Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.248.145.169 (talk) at 03:41, 6 September 2011 (→Zhand38: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    A seriously disruptive case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - Again

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    • User:Adam4267 is topic banned for three months from editing articles and article talk pages related to Celtic F.C. supporters, Green Brigade among them, broadly construed. If he doesn't heed this topic ban, he will be blocked from editing and if he breaches the ban more than once, the blocks will get longer each time. There is an overwhelming consensus that outside this quite narrow topic area, Adam's contributions are very helpful to the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid that a previous ANI case, namely this one [1] has resurfaced.

    A read of the above and the talk page at Celtic F.C. supporters should give you a good idea of the problem. Essentially Adam has been insisting on adding information that is not neutral into the page, one from the Celtic FC web page, one from a footballing agent dealing with a Celtic player, and one from a marketing company that works with Celtic. All with no secondary sources. See Talk page here [[2]] He was also advised to change his behaviour and received warnings on his talk page from a number of fellow editors, including some he works closely with [3].

    When this came to the ANI board before, the suggestion from various adims was a topic ban, but this never materialised, which I think was fair enough as it was worth giving Adam a chance to take stock and change his editing behaviour. Unfortunately this hasn't happened, so what do we do now? Mattun0211 (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there was consensus for a topic ban before but the thread was archived without being closed properly. I think we could now enact the topic ban if there is still a problem. --John (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I cant believe this is still an issue. I have repeatedly tried to find a middle ground to meