prove it, don't bypass by marketing direct to the public (and that includes in scientific conferences). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with many of the recent comments, including those of some of my good friends here. I am not a friend of fringe medicine and science, to put it mildly, but I think the best way to deal with it is to let it be represented with sourced references-- including the view of those who have propounded them--along with sourced criticism. The reader will make up their own mind about the status of the science. It's absurd to remove the Marshall protocol material from this article, though I think I've argued elsewhere that it is not sufficiently notable except for him as to be a separate article. There's a comment above that we only report those ideas shown to be true or the treatment correct. This is diametrically opposed to the basic principle that we go by verifiability, not truth. We are not here to determine what is good medical treatment, but just what is reported by Reliable sources. That we can do pretty well--we do not have the ability or the right to do the other. Evaluations of medical treatments are for peer-reviewed journals, not community editing by whomever care to take part in it. That's the sort of thing blogs do, not encyclopedias.

I am particularly upset by some of the negative comments about the person and the treatment here. Personally, I have an opinion about the probability that his medical views are correct, but even were I a qualified specialist instead of a biomedical librarian this would not be the place to give it. BLP applies to even discussions here, though not with the same strictness as in articles. Whatever the claims of someone may be, even people with a far less responsible background and much more intemperate ways of expressing it, we must treat them with dignity. The reader will judge. Were I a reader, and coming to this with no prior knowledge of the issue and total ignorance of the subject, I would judge from the manner of expression here that the man is a reasonable person, and some of his opponents irresponsible bigots. I know that the second part is not the case, and I urge some of my colleagues here to stop disgracing themselves. That's pretty strong language for me. I would never direct it to my enemies, but to my friends, it's intended to get them to step back and reconsider. Some people here seem to have an attitude to fringe which indicates to me they would do well to avoid the area. Our role is not to disprove (or prove) anything, and when we talk in such terms, we forfeit credibility. Crusaders belong elsewhere, even the most righteous of crusaders. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The available medical sources have been identified and evaluated on the BLP talk page. There are hardly any. Please look at the discussion there: it is far more useful than any general commentary here. Nobody has evaluated Trevor Marshall's research within his BLP: in line with how wikipedia is written, no secondary sources have been found that review his work in detail; there are short articles, including a published letter, which describe research on the Marshall Protocol as inadequate. In another case concerning fringe science, the associated BLP was deleted (after complaints to WMF from the subject); it was replaced by a short stub on the proposed scientific theory—a direct quote from a blurb on the theory written by the BLP subject himself, followed by a list of short peer-reviewed criticisms and a quote from an editorial note by a Nobel Laureate (see ECE theory). Wikipedia can sometimes be used to give publicity to fringe theories that themselves, away from wikipedia, can only be read about by the public or even specialists on internet websites. Mathsci (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natami

In a surprisingly contentious AfD, User:Tothwolf has, I believe, crossed the line. There've been two incidents which stand out in my mind.

First, in the course of the debate, one of the posters launched what I believe to be an egregious personal attack against me. [14] I refactored it, and it promptly devolved into an edit war with Tothwolf, who reverted several times before ceasing.

That being settled, he turned his attention to the {{afdanons}} template. As a casual observer would notice, the AfD has been flooded with anon IPs, egged on by postings in multiple topics on a message board to do so [15] [16], making use of the template not merely appropriate but the very situation for which the template was created in the first place. Tothwolf removed the notice, it was reverted, he removed it again, and - apparently unaware it had been up before - User:Yworo put it up afresh, with the edit summary "surprised no one had added {{not a vote}} despite influx of !votes from forum."

That Tothwolf is strongly oriented towards saving this article is obvious from his postings, but while strong advocacy of one's position is quite acceptable, disruption is not. Thank you for any consideration you can offer to settling the situation down.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, as explained on User:Ravenswing's talk page [17] [18] I take exception to any editor removing someone else's comments, particularly while making false statements that they are "refactoring". [19] [20] [21] When I undid Ravenswing's removal of another editor's comments [22] I also linked to WP:TPO in the edit summary which itself states under "Removing harmful posts": "[...] This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial."

  I've also made it clear to Ravenswing [23] that mass-tagging good faith comments by others as {{spa}} which had !voted "keep" while specifically choosing not to tag similar !votes of "delete" from other anonymous editors is not helpful. This selective tagging of those whom disagreed with Ravenswing's position [24] makes it clear such mass-tagging was not done in good faith, and was instead done in an attempt to discredit and downplay good faith arguments and discussion from those with an opinion which differs from Ravenswing.

  In addition, Ravenswing has already made it clear that they will try to use anything they can to attack my character [25] [26] including by means of selective removals of material from a discussion thread on their own talk page: "Just not particularly interested." [27] "Still disinterested." [28] (and now, apparently even AN/I).

  Ravenswing, stop playing the victim. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You didn't refactor, you removed, and Tothwolf was right to revert that. I don't care to look in to anything else, but I'm sure someone else will comment. Prodego ^talk 07:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Reply: Yes, I indeed missed tagging the one Delete SPA voter ... but then again, I failed to tag a few Keep voters as well. As Tothwolf removed all those tags, his complaint is rather a moot point. "Refactor" has frequently been a synonym for "remove" on Wikipedia, but that being said, WP:NPA plainly states "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." I believe the comment I removed was one, and the passage plainly does not prohibit doing so. Finally, the "selective removal" Tothwolf speaks of are his most recent comments on my own talk page, at the point where I judged that he wished to drag out a slanging match that had no apparent bearing on the AfD over which there is dispute or any other matter involving the editing of articles. As does any other editor, I enjoy the privilege of removing comments from my own talk page, especially when I believe they serve no purpose beyond harassment, and it should not have required a direct demand that he cease posting to my talk page. As it happens, he reverted one set of comments to my talk page, which is wildly inappropriate.

  As far as attacking Tothwolf's character goes, I reject the charge. Stating in a conversation on my own talk page that he was sanctioned by ArbCom for incivility is nothing more than a fact. If he does not wish that fact publicized, he should not highlight it at the top of his own talk page, without which I would not have seen it. Conflating a disinterest in reading over several links defending his conduct in that case into "doing anything I can to attack his character" is pretty far out there and, frankly, verging on paranoia.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  07:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring everything but the part about refactor since I must go, see wikt:refactor. Rewriting is the definition of refactor, nowhere on Wikipedia should refactor ever mean remove. Prodego ^talk 08:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I just thought of this, but did you perhaps mean redact instead of refactor? There is actually a handy little template for this named {{nono}}. While I didn't undo your edit of the other editor's comments [29] perhaps you could redo your edit and use the {{nono}} template instead? --Tothwolf (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Gah, that'd be right: "redact."  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  16:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to be all tangential, folks, but WP:REFACTOR point #3 does indeed say "Removal of off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material". Nevertheless, the context strongly suggests that the word Ravenswing was looking for was "redact" in this case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

These edits [30] [31] in which Ravenswing removed another editor's comments entirely, did not meet that criteria. That aside, I'm still not happy with Ravenswing attacking my character and attempting to discredit me by linking to part of a past issue which had later finally been dealt with by the community and ArbCom. Perhaps some of this has simply been a misunderstanding and I'm hopeful the two of us can still work this out. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm genuinely curious. In which fashion do you claim your character has been attacked? Were you not, in fact, cited by ArbCom for incivility (by unanimous vote, as it happens), as this link states you were? Were you not, in fact, placed under an edit restriction by ArbCom,as this link states you were? Was not, in fact, my pointing this out restricted to my talk page, until you made an issue of it here? If anyone attacked your character, it was ArbCom, and if there was any discredit to you, it was in whatever actions led them to their decision. I recognize that you disagree with their decision - although I imagine that few editors sanctioned by ArbCom ever do say "Yeah, I had it coming, you got me" - but no one's given me authority to overturn the fact of their decision. You do have an avenue of appeal, but ANI is not it.

That being said, I'm concerned at how readily you claim that people are out to "discredit" you. You used just that language in that ArbCom case against other parties there.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  05:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ravenswing, if you are genuinely interested in the background of what really happened, why then did you make these sort of dismissive comments: "Just not particularly interested." [32] "Still disinterested." [33] in your edit summaries when you removed the information I previously provided? It seems like as before [34] [35] [36] you are still trying to deflect attention away from your removal of another editor's comments and onto an expired ArbCom restriction.

While the ArbCom case itself was badly flawed (a fact which is not disputed by the current ArbCom), I can't fault the current ArbCom for what happened with a past ArbCom. I can however tell you that the drafting arbitrator made these same types of mistakes in prior cases and it did have an impact on him not being re-elected later. As for an ArbCom appeal, that would make little sense for an expired civility restriction.

The civility restriction itself was put in place because as described in this AN/I (which was the first link I provided you), I made the mistake of allowing myself to be baited by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma who were editing my comments on an article talk page [37] (where they then also edit warred with others [38]) and reposted parts of my comments out of context (and in a manner in which made them appear to have been posted that way by me) on a talk page that was part of the ArbCom case. [39]

Now, as for your previous claim of "[...] and several months down the road subjected to a permanent interaction ban with two of the editors in question." [40], that wasn't what happened either. What had happened is after the continued harassment documented in the ArbCom case (and later) these editors began mass-MFDing everything in my userspace. This is extremely well documented in the same AN/I link I previously provided you. In response to that AN/I discussion, Miami33139 attempted yet again to game AE, and got whacked by their own WP:BOOMERANG in the process. Those events are documented in the second link I provided you (C&C warning for anyone following that discussion link). In response to Miami33139's filing, ArbCom wrote a restriction to prevent them from continuing to MFD things in my userspace. It was worded so simply however, that it in effect made it a two-way restriction, even though I had previously done just about everything I could to avoid these individuals, including stopping editing entirely (also documented in the same AN/I).

That's about all I can really get into here without this turning into a huge wall of text, but for others who are curious about the larger story, these links which I now have on my talk page will help fill in more of the details.

• Wikihounding and disruptive editing?
• Request to amend prior case: Tothwolf
• Down the Rabbit Hole (Material linked to during the above two discussions)
• Harassment of Tothwolf by Theserialcomma
• Blocked: personal attacks, baiting and hounding
• Blocked: loss of talkpage access
• Special:Contributions/Theserialcomma
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theserialcomma/Archive
• On the subject of COI
• Personal experience with an editor gaming AE (Statement made during AESH case)
• What about the issue of "Block is AE block because I say so" (Additional comments made during AESH case)
• One second blocks
• Case naming (Lengthy and contains many additional links)

There is of course still much more to it, but I'm trying to provide as much information as I can without it becoming too much of a wall of text. Ravenswing, thanks for pushing me to finally begin the process of documenting all of this in one place. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• As it happens, I was not interested in you rehashing your case on my talk page; that is why I removed your attempts to do so. I am not interested now, which is why I shan't comment on your numerous links, any more than I did earlier. And as far as any "deflection" goes, I am responding to your comments about "attacking" your character. These matters wouldn't keep coming up without you continuing to rehash them. Suffice it to say that how ArbCom ruled on your case is a matter of record, plainly spoken and set out, and I reiterate that should you desire to overturn that, this is not the venue to do so.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  09:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Ravenswing, no... it is readily apparent to most that you thought you would be able to bring up a past issue unrelated to your own behaviour in an attempt to intimidate me. When your initial attempt on your own talk page failed, you then tried AN/I. I seriously doubt anyone here will be fooled by your attempts to spin discussion over your behaviour at AfD of removing others' comments and attempting to discredit and downplay other good faith discussion from others with mass-spa tags.

  Ravenswing, something else you need to realise is I put up with far, far worse from one of the individuals involved in the material documented in those links. I would much prefer that you and I not end up in some sort of long drawn out argument, but all you seem to want to do is bring up past stuff about others which is unrelated to your own behaviour to try to spin the discussion to anything other than your own behaviour.

  Ravenswing, let me be blunt: Stop trying to intimidate others. No one here is afraid of you. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This conversation has become more than a bit ridiculous. Here's my semi-uninvolved, no-longer-lurking take:

1. Ravenswing was wrong to excise the entirety of the comment that incorporated a personal attack against him. I don't think that point is being disputed by anyone at this point. Perhaps Ravenswing is. If so, he shouldn't be. Removal of the offending portion of the comment is fine, but the rest of the comment made some clearly salient points to the AfD. Phew! Tothwolf 1, Ravenswing 0!
2. I don't see why Tothwolf felt the need to remove the AfDAnon tag, when there are clearly a number of SPAs in the discussion. That tag is plainly helpful and was clearly relevant to the issue, and it neither disparages nor discourages legitimate contributions to the discussion. Sweet! You both made boo-boo's in the AfD! Score tied!
3. One of you missed an SPA or two when tagging SPAs in the discussion! The other then deleted all of the tags! Score still tied!

The rest of the conversation is where it goes completely off the rails, as far as I'm concerned. I see no attempts to intimidate (seriously? "intimidate"? what is this, a John Grisham novel?), engage in character attacks, discredit, or anything else. I see some snarky comments on both sides. It is, however, perfectly clear that neither of you are currently capable of just dropping this, which is what you ought to be doing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Lianalupe at Histrionic personality disorder

User:Lianalupe seems to have a serious gripe against Histrionic personality disorder and keeps editing totally against consensus. Can somebody do something. Thanks. --Penbat (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

They were being blatantly disruptive, so I've given them a day off from editing. Favonian (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The user's talk page seems to warrant a uw-npa template but I didn't want to over-template them (and I'm also unsure if that falls under WP:NPA or merely WP:CIVIL), so I figured the better action would be to mention it here, where the admins can decide what action (if any) to take on that. - SudoGhost™ 14:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A day off is nice and pretty short, given the amount of disruption and name-calling. I declined their unblock request. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be some disruptive sockpuppets and/or SPAs at work at that article too. Perhaps an SPI would be helpful. Deli nk (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A Swollen Butterbee (talk · contribs) made one single edit that falls in that category, yes. But Haveanicelifeconsciousness (talk · contribs) plays the other side--unless it's that old good hand/bad hand thing, but that seems unlikely to me. Where Brokencurio (talk · contribs) comes from is anyone's guess (what they removed wasn't irrelevant--just unsourced and not in the proper encyclopedic style). But I'll tell you one thing that irritates me: the undertone of anti-feminism I detect in comments made criticizing Lianalupe, this talk of "propaganda" and "POV". Drmies (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BITE, with trouts all around

OK. I've spent some time on this matter, and I think there's something to be learned from this experience. Let me give you my conclusions first: User:Penbat and User:Seduisant really should reconsider how they interact with other editors, especially new ones. Two other editors, User:Brokencurio and User:Haveanicelifeconsciousness, are SPAs who likewise deserve a kick in the rear.

One other remark beforehand: calling Lianalupe's edits "a pile of uncited, irrelevant, feminist drivel", vandalism, or rants, or whatever, is nonsense. You may not like her Luce Irigaray-influenced commentary (of course it's unverified, POV, etc--Lianalupe clearly has no experience editing Wikipedia), but it's not nonsense, and anyone who spends some time studying the matter knows that there is sexism involved in the matter.

On June 8, Lianalupe completes a series of edits that culminated in this. Granted, this is not an encyclopedic addition by our standards, and it's not verified--but these are the user's first edits. Immediately an editor slaps a set of templates on it, here. Three days later, User:Brokencurio makes her only edit in article space and reverts the lot, with an edit summary that says "Removed irrelevant, unsourced section." (As an aside, I'd like to know how Brokencurio got there, and where she learned the ropes.) Over the next few days, the section is restored by Lianalupe, ending here. On June 14 Seduisant tags the article as "nearly unreadable"--not a nice thing to say. Mind you, by this time Lianalupe hasn't even received a welcome (and future discussion on her talk page indicates clearly that some aspects of WP were not clear to her). Out of nowhere comes a new editor and removes the lot, with no explanation--no edit summary, no message on the talk page, nothing; that same editor does the same thing fifteen minutes later, this time with the added insult "removed 'feminist critique' section. propoganda, misinformation". That edit summary is an insult, and indicative not just of insensitivity but also of an utter lack of knowledge. I am saddened to see that the removal was applauded by User:Seduisant on User talk:Haveanicelifeconsciousness--and Seduisant saw fit to refer to Lianalupe's addition as a "rant". Note that at this time Lianalupe's talk page is still empty. The removal by Haveanicelife is apparently endorsed by User:Penbat, whose edit summary is instructive.

By now, Lianalupe has been bitten by an SPA (Brokencurio), another SPA (Haveanicelife), and two established editors (Seduisant and Penbat). She has yet to have someone explain to her what was wrong with her edits in the first place.

Lianalupe restores, Seduisant removes again, Lianalupe restores again, and now Penbat removes. By this time Lianalupe has been welcomed by an uninvolved editor (who immediately gets called a bad name by Lianalupe, to be sure), but neither Seduisant nor Penbat see any need to post anything on Lianalupe's talk page, who by now is frustrated and starts edit-warring, blanking sections from the article. Next thing you know, Penbat is here, opening up an ANI thread, and Lianalupe gets blocked as a result.

Penbat and Seduisant, if you have paid more attention, and if you had taken the time to explain what was wrong with the editor's contribution, this would never have gotten as far as it did. You should be trouted for it--especially since Penbat made some useful comments on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:CreatureKawa moving pages

Resolved

 – I have indeffed - but in the "until they respond and agree to abide by policy" sense, not in the "don't come back" sense. Any admin can unblock on positive response on their talk page and an unblock request. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

CreatureKawa (talk · contribs) has been moving pages to disruptive titles. Just look at his log. He moved John Adams to Atlas of Independence Adams, Caroline Kennedy to Caroline Schlossberg and most recently Ross Perot to Henry Ross Perot, Sr. He has been warned on this talk page countless times. I think it's time to block.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Endorse. This has been going on for quite some time. The editor has made some very strange page moves (for example, moving Susan Ford to a form of her name that turned up no Google hits other than the moved article names) as well as some rather wacky edits about elections four-six years in the future. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Contentious block of admin

Resolved

 – ...and everybody had a good hug and cry--Jayron32 04:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I just blocked Andrew c‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 1 week for moving Abortion-rights movement to Pro-choice movement, despite the last move discussion having closed as no consensus and the article being full-move-protected to prevent moves without discussion. Since this is sure to be a contentious block, I'm bringing it here for review instead of waiting for Andrew to post an unblock request. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that this was the second time he had moved it to that title -- the first time was on May 2nd, which was promptly reverted by Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs), after which Airplaneman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) move-protected the article with the comment "Protected Abortion-rights movement: no need to move without prior discussion (hot-topic article)". He has participated on move discussions on the talkpage in February and May.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Being an admin, he should know better than to do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A week for a first block seems a bit severe. Sarek - are you WP:INVOLVED in the article or the general dispute? Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about an admin here. If the block is upheld - even for 24 hours, we should be talking about de-sysop. Toddst1 (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not terribly involved -- most of my editing in that area has involved trying to keep people from edit warring. I have no particular opinion on which way the title should be, except that I'd like pro-life and pro-choice to eventually settle on parallel titles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Toddst1, no need to go that far yet, in my opinion. Sarek, the block was an OK one to me. If I made one at all (and I'm thinking I might have settled for a final warning instead), I would have either made it 24 hours or indefinite, depending on the point that was trying to be made. NW (Talk) 00:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that Sarek. I see also now that the article and talkpage history reflects your comment. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify a bit further, I do indeed have strong opinions on the subject, but in this case, that makes me work harder to keep them from affecting my article/admin work.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly big hammer, but admin was clearly involved and used admin tools to try to win the content dispute. Unambiguously a violation. I agree with NW that perhaps this was an un-optimal time period (final warning or 24 hrs seems more appropriate). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

He's apologized and requested unblock, and I think that reoccurrence is unlikely. I have to go and am not going to action the unblock myself as I'm not going to be here to respond to questions/feedback, but I would support someone else doing so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know Andrew c but his comments in his unblock request strike me as quite sincere: he performed the action at a time he was feeling a little heated, and as part of that he did not notice that the page was fully move-protected. He's saying he won't move the page again, and I think he's sincere about that. I would support an unblock at this point; lesson learned. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

He's probably learned his lesson, but I find it disturbing that he clearly states, "In fact, it still isn't clear to me what the violation was." Perhaps someone needs to explain that very clearly before he is (theoretically) unblocked? PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 02:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The part of the WP:ADMIN policy (in the "nutshell") that says, that admins are "never to use [their tools] to gain advantage in a dispute"...? Yes, fair point. That needs to be highlighted to him, although he seems to get that (partially, perhaps) with his comment that what he had done was "worse because regular editors couldn't undo it due to the move protection". I'd still support unblocking. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblocking - as he should have received a final warning and has no block history (or history of abusing the tools). AGF and allow him the ability to account here and explain to him if he doesn't understand.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblocking here as well. Admins should know better, yes, but a revert and a 4im warning could do that as well. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• He's apologized, said that he regrets moving the page, and promised not to move it again. Which sounds like a good reason to lift the block. MastCell ^Talk 03:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• He crossed a pretty bright line, so I don't think you can argue that a block was inappropriate (if anyone indeed is). In addition, though he's making all the right noises, he did say that it wasn't clear to him what the violation was. But there's probably no need to prolong the block. Unblock is fine, but there was a real issue here that went beyond a simple warning level. RxS (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

and I do not seem to see the need of a desysop, unless he should do the like again. I am a little troubled that he does not seem to understand the reason why he was wrong, but we can judge by what happens in practice. If he avoids such situations, that will be sufficient for all practical purposes. I think we can end the block. It's done what it was supposed to do. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, a block for "time served." --Rschen7754 03:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Block lifted per discussion above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock, and I am truly sorry for my actions. I feel bad about the whole thing, and ashamed, and now I have this blemish on my previously squeaky clean record which will haunt me forever. It's like getting an F on a report card back when I was in school (though honestly, that never happened to me). I just want this whole thing to be over and behind me. But I will prolong it just a little further. I understand 100% that admins should never use their tools to gain favor in a dispute, and I agree that is terrible offense. I was confused about the block because of the length, because I received no prior warning of any kind (nor a final warning as some above mentioned), because I wasn't aware I had used my tools to make the move in the first place (ignorance, I will admit), and because Sarek brought up the general sanctions and 1RR (which I don't think directly applied in this case). I understand completely the stated reason for the block "moving a contentious full-move-protected article without recent discussion", and that clearly is my fault, even if I wasn't aware at the time of the offense (also causing some confusion). Hopefully, this explains why I said "it still isn't clear to me what the violation was." If the violation was I used my admin tools to move a protected page without a clear prior consensus thus gaining favor during a content dispute via admin tool abuse (or, another way to look at it would be a admin revert against another admin's move and thus wheel warring), then I understand my offense, and I can say it won't happen again on that article ever, and I'll be much more careful in the future. If there are other compounding factors, then I may still be missing something. Thanks for your comments and the unblock, and again, I am sorry and hope to put this behind me. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Your summary above gets most of it, but misses the part where you had argued in two move requests for the change, hadn't gotten your way, and had previously moved it to that title and been reverted within an hour. It wasn't just that there wasn't a clear prior consensus for the move, it was that the consensus was leaning in the other direction, and that you move warred knowing this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Perce, Quebec

I noticed that the article on Perce, Quebec was edited by 174.91.247.221 (talk · contribs) to be included in the Wiki category "Quebec communities with significant anglophone populations" and was curious as to why this community was added. In a brief online search, I could not find anything to substantiate this, and so was curious about the (anonymous) user's other edits. I found that the same user made over 60 such edits in the course of one evening (14 Jun 11), most only minutes apart, so I would assume that this is a bot of some sort. Is this an acceptable edit (list)? HiFlyChick (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

With the right internet connection, making a paste edit at 12:01:01 and 12:01:59 is quite possible to do manually. Many of the other edits on June 14 were 2 to 3 minutes apart, so I doubt that this was an automated bot. However, the truthiness of adding that category is probably questionable - if it's unsourced, and likely untrue (what is the definition of "significant"?), then it's a content issue - remove the cat if needed, unless it's appropriately sourced inside the text iteself in the demographics section. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact, to this anglophone Quebecoise the categories seem likely to be fine. There are pockets of anglophones all over, including in the lower Gaspe, as mentioned by this government info sheet.[41] Slp1 (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Pockets" are one thing; "significant populations" is completely different...however, this is now becoming a content dispute, which should be argued elsewhere. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible legal threat regarding film articles

At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (film)#Images and Copyright: "Fair use", critical commentary vs simple illustration, Amadscientist (talk · contribs) started a discussion about whether or not film posters were appropriate in articles. The discussion focused on the inclusion rationale for a poster, as well as the template used to display the rationale and the theory that including posters affected their "original market value". Amadscientist did not find editors agreeing with him and recently made this comment that says, "...and make sure my friends know how wiki film articles work. I will encourage all directors, actors and producers I know, meet or work with in the future to voice their opinion with legal action instead of discussion because talking on the very page devoted to improving the MOS is discouraged" (italics mine). Per WP:LEGAL, the threat foreshadows two problems:

• It severely inhibits free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systemic bias in our articles.
• It creates bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently with an assumption of mutual good faith.

I was not sure how outright a threat needed to be to count, and I request for admins to review Amadscientist's comment. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't view it as a legal threat as such, or at least not something that would lead to a block of the account, given the way it is couched "I will encourage....". The tone and rhetoric is disapointing however, albeit likely borne from frustration, and I'd urge Amadscientist to retract it. No comment on the background or other aspects of this, just over the diff you provide. Pedro :  Chat  12:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

My reading is that he's basically saying "since it's useless to try and change the MOS here, I am going to tell everyone I know in the film industry to sue Wikipedia in order to get it changed" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That was my reading as well. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily mean that genuine legal action is about to hit wikipedia, but that's not the only reason why we have WP:LEGAL - it's also there as an acknowledgement that sometimes people try to get their way by threatening that lawsuits will fall on those who disagree when they have been unable to gain consensus by more appropriate means - such behaviour is also a Bad Thing regardless of whether or not the threat is truly serious. bobrayner (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, it's one step removed from actually threatening legal action oneself. That's why I cited the rationale for the policy, that such statements can severely inhibit free editing of pages and creates bad feelings. It's still an attempt to intimidate change just because the talk page discussion was inconclusive for that editor. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think he should be offered the opportunity to retract the remark prior to any sanction under WP:LEGAL personally; Noting that the editor is based in California I assume he's probably in bed by now, which may mean several hours. Pedro :  Chat  12:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Can't find it right now but we have blocked for exactly this sort of thing before, threatening to get others to sue. Why would we wait before blocking? The block is a request to retract, and if he retracts there's no problem, if he doesn't we'd have to block anyway. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You may be thinking of this prior case: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive698#User:Kronikerdelta making threats against editors. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

{{uw-ltblock}} DMacks (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked and left appropriate template. This will ensure that his first action when he tries to edit is to read the reson for his block, come here and view why, then forumlate an appropriate unblock request in order to retract his statements. It will not stop him from following through with his threat (which would be pretty silly to do anyway), but it will remove the cloud of fear. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed, about the same time he made the comment, he removed the WikiProject Film template from the talk page of The Rocky Horror Picture Show as seen here. He's the primary contributor of that film article. While it's not directly pertinent to my initial complaint, it seems part of the editor being combative toward WikiProject Film due to dissatisfaction. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't have any room for editors who play the "I didn't get my way, so f-you" childish game (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this falls, strictly, under NLT. NLT includes an exception for "polite, coherent" statements concerning copyright claims, and doesn't say the exception won't apply if the statement is polite and coherent but thoroughly wrongheaded. Were the user to have said, for example, "legal action beginning with DMCA takedown notices," I think no block would be appropriate, at leastnot for the statement in isolation. If the posting editor were to clarify that he was not encouraging or suggesting action against individual uploaders/editors, or otherwise trying to intimidate them, I think that would be sufficient. Not all wrongheaded comments with disruptive tendency deserve indef-blocking; while this one probably crossed the line in terms of disruptive potential, it didn't do so by very much. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As a legal threat it's really borderline, and it follows a lengthy discussion about using film posters as "decorations", about which he's got a point. Back when I used to do fair-use uploads from time to time, I was frequently lectured about using them as "decorations". Which is why I stopped even trying to do fair-use uploads. In fact, I'm surprised that the resident deletionists haven't zeroed in on these glaringly-obvious items. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There was an RfC about such cover art (a larger discussion than just film posters) that I shared with Amadscientist. You can see it here: Wikipedia:Non-free content/Cover art RfC. Amadscientist acknowledged that conclusion and focused on whether or not the boilerplate templates were sufficient and if use of posters threatened their "original market value". Erik (talk | contribs) 18:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The user formerly known as Betacommand is the strictest non-free-content rules enforcer that I'm aware of, so I've asked him to come here and offer an opinion. Frankly, I don't much care for the idea that some fair-use stuff is OK for decorations and some is not. The posters are hardly ever discussed in the film articles, and the information listed (such as the cast) is typically already given in the article. I can think of a few cases where the contents of the poster itself became noteworthy, for example the brouhaha over the poster used for For Your Eyes Only, or if there's something unusual in a poster, such as the billing order of the actors. In general, to my mind, the fair use rules are way too restrictive. But I understand the reasoning behind them. I don't see how a film poster gets to slide by, while the cover of a biography book is somehow not allowed because it's "decorative". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the topic is appropriate to discuss; the issue was Amadscientist's specific legal comment. Betacommand's comments are welcome at the WikiProject Film discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There's also a question of fairness about the block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If we wish to revise the policy, a discussion on that can be taken at the proper place, but there is a clear understanding that these illustrations are permitted. (I think such an attempt would not be productive, as the current support for them is even stronger than in the past.) DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In talking with Delta about this, I have concluded that the posters are allowed, as they are an important identifying illustration, as with sports team logos, company logos, and the like; hence they don't have to be directly discussed in the article. They also amount to free advertising for a given film, so the studios are very unlikely to sue over the use of an index-card sized reproduction of a poster. Therefore, the issue raised by the complainant about "market value" can only refer to the poster itself. That leads me to believe the guy is a collector rather than being connected with any studio. And his threat to "tell everyone he knows in Hollywood" to damage wikipedia in some way is most likely a self-serving bluff. Hence, it qualifies for blocking under the spirit of No Legal Threats, which has to do with intimidation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have unblocked as the user has promised to retract the legal threat [42] Pedro :  Chat  08:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone using Wikipedia to sell his obituary website

• RajithR (talk · contribs)
• Patrolling Admin, please see the guy's talk page for further details. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the poor advertising, and am watching the page. Did you notify him that you had brought him here to ANI? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• In my haste, no as I had to attend to some RL issue before getting back. My bad! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you've rectified that now :-) ... and you also know that we do not typically fully delete usertalk pages ... how would anyone know that he's already been welcomed (shown the rules) and warned (really shown the rules) if we delete the entire page and its history? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(NB: I have notified the editor of the ANI notice and the resolution) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• oobituary.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.oobituary.com

Tracking. MER-C 12:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Peraonal attack/uncivil behaviour

Editor in question disagreed with changes I made to an article, but when he wrote his reason for reverting my edits; instead of citing WIkipedia guidelines or some other valid reason (ie. the source doesn't say that), he made a personal attack: "revert massive changes by vehement enemy of Jefferson -- to maintain NPOV article please take to talk page and make only incremental changes" [43]. I warned him I would report his behaviour [44]; instead of responding or apologising, he deleted my comment [45].

He claims that editors must discuss changes with him (not a wiki rule). I'm happy to discuss these things, and had already begun to do so, though he ignored my comments, as this section clearly demonstrates [46]. He, in the talk page, provided not one reason for reverting my changes twice: he claims NPOV on my part; he needs to demonstrate it. I have already had to report this editor to the noticeboard for WP:OR & plagiarism [47] when he claimed insisted on posting things that violated policy in the Monroe article. I must assume his refusal to allow my changes in the Jefferson article and his personal attack today are something personal. Be that as it may, why is he allowed to attack me like this, and how can I seriously be expected to engage in conversation with someone who deletes my comments and refuses to communicate? He's very quick to make reverts, but extremely slow to discuss the changes to the article.Ebanony (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebanony in a few minutes deleted dozens of fully sourced statements that had long been in the article with the statement that some of them were inaccurate. I and other editors insisted that changes be incremental, taken one at a time, with his evidence of inaccuracy stated and discussed. Ebanony has numerous edits here and on related pages [TJ and Slavery] designed to diminish Jefferson's historical stature, that makes him an enemy of Jefferson. ("vehement" yes...Random House Unabridged definition #1 = "zealous; ardent; impassioned: a vehement defense; vehement enthusiasm.") Rjensen (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The edits may be problematic, but using a term such a "vehement enemy" is wrong for more than one reason. It is an inference, rather than established fact, and it is a comment about other editor not the edits. Please don't do that, and it will be easier to support you if the edits are problematic.--SPhilbrickT 13:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment.Ebanony (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we revdel ebay listings?

Like this one? a_man_alone (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not unless they meet one of the RevDel criteria, no. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 14:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Another useful link I've learned. Cheers. a_man_alone (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, Notzrim (Hebrew word for Christians)

Apologies everyone, one of those inherently flaky articles: but the entry on the noticeboard for Notzrim from yesterday appears to have disappeared, was there any resolution? Or was it archived? The anon IP edits inserting the theory that "Nazarene" Christians predate Christianity by 600 years (something to do with the "Nazarene" Talk:Syrian Malabar Nasrani church in India?) are continuing to pull this article around. Is WP:RFC a better place to post this? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem persists. Meph has advised by my Talk Page to try WP:RFC, I'll try there. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Being followed/stalked by two editors

I have created several pages on here, and these two people, user:Reaper Eternal and user:ConcernedVancouverite marked them with deletion, and were quickly declined because they did not justify the right criteria. These pages were redirects to Wiktionary (Groan, Wiseass, etc.). Then, user:ConcernedVancouverite marked 4 pages I have created many months ago, which I believe are notable and deserve their own articles. The page NuTone is clearly a notable, big company that needs page expansion and more sources. But should not be deleted. They have not been marked for deletion before, I don't think its a a coincidence. I am currently finding additional sources and encouraging others to help out as well. Tinton5 (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Reaper Eternal CSDed two of your articles while on New Page Patrol. Whereas it appears that ConcernedVancouverite CSDed one of the articles created by you on the 12th of May, and then today PRODed 3 articles and AfDed 1 article created by you. ConcernedVancouverite may have come across an article created by you that he felt did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines and nominated it. It is likely that he also checked to see if any other articles you created failed to meet the guidelines. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

For added clarity, as noted in my reply directly to the editor who raised this issue in this diff [48], "I have explained the rationale for all proposed deletions on the individual pages. Generally subjects need to be notable as documented in reliable secondary sources to have articles on Wikipedia. For those that are not, and for which I can not find evidence of such reliable sources, I propose deletion and explain it as such on each proposal." As I imagine the user may be aware, they are free to remove a PROD if they disagree with it, as long as they address the concern. Also as noted by the admin whom the editor contacted to request assistance on this here [49], "...it might be a good idea to open up a wider debate and/or confirmation that we want essentially empty articles pointing to Wiktionary." (which was one of the speedy deletes I proposed as an A3, which was declined). The other deletions I have proposed were not related to this issue, they were based upon lack of reliable source coverage to establish notability as noted here [50] or lack of any notability claims at all as noted here [51]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I declined the speedy deletion request on a few of the articles. Tinton5 asked me to restore others that were created as redirects/references to Wiktionary, and I suggested bringing it to ANI for more input. Before I go restoring what might be a bunch of pages, I wanted to make sure there was consensus that these pages are okay. In one sense, they could technically be deleted per A3 if you only go by the criterion as written, but we have hundreds of such pages and they seem to provide some value (more than a redlink at least). I suggested an ANI discussion, because on the one hand a lot of people watch this page, and on the other hand there are pages to either be deleted or restored which will require admins to do it. -- Atama頭 22:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that these "Wiktionary redirect" pages are appropriate for Wikipedia because they are essentially just external links or interwiki links, hence falling under criteria A3. Additionally, many of these pages (like Wisecracker and Wiseass) seem unlikely to ever amount to anything more than a dictionary definition and thus require deletion by PROD or AFD. If, however, consensus is that these pages are appropriate, I will abide by the community's decision. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC) (Stricken, per Moonriddengirl below)

(non-admin comment) As a Wikipedian in general, I am all for inclusion, but as a new page patrolman I get incredibly frustrated at A. The amount of BS pages that I have to tag for deletion, and B. The amount of BS pages I know wouldn't pass an AFD but can't be speedied. With that said, I'm actually on board with Tinton's Wikiquote redirect pages. If they don't redirect to Wikiquote I can pretty much guarantee some newbie who doesn't understand/care about WP policies will create that page with something like "A wiseass is someone who makes sarcastic comments." And it will be deleted, and recreated, and deleted, and recreated, and maybe eventually salted. At least this way we keep the place clean and don't have to deal with the "discussion" side of things, nor the constant deletions. N^oformation ^Talk 03:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm to Wiktionary. Is someone wants a simple definition, off to Wiktionary on your own. Delete redirects to Wiktionary on sight. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• That would seem to necessitate altering Wikipedia:Soft redirect and perhaps WP:CSD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, hadn't seen that page before, so I strike my comment on them being subject to A3 deletion. However, I don't think we should go around creating hordes of these pages that will never turn into anything. Like BWilkins said, Wikipedia is not a linkfarm for Wiktionary. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is related as well, because in one fell swoop, User ConcernedVancouverite (talk · contribs) has now also nominated three articles in a row about synagogues for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation M'Kor Shalom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Beth Sholom (Cherry Hill, New Jersey), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Emanuel (Cherry Hill, New Jersey). He has been requested to clarify at User talk:ConcernedVancouverite#Question regarding New Jersey, USA synagogues. Obviously the articles need improvement, as hundreds of thousands of new and old WP articles do, but the way to go about helping WP is not by imposing harsh deletionist decrees but instead seek a WP:AGF dialogue with the creators of the articles or with those who may know more about it such as at WP:TALKJUDAISM, rather than just simply make blunt blanket statements that: "I have explained the rationale... For those that are not, and for which I can not find evidence of such reliable sources, I propose deletion and explain it as such on each proposal. As I imagine the user may be aware..." Just who exactly is this "I" that can impose policies as if he speaks for the global WP community which he does not! User ConcernedVancouverite (talk · contribs) needs to note that the ways of Meta:Inclusionism are just as valid as his own self-declared "goals". He needs to stop his deletionist crusade and rather seek WP:CONSENSUS with editors who are creating good stuff, especially if it is not in his strictly defined area of interest per se. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• To be honest, IZAK, there was nothing inappropriate about bringing any of those articles to deletion discussions. Only one has any references (a single one), and the reference supports the notability of the synagogue's founder, not the building itself. Your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument in favor of keeping the articles doesn't hold much weight. You might consider asking the Article Rescue Squadron or a relevant Wikiproject for assistance in establishing notability, but on the surface ConcernedVancouverite seems to have the strongest argument. -- Atama頭 15:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Atama: Thanks for your feedback. Indeed, as you state, anyone who is going to go on a deletion rampage to knock out three articles about Jewish houses of worship should turn to "a relevant Wikiproject for assistance in establishing notability" in this case it's WP:JUDAISM and he did NOT do that. It is a fine line to know when some articles deserve to be saved or not and that is why WP:LAWYERING should be avoided as an excuse to enforce "the letter of the law" when there are better and WP:CONSENSUS ways of doing things especially in sensitive subjects that concern Jews and Judaism. So perhaps, as you note, that while "ConcernedVancouverite seems to have the strongest argument" it is nevertheless counter-productive when he has never shown any interest, or sought consensus, or expertise in this field and should have rather proceeded with caution. I make it a point to never intervene, especially in areas I am not proficient in, no matter how weak I may find many articles but I keep my nose out of it and leave it up to seasoned editors in that field who will in good time get around to cleaning up what needs to be cleaned up. In this complaint there is another serious point you need to note and that is that ConcernedVancouverite evidently targeted the three synagogue articles for deletion because they too were created by User Tinton5 (talk · contribs) [52] [53] [54] which definitely comes across as WP:WIKIHOUNDING and a clear violation of WP:HARASS of User Tinton5 (talk · contribs). Thanks for taking note. IZAK (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If someone notices that a person has created an article that may not meet our guidelines, it is normal to take it to Prod or AfD, and to check if other articles by the same creator have the same problems. Nominating multiple, even many articles by the same creator for deletion is not hounding or harassment, but good editing, if the nominated articles (or at least a significant proportion of them) indeed fail our guidelines. And three articles is hardly a "rampage". Fram (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now speedy deleted Temple Beth Sholom (Cherry Hill, New Jersey) for copyright violation. One of the other nominated articles, Temple Emanuel (Cherry Hill, New Jersey), also originally was a copyright violation, but this was CorenSearchBot and then removed. Considering that the now deleted article was created 5 months after that earlier copyright violation, and that inbetween most of Bonhamtown, New Jersey had been removed as a copyvio as well, we may have to look closely at the other articles by this editor. Fram (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There are limits, nominating 50 articles at once is just hard to deal with (and it happens), but 3? IZAK, throwing around accusations of hounding and harassment without just cause is not acceptable. And no, my suggestion was for you to seek assistance with a Wikiproject, not ConcernedVancouverite. I believe the person who needs to proceed with caution is yourself, your unfounded accusations can be considered personal attacks. Consider this a formal warning.

Also, I have some concerns about this end-run around our deletion process. No policies were violated, nothing was technically done out-of-process, but it's just simply wrong that a couple of the articles were speedily deleted and immediately recreated, thus circumventing the WP:AFD process, especially since these articles are still unsourced (let alone lacking evidence of notability). -- Atama頭 18:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio problems

Looking further, there is e.g. Betty and Milton Katz Jewish Community Center, which is taken from [55]: e.g.

• "It is a haven for Jewish organizations, children, teenagers, adults, and individuals with special needs. The JCC hosts holiday celebrations, festivals, educational and cultural programs and social activities for the entire community" vs.
• "It is a haven for Jewish organizations, children, youth and older adults and individuals with special needs. The JCC is proud to host holiday celebrations, festivals, educational and cultural programs and social activities for the entire community."

Or Garden State Discovery Museum from [56]:

• "The Garden State Discovery Museum offers educational entertainment at its hands-on best. As children and adults interact in the museum, they discover much more than meets the eye. The museum's philosophy is that they learn about mathematics – geometry, patterns and symmetry – while exploring the arts and enjoying science, too. Visitors can also learn about health and nutrition as they plan healthy pretend meals in the popular Discovery Diner or discuss the science of suds in the Bubble Trouble exhibit." vs.
• "The Garden State Discovery Museum offers educational entertainment at its hands-on best.[...] As children and adults interact in the museum, they discover much more than meets the eye. They learn about mathematics - geometry, patterns and symmetry - while exploring the arts and enjoying science, too. Visitors can learn about health and nutrition as they plan healthy pretend meals in the popular Discovery Diner or discuss the science of suds in the Bubble Trouble exhibit."

It may be time to turn this in a complete copyright violations investigation, I'm afraid... Fram (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Duplication Detector comparisons: [57] [58]. Additionally Kaitlyn DiBenedetto. Yay. MER-C 13:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all copyright material. Case closed. Tinton5 (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. Are you sure that these are the only articles in which you have inserted non-trivial amounts of copyrighted material? While ignorance of our copyright policies is understandable, deceit when confronted by evidence is not so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Snowded persistant problems on BNP page

The user snowded will not allow the BNP page to be updated. An argument has been going on for months about updating the BNP page, especially their ideology box, but the user Snowden constantly deletes peoples material.

He also has just vandalised the ethnic nationalism page.

Viewing his profile, it turns out Snowded is this guy here: Dave Snowden - a far-leftist who posts rants on his personal blog etc about how much he hates BNP. Clearly there is a problem here with NPOV. Why are biased editors allowed all over the BNP page?

Thulist88 (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask...Thulist88, are you related to the Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs) account? — Scientizzle 20:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No. However i've followed his debates on the BNP page (along with others) who have noticed that the British National Party political box is not neutral. Snowded and the user multiculturalist are both biased anti-BNPer's who are objecting to anyone updating the article more neutrally.

Also note that anglo was banned for defending the British National Party, while users like multiculturalist get away with posts like these:

- 'but let's face it, we all know who the racists are and it is those who do nothing but defend the BNP' [59]

Multiculturalist continues to get away with labelling the BNP as 'racists' 'idiots' or 'nazis' and doesn't get even a warning. Thulist88 (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whatever, he hasn't edited the BNP page, just arrived at the talk page today.Snowded edited the BNP page once today, the last edit before today was the 11th, then one on the 7th, so there's no edit warring by him. I'll let him know about this. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

- Please update the BNP political box. The BNP are not white nationalists but ethnic nationalists. See the BNP talk page. - I suggest a topic ban for Snowded on the BNP page. Repeatedly he has shown he opposes NPOV. He is a far-leftist who is only on the BNP page to cause trouble hence he won't let anyone near it for it to be updated more neutrally.

- Btwm BNP will also be personally contacted over this, and i think a fine article will be made and posted on the main site about how BNP supporters/members on wikipedia are discriminated against and banned (like anglo who only wanted to page to be neutrally presented). Who are the real fascists? Thulist88 (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The proposals made on the BNP page were ether unreferenced or OR from misinterpreted sources. Similar material was posted to the ethnic nationalist page. It looks like sock or meat puppetry given some of the comments and "knowledge" evidenced above. Otherwise I'll let the rant above speak for itself, although the final comment sounds a little like a threat. For the record in five years of almost daily bloging I have briefly mentioned the BNP once --Snowded ^TALK 20:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a sockpuppet report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist. There seems to be a fair bit of quacking but I'd like a checkuser confirmation. -- Atama頭 21:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

- Someone who supports NPOV please go over the sources posted. Snowded has no interest in reading them, everything that is posted he rejects and just posts back with a rude one liner. As i said, and others have pointed out, Snowded Dave Snowden is biased against the BNP and he should be topic banned. How is it that BNP supporters are banned like anglo but far left wing anti-BNPers like Dave Snowden are allowed all over the article? Thulist88 (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't Anglo's "brother", again. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thulist88 has been blocked as a really obvious sockpuppet of Anglo (it seemed like a waste for checkuser after the comments at the SPI page). I still firmly believe that Anglo's brother has edited Wikipedia under a different account, but he is now indefinitely blocked also (partially per his own request, partially for conduct problems). I think this matter is done unless Anglo decides to come back again as someone else. -- Atama頭 22:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't accept the "brother" claims. A sock-master is quite capable of editing in different styles with differant accounts. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

To what purpose? Between the two main accounts, of thousands of edits, only two edits overlap to the same article. How is one supporting the other? They edited very different topic areas. Are you suggesting that it's impossible for two different people in the same family to share a computer? I also don't see the point in Liveintheforests coming to me to tell me that Thulist88 is indeed a sockpuppet of Anglo Pyramidologist, if they're actually all the same person. -- Atama頭 23:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems a pointless discussion anyway, unless LITF changes their minds about accepting a block. If he does, we can discuss it then. Nil Einne (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of the "brother" story, but I'm not entirely convinced that it isn't true. LITF seemed very willing to get indef'd this time, after previusly fighting it. I think the key will be to see what happens next, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting choice of username. A Thulist was a member of the Thule Society, while 88 may represent "HH". TFD (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, assume good faith. He said 88 represented the year he was born. So it follows that his actual birthday was probably April Thule's Day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Bugs will be here all week. Try the veal. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Cripes, but didn't xe's username Anglo Pyramidologist ring alarm bells from the get-go? --Shirt58 (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, he only lasted for 2 1/2 days, so it rang some bells - especially after posting here and practically screaming "Hey, I'm the banned user AP!" The more concerning thing is that he had created this sleeper account over 2 1/2 years ago, and the checkusers didn't catch it, presumably due to its age. So I wonder how many other Rip van Winkle accounts he's got out there somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

He could have any number of them, but he won't be able to use any of them for a while because of the autoblock. Fortunately he is pretty obvious so I don't doubt that it won't be hard to spot them. On a side note, while I have been tricked before (*cough*) it seems to me that for all of his faults, Liveintheforests seemed to be honest, from claiming his own alternate account to indentifying his brother's sockpuppet. If what he says is true, Anglo Pyramidologist will be going off to college in 2 months and will be coming from a totally different IP and computer. -- Atama頭 21:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked Editor Urprakhar

 Resolved
An editor Urprakhar (talk · contribs · logs · block log) who was indefinitely blocked for "persistent copyvio image uploads" has reappeared as Urprakhar1 (talk · contribs · logs · block log). They have linked their new account to the 'old' account. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I smell a sock-block coming... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that block evasion rather than socking? He did clearly link the accounts. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The outcome's the same, yes? Hmm, maybe there should be a new category..."dodgy socks"... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

When they own up to it, are they really socks, or just rules-violating alternate accounts? Maybe they become "transparent socks", or "nylons". Then, of course, we make them run. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

@ Sarek, the logical action to take, naturally. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor keeps inserting unreferenced and falsely referenced material

Moalli (talk · contribs) has a pattern of inserting material into various geography articles purporting to report the 2010 U.S. census results. The problem is that the data are not sourced (e.g., [60] and [61] (there are dozens if not hundreds more); or (like [62] and [63], and dozens if not hundreds more), in which the editor adds data to a paragraph that contains a citation giving the false impression that the data is referenced. All of these edits, hundreds of them are made without edit summaries. Moreover, this editor has broken down the data in a way that the census department does not. In presenting the 2000 census data, and except for this editor nearly all editors in presenting the 2010 census data, breaks out the population by the races defined by the census department: White, African American, Native American, Asian, Pacific Islander, other races, and two or more races. Hispanic or Latino population under the census definition may be of any race and those are reported separately. This editor removes Hispanics and Latinos from the numbers of Whites and sometimes African-Americans (without explanation - like the rest of his/her edits) which apart from any bias this may evidence, makes the 2010 census numbers impossible to compare with the 2000 census numbers. In addition, this editor has deleted referenced census data that doesn't comport with the way he/she wants to break down the races. Since I am involved and this editor has already been warned by several editors (myself included), I'd like some neutral eyes to figure out what's going on, because cleaning up hundreds of articles (and no doubt hundreds more before anything comes of this) is a massive project. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin. observation) Sounds like a content dispute, but if he is not responding to queries regarding his editing, and its going against established procedures, then a temporary block might get his attention. Phearson (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

introduction of false or misleading information is a content dispute? Yet another example: East Palo Alto, California where the editor introduced this population data for the 2010 census: 0.1% Native American, 3.6% Asian, 7.4% Pacific Islander, 0.2% from other races, and 2.2% from two or more races, citing a reference allegedly accessed in 2008. Now, it seems that the census department isn't so good as to know to the tenth of percent in 2008 what the population of any city in the America will be in 2010. In any event, the data the editor entered is WRONG; population of other races are 38.0% not 0.2% (10,694 out of 28,155); Native Americans are 0.4% (120 people out of 28,155), etc. This borders on a WP:HOAX. Fake references. False data. No comments. Massive quantities of this crap. Only a content dispute? This is the sort of stuff that makes wikipedia unreliable and no one bothers to stopping it is what makes good editors leave. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

[Veering off topic] Frustratingly, the 2010 Census data for "places" exist and are obtainable from factfinder2.usgs.gov, but I have not yet found any citable source that is more specific than that entire website (or something like "the 2010 U.S. census"). Has someone created a good reference citation for the 2010 results? --Orlady (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A good point, the short answer is "no"; which is frustrating because the average user has to muddle his/her way through that website (not easy the first few times). At some point, WikiSource should copy all the data (it's public domain), tabularize it, and lock it down - so putting faux data in an article would be easily rectified without navigating in too many directions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Continuous disruption by User:Ibibiogrl

Resolved: User blocked indefinitely for disruption and legal threats. m.o.p 21:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In response to a content dispute, Ibibiogrl created a series of malformed, vindictive edit warring reports involving Kwamikagami and I. Despite an explanation of the WP:3RR, provided by Crashdoom, these erroneous reports continue. A quick glance at the history of the article in question reveals that neither Kwamikagami nor I are responsible for edit warring: [64].

Apparently, the issue underlying this disruption is whether the Nigerian language Ibibio is a subtype of Efik: [65]. Ibibiogrl appears to be pushing a particular point of view on the subject, most recently: [66] [67].

Ibibiogrl's disruption includes personal attacks, whereby s/he referred to another user as 'slow', 'stupid', and 'dumb': [68]. In an effort to abruptly end content disputes, or merely to vent, s/he also blanked pages: [69] and [70], and attempted to delete two articles: [71], [72], and [73]. S/he received a final warning on 14 June: [74]. Meph^talk 00:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Due to this, which was posted well-after the final warning, I'm leaving a final warning here. If the editor violates any policy again, please feel free to issue a suitably-lengthy block. m.o.p 08:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Final policy violation: WP:LEGAL. Legal threats: [75], [76], and [77]. Meph^talk 21:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

Yeah, saw that one. Blocked indefinitely here. m.o.p 21:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the block while writing an update for his talk page. A pity, but not a surprise. Thanks for your assistance. Meph^talk 21:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

(Edit conflict: I wrote this response before the block was announced.)

Although I'm the main person she's been arguing against, and a block may be necessary, what I think she really needs is a mentor. I don't think I'd have the patience for it myself, and in any case she isn't receptive to my opinion. A block won't in itself solve the problem, because she doesn't understand what she's doing wrong. From her POV, there is a serious error in the article, she can't understand why it isn't fixed, and she doesn't have the editing competency to fix it herself. She also seems to have a blind spot re. sources which support that 'error'. I don't think there's anything malicious there, just frustration; she also sounds quite young / emotionally immature. BTW, her POV is perfectly valid; I just haven't taken the time to do her work for her, and she doesn't understand that other POV's might also be valid, or at least representative of the lit. — kwami (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(P.S. Although this account is only a couple weeks old, Ibibiogrl says that she's been working on WP articles since 2008 as an anon IP. IMO a signed-in editor tutored in how to contribute constructively, which I think she wants to do, is more desirable than her continuing these disruptive edits anonymously, which I suspect she will do since she has TRUTH on her side and identifies closely with the topic. — kwami (talk))

For sure, but you don't have to be malicious to be disruptive. I welcome other administrative insight, of course. m.o.p 22:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Master, I agree with the block. I also agree that mentoring would be good if this user ever cools down and returns with an unblock request. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin not allowing removal of impolite talk page comments

• Favonian (talk · contribs)
• 50.80.139.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The IP wanted to make a formal complaint against me if I blocked them, which I did, so now I do it for them. The issue is that they wanted to remove a couple of moderately unfriendly comments from a talk page archive like this. I believe this is clearly against policy, so I have reverted and warned. The IP has bit of history when it comes to disruptive editing. Favonian (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How dare you enforce our policies against edit warring, Favonian? That was wrong, wrong, wrong. No biscuit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing insulting about those comments. In fact, the IPs recent actions make them all the more relevant. Is thinking about picking up the stick a thoughtcrime? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that does indeed seem to violate quite a few Wikipedia policies and you were right to block. This hardly needs a thread. IP has been blocked over 3 times now... each has been warranted. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 21:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Caution: If you double his block length each time, eventually the block will outlive him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're giving Stephen King the idea for his next book. -- Atama頭 22:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Bit of a two-edged sword. The block may outlive both Stephen King and me. Light-hearted banter aside, the IP never ceases to amaze me. Was this recently rejected unblock request an implied legal threat? I mean, referring to WP:DOLT. Favonian (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I revoked the IP's talk page access, so many defiant and accusatory unblock requests are a misuse of their talk page. -- Atama頭 23:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• object to the title of this thread. Calling an admin "obnoxious" is a personal attack ... self inflicted you say? ... then "meh" — Ched :  ?  23:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• I support the blocks, based on the reasons for declined unblock and the user's history. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please check this user page deletion I just made.

User:Wikiman1717 - I believe both versions were disruptive; the most current would have qualified for G10 speedy deletion. I will notify Wikiman 1717 immediately after I finish this post. LadyofShalott 01:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hersfold blocked him; he has now thrown up an unblock request which I'll leave for someone else to handle. LadyofShalott 02:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a valid G10 to me. 28bytes (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Good deletion. Talkpage has now been revoked by DeltaQuad for continued disruption there. —DoRD (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, perfectly good G10 deletion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

UK privacy injunctions and BLP

There is currently an ongoing discussion as to whether the David Threlfall and Pauline McLynn articles should contain information currently sealed by a superinjunction. The issue primarily comes down to one of notability. There are reliable sources, but there is disagreement on whether there is enough attention to satisfy the requirements for including negative information in a BLP article. This is a situation that may crop up with increasing regularity in the future, and I believe a discussion on how we should deal with superinjunctions and BLP articles is warranted. Polyquest (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Aren't superinjunctions a British thing? If so, I don't think a site with a Florida-based server has to worry about it. So long as the editor putting it in is not a citizen of the United Kingdom themselves. I am no expert on those though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this information is true, and that the London tabloids have wanted to publish it for weeks. The problem for Wikipedia is that is covered by the injunction ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd and it would be contempt of court to publish it in England and Wales. This is exactly what happened with Ryan Giggs and Imogen Thomas in CTB v News Group Newspapers a few weeks ago. The Irish media has published the names, because Pauline McLynn is Irish and the injunction does not apply there. My views on this issue are at Talk:David_Threlfall#WP:BLP:_notable_or_not.3F. This type of situation is undoubtedly a headache for Wikipedia. The issue here, though, is not legal but BLP notability--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We aren't covered by the injunction - the servers aren't in the UK, nor is the organization, and neither US courts nor US law nor the Foundation nor the english language Wikipedia community are particularly inclined to comply with that aspect of UK legal affairs.

With that said, the question of whether the sources which did publish in Ireland meet our normal BLP reliable source standards is valid. Our rule is "verifiability, not truth" - we can verify that a source said something, and we can make a judgement that the source is reliable (by normal standards, or by BLP standards which are somewhat stricter). Even if it's (almost certainly) true, rumors and tabloids aren't good enough. They wouldn't be good enough on a celebrities childs' name, much less on an affair.

I recommend the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, they're used to trying to figure this kind of thing out. I am not familiar with the newspapers in this case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The names of the people are accurate, the Daily Mail could barely bother to hide them here by saying Shameless twice and working itself into a lather here, but the injunction was not granted by their favourite legal hate figure David Eady. The details of the affair would usually fail WP:BLP, but have become involved in the 2011 injunctions controversy. The publication of the names took place over a week ago, and if the lawyers for the two people named were going to hit the roof it would have happened by now. So far, complete silence has occurred.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that the assertion that it would normally fail BLP notability; it's certainly something worth investigating more. That it is now tangled up in superinjunction geopolitics is indisputable, here as well as in real life.

BLP requires that negative living person biographical information have higher quality sources proportional to the negativity of the claims. If the subject of the article is notable enough for an article regardless of the alleged affair, then mention in the article (if properly reliably sourced) is not unheard of - many many other articles describe people's affairs or flings, especially where someone else's marriage or relationship ended due to one.

But the sources do have to be good, and it has to be notable enough. This should not be excluded due to the superinjunction, but that properly doesn't support including it either. It has to stand on its merits as relevance to the person and their life, quality of sources regarding the alledged affair, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is now a classic Catch-22 (logic) situation here: no notability without coverage, and no coverage without notability. The injunction has turned a routine piece of showbiz gossip into a cross border incident which can be reported in Ireland but not England. This is daft and has to be seen as one of the unacceptable consequences of this type of injunction.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As someone who went through hoops to get a section in the Ryan Giggs page on his order, I am not so sure that we have to be hyper-careful here, as long as it is clear that the page is covering the reporting of the alleged deed rather than passing off the deed as fact. for example "In Somemonth 20xx, xyz newspaper reported that person y was behind a gag order to protect details of an alleged affair with person z". VERTott 09:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The risk of defamation action on this is zero, but at the moment neither of the BLP articles gives the information. The names are in 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy as there are no legal problems with publishing this information outside England and Wales. The Streisand effect has become involved once again, and made all of this look more notable than it actually is. Wikipedia is read all over the world, and most people are not itching to hear about this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely we don't require British sources in order to include the information? So long as it doesn't run afoul of WP:BLP and the sources are reliable, the information can be included. As for whether the British superinjunction is valid anywhere but Britain, I'm going to go with "no". If we're wrong, Wikimedia has lawyers for a reason. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The situation has been simmering since 8 May 2011, when "Billy Jones" tweeted this along with the claim about Ryan Giggs and Imogen Thomas. The naming of Giggs on Twitter sparked legal action, but so far there has been no legal action over Threlfall/McLynn. One thing to bear in mind is that the Daily Mail is wetting its pants to publish the ETK names, and may say "Look, folks, they're on Wikipedia". No problem, as long as the names are reliably sourced. Unfortunately, the London courts need to move with the times and accept that this type of injunction is never going to work in the age of the Internet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this material (of which I know nothing) noteworthy in the normal (Wikipedia-nonspecific) sense of the word? If it's about very minor celebs and the Mail is wetting its pants over it, I strongly suspect that it isn't noteworthy. -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Mail has previously tried to use Wikipedia as an injunction-busting tool [78] and mentioned that ETK's name has been on Wikipedia here. So what? Since Pauline McLynn is Irish, this was always likely to happen. I don't know what they teach at English law schools these days, but it obviously isn't common sense. Injunctions like this are unenforceable outside England and Wales, as Ryan Giggs showed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it is unenforceable, BLP is not wholly about not getting sued, and Wikipedia is not a proxy for the British gutter press. The sensible option is to wait it out until the injunction is either lifted or rendered invalid, at which point we can tell the whole story courtesy of reliable sources. It's bound to happen in the long run. The alternatives will lead to Wikipedia getting a tremendous amount of negative press over utterly trivial taboid gossip. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Chinese Government denies the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and punishes those who report on it. Should we strike that from the project as well? Certainly this is a much different circumstance, but our criteria for inclusion should not depend on the outdated and unenforceable laws of any particular country. If it's worth putting in the article on its own merits, then we do so. WP:BLP is not about not getting sued, it's about not ruining people's lives and acting as a codifier of slander. The Brits can sue the Internet if they want to, but their laws have no bearing on Wikipedia. The only laws that matter are those that govern the territory where Wikipedia is hosted, and where the Wikimedia Foundation is registered. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to comprehend how you managed to accurately characterise BLP in your third-from-last sentence while missing it completely in every other part of your response. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I only mentioned it in the third-to-last sentence. The rest of my response covers the question of whether we are legally obligated to adhere to British law. I say we aren't. Whether or not we choose to include the information should be determined by our standard procedures outlined in WP:BLP and WP:RS. You seem to think that BLP is the overriding issue, and I agree with you. Given, however, that the section is entitled "UK privacy injunctions and BLP", and that there are those arguing that we are beholden to the superinjunction, I felt it necessary to comment on it. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I vaguely infer that this is about two or more minor celebs, and about two people who aren't married to each other bonking. This sounds very trivial. If I'm wrong and there's a nontrivial aspect (if for example the gagging order itself merits coverage), then it's sure to get coverage somewhere credible, and then WP can write this up. Meanwhile, the Mail can continue wetting its pants. -- Hoary (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What is notably missing from this conversation is anyone taking either extreme position that we should not publish because of fear of the law, nor that we should publish just to stick it to them. I'm pleased to see that. Additionally, the overall theme of this discussion is - correctly - that our own quality editorial standards are what matter here. I don't know whether in this particular case a BLP threshold has been reached - that's dependent on the specific facts, which I have not studied in these cases, but I do know that ordinary routine BLP thoughtfulness is what should rule the day.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no assertion here that W should be subject to English law, and the repeated refutations suggest the issue is a straw man. Notability and reliability are addressed, maybe not resolved.--Egonb (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It is rare for me to agree with the Mail, but it is a farce when something can be published in a newspaper in Dublin but not in London. This suggests that little has been learned from the Spycatcher affair in the 1980s. The extra-marital affairs of minor TV celebrities are not issues of state security, and should probably not be gagged. TMZ and Perez Hilton must be yawning over this non-issue. The only notable thing is the injunction itself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the SPEECH Act of 2010 makes these injunctions basically worthless in the United States. -- Selket ^Talk 18:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of laws is a field of study unto itself and has much jurisprudence and case law. – ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't do any editing in the area of minor celebrities, and I haven't followed the story beyond reading about the British courts' attempts to silence it. I have no opinion on whether the information that is trying to be suppressed belongs in any of the relevant articles, but the superinjunctions themselves and their ineffectiveness could probably be included in articles such as Streisand Effect or Superinjunction. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This whole issue is a classic example of the Streisand effect. The alleged affairs are trivial, and of no interest to me (indeed, even after I heard the names of the alleged miscreants, I wondered who they were); but the attempt to suppress this, and even to suppress the information that this has been suppressed, guarantees increased coverage and interest and makes it significant. I have not the slightest interest in what two B-list celebrities get up to; but I do care that the rich are able to prevent the gutter press from discussing this, while most of us would not have the means to prevent such prurient intrusion into our private lives. And I wonder what else, of possibly greater public importance, has been suppressed. RolandR (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Interest in intrigue for intrigue's sake, regardless of the people involved, is precisely why tabloid rags make so much money from this sort of thing. Let it go. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to follow them. This is not a scandal sheet. While the celebs involved are minor, they have their own articles and are therefore presumably notable; but their affair is not worthy of mention. Nor does the Streisand effect or Superinjunction justify mentioning it in those articles. The idea that its reportage (or not) is enough to make something notable has been rejected before. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

But the reporting and sources that mention a given piece of information are a primary part of how we are supposed to make an interpretation on whether something is notable. If there are reliable sources how can we toss aside its notability so easily, especially when the sources that are supposed to inform that decision have been distorted by government action. Polyquest (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There isn't evidence of government involvement, still less of government censorship. Indeed they appear intensely relaxed about the whole thing. At the heart of the matter are the expressed wishes of parents to maintain some stability in their lives in the interests of the children, and to protect them from peer abuse. Hard to argue against that. Instead the story has been given prosthetic legs by associating it with "super-injunction" - a red herring - something which came into view when serious journalism sought to expose evidence of corporate criminality. As to what else may be being suppressed: doubtless the tabloids will be hoping from more salacious stuff to emerge to feed their obsession with celebrity gossip, and to keep afloat in a competitive market with less pressure to tackle real issues of importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egonb (talk • contribs) 03:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

While it would appear to be the case that Wikipedia's geographic location grants it immunity from court orders made in England and Wales, it is always worth bearing in mind that Wikimedia Inc has past form for submitting to them, including handing over IP addresses - see eg G and G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc Keristrasza (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo was asked about this on his talk page recently, and replied: "As I am neither a lawyer nor staff of the Foundation, I can't speak for them. However, as someone able to closely observe the general opinions of the board and staff and legal team of the Foundation, I can say that it would be very unlikely that the Wikimedia Foundation would comply casually with a request from a non-US court where no ones life is in danger and there is not clear evidence of libel. Certainly, it is perfectly legal for American citizens not currently in the UK, such as myself (sitting in Paris now), to say that Ryan Giggs is reported widely in reliable sources to have been one of the footballers taking out a superinjunction. I won't type that when I'm in the UK, as I'm not currently looking for trouble. My views are pretty clearly reported in today's Independent and should be no surprise to Wikipedians. I strongly defend the right of all people to speak the truth, and that's particularly true in the context of an NPOV discussion of information already reported in reliable sources - there should be no controversy about this at all, it isn't even borderline. (User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_76#About_Super_Injunctions...)

There are no 100% guarantees given that WMF would not hand over details of users in response to a court order, but yawnworthy tabloid gossip with no threat to life and limb does not fit the bill.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

One sobering point to keep in mind is that there are some stark differences in the free speech philosophies of the US and the UK. One of these is that in America, the truth is usually a valid defense in libel suits; hence the old saying, "Never sue - they might prove it!" In England, though, there is an attitude that the press can be censored, even on matters that are not anything close to national security, for example, and that the truth is not a defence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed - this is not the RefDesk, Bugs. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

English defamation law#Defences to defamation. "A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves that the statement was true." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Then how can they censor the news this way? Something doesn't add up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, Bugs, this is not the refdesk. The place to ask questions about the things that don't seem to make sense to you about decisions made by British asses lawcourts, is the refdesk, not here. Otherwise we all spend hundreds of hours arguing about what all our personal opinions of that are, without helping in any way at all with deciding how issues should be dealt with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line question is: Does wikipedia need to care about this so-called "superinjunction", or is it garbage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you didn't manage to answer that question for yourself, after all of the many quite sensible things posted on this topic in the last few weeks and months. Let me assure you, a UK superinjunction has no effect on Wikipedia since Wikipedia is not in the UK; UK superinjunctions are routinely disregarded by the majority of the British public; UK superinjunctions are regularly rendered impotent by UK politicians using parliamentary privilege; UK superinjunctions are regularly criticised or indeed outright derided by senior and influential British politicians; UK superinjunctions have sometimes been taken out in England but not in Scotland, thus rendering them particularly nonsensical; in short, what exactly is it about a statement of a lawcourt somewhere in London that you consider so important but the rest of the world considers laughable? A judge somewhere said something silly, why are you hanging on their every word? The only caveat is the one already hinted at by Jimbo; someone typing in the UK probably shouldn't deliberately and knowingly and openly break a superinjunction if they are not "looking for trouble". Unless of course, like many other people, they want to be Spartacus.

Does Wikipedia need to care about the many silly laws passed in the USA (see News of the Weird), or are they "garbage"? Not quite the same answer, but almost. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If there's no issue, why isn't this section marked "resolved"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This issue is effectively resolved for the time being, because the consensus is to give the names in 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy but not the BLP articles involved. This strikes a balance between freedom of information and not hyping minor tabloid gossip. The only notable issue here is the Spycatcher effect of the injunction. Also, libel was never an issue with ETK as there is no real doubt that the people named in the Irish media are the correct ones. There would be potential libel if a person was named as having an affair and taking out an injunction if they had not. This happened with Gabby Logan a few weeks ago.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is this supposed consensus? And what exactly gave you the impression that Wikipedia was about freedom of information anyway? You're at the wrong wiki for that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This has also been discussed at Talk:David Threlfall and on my talk page. Chris is taking a hard line here, and if the names are removed altogether, someone will put them back and we will be having the same discussion again. Personally I am happy to mention the names in an external link. The comparison with WikiLeaks is wholly unnecessary, as this is not an issue of state security and the material has already appeared in the Irish media..--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That editors will add scandal here at the drop of a hat is why we have a BLP policy in the first place. And BLP applies everywhere, not just on specific biographies. If we're going to take the "avoid doing harm" part of BLP seriously we should follow it at the superinjunction page as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the details of the ETK allegations are not a big issue in BLP terms. However, this has now become Round Two of the injunction war (Giggs/Thomas was Round One). The names of the people in ETK are reliably available, and this should not be hidden. As said previously, I would be happy to give the names in an external link only. The "harm" was caused by the Irish Sunday World when it decided to break the injunction, not Wikipedia.[79]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I just want to interject that the Irish Sunday World did not "break the injunction", since the English courts no longer have jurisdiction over the 26 Counties. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As the names are not (at this point) important, I'd abstract it even further and only use secondary sourcing for the naming (so we link to someone who points out that the Sunday World printed them rather than linking to the Sunday World itself). I do not agree that we're off the hook simply because it wasn't us who published the names first, as I presume we're rather more widely-read than any of the sources who have printed the names. What you call "hiding" I would prefer to call "discretion"; we are not obliged to cover anything here, after all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy for the article not to give the names, but to cite the Sligo Today article.[80] This is how the article 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy looked before someone put the names back.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And I'd prefer we abstracted further, as I just said. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Then it looks like we have reached an impasse, and in best Wikipedia debating tradition, are no further forward than when we started. There is nothing substantially wrong with the Sligo Today article, and the sky will not fall down if it is used as a citation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sligo Today is purely online and has no print edition. Unlike the Sligo Post and the Sligo Weekender it has not been wikinotable, that is until it published on this topic. Difficult to find anything about it outside of the institution which houses it, Innovation Centre at Institute of Technology, Sligo. Editor is Ciaran McCarthy who is not listed on the staff of the ITS.

http://itsligo.ie/research-innovation/innovation/current-companies/sligo-today/

Worth watching for what might befall this man & his enterprise, which is descibed as "constantly evolving to bring new and exciting innovations to the reader".Will post any other evidence relevant to the status/reliability of secondary sources here or on article/editor talk pages.--Egonb (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This injunction is likely to die of boredom as so few people are interested in it. The names are not hugely notable, but it is notable that an Irish red top tabloid ran the story with impunity, even though in theory it is covered by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights just as much as the UK. The only interesting thing about ETK is that it shows how far the London courts have moved the goalposts on privacy without input from parliament.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about impunity since they could be open to some action eg complaint to IHRC in Dublin, if not a civil suit in RoI or UK. Contempt of court should not apply, but opening a suit should require self-outing which is hard to imagine being an urgent to-do. They were protecting a position by withholding from the online version which suggests some legal advice had been sought; then again this strategy could be about sales alone. Sligo Today filled the gap online and scooped the local opposition (which may have stronger editorial controls/ more sense than the newcomers). I think we could add saturation (too many know already) and Giggs-fatigue to the waning interest. WP page hits have dropped back to baseline from the 10k+after the Sunday World splash. --Egonb (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There are clear parallels with the Sunday Herald story in CTB v News Group Newspapers, where the editor took legal advice and decided not to put the story in the online edition. Unlike CTB, where Schillings behaved clumsily and made things ten times worse, ETK has more or less died a death at the time of writing. That is not to say that the UK tabloids may not try to revive it on a slow news day, but it does tend to disprove the view of the London courts that this was a huge issue. Twenty years ago in the UK, ETK would have been published on Sunday and forgotten about by Monday, which is what happened in the Irish Republic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Although I'm trying not to crystal ball gaze or get into a contest of subjunctives I'm losing on this front. I think we can be confident that the tabloids will revive the story. They have what they lacked in CTB ie photos of the pair and I guess they can go to town on the Reality mimicking Art angle, giving lots of scope for recycling old stuff about other affairs, which have otherwise become non-news, and opinion pieces from their relationship consultants, agony aunts and the like. They'll find extra legs for it in the summer break when news is slow and the injunction will become harder to maintain. I also think that the freedom of speech card has been played too often when the issue in the UK is more about Media harassment, doorstepping and real-life intrusion. Twenty years ago or maybe more - I don't want to quibble about petty detail - they could have been hounded to despair. Freedom of speech is a big issue here esp re libel where legal fees and drawn out proceedings have had a chilling effect in science and medicine, and but for Penguin's support for Deborah Lipstadt surely would have had for historiography. As far as I can see the executive branch, muddled as it is with the legislature has been doing little other than asking judges to make the running, whilst the coalition concentrates on coalescing.

As many do here, I look to the USA with envy of many of the terms of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I got seriously irritated at the many responses I had to attempts to clarify the legal position hereabouts (statements of the b. obvious about not being subject to UK laws). As if there were a serious risk of the British Empire rolling back 300 years of history and progress with Norwich Pharmacal orders when ER II lacks the gunboats to send up the Hudson or Potomac. There can be few left on the planet unaware that USA has the means, moral right and strength to defend sovereignty. It's done well since it threw off the yoke of submission to the Crown. Now stop going on about it and accept that UK has to play catch-up.

Freedom of speech will be revived here but not the citizen's right to bear arms. Assassination is extreme form of censorship (G B Shaw) and I don't expect the UK to encourage that.--Egonb (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Selfrules

Selfrules (talk · contribs) has made no other edits than to his user page which is now 722k. I will leave a note on his user talk page. I'm not sure what to do, but there is no contribution to the encyclopedia and his user page just takes up space, lots of it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say make an MfD nomination. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Tagged as G2. It's either pure test code, a web-space scratchpad for homework, or a bizarre SEO attempt. I'd have just deleted it, but might as well give the user a chance to respond. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The page should clearly be deleted, as it is being used as a personal web space, with no indication of any intention of contributing to the encyclopaedia. The only question, in my opinion, is whether to regard it as a speedy deletion candidate or to spend time putting it through MfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, both G1 and G2 specifically exclude material in userspace. So by the letter of policy, it has to go through MfD. Still, WP:WEBHOST applies, whether the content is meaningful or not. Perhaps this is a sign that G2 needs to be re-examined. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That name sounded familiar. Why is it that so many new editors I welcome end up being blocked after four edits, or use WP for stuff like this? Am I really cursed? Drmies (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen this before; it was due to a disability of some sort of which the name escapes me. It seems like an admin once tried mentoring a user like this before -- even started a subpage at ANI, I believe. It did not end well, or even begin well. If it is in fact some sort of disability, while it is unfortunate for that user, it has never seemed to be beneficial to the project to spend any time trying to help them. As cold as that sounds. Seems like maybe IAR would be appropriate; speedy the userpage, see what reply they have on their talk page (if any), and go from there. --64.85.217.79 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic, but Wikipedia is not therapy. -- Atama頭 19:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That's really what it boils down to. -- ۩ Mask 22:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the page; I know IAR speedies are often frowned upon, but I think we can make an exception here. T. Canens (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it was User:Hopiakuta that you're thinking of. (WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Wiki editor DonFphrnqTaub Persina was the AN sub page) I believe that User:Tregoweth tried mentoring him. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 04:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

...aaaaand it's back.

1. Whose turn is it with the cluebat?
2. As for the disability argument, that would imply that the page was being used for something: it was created exactly two months ago and the user still hasn't made any edits to any other pages.
3. If G2 isn't valid for user pages, Twinkle probably shouldn't give the option to raise G2s in that namespace...

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

When someone initiates their recreated talk page with 740K of text, it's obvious they've got it on Notepad or something. So why would they also need it in wikipedia? That was a rhetorical question. Now a real question, or at least a curiosity question: If the user had created a subpage with that same megillah, would there still be an issue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That depends where you lie on the user-baubles scale. Seeing as the user isn't using it to improve the encyclopedia my opinion is that it doesn't belong here at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not a requirement for user pages to be reliably sourced, but it should be pointed out that the number "one zillion" has no generally accepted meaning.[81]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I said subpage, and I should have been more specific and said "sandbox". But that's one big honkin' sandbox. If you think a zillion is large, a brazilian is way much larger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he's listening. Maybe we should find other ways to get his attention? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocking is a little harsh. Delete and SALT temporarily. In fact, I've already salted it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A little harsh if it had been proposed as an immediate step, but the user has had the situation explained, and if they choose to ignore the explanation and continue to use Wikipedia only as a free web host, I see no point in allowing them to continue. Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopaedia, and that purpose is not served by allowing people to use it for other purposes. Certainly when someone comes here apparently not understanding the situation we should explain and give them another chance, but we have done that now, and if the user still persists in using Wikipedia as a free web host then I propose that they should be blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism or censuring of a cervix image

I loaded File:Cervix2.jpg used in the article Cervix. Its history[82].

• 58.8.233.125 deletes[83] cervix image, no edit summary, no other edit

• 71.231.76.130 deletes image summary[84] and DELETES THE LICENSING[85] from cervix image, no edit summary, no other edit
• Sfan00 IMG notifies[86] me that the cervix image is tagged for deletion because of missing copyright info

I bring this to AN/I because the two IP users above appear to have no other purpose than to censor the image by covert acts. Sfan00 is notified of this post. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

At a quick glance, the IP blanking summary and licensing is clearly wrong to do so. Revert them and move on. Removing the image from the article itself is a content issue. I don't see any vandalism, or any issue for ANI there. --Onorem♠Dil 16:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

But also, part of this is ancient history (the removal from the article took place in February). Besides, and you're not going to like this, Cuddlyable, but the image is of really poor quality and as such contributes nothing to the article. If anything, it's a (cell phone?) photo of a speculum. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not the worst photo. Actually, the replacement is worse than the other one. The description, "I created this entirely by myself" falls into the TMI category. I have to like where another photo was removed, apparently on the grounds that it's "icky".[87] Mother Nature up close is inherently icky. It can't be helped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Your comment DRmies is fair enough. Someone requestedTalk:Cervix#Image of Cervix a photo for the article and the one I provided seems to be the only one we have. I doubt that the attack on it was motivated by desire to see a more vivid version but who knows. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked all over Commons and that was the best I could find. BTW, your comment suggests you're not yet familiar with Commons--check it out. There is much more content there, and if you upload something to Commons (you could "shift" your cervix over there--I thought there was a "move to Commons" function, but I can't find it) it can be used in all Wikimedia's projects, in all languages. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You want Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Cervix uteri 1.jpg is somehow better then File:Cervix2.jpg? I don't know about you, but to me a black spot is hardly better than actually seeing the actual anatomy. I don't really understand the "bad picture" criticism either, since the File:Cervix2.jpg image seems to me to be intentionally focused on the subject's cervix and intentionally unfocused on the remainder of her body. Maybe I'm mistaken there, but that's what I thought the intent was. (actually, taking a second look at the image, maybe it is simply poor quality. I still think that it's better than the medical pinhole-cam picture of someone's cervix and uterus, though.) Not to assume bad faith here, but I have a sneaking suspicion that quite a bit of the "issue" here is simply puerile "knee-jerk" reactions to the subject area rather then thought out reasoning.
By the way, is anyone going to notify Tom.davey (talk · contribs) that we're talking about him here?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless something recent was rev-del'd, it's been over 2 months since he last edited. He's got a single page worth of contributions under that ID during the last 5 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ohms law, please launch your post at Talk:Cervix so that other editors can weigh in on this content issue. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Block Evasion User:Dromeaz

• Dromeaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for block evasion of TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

He now continues as anonymous IP 135.196.122.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 194.153.138.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

How does one know the ID of said anonymous IP is the question one would will ask I am guessing. Obsession of the any articles pertaining to Robert Garside and Jesper Olsen (runner) as well as the accusations against myself. See edits logs of IPs and Dromeaz . 01:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)CanadianLinuxUser (talk)

Some background info: Dromaz has been semi-tolerated on User Talk:Moonriddengirl because he apparently raised some valid BLP concerns about Robert Garside in the past, but even her legendary patience appears to have been exhausted [88]. The following articles are currently on semi-protection because of this user: Robert Garside, Talk:Robert Garside, Jesper Olsen (runner), Talk:Jesper Olsen (runner), List of people who have run across Australia and I will request it for circumnavigation if the edit warring there continues. The users IP keep changing, which is why he is not already blocked. He has been stable on these two for a while now though and any future IPs will be very easy to identify because of their limiting editing range. Yoenit (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Further update: Circumnavigation has just being semi-protected [89]. Yoenit (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just as a bit of background, my involvement with Dromeaz comes from an old OTRS ticket about Robert Garside. Dromeaz has had due cause for concern about BLP issues in that article. Unfortunately, he also has an obvious tendency to see conspiracies (the edit histories of both accounts are illuminating; note him accusing User:Rd232 of sock puppetry here and his implication here that User:Bezza84 is that "person known to us"; he was evidently at least briefly concerned that I was working against him as well). For a time, Dromeaz was able to work within policies to voice his concerns and to try to make sure that the article remained neutral, but he was blocked after beginning to escalate against User:CanadianLinuxUser. Because the OTRS system has not worked well with Dromeaz, I have been willing to talk to him about BLP issues at my talk page, but what he's doing now is purely disruptive. Dromeaz does not seem willing at this point to restrict his activities here to discussing neutrality issues with Garside. He gives every appearance instead of actively pursuing a vendetta against Jesper Olsen, with whom I gather by activities Garside has some kind of rivalry. Whether that's because he thinks another contributor is promoting Olsen or not is immaterial; he should know very well by now that he is not permitted to do this. (Given my extensive history with the Garside article (which at one point I pretty much rewrote from scratch), I have avoided the use of admin tools, although I did semi-protect the circumnavigation article this morning.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we get List of circumnavigations semi-protected as well. He is there as well. :: sighs :: CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor claims to be article subject's ex-wife

I am not sure if this is the appropriate place to raise this issue but it is such an odd situation that I'm not sure where else would be appropriate. I had done some editing to Stephen Moore (economist) when I saw that User:Strongerone removed the name of his wife. I undid this revision, citing unexplained removal of content. The user posted on my talk page that they are the ex-wife of Stephen Moore and they do not their names or the names of their children in the article. I tried to reason with them, citing WP:V and WP:COI, but to no avail—I have been engaged in a slow-moving edit war with them and an IP (User:173.66.243.145) which I assume is them. What is the appropriate way to handle this situation? –CWenger (^ • @) 17:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Let it go, per BLP. The kids don't appear to be notable in their own right, and if Strongerone isn't otherwise notable, there's no reason to leave her in either. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Mention that he has three sons, per the refs provided, but no need to name them - if people are that fussed, they can click through to the RS to get the information themselves. GiantSnowman 17:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with this, but just to clarify, that would argue that virtually everybody on Wikipedia—with the exception of very famous people like presidents, celebrities, and the like—should not have a "Personal life" section, as this information is likely to only be found in a few sources. Is this a correct interpretation? –CWenger (^ • @) 17:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Depends on how personal the personal info is. Decide if the information would be of benefit to a reader of an encyclopedia rather than a slurper of TMZ-style gossip. Tarc (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

notable - I have always had a problem adding this type of info as per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names and as per Relationships do not confer notability . If we were to add them we should apply what is set-forth by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources..Moxy (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME suggests this information is acceptable, subject to editorial discretion. WP:BLPPRIVACY only applies to full names and birth dates. However, I understand erring on the side of caution when an editor has raised repeated objections. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Per Tarc. I rarely see BLPs where the names of the children (and how cute they are) and the spouses and the dogs and even the place they live in is properly verified and/or relevant. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with above. Leave it out. If she thinks its harmful, then "BLPHARM" comes into play as well, and there is no pressing need to have her name in the article. Also, it would be wise to consider bringing this sort of dispute up here before reverting next time. --causa sui (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that he had a wife and three sons is a notable aspect of his life. The names are not in this case. GiantSnowman had it right. -- ۩ Mask 22:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

normally the information is verifiable, but I have always been dissatisfied with leaving it in--unless the person is famous, it's not encyclopedic content. It's the sort of stuff PR people add to make the subjects look a little human. I think Snowman's suggestion to leave in the number and not the names is a very good solution, I plan to adopt it, & perhaps we should write it into the guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC) .

The names of spouses and other family members doesn't really add anything to the article unless those people are also notable, so I say leave it out. Even if our policies say they can be included, there's no reason to cause distress to someone who obviously wants it out, particularly when they don't add anything helpful to the article and aren't notable people themselves. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Kinky Kwartet

The Kinky Kwartet is a previously deleted page which has been recreated seemingly as an advert and is being protected by what seems to be a meatpuppet. Help please. Reichsfürst (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Gone - but did this need to come to AN/I? A moot point perhaps.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that it was restored to here by the original deleting administrator before it was recreated. However, clearly the restored version of the article wasn't satisfactory, it has now been deleted as promotional per G11. If it gets recreated and speedied again it will probably be salted. -- Atama頭 23:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry they kept removing my page tag and I thought this was the best place, especially due to the probable meatpuppetry - anyway thanks. Reichsfürst (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor who placed the original article also made this odd, unsourced and possibly hoaxed edit to another article, presumably to try and produce further evidence in favour of keeping this article. I've reverted, and will watch. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Users User:Pokemaster9000 and User:Thatguy2727 (sock or meatpuppet of the former) have been indefinitely blocked by me as vandalism-only accounts, for repeatedly creating a hoax article (with BLP violations, inventing a medical condition of a real person) and wasting users' time by insisting that it isn't a hoax and so on. Fram (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Good call. They were clearly here to disrupt Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 15:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

MickMacNee blocked indefinitely

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have increased the duration of the preexisting edit-warring block of MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from 72 hours to indefinite, because MickMacNee has stated on his talk page that he will continue the edit-warring as soon as the block expires ([90]), and because he has continued making severe personal attacks against other editors on his talk page, calling one person a "sociopath" ([91]) among other things. Such conduct is unacceptable under any circumstances. I am giving notice of this block here to allow for discussion of it.

The original blocker has said ([92]) that he refrained from imposing an indefinite block to begin with only because of the current arbitration case involving MickMacNee. I do not feel so constrained, as the Arbitration Committee has the authority to unblock MickMacNee if they believe that it is necessary for the case to proceed. I recommend, however, that if this block is not overturned by community consensus here, they use this opportunity to wrap the case and end the general wasting of time and effort on account of MickMacNee.  Sandstein  11:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, you blocking here is extremely poor. Given that you indef blocked Mick before, and were extremely peeved when I unblocked him, and eight months later are still gripping to arbcom that your block shouldn't have been overturned, and debating just today whether or not you should be a party to the arbcom case about Mick due to that block, you jumping in here on your charger and blocking yourself looks like opportunism of the worst order. If Mick needs blocked there are 1400 other admins to consider it - you don't need to be the crusader. For exactly the same reasons I will not review this block, comment on its merits, or unblock. But deciding to take this on yourself is very poor judgement. You have a long-standing view that this user ought to be banned. So propose that, don't pre-empt it with your tools.--Scott Mac 11:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec with below) I imposed a block, not a ban. I did consider the aspect of involvement, but have concluded that my interactions with MickMacNee have so far all been in an administrative capacity. WP:UNINVOLVED provides:

"One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. "

Nonetheless, because involvedness is often difficult to assess by oneself, I welcome a review of the merits of the block, and whether I should have made it or not, by others.  Sandstein  11:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• In terms of the increasing of the block, someone clearly had to do it, as MMN's response to the original block is unfortunately worthy of it. I have no issue with it being Sandstein, as I contemplated doing it myself - even though some people would mistakenly refer to me as "involved". I understand Mick was "pissed off" over his view of a situation, but his reponse was over the top and inappropriate. I also considered bringing the block itself here to ANI, so kudos to Sandstein for doing that. More to come after another coffee and sober second though. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that perhaps Sandstein shouldn't have blocked here, but given that Mick explicitly said, "You better make that block indefinite Slakr, because as soon as it expires, if that attack is still not gone from that page, I intend to revert it again, as many times as is necessary," it's quite hard to argue with the rationale. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 11:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support sandstein's action. (Disclosure: I'm involved in the Arb.) The threat to indefintely edit-war over this has got to be the final straw, when he didn't even go to the author to ask him to withdraw it. The incident is a microcosm of all the reasons MMN shouldn't be involved in WP - and he does it in the middle of an Arb! DeCausa (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And if that didn't deserve it, this surely does. DeCausa (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Sandstein being involved probably was not the best choice for an admin to do, but considering the circumstances, something had to be done regardless. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• While I respect Scott Mac's desire for propriety here, MMN has previous with about half the project at this point. An unblock here would not be a help to the project: rather, it would yet again show that past a certain threshold of DGAFism we basically allow editors to act as they like, where they like, and with little recourse. I've no administrative history with MMN that I remember, and I actually agree with him more often than I disagree, but we're asking everyone on the project to basically ignore his constant volcanic temper when that wouldn't be tolerated from less well-known editors. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• I only encountered MMN for the first time earlier this week, where I happened to disagree politely with something he said, and received a foul-mouthed, insulting diatribe in response. The person clearly needs help, and his presence here adds nothing. A permanent ban can only make this a better place. That it has taken so long is of some concern. What DO Administrators do? HiLo48 (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Since the editor promised to continue disruption when the block ends, there is no other choice than issue an indefinite block. I think a community ban would also be appropriate. Wikipedia is far too lenient with users with such an extensive history of disruption. Nanobear (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support it was originally justified, but if there was any doubt this response confirmed it. I'm also involved in the Arb and have been getting ready to post evidence to that over the weekend. I've been aware that the minute I do there will be a torrent of invective from Mick so I haven't been looking forward to it. All credit to Sandstein here for being prepared to do something. Scott, you gave Mick some very good advice about the Arb com case which he obviously ignored. I think you would have been better supporting Sandstein in the hope that it might modify Mick's behaviour --Snowded ^TALK 12:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• It was inappropriate for Sandstein to be imposing the block here. The fact that he first lobbied to have his name removed from the parties list during the arbitration case, and a moment later is finding ways to involve himself after making this statement frankly says it all. The users who are endorsing this block are overlooking the full implications by desiring to provide a Community consensus to this agenda-driven block. That an admin is feuding (to create a division between AC and the Community) because AC did not find in that admin's favor in a separate decision is NOT ok. There is a sufficient need for admin conduct to be considered in the case, and I'd strongly advise the Community to avoid letting a few individuals use this situation as an excuse to further chip away at admin policy (the protection which exists for both admins and editors). This is not a one-off, and don't let your feelings towards one editor shape the way the project responds to other editors, particularly when the wheels were already in motion to address that editor through other means. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - There was some edgy comments Mick was removing - the user that posted them removed them himself when he realized. I think the Arbcom should be allowed to resolve and Mick should be unblocked to defend himself. Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block of MMN. The block log says it all, really. I don't really believe in 23rd chances, or whatever it is now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. If I'd been compared to the [Westboro Baptist Church I'd be pissed too. Doesn't totally justify the reaction but I think ArbCom should be allowed to finish it's business. There's also a double standard at work involving civility blocks at AN/I. This block seems to have as much to do with who he pissed of and his lack of friends to back him up. Again, I'm not trying to explain away his comments and actions, I just think at this point the existing case at ArbCom should be allowed to proceed and that he should be able to freely participate. Restore the original 72 hour block. RxS (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support, Even allowing for "involvement", which was correctly brought up here for review, the block is good. If MMN is to be unblocked, it should only be done in order to to allow him to edit his user and talk page, and participate in the current arbitration case on those pages created for the purpose of hearing the case. If MMN abuses his talk page and continues with the PAs, then the privilege of using that page should also be revoked and any further communications will have to be by e-mail. Mjroots (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• EMPHATIC OPPOSE, and please hear me out. I posted the original comment which MickMacNee construed as a personal attack. I've since removed it myself. While I did not write it with any intention of casting an insult at him, it is apparent to me now how it could be construed in the way he did. Many of the people above voicing support are looking at the result of an avalanche and saying "Yeah, that's bad, good block!" without taking into account the snowball genesis of this situation. I seriously doubt any continued disruption will occur if he is unblocked. Many of you are saying that ArbCom can summarily unblock him if they so desire so he can participate in the case. I think that's irrelevant, and casts an unfair light on MickMacNee in approaching the case. Sure, we can all sit here and talk about the personal attacks MickMacNee's made, the edit warring, etc. Again, that's looking at the outcome of the avalanche and not understanding it. I think we can do better than that. Before this thread started, I stated I thought MickMacNee's 72 hour block should be removed [93]. I stand by that, and also most emphatically believe this indef block should be removed. There's no need to question Sandstein's actions, or anyone's responses. Undo the block, and let's get back to business. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Worth noting that this means both the person whose comment was being edit warred over (Hammersoft) and the person whose talk page it was (me) oppose the indef block. (Which admittedly would be worth more if Mick's post-block venting weren't descending into an almost self-parodic attempt to nail the indef-block coffin shut. Still, post-indef-block venting is traditionally heavily discounted.) Rd232 public ^talk 16:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Excellent point. Perhaps a new subsection here noting past practice and suggesting removing the block? I seriously doubt any continued disruption would erupt, and blocks are not punitive. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Mick's recent response makes me disinclined to bother. Demanding something he knows he won't get (apology from Sandstein, and expunging of his indef block) is silly but perhaps heat-of-the-moment understandable, but declining a conditional unblock to participate in the arbcom case, when Sandstein's behaviour, including the indef-block, will be within scope, seems to be giving up and calling it a day. If he won't help himself then I'm disinclined to campaign on his behalf. I've expressed my opinion opposing the indef block (and incidentally supporting the edit-war block on Delta), and I'm going to leave it at that. Rd232 public ^talk 17:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. MickMacNee's recent behavior has been deplorable[94] [95] [96], and it's about time. Chester Markel (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Note—Mick has just declined an unblock to allow participation in the ArbCom case. ╟─TreasuryTag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 17:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  I think Mick more is requesting the retraction of the block under the conditions that he was removing a personal attack and it should not have been replaced by anyone than rejecting unblocking. Also note - Mick's block has been returned to the primary 72 hours less time served by user HJ Mitchell.Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  The reduction in block time, without any conditions[97], is unfortunate, as there was no consensus of removal of the indefinite block. It's just this sort of block warring that has made behavior like MickMacNee's impossible to manage without lengthy arbitration cases. If every editor similarly situated has to appear before arbcom rather than being sanctioned by the community, the committee won't be able to handle the workload. Chester Markel (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  We've actually gotten much better at that over the last couple of years, but you're absolutely right in this case. Dramadramadrama. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The key issues

There are 4 key points to be looked at, IMHO:

1. Was the post being edit-warred over an egregious violation of WP:NPA
2. Was Mick within his “rights” to edit-war over its removal
3. Was the original block justified
4. Was the extension justified

In my opinion. the majority of the post is quite possibly the best use of WP:SPADE I have ever seen. At no point was Mick ever directly compared to a member of WBC, his interaction style was directly compared. This may not seem to be a difference, but there is a gigantic one – the phrase “it’s like negotiating with a pitbull” would be virtually identical, and it does not mean that the editor is being called a pitbull. It is also not inappropriate to say “just ignore him”, because there are indeed some editors on Wikipedia that are just better to ignore.

With this in mind, unfortunately, no; it was not a violation of WP:NPA, and therefore edit-warring to remove it justified a block.

Due to Mick’s response – especially that his intent was to continue to WP:DISRUPT once the short block expired, the extension was required, no matter who did it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a good analysis, and I agree the previous 3-day edit-warring block was warranted. However given that the cause of MickMacNee's edit warring (a comment on my talk page) had been withdrawn by the author to minimise drama (so the block is not preventative, regardless of Mick's intemperate remarks), a unilateral admin indef-block in the middle of an Arbcom case seems quite unnecessary and indeed unwise. And given Mick's prior history with Sandstein, and his well-known temperament, this block was always going to produce a reaction which would help justify it post-hoc, which seems somehow unfair. Maybe unblocking now would merely postpone the inevitable, but without an unblock, a process has been cut short which is there for a reason. PS If he does remain blocked, what an irony that he'd be indeffed over not being able to put up with what he considered a personal attack... Rd232 public ^talk 12:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, all blocks are by their nature unilateral. The block remains preventative because no matter what the fate of the content that has been edit-warred over, MickMacNee's reaction to the block (together with, of course, his prior history of disruption) indicates that he is intent on approaching all future disagreements in the same disruptive manner, i.e., with edit-warring and severe personal attacks. This is further illustrated by his reaction to my extension of the block: "Hah. Sociopath wouldn't even cover you Sandstein, you power crazy fuck. Just happened to be wandering along reviewing my contributions eh? Out for a little stroll were you. Just spotted a little personal attacky wacky did you? Fuck you, you utter freak."  Sandstein  12:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Good block; Sandstein may well have been involved to some extent; but going on my previous interactions with MMN, and the recurrent drama caused by MMN's interactions with other editors, I think unblocking would be a net negative for wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• comment - this user is at arbitration and there is no excuse at all to override that and indefinitely block him now. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't override it. He's entitled to be unblocked to participate it if he requests it. He hasn't requested it yet. However, the arbitration shouldn't be used as an excuse to simply ignore appalling behaviour such as this. DeCausa (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• The block does not (and cannot) override the arbitration proceedings, no more than the previous 72h block did. Arbitration can proceed in parallel to this discussion, and the Arbitration Committee can unblock MickMacNee for this purpose. Also, I am not aware of any rule providing that a user who is party to an arbitration proceeding may not be blocked, particularly if they are actively engaged in disruption.  Sandstein  13:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• If ArbCom wants to unblock him specifically to participate in that case, that is their right. But the fact that MMN is at ArbCom should not result in a form of diplomatic immunity while the case is pending. He was disruptive and promised to continue to act disruptively if unblocked. As such, a block to prevent further disruption is certainly justified. If he strikes said promise, then we can discuss an unblock. That ball is in Mick's court, however. Resolute 15:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sandstein is correct that the Arbitration Committee can summarily unblock an editor in order to allow them to participate in arbitration. He is also correct that an editor can be blocked for disruption at any point, irrespective of whether the editor is a party to an open arbitration case. I gather that there is a separate complaint that Sandstein should not have blocked because he is not impartial in relation to MickMacNee, but that is a separate issue to the merits of the actual block. If the community intends to debate the propriety of Sandstein's action, in my view it would be preferable to defer judgment on that matter to the Arbitration Committee – which has just announced its intention to also scrutinise Sandstein's conduct during the current case. Lastly: if MickMacNee is unblocked by a clerk in order to participate in the case, his unblock would be conditional on his only editing his talk page and the case pages, and he would of course be re-blocked in the event of disruption at that point. AGK [•] 15:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• If the threat to continue to disrupt is withdrawn, then the block can be reset to that originally imposed, and may be appealed via the normal process. AGK, I don't see anything at the ArbCom case which confirms your statement above, am I not looking in the correct place? Mjroots (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Given MickMacNee's recent behavior[98] [99] [100], I suggest leaving him blocked. Any further participation in the arbitration case should be via his talk page, to which links can be posted as appropriate. Chester Markel (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Mjroots: I am speaking, on that matter, on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, by their direction at the clerks' mailing list. If you would like me to ask some arbitrators to comment here to verify my statements, I am happy to do so. The provision for unblocking editors so that they can participate in an arbitration case is well-established, and has been in use at least since I became a clerk a few years ago (although it is not used terribly often). AGK [•] 17:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• AGK, no need. I've seen your post to Sandstein's talk page and no doubt the case pages will be updated in due course. I've no reason to doubt what you posted above so will leave the matter there. Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• note Sandsteins now been added as a party (by request of the arbiters) to Mick's arbitration and Sanstein's actions in this indefinite escalation will be examined during the proceedings. Off2riorob (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• comment I can't say I'm surprised at any of this, although I'll admit that I had hoped it all would have played out differently. The one item I'm still unclear on is why. I noticed that Mick seemed to be aware of all the consequences here, and I'm just not sure what point he was trying to make. I always hate to see someone who is capable of, and in this case has a history of, making quality contributions shut out of the project. Oh well, another day in: "As the Wiki Turns" I suppose. — Ched :  ?  14:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, my response to this is "no shit"! By the way, does WP:DRAMA still redirect here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Delta blocked (again)

• I just blocked Δ (talk · contribs) 24 hours for reverting 4 times on that page, baiting MMN into making his violation worse.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Aren't we being a little hasty here? Fastily has just declined a 3RR report/block request on the WP:ANEW page regarding Delta. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You have got to be fucking kidding me... Yoenit (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Very helpful. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • I have to agree. MMN was refactoring someone else's comment on someone else's talk page. If MMN felt it was out of line and a personal attack he should have asked an admin immediately to review possibly to perform revision deletion to remove. --MASEM (t) 12:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

3RR/EW isn't about who's right (in most cases, e.g. this one)... - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Good block - which should be longer, because one of the reverts used rollback and another described the removal of what the removing editor considered "obvious attacks directed at me" as "vandalism". Also with 3RR there's often a timebound "this ought to be fixed ASAP because not doing so may have negative consequences and I'm the only one carrying the flag" element driving editors which provides no excuse but sometimes sympathy; but this really doesn't apply for restoring a several days' old user talk comment, especially when other editors have been involved in the edit war. Rd232 public ^talk 12:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with the block, not necessarily because of the perceived "baiting" (a notion I am uncomfortable with because of its subjectivity) but because edit-warring is edit-warring and is always prohibited. I disagree with Fastily's assessment that "Betacommand was reverting inappropriate edits by MickMacNee", because the only applicable exception provided for by WP:3RRNO would be reverting obvious vandalism. And removing a (wrongly) perceived personal attack is not vandalism.  Sandstein  12:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Not clear that it was baiting. MickMacNee did not approach Hammersoft about what he later interpreted as a personal attack. Mathsci (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - The objective is to correct beneficial contributors behavior , forgive and forget past issues and all work together as best we can. Unblock them both an all try to help each other contribute. The reverting was just part of the silliness that arose out of the original comment that the poster himself removed when he saw the disruption it caused. As for Deltas main edit pattern that is upsetting users - Non free pictures are not what the project is about - users like them - anyone that resists that deserves a barnstar. Off2riorob (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  ...and if forgiving past issues just leads to them being repeated over and over again..? bobrayner (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  restrict the contributor to the areas they are beneficial in. Micks a good writer. Off2riorob (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  If MMN's behavioural problems were limited to specific areas of the project, rather than every single time someone disagrees with him, that might be a workable solution. They aren't; therefore, it isn't. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  The RFArbitation case is the place that will best resolve this now. - as it was previous to this needless escalation and dramah. Off2riorob (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• While there is no question that SarekofVulcan acted in good faith, a discussion had already taken place at WP:ANEW, and a consensus conclusion had been reached there. As a Wikipedia principle, we generally hold that decisions reached through open discussions at appropriate venues supersede the judgements and decisions of individual editors. Though SoV was unaware of the existing decision, he is not relieved of his responsibility to abide by it at such time as he is made aware of it. (To do otherwise is to encourage administrators to avoid commenting on WP:AN and its subpages, and simply impose their own remedies without regard for the input of their peers.) I am therefore lifting the block on Delta without prejudice to SoV. He may certainly appeal the conclusion reached at WP:ANEW, and the block can be reimposed if a consensus is reached that one is appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • At the time of Fastily's decline it was 3:2 against sanctioning the clear 3RR breach. That's a consensus strong enough to ignore policy? In any case, overturning a block under current discussion is clearly worse than applying a policy-compliant block in ignorance of a weak consensus to ignore policy. Finally, if you're worried about messages - what message does this send on acceptance of edit warring? Rd232 public ^talk 14:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • (ec) I've explained my reasoning here, at WP:ANEW [101], and at Delta's[102] and SoV's[103] talk pages; I would urge you to have a look at those comments, rather than delivering sound bites about the sort of "message" you think I'm sending. I believe that the discussion at WP:ANEW presented two differing interpretations of the relevant Wikipedia policies, neither of which seemed inherently without merit. How our (sometimes vague and mutually-contradictory) mesh of policies and guidelines should be interpreted and weighted and applied in cases like this one is properly within the purview of the community, and should be decided by community discussion. If it had appeared that the support here were unanimous (or even better-than-lukewarm) for SoV's block, I probably would have let it stand, as discussions at AN/I probably get broader community exposure and review than ANEW. It should go without saying that I will abide by any community consensus reached on this issue, and I furthermore have no intention of using my admin tools again in this case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Just my 2c, because I'm not one to trash my fellow admins ... I think SoV's block was valid and vital considering it takes 2 (or more) eo edit-war. The fact that 1/2 of the EW-ing party is now unblocked must fester like gangrene on the one that remains blocked. That said, redoing the block on Delta would honestly serve no positive purpose at this time. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

He (MMN) actually reverted four different people, not just me. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Excuse for me "coming over all Mick" (seems appropriate somehow), but bollocks. The only policy interpretation you can mean is the between-the-lines hints at ANEW that the vandalism exemption for 3RR might apply. But there is no way that Mick's actions can be construed as WP:VANDALISM (i.e. any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.). And it's frankly a poor show that any admin would hesitate for more than a moment before rejecting this out of hand. Rd232 public ^talk 16:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Admit that I'm a bit surprised at this one, ... thought it had already been resolved. — Ched :  ?  15:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Question Could someone please check the history of File:Mcdonalds-90s-logo.svg and Delta's and my latest comments on Talk:WDTN and let me know if he actually cleaned up incorrect specifications, or if he possibly changed the file from non-free fair use to public domain, possibly just to win an argument. Also, I asked him to please define "decorative", as he/she has used the term repeatedly. He instead pointedly refused to answer or to direct me to any documentation or discussion of the term. Thank you very much.--Chaswmsday (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I have not refused to answer it, if you take a look I clearly answered it ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Semantic games, IMO. --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I checked the history of the McDonald's logo, and I'm quite confused about Commons' decision that PD-textlogo applied to the Golden Arches. I'm challenging that on Commons, and have reverted that file page back to before it was first tagged as a textlogo. That said, I believe that Delta's edit there was correct. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I have no idea what you've just said, Father of Spohckk (as T'Pau might have said), but I see you brought it back to non-free, fair use. So don't my arguments at Talk:WDTN still stand? --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
      • No, its rather a large can of worms, which really does not apply to your article, it would still only be one non-free file, compared to the 10+ on your station article. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Question I've had fun editing Wikipedia and thought I was making a contribution toward it. Everyone else I've dealt with in the NFCC matter, even those with whom I disagree, has been pleasant and (mostly) civil, and I've tried to act the same. Is there any way to just block Delta from Dayton, Ohio TV articles, and I will gladly try to reach consensus with any other editor(s). This is so tiring. Thank you again. --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  answer - Not understanding wikipedia policy and not liking what an experienced user is telling you about policy is not a reason to request their restricting from editing in your area. Off2riorob (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I was so agitated over the sudden change at McDonald's that I misinterpreted Delta's reply as a brush-off. --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Aw, bless. At least I won't request you are restricted from a topic area for your minor issue. Non free use is a diversion, a pin prick on the aims and ambitions of the wikipedia foundation to collect and create a commons licensed free to use non copyright repository the size the world has never before seen. Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

My fucking God what a gigantic pile of stupid this situation is. Unblock MMN, that's obvious, especially with Hammersoft's apology. For the rest of you, I suggest a diet very fucking heavy in facially-applied seafood, because holy fuck. Hey Sandstein, great move as usual... blocking for announcement of intending to continue removing a comment which at the time had already been removed by its author. Seriously, amazing job there, putting the "can't be fucking arsed to see what's going on before wading in and throwing my power around" back in 'admin.' Makes spelling the word kind of a bitch, but at least it's accurate. This is exactly the prizing of the letter of the law over its spirit that pages like WP:BURO are supposed to warn us against; nobody thought even for one fucking second to go "Hey wait, maybe MMN has a point and these apparent (though apparently unintended) personal attacks are a problem." I suppose the leeway of post-block venting is only allowed for editors one likes; in fact I seem to recall Sandstein at some point in the past saying that post-block venting should be overlooked. Different when it's MMN I suppose.

Nope. You guys did the usual thing.. block someone you don't like for making a ruckus. Without bothering to fucking look at what caused the fucking ruckus in the first fucking place. Excellent move. Well done. → ROUX ₪ 16:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Or, as discussed above, no: Hammersoft wasn't in breach of WP:NPA and yes: MMN edit-warred without justification and threatened to continue to do so. Different interpretation. DeCausa (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Or, as I mentioned, yes (see how easy it is to be a prick to someone?); the WBC is a bunch of frothing at the mouth loons, and Hammersoft has explained he sees now how his comments were misinterpreted. I would take a dim view of someone comparing me to them, and I'm not surprised that MMN did. His interpretation was not intended by the original writer, sure. Nevertheless it had the appearance (as I said above) of a personal attack, however inadvertent. What nobody did here was say "hey wait, maybe he has a point and there's a problem here." The Wikipedia editorship in general, and admins like Sandstein specifically, have a very long and consistent track record of ignoring causes and only focusing on the end result. → ROUX ₪ 17:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed in abstract. There's a large number of people in this thread that are looking only at the results, without addressing the genesis. You pour water on a towel, the towel's going to get wet. Getting offended that the towel is wet is irrational. Even more so, because the ArbCom case can handle any civility concerns pre-dating this event. Undo the block. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Roux:repeating your post (effectively) doesn't add anything. DeCausa (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I had hoped that repetition might weight my opinion down enough that it wouldn't shoot over your head again. Hammersoft was not intentionally in breach of NPA. MMN felt he was, and as the aggrieved party was trying to do something about it. Perhaps you could show me where someone took even a moment to look at the fact that maybe, just maybe, he had a point? Went about it the wrong way, perhaps, but if you could show me where anyone gave a damn about the cause rather than the effect I'd be grateful. I won't be holding my breath, you understand. → ROUX ₪ 17:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

roux, one of the challenges in the written word is that we cannot control perception. Although I argued above that in reality Mick was not being compared to a certain church member, that does not change how he originally (and apparently continually) perceived it. We can't fix that, especially when he remains unwilling/emotionally unable to look at it from an alternate perspective. Even Hammersoft finally realized after Mick percieved the comment as an attack that it could perhaps be percieved as one, even if it was not intended that way. Does his perception give him carte blanche to go to town on people the way he is? No - previous incivility may explain your own, but it never excuses it (so ends the edit-conflicted comments). And yes, I clearly did look at the entire thing to look at cause/effect (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You could show me, perhaps, where I said MMN's incivility (apart from the usual post-block ranting) is excused? Your very first sentences quite support my point; MMN perceived that he was being attacked and was trying to do something about it. Instead of looking at that, the various exemplary admins involved have instead chosen to just shut him up on a technicality without examining the broader issue. → ROUX ₪ 17:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

...well, that's just how I percieved it :-) You'll note his block was reduced to the 72hrs minus time served. I don't think it was really a technicality - Mick knows well enough that he should have communicated with Hammersoft before edit-warring. I still believe that at some point he'll re-read the original post and say "fuck, really...it doesn't really say what I thought it said", but he'll never tell us if he does. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The current block is a "technicality" only in that his actions are theoretically justified on the grounds that the comparison in question was pretty egrecious. But while you can justify his actions, just how many times do you have to excuse them? MMN's very first instinct here (as in any case of conflict) was to martyr himself in the way guaranteed to cause maximum drama. That's the bigger picture. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you could show me where I've been excusing his actions, that would be great. Won't hold my breath. I pointed out above that he'd gone about this the wrong way, but that doesn't excuse--your word--the depressingly consistent lack of anything resembling looking at the issue which besets >99% of Wikipedians. → ROUX ₪ 17:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am genuinely taken aback by the idea that MickMacNee, who has essentially done precisely whatever he's wanted for years on the project without a care in the world for what anyone else thought, is somehow being treated unfairly by being blocked for his nine millionth spat of drama-mongering. Surely the solution to the "inconsistency" problem starts with dealing with the most prominent flouters of our general conduct guidelines, and MMN is very near the top of that list in nearly everyone's book whether they agree with him or not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The whole "hard done by" Mick routine is ridiculous. And over an alleged NPA of all things!!! The irony! Actually, the biggest irony is that the best thing that could have happened to him (from his point of view) was to have stayed blocked until after the Arbs had ruled. He's only going to shoot himself in the foot (and everywhere else) now. DeCausa (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UK MP editing article about himself & IP vandalism. ? COI

Resolved

 – BLP violations cleaned up, no real COI worries here for now. --Taelus (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A user has just posted to Talk:Jacob Rees-Mogg that the subject of the article ( a UK member of parliament, has tweeted that he has been editing the article, which has also been undergoing a series of edits (including some vandalism) from various IP addresses. Could someone more knowledgable of policies etc than me investigate any COI or other implications?— Rod ^talk 17:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI does not preclude removing obvious vandalism/WP:BLP violations from an article about themself (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Plus the vandalism was still there when this ANI notice was filed, and has since been removed as no doubt several of us clicked the link here. It doesn't look like the MP has done any edits himself at all. --Taelus (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the vandalism/WP:BLP-violating material is gone now. I don't see much else to do here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Marking as resolved then. --Taelus (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, however it may be worth noting the only edit on 13th June (the day he tweeted he spent most of the day dealing with the problem), which I reverted, was by 86.150.178.8 inserting, rather than removing, the "problem" information about lettuce farming.— Rod ^talk 17:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Suicide threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some guy posted on Defenestration (the act of jumping out of a window) that he intends on committing suicide via this method after his post is finished [104]. I have emailed emergencywikimedia.org. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Transport for Greater Manchester - urgent attention needed

restored from previous revision ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 18:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

NSFW, looks like this page has been hacked...! AD 16:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This was sneakey template vandalism, I believe the offending template was protected now. I've also added File:Ed logo.png to the Bad image list because it's got not application except on Encyclopedia Dramatica and is only used for vandalism else where. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 18:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Some help over Nair

Nair is an Indian caste article, which a number of editors have been trying to improve for some time, and it's a fraught process. Unfortunately, it seems to have attracted some caste warriors who can't see anything but the extremes - you're either a glorious supporter of their caste, or you must be a hatemongering promoter of another caste trying to dishonour them, and they can't see anything in between.

You can see how bad it has been if you can face having a read through Talk:Nair, and there's a few sections on my Talk page where I've been asked for help.

There have been repeated, probably sometimes wilful, misunderstandings of what's actually written in the article. For example, there is a source that says something along the lines of "There is an old story that the word "Nair" came from "dog", but it isn't true" - the warriors' response to that is "How dare you call us dogs!", and no amount of explaining what it actually says gets anywhere.

As another example, there's a sourced section about traditional clothing, and it mentioned female underwear - the response of one of the caste warriors was to call the editor who added it a "son of a whore".

So there are people looking for sources, actually getting hold of those sources and reading them, and updating the article. And there are the warriors slagging the whole thing off as Western/Christian bias and grossly insulting to the Nair caste - but being very unspecific and not providing any reliable sources to support their claims.

I've been trying to help, have issued warnings, and have blocked several of them for making personal attacks and unfounded personal accusations - on other related articles too. And I'm not the only admin to issue blocks for personal attacks.

I've tried not to take any sides over content, other than to stress that sourced content trumps unsourced assertions. And, of course, that makes me biased against the honour of the Nair caste, and now we're getting "We'll see what happens when an unbiased admin gets here".

So, I'm asking two things here…

1. I'd appreciate a quick check of my (and other) admin actions…
   • I blocked User:Shannon1488 for 24 hours for the edit summary here (RevDeleted - "Talk about your mother's undergarment, you son of a whore.)" He'd already been abusive and had had warnings.
   • I blocked User:Shannon1488 again, for 1 week, for carrying on the general edit warring over to to Template:Kshatriya Communities (several of them had been repeatedly putting back an unsourced claim)
   • User:Robbie.Smit was blocked for a week by User:JamesBWatson for this attack on me. (He'd been blocked just days earlier for harassment)

   Oh, and that came after this delightful edit summary - "Call you mother a dog, racist asshole." -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   • I blocked User:202.83.178.126 for 24 hours, as the comments at Talk:Nair#Western/Christian POV about "vulgar references to even the underwear used by the women, rather shows your moral bankruptcy" strongly suggest this is User:Shannon1488 (and it's another personal attack anyway)
   • I blocked User talk:Sujith.Kumaar for comments at Talk:Nair#Anti-nair Propaganda - "Stop this bullying or you will find yourself in a very bad position later" seems like a bit of a threat, and he's also continuing unfounded accusations against other editors with things like "Sitush is really behaving shamelessly. To support his claim that the word Nair is derived from dog, he is now saying that there is some saying that "Nairs and dogs don't know who their father is"" - Sitush is clearly not making any such claim.
   • (I forgot, I also blocked User:Ancient indian historian for 72 hours for edit-warring to remove sourced content -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC))
2. Secondly, I'd really appreciate some help at Talk:Nair, as the editors trying to work on the article are facing an unacceptable level of abuse and accusations. It would be a great help if another admin or two could join in, so it isn't just little old biased me ;-)

Any help will be very welcome - and I'm just off to notify everyone mentioned here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I also warned User:Govindsharma for this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The article has been raised here several times, most recently earlier this month. It is extremely fraught and I am grateful for the time that BsZ has spent on this. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at Talk:Nair. From where I'm standing, you've actually been incredibly lenient. Larry V (talk | email) 21:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Your actions seem very reasonably to me. From what I can see, there are a small group of editors who making good-faith and constructive efforts to work out content issues; removing troublemakers from the equation who are unwilling to assume good faith makes it easier for them to do so. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

On first review, good actions. It was clearly an article that needed admin attention with some caution and research and I'm glad that someone did it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Appreciate the feedback and support so far, folks, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If anyone uninvolved thus far gets a chance to come to Talk:Nair and weigh in, I'm not sure that it will "convince" any of those opposed to the article's progress, but it certainly couldn't hurt. Be advised there is a danger that you'll be accused of being part of the "conspiracy" to malign the Nair, but it might be constructive to have a "as an outside, uninvolved party, I'm not seeing a problem with the article's progress." MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auctigo

I tagged the page Auctigo as XFD to start a discussion as the page currently seems to be primarily advertisement based with no establishment of notability or references apart from its own website. On the discussion page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Auctigo it would appear that the creator has been joined by a couple of meatpuppets in an attempt to assert that the page is notable, with comments such as "This is a very good idea of saving dead miles", "Every where it is green revolution" and "it is valuable info". Could someone please have a look and give an opinion. Thanks a lot. Reichsfürst (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd look into filing an SPI into this as well. Looking at the edits from the "Keep" votes, the could be the same person due to the odd grammar and rather weird verbage. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

IPs are different though in signatures, suggesting perhaps the use of some proxy or other. Reichsfürst (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere, the Hormel CEO's ears are burning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You heard vikings singing too? Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Baked beans are off... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone else has just added a keep with the comment ' It looks to be a group targeting.It is not a bad idea...........' - it would appear we have someone using multiple socks. Reichsfürst (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Give them a point or two for at least understanding their own business plan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is now deleted, thanks to a bunch of socks trying to stuff the "ballot box" with their nearly-English comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And now undeleted, to make sure we can call G4 on it later. The discussion has been semied, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Kudos. That should choke off the nonsense. Procedural question: Should we strike all the comments made by the socks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

NPA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Today's lesson: if you don't want to be told by someone to fuck off, then don't go onto their talk page and glibly imply that they're a racist. 28bytes (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Is it appropriate that an admin can tell an editor to fuck off, i'm sure if I had said the same a block would be winging my way. Mo ainm~Talk 18:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

On his user talk, where you've gone to bait him over some tedious Irish nationalism drama? It's practically mandated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So it's ok once done on your talk page? Mo ainm~Talk 18:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's fairly uncivil, but it's not a personal attack as such, any more than "go away" would be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not the language I would use, and I tend to ignore personal attacks anyway, but I don't see it as a wholly inappropriate response to your racism accusation. -- Atama頭 19:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• By clearly ascribing racist motive to HJ's actions you've blown any credibility out of the water Mo ainm. It might be "overly strident language" but there we go. If you want someone to take action over that there's an admin I can recommend..... Pedro :  Chat  19:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• If you came to my talk page with accusations like that, a "fuck off" would only be the opener. IMO, smarten up, withdraw this filing and hopefully avoid a boomerang. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)HJ Mitchell, please don't tell users to fuck off. OK then, seems like this can be archived. (It's not quite WP:BOOMERANG status, but the response seems reasonable to me. If you'd like to present a case about some sort of habitual problem with this user, please feel free.) --Onorem♠Dil 19:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• You accused someone, baselessly, of racism/nationalistic bias and you're somehow insulted that you were told to fuck off? Had you said the same thing to me, I'd have told you to fuck yourself gently with a chainsaw, for starters. Seriously. You can't bitch and whine that someone had a perfectly reasonable--and in my opinion wholly understated and richly deserved--response to such a filthy and disgusting insinuation. → ROUX ₪ 19:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• That's grand I know that I can use the term without sanction in future if I feel aggrieved by something an editor says. And for I am not bitching and whining I asked for clarification on the use of the term and I got it, now it's time i fuck off and do something useful. Mo ainm~Talk 19:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to make retirement gestures destroy user accounts

Obvious troll is obvious.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. I assume this is intended as a thought experiment instead of a serious proposal, but if it's the latter, WP:Village pump (proposals) is thataway. This isn't something an AN/I-only audience gets to decide. 28bytes (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC) I see a lot of users, posting black {{retired}} templates. But, then they still edit. Or come back in a few days and pulling the template down (and do it over and over). Sometimes, we even get a bunch of dramah...from people saying "look what RFA did, made that person quit". So, to stop this, let's make the black template actually delete the user account. Since I'm a softie, maybe have a 48-hour cooling off period. (This would have the added advantage of keeping a forum for the "no...don't go" dramah and the aspersions against the "drivers offers". Plus there would be an exciting "ticking time bomb" effect as the last few minutes expire. Think about it. Could have real potential.TCO (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC) I don't suppose you have an actual incident to report? Like some hot edit-war "dramah" that needs stomping on? Larry V (talk | email) 18:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Support As nominator.TCO (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC) SUPPORT, LOL On the presumption that this is a tongue-in-cheek joke. Larry V (talk | email) 18:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose How is this constructive? Wouldn't we rather they come back in a few days after mulling it over than have them never come back? Also, we don't "delete user accounts" here on Wikipedia. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Tempting, but no. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Solution looking for a problem. Yes, there are drama seekers who 'retire' without retiring...Oh well. What exactly is the problem with 'retired' users who come back to edit? (Side note: Not an AN/I issue) (ecx2) --Onorem♠Dil 18:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose, with the counter proposal that when people retire, we go about our business and not worry about it. We should do the same when they unretire as well. Just go about your business, edit some articles, and pretend like it doesn't matter what they do. That is my counter proposal. --Jayron32 18:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC) (ec) Oppose: Per Wikipedia:FAQ#How do I change my username/delete my account? - A username cannot be deleted. If a username was deleted, all the edits made by the user could not be properly attributed. It's better to have users who are retired come back and keep adding to Wikipedia, than have to make them start again. Also if there account is deleted and they want to get restarted, this would cause huge problems for users who say "I am this user" - but there's no proof, and they start getting classed as a sockpuppet. The Helpful One 18:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Strong oppose. How would this even work? DS (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose. Way more trouble than it's worth, and anybody who actually wants their account deleted (at least to the extent of having their userpage deleted and password scrambled) can ask for it. Don't see any reason to construct hurdles to people changing their minds. And how will the automatic process handle vandalous notices placed by other users? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - honestly, I'd have assumed this was trolling if the editor proposing hadn't been around for four years - 'Plus there would be an exciting "ticking time bomb" effect' - seriously? Many excellent editors have suggested retiring over the years, and it's only a good thing they were able to come back. Besides I don't think it's even possible to delete accounts. AD 18:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Some folks leave in a taxi, some leave in a huff, and if that's too soon, a minute 'n a huff. There's nothing "official" about the "retired" template. I would be more in favor of requiring someone to remove it if they haven't actually retired. But indeffing someone who posts a "retired" banner but is otherwise in good standing, is not good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This one's worse

• Template:Semi-retired

There was recently a case at AFD where one editor nominated a whole bunch of porn stars for deletion and another editor made a copypasta delete !vote in almost every single one of them. The latter editor had one of those "semi-retired" tags on his page. If you're only intending to make a few minor edits here and there then fine but I don't think it's right to say you are "semi-retired" but still nominate articles for deletion, participate in edit wars and hang out on noticeboards and at other "drama venues". One reason for this is that people are going to come to your talk page to discuss your actions with you and they shouldn't be discouraged from doing so by any kind of banner suggesting that you are "kind of retired". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD isn't a head count and any competent closing admin will ignore copypaste comments. Nevertheless, {{semi-retired}} is an absolutely ghastly little template, and the day it is finally deleted will be a great victory in the War Against Drama. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes they should and I did. I just thought it to be a lot of activity for someone who is "semi retired". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds about as valid as "semi-pregnant". Has it ever been nominated for deletion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, no. And it's not as widely-used as I'd feared: only 380 transclusions right now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please deal with this IP?

User talk:92.40.134.8 has spent a significant part of this afternoon blanking various sections from articles and is continuing despite having been warned, such as here. Malleus Fatuorum 16:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with this edit - i.e. the removal of unreferenced and possibly false information? GiantSnowman 16:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. Malleus Fatuorum 16:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that we ought to have more respect for the sitting Member of Parliament though.[105] Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This new IP 92.41.203.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is following the same pattern of blanking information and would seem to admit to being the same person with one of their edit summaries. Their other edits may need perusal to see if they are okay. I would do so but I am off to the dentist so my thanks for anyone who takes the time to follow up on this. MarnetteD | Talk 16:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The IP has been removing sourced information too. If we started blanking every single unsourced thing we'd have only about 5% of Wikipedia left. Only contentious stuff should be removed. This is why we have citation needed tags. If it's false information the IP could have made an effort to say how it's false, and perhaps replaced it with correct information. But a blanking spree is always the easy option. AD 16:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This one seems to have stopped for the moment. Our basic nightmare: mobile IPs hitting multiple pages. Who feels up to range-blocking H3G UK? Favonian (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A rangeblock won't work, the range is too big. —GFOLEY FOUR— 17:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should rangeblock the ISP for the Parliment building? (Only half joking. We seem to need to do that for Singapore, from another thread here on ANI.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Far be it from me to suggest that it's about damned time to require Sign In To Edit. (Whoops, I just did.) Carrite (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What if we limited IPs to just 3 edits a day? Or whatever number makes sense? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Repeated blanking might be best dealt with using the Edit filter.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Kona Fearne and Chanya Krasaeyarn

Apologies in advance for not looking more deeply into this, but I ran across a collection of strange user pages that probably need to be merged or deleted or otherwise dealt with by an admin. I assume these pages are goodfaith sandbox efforts, but they appear outside of the designated sandbox so I think they should be cleaned up.

Starting here we can see that someone in 2008 has uploaded a picture of singer, Jeremy Prophet, and has given it the same name as an older photograph of singer, Julie P. - "Jp.jpg". This was remedied by another user shortly afterward with the upload of this photo. Whereas the attribution for the original Julie P. photo was the band's free-licensing page (http://www.soundfactory.biz/wikipedia.html), the new photo claims to be self-created. Should the second photo's attribution be altered to point to the original free-licensing page?

The current Jeremy Prophet version of "jp.jpg" appears in three different userpages all or none of which may be alternate accounts (sockpuppets). These pages are:

• User:Chanya Krasaeyarn
• User:ClubChanya
  and
• User:Kona Fearne/Sandbox.
  

There is no actual Wikipedia article on Jeremy Prophet although a brief examination of the article in Kona Fearne's sandbox suggests that there is sufficient source material to create one. Anyway Kona Fearne hasn't edited since 2008 when all of the image-replacement occurred, but both ClubChanya and Chanya Krasaeyarn have been active as recently as last month. Neither editor has edited anything apart from their own userpages.

I haven't warned any of the listed users about this ANI filing, but I'm not accusing any of them of malfeasance and I suspect that several of them will have to be deleted anyway so I didn't want to create new pages to be dealt with. I'd have acted on my own for the non-administrative aspects of this, but I'm short of time just now. Sorry for giving you folks more work than needed, and thanks in advance for looking into this weird issue. -Thibbs (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not going to tag these myself, but these are extremely close to G11 territory. It looks like thinly-veiled spam about an upcoming Wii game to me. If an article is made from that content, and arguably even if it isn't, the userpages should go to MfD, as they'd fall under WP:FAKEARTICLE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Claritas/Anthem of Joy

Would an admin close the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Claritas/Anthem of Joy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Questionable block of Δ

Resolved

 – Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Asterion (talk · contribs) has just blocked Δ (talk · contribs), claiming civility, refusing to dialogue with fellow editors and edit-warring. As there's no warning on Δ's page on this, the best I can surmise is over these series of edits on Croatian kuna : [106], [107], [108], [109], and [110]. I will also note that he created a new section on that article's talk page [111] after he was reverted but before reverting a second time (eg 2RR). He did not exceed 3RR. This is also NFCC work that has been broadcasted well beforehand in March for the various numismatics projects and discussed at length at NFCC, and while not 100% resolved, there is consensus for these removals until the issue is resolved. He engaged with discussion and I see no signs of incivility there Talk:Croatian kuna.

Δ's requesting an unblock: were I not involved, I would easily remove this as there's no justification for it, none of the reasons that Asterion gave - while suggested by community sanctions - match up to the actions I'm seeing in light of the community sanctions - and if they are, they we need to reclarify them because I cannot see what he's violated. Unless Asterion has other reasons to justify this, I recommend Asterion's block be reviewed. (A message to Asterion will be dropped shortly). --MASEM (t) 03:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor in question is subject to community restrictions and has been warned and blocked in the past. Failure to engage in dialogue and treat other editors in a respectful manner is clear indeed. Regards, --Asterion^talk 03:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by that second sentence. It's not so clear to me. NW (Talk) 03:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And exactly what disrespect did Delta give that we let other editors get away with all over the place without question? I see that you declined to remove his block, claiming that he threatened a block via this edit, but clearly he used "may be blocked" which is far from a threat or uncivil. Ignoring some parts of a comment while still responding is also far from being uncivil, unless there's a new line in the sand we expect Delta to practice. Additionally, as it remained unresolved from the last time Delta was here, there are no new restrictions on him for maintaining the NFC policy, though clearly he's taken steps to clarify what he is doing with the right edit summaries and talk page discussion. One could argue he is being selective on the policy, but the policy assumes limited exceptions, meaning that if it is an exception should be discussed first before adding the content back in. So again, none of these are against anything in his community restrictions, and the block seems extremely inappropriate for these actions. A warning, yes; a possible ANI discussion yes, a block, heck no. --MASEM (t) 03:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, this is not the way I see it. Even if not intended, the civility issue is still there. I do stand by my actions but would not oppose to a reduction in duration if deemed appropriate by the wider community. --Asterion^talk 03:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, yeah, you'll never count me as a "supporter" of Beta/Delta in any way; but I seriously can't find a single thing he said in the diffs you provided on his talk page, or indeed on anything he has said in the past few days, which would justify a block, of any user, under any set of civility restrictions. Like, not even close. I am a frequent and vocal critic of Beta/Delta's interaction style, however this is not even remotely blockable in any way. I am the civility police that everyone complains about, and even I cannot find anything uncivil which has been said. Please unblock him. --Jayron32 03:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I am Spartacus! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This block appears unsupportable to me. To my mind, there is no civility issue here at all. I'm also less than impressed by the blocking administrator reviewing his own block and also reverting the disputed article to his preferred version. CIreland (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing incivil in Δ's comments. I agree with Jayron32, please unblock him. 28bytes (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I reading this right? Asterion both blocked him and declined the unblock request? That's not how it's supposed to work. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That's how I'm reading this as well. That's really not kosher. Courcelles 04:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC) (Also, bad block to begin with, should be lifted ASAP. Delta has the ability to be uncivil, but this wasn't it. Courcelles 04:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC))

Blocked him, declined the unblock request, and restored the images to the article that Δ had removed. 28bytes (talk) 04:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can we please stop abusing Δ? For god's sake this is the third block in about as many weeks. I know that Δ, with his long record and questionable civility, is an easy target, but I've seen a whole lot worse behavior go by without even a stern warning. Yes, Δ should know better. Yes, Δ needs to be careful. Yes, previous blocks should factor into future blocks. This is, however, getting out of hand. Δ does good work. He's worth keeping around. Continuously blocking him, which is functioning as a long term ban, when no discussion on a long term ban of Δ has reached a conclusion favoring that outcome, is unethical. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I have unblocked User:Δ per the consensus here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

@Asterion: You acted way out of line here for not only blocking Δ, but also declining his unblock request. Further, going on to restore the images in violation of our guidelines and policy was wholly out of line. If you're going to police Δ's edits in the future, I strongly suggest you gain some understanding of the NFCC policy and let other administrators step in with some advice if you begin to think it a good idea to block Δ again. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• 1. First, I think delta is a problem with WP. I've supported his outright ban from WP.
  2. Second, "I've seen a whole lot worse behavior go by without even a stern warning" is a weak cop out. You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.
  3. Lastly, I don't see ANYTHING in these diffs that was uncivil. It seems pretty standard and follows WP rules/customs. I don't see a reason for a block here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • • What I meant was not that bad behavior justifies other bad behavior. Instead I meant that civility rules are applied unfairly towards him. As to your first point, I would politely suggest that you drop the issue. You and he are on opposite sides of an active Wikipedia-based ideology war, just about everyone who works in files knows that, and therefore if you start any action against him, it will be seen as inherently tainted, and you might get boomeranged for it. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Unless delta starts something with me personally, I won't be doing anything on WP:AN/ANI anytime soon. My point of trying to get him blocked in the past was that, even though I was on that side, I don't think this behavior warranted a block. I agree that civility rules are imposed against him unequally, BUT that is of his own doing. Until such incivility ceases, those community imposed restrictions are going to remain in effect to keep a bad situation from getting worse. If he shows better self control, I would see no reason to keep such sanctions in place. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If we are going to be blocking on community standards, I would expect Delta to only be blocked on the same type of incivility charges leveled against any average user which would normally take them to WQA, RFC/U, or AN, or maybe just let off with a warning. If, instead, the community routinely ignores some incivility (like swearing) but insists that Delta be blocked for violating it, that's a double standard. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • No, it's a result of his community sanctions. It is supposed to mean he's blocked for any and all violations. A community sanction for something doesn't mean treat them the same as anyone else. it means that someone has had problems in an area and the community has decided that the person is allowed far less leeway in that area than the average joe because they know it gets out of hand for that person. If someone is given a community sanction of 1RR, we don't hold everyone to 1RR nor do we let that person go to 3RR because everyone else is allowed to and it's a double standard.--Crossmr (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as one who has clashed with Beta/Delta on a number of occasions, this particular incident seems rather mild. It might be a good idea for Delta to be a bit more selective with "you may be blocked" warnings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I stand by the community's decision. As for the unblock request, this is probably the first block I have enforced in around 4 years, so no conspiracy here. I was simply trying to explain my reasons to him, not denying any kind of appeal. As for comments like this, I have no opinion whatsoever on the article or on the images yes/images no issue, so let's just not extrapolate and fall foul of the same lack of civility. This is *all* I have to say about this. Good luck with the project. --Asterion^talk 06:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It is understood that not everyone has the block procedure down pat. Hammersoft is being a bit too harsh. And Delta will be up for another block sooner or later. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the blocking admin has retired. That's a shame, hopefully he will reconsider. 28bytes (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That's rather an extreme reaction. If everyone retired after making a mistake, there would be (almost) no one left. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

1. I sta...checked his contribs and he has been incredibley inactive. You are not losing much.

2. Admins that quit like this show a lack of the maturity and ability to deal with conflict that we should expect of RFA candidates.

3. If all the drama and wacking were to go away...but the articles still needed work, how many people would stay to work on them?

TCO (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As the person whose quarreling with Δ led to the block, I guess I should say something. I agree that a two-week block for him would have been excessive. I already told him publicly that his block threats were being silly and that IMO was punishment enough :) It is true that Δ seems to be making a pretty generic deletionist argument against the content in question, and being a bit of an ass in the process (JFTR I saw absolutely no hint of consensus or indeed consensus-building for this "work" at the discussion page I was pointed to), but I'm an admin and my skin is thick enough to deal with that - it needs to be. So while I appreciate Asterion's intervention for the sake of civility as such, as well as the difficult predicament in dealing with disruptiveness, the block, particularly of such length, does seem a bit too trigger-happy for this particular incident. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed Asterion put up a 'retired' sign on their talk page. OK, that's also a bit excessive, please don't take things to heart this much... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly a case of, sorry to see you go, thanks for your contributions, please leave your tools at the door on the way out. An almost inactive admin that blocks when they don't understand blocking has no right to be retiring in a huff and keeping the tools. Off2riorob (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed a rash of returning old-school admins lately who have have the policies and guidelines change without them realizing it, only to make a questionable decision with the tools, and end up here on ANI? Just sayin'. --64.85.216.2 (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that and some other strange stuff going on lately involving long-absent admins reappearing. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not change the community sanction into something that generates less controversy? You can think of editors who are repeatedly uncivil to have to have a banner on their userpage that says that they have been found to be uncivil. That banner can then only be removed if they behave themselves for some time (say a year). It's a bit like a "beware of the dog" warning, instead of trying to punish a dog for barking. And if the dog does not bark anymore, well, then we don't need the warnign sign anymore... Count Iblis (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Because Hell has a better chance of freezing before they ever get lifted regardless of how well I behave. Ive been back since July of 2009, almost two years now, and Ive snapped what? once? And when that happened it was after severe provocation. BQZip01 is a perfect example of why it will never happen, their goal is to have be banned regardless of my actions. Its not a matter of needing to place a warning sign about the dog barking, any dog will bite you if you torment it enough. Common sense says, If I poke a dog in the nose two dozen times the odds are I probably will piss it off and may be bitten. In this situation too many admins sit by observe the repeated poking and after the 24 poke the dog bites the person, and then gets punished. What needs to happen and is starting to happen is that those bystanders are no longer ignoring the abuser and are placing the blame where it belongs on the person who is repeatedly poking the dog, not the poor dog who after 23 pokes finally gets fed up because its master(s) refuse to take any action and bites the person out of frustration. Its not a matter of me being uncivil to everyone, quite the opposite I try to be as factual and informative as I can to everyone who comes to my talk page. However if a particular user repeatedly makes personal attacks and pushes my buttons everyone has a breaking point before they snap, mine is fairly high, however people have almost always ignored my complaints when I bring up the fact that I am being provoked, and instead enjoy punishing me after I have been pushed too far. I take a hell of a lot more abuse than 95% of the rest of wikipedia users can handle and it doesn't phase me. However at a point, and administrators refusing to do anything about it I do snap. That is fairly rare (once in the last two years to my knowledge). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, dude. Seriously? I'm pretty sure I was siding with you on this one. However, you aren't a dog. You are a human being and, like everyone else, you ostensibly have the ability to control your own actions. I concur that some people are pushing your buttons (perhaps even intentionally). It is up to you to control your actions. Again, I disagree with the community and think you should be blocked for a while, but consensus says otherwise. Accordingly, you are only subject to your current sanctions. If someone is pushing your buttons and causing problems, leave me a note on my talk page and I will make sure they receive any/all warranted warnings. I will even push for a block of that person if they are continuing to be uncivil. I've said before that "their bad behavior doesn't justify your bad behavior". That sentiment's a two way street. If I am clamoring for your block, I and others should be just as diligent in pushing for others' blocks if they meet the community standards. The difference is that if you make one mistake, it's going to be counted as your last mistake in a string of them. Noobs get multiple chances, but you get one. If you can control your behavior and avoid hostile language/discussions for 12 months (basically no more blocks), I will support the removal of your restrictions [and you can quote me on that!]. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Seriously, someone whose last *100* edits date back to November 2008 blocked someone, then reviewed and declined the unblock request, and then reverted to a preferred version? I don't care if he "retired", he needs to have the tools pulled. This is why inactive admins should not retain tools; they are unfamiliar with current community norms and make stupid decisions (yes, stupid) like this. The extreme overreaction to being called out for it reinforces the need to de-admin inactive sysops after three or six months. Horologium (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. We need a systematic purge of admins more severe in scope than anything Stalin's NKVD did. Won't target any single user here, but this encyclopaedia is based on content, not wiki politics. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with above. But it will never happen because some folks say its unfair and "punishing admins" to require them to remain up to date or risk having their tools suspended. Admins absent for more than a year should be temporarily desysopped and when they come back they should have to work closely with another active admin for at least a few weeks to shake off the rust and become current on policy and SOP. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Asterion subsequently blanked and then indefinitely protected his user page. Desysopping here might seem punitive, but if he's retired now anyway, it might be safer all round, given this series of mistakes (and he might even be more likely to return if admin responsibilities were removed). Rd232 public ^talk 02:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Who knows? Maybe Asterion will un-retire when the matter dies down a week from now. To me, it sounds like the textbook example of meatball:Goodbye. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Block review

Resolved

 – User unblocked by Toddst1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like a review of my second block of Sodabottle (talk · contribs) for gaming the system. I originally blocked the user for edit warring and RegentsPark (talk · contribs) unblocked the editor - which I disagreed with as the user didn't seem to understand why what s/he was doing was a problem. The first block was not a 3RR violation, but was clearly an edit war as the user self-identified in this edit summary. When blocked, Sodabottle claimed that unless s/he violated 3RR s/he wasn't edit warring.

In discussing the unblock with RegentsPark, the unblocked editor came into the discussion and calimed that s/he "had a faulty understanding of what edit warring /3rr is". Looking further into the matter, it became clear that Sodabottle was misrepresenting him/herself after I found that Sodabottle had warned his EW opponent about a slow-mo edit war here. After I pointed this out, Sodabottle went further insisting that "I never knew slow motion edit warring would lead to blocking" yet the editor had threatened his/her opponent with just that - S/he had threatened to report Paglakahinka "to the admins" for doing the same thing. To me this was a clear case of misrepresenting him/herself - and since s/he continued to do so, I blocked the editor again - this time for continuing misrepresentation under gaming the system.

Sodabottle was previously warned that he was bordering on gaming the system in RegentPark's unblock message.

In discussing the second block with Salvio, we both thought it best to review in a broader context. Comments please. Toddst1 (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: (1) The user got caught in a lie; (2) It's only 24 hours; and (3) That was generous on your part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd first like to thank Toddst1 for taking his block here for review. Personally, I believe Toddst1 was a bit heavy-handed, in this case, but, more importantly, that he should have asked someone else to do the blocking, as he was the author of the original block and, though the latter one was due to a different violation, the underlying dispute, in my opinion, was the very same; so I believe Sodabottle should be unblocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring is edit warring, whether it be slow or fast. ----Blackmane (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: the alleged warring appeared to have stopped before the block. Both parties were discussing. Sodabottle promised to withdraw from the article as soon as the block ended, and did so. Sodabottle also asked the unblocking admin to unblock the other "warring" editor. Blocks are not intended to be punitive.

There was quite probably a courtesy issue involving the unblocking editor not consulting with Toddst in the first instances, but visiting that disagreement between admins on one of the "warring" editors (which is how it seems even if it is not) it at best unfortunate. - Sitush (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sodabottle was discussing the issue while edit warring - all through the edit war. What indication was there that it had stopped? Toddst1 (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, I did not phrase that well. My point was that the warring would appear to have been over by the time you placed your second block. Sodabottle had said he would leave the article when unblocked & subsequently left a message on the article talk page to that effect. He also acted in good faith in requesting that his "opponent" be treated in a similar manner to him. His explanations regarding the subtleties of 3RR/edit warring have surely got to be taken in good faith: he appears to have a good track record & certainly on those occasions when I have had dealings with him there has been nothing untoward.

The issue being discussed here is your second block imposition. You were unhappy with RegentsPark and made that clear on his talk page. The pair of you disagreed. Sodabottle turned up there and within a few minutes you had dug something up and blocked him again. The stuff you had dug up was, fundamentally, related to the same issue that had already been discussed on his talk page in relation to your first block. Given your debate with RegentsPark regarding the unblocking, it does have the unfortunate appearance that you might have been looking for a way to "get your way". I am not accusing you of doing this but it does have that appearance and, as such, was a bad decision. Salvio is, I feel, correct in drawing your attention to the matter, although some of us had already done so on Sodabottle's talk page. - Sitush (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) This is ridiculous. I actually came here to report Toddst1. This is an action clearly taken by an admin so he could flex his muscles. While he states that the reasoning is different, there was no true additional justification for this block when compared to the one he already used. Sodabottle was not warned for before his first block and clearly showed that he had no intention of gaming the system. In addition, I believe this comment was totally out of line. This is clearly wheel warring. Personally, I would like to know if Toddst is open to recall? Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you spotted the bad word. I called bullshit when the guy was lying to me. I am guilty of that.

You are right - I did not issue an WP:EW warning the user because s/he was extremely aware [112][113] of the policy to the point of bullying Paglakahinka. The point of warning someone is to make them aware of the policy so that they can stop their disruption. In this case the user was well aware, despite lying about it.

You're wrong that it was wheel warring as the second block was for lying about the circumstances of the block - after the unblock - which s/he was warned about.

However, I came here for a review of the second block and as it seems to be relatively split, I am unblocking the editor. Toddst1 (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me insist again - I did not lie. My understanding of EW/3RR was faulty. I knew EW was bad but i didnt think by itself EW was a blockable - i thought it becomes blockable only after a editor crosses 3RR (or 1RR where applicable). This was my mistake. I knew EW is bad, but indulged in it because i believed i should go upto 3RR to get the user to the discussion page before using other dispute mechanisms. The unblocking admin RegentsPark accepted this explanation in good faith - i had/have no reason to lie. I promised not to indulge in ANY SORT of EW now that i am aware of where i had gone wrong - All of this is in my talk page discussions. I put a note in the article's talk page and took it off my watchlist - i have'nt gone back there since and i am not going to. I asked for the other editor to be unblocked because he is a new editor and he had stopped after i issued a 3RR warning.

We both had stopped reverting each other when the first block happened. Toddst1 asks What indication was there that it had stopped?. You can check the my contributions time line. After the 3rd revert at 17.07, both of us stopped - we were both discussing the issue at the talk page with other involved and uninvolved editors. After 17.07 and before my first block at 19.29, i have made multiple posts at the article talk page discussing the issue with the other editor and explaining my position. This is the indication that we be both had stopped.

I have had a clean blocklog for 20 months since i started editing en wiki. These are my first blocks of any sort. I am an admin in 2 other wikimedia projects. I have been templated/warned only once so far. I rarely get involved in content disputes at all - my content contributions/interests are in areas relatively uncontentious. After the first unblock i saw Toddst1 wasn't happy about regents action, so i went over regents' talk page to explain what led me to behave as i did and what happened. Toddst1 saw my earlier warning to the other editor and took it to be proof of me being aware of "slow motion EW is a blockable offense". The wording on the warning says "i will report you to the admins", as i believed if i reported him (i have used ANI less than a dozen times during my time here) an admin will turn up and warn him - not block him (As at this point i am still thinking, unless someone breaks 3RR he doesnt get blocked). My first unblock request and subsequent discussions with Ryan Vesey illustrate this confusion - At this point I am still thinking EW is not a blockable offense by itself.

Toddst1 has unblocked me now (though the IP is still blocked - i had to swtich to my backup connection to post this). But i am still insisting what i insisted before - i did not lie, i was ignorant and had a faulty understanding of what EW by itself is a blockable offense. I don't know if this will result in me getting reblocked, as this explanation got myself again for the second time. I still insist on that. All i can say at this time, i will not indulge in any EW (except for obvious vandalism) and will always ask for others' opinion/intervention for content reversions--Sodabottle (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I cleared the autoblock a while ago. Email me if that's not the case. Either way, I look forward to a much more constructive future in any interactions we may have down the road. Toddst1 (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Toddst1. I am able to edit now. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk page access

Resolved

 – done. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

...needs revoked by worked up curmudgeon. Doesn't want to play nice. This one is a MoMK Knox meatpuppet.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Aw, what a sweetie. I'm touched by his comments. Bonus points for use of CAPITALS in certain WORDS as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Long-term edit war at The University of Western Australia Business School

There's a long-term edit war going on here. Does this need admin interference? Regards, —Tommyjb (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I am gonna protect it for three days and clean it up and then watch-list for further activity. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. —Tommyjb (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

As per the consensus gained at the Village pump, I have created a new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Part of the purpose of the board is to shift disputes that don't belong on AN and ANI (content and minor conduct issues) to the new noticeboard. While part of it comes down to the best forum for resolving the issues at hand, part comes from the thought that people can take disputes to ANI and get a quick fix. Things like edit warring, block evasion, severe conduct issues, sure. But there are often disputes filed at AN and ANI that don't belong there, and part of these changes would be that disputes like these (at the discretion of admins and those watching AN and ANI) to close the threads and directing them to the new noticeboard. It's designed to have ANI used for what it's actually designed for, and reduce the clogging up of these boards, instead directing the issues to a more focused board which can address the issues there. I realise that this isn't a change that will take place overnight, and will take a lot of hard work, but is definitely worth a shot. I've posted a notice to the top of this noticeboard with info about the changes. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 16:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Great idea. Hopefully this will make AN/I less of an abattoir. Added to watchlist. --causa sui (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, great idea. Now when someone posts here, we can have additional debates over whether it belongs here or on that other page. Come to think of it, maybe not such a great idea? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree it sounds like a good idea at first blush, but for different reasons from Baseball, it may cause some problems. For example, what is the difference between the new noticeboard and WP:CNB? Also, the new board says it's a "starting point" for disputes and may point users to other forums in certain cases. That's a bit murky. As for Baseball's point, Causa may be correct about reducing the smell of blood, but there will always be endless debates on ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to update the wording per discussion below. As long as it's clear that this board isn't to absorb all existing DR forums. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I was wrong. I don't see how to edit the noticeboard language. Whether it's because I don't have the rights to see certain things when I click on Edit, or whether it's because I can't find the right template, don't know, but I'm tired of staring at it and trying to figure it out. If someone wants to explain it to me, fine; otherwise, someone else will have to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like pointless over-bureaucracy that most will ignore. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The bureaucracy has expanded to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

See, Baseball apparently forgot the debate about whether the new board should exist. Not to worry - if there's no consensus, someone can always raise the issue on the new board.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

See, I wasn't aware of any such debate. Not that it matters. As Tarc says, it will probably be ignored until or unless it serves a useful purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to say that this would be "expanding bureacracy", considering that it will be removing two noticeboards, and replacing them with 1. That said, I'm not sure that people will end up using it, even if it is a good idea. The only way I see it being effective is if we clarify what types of discussions belong there vs. ANI, and people are diligent about moving threads that don't belong at ANI to the new noticeboard. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't what I was expecting. I thought this was more for resolving disputes. Instead, it seems to be a starting point for redirecting disputes to some other venue. Even in this limited capacity, I can't help but wonder if it will work in practice. I'm a regular at WP:RSN and lots of disputes are brought there under the guise of some WP:V issue, but in reality, it's actually an WP:NPOV dispute and WP:V just happens to be what the editors are currently arguing about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not just for redirecting disputes to another venue. It's designed to help resolve the issues, my comments about directing disputes to other venues is so we don't get giant walls of text for disputes that are better served at an RFC/U or a mediation case. If that doesn't make sense it's important to clarify the purpose, because it's not only just designed to tell people where to take disputes, that's pointless, it's designed to solve small to middle sized disputes, including ones that didn't belong at ANI, and is designed to eventually supersede the content noticeboard and WQA. If disputes are massive or clearly need another additional forum of DR, that's what will be suggested. It's a new board in its infancy, so striking the balance between having massive discussions and actually best helping people will take time. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a suggestion about the description of the board that may help:

This noticeboard is for resolving minor Wikipedia content and conduct disputes. In cases where the dispute is beyond the scope of the noticeboard, users will be directed to the best forum, such as a request for comment, conduct RFC, mediation, or to a more specific noticeboard.

Also, as an aside, the notices you're putting on other noticeboards about the new board has some technical problem. At least on my browser (FF 4) it spills over into the archive box.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest the removal of the word "minor". Very few people, when in a heated dispute (even over the most petty of issues), believe that their dispute is "minor". I would let other people at the noticeboard determine whether or not it is out of the scope of the noticeboard, and if it is, direct them to the appropriate venue. The board will only be useful if most disputes start there, and are only pushed to "higher" forums (such as ANI, ArbCom, etc.) once the possibilities of resolving it at the dispute noticeboard have been exhausted. If we leave the word "minor" in there, most of the disputes will not start there. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the word "minor". I kept it in because it seemed to be the intent of the board in the original wording. I just wanted to shift the focus from pointing people elsewhere to resolution, as well as remove some redundancies. I don't know what Steven thinks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with removing the word minor from associated pages, as long as it's clear that this new noticeboard isn't designed to absorb all other dispute resolution forums. As for the notice template, if it's broken, feel free to work on fixing it and feel free to update the associated noticeboard page (WP:DRN) to better reflect the purpose of the noticeboard. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean my suggested wording with Jr's modification is good? I can edit WP:DRN easily enough, but I don't immediately see how to fix the template problem. I'm not even sure what template is involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that wording is good. I've updated the notice at the top of this page also to reflect discussion. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23: I think this is what you're looking for: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Quest, thanks very much. I was looking for a template because it was in braces. I still don't really understand how it works, but I've changed the language per this discussion. I made one additional slight change for clarity from "beyond the scope of the noticeboard" to "beyond the scope of this noticeboard.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, actually it is here and I've fixed the problem where it was spilling over onto the archives box (I'm using FF4, also).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Berean, that was the other problem. Thanks for fixing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• I do not think it is helpful for us to be so negative about it. It seems like a good idea on the face of it, but, frankly, we can never know with these things until we try them. However, I am sure that we can all agree that anything that has a snowball's chance in hell of keeping some things away from ANI is a good thing. AGK [•] 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• What purpose will it serve that can't be achieved at AN, AN/I, or any of the other boards? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disputes can be resolved at ANI or another noticeboard, but that doesn't mean the existing noticeboards are the best forum to do so. The difference between existing boards and this new one is the structure, which aims to keep discussions calm and on topic. I realise that it's a new, untested idea, but I really don't see the harm in trying it out and seeing how it works. At least then if it doesn't work we will know so, but WQA at the moment is often a brawling pit where often the disputes just get worse, and many editors take disputes to ANI because they cannot be bothered pursuing proper dispute resolution, clogging up ANI and wasting the time of admins. I hope that explains somewhat the purpose of this new board. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

Do the right thing. Don't get crowned.

I would like to ask, suggest, beg, plead, URGE ALL the folks here and about the wiki to PLEASE remain calm. There is already enough heat in this kitchen to warm our souls for many months to come. I understand that feelings and passions are running high these days, but I'd suggest that much of this is already in the hands of the Arbs. pro-tip: Eyes are watching, and things can get said in the heat of the moment that are often regretted later. Once something has been posted here, it's here to stay, and it can't be taken back. Perhaps some therapeutic work in other areas might help everyone simmer down a bit. Obviously I can't demand anything .. it's just a suggestion. — Ched :  ?  20:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You got to cool out, relax. Things like this work out. Trust me. bobrayner (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

k .. so I haven't quite got the "concise" part down yet... lol. — Ched :  ?  20:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. A++++. Great service. Would buy again. etc. etc. etc. Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The color of the sign is not very calming. Seeing red and all that. Gacurr (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That sign was from The Blitz. Is anyone here getting bombed? I know it's Friday evening in the Americas, but ... :) Toddst1 (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hiccup! I mean, er, no, why do you ask? Sharktopus^talk 23:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Todd sounds like a man with a plan. >:-) — Ched :  ?  00:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This might be related. If it is a fake, please don't tell me. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)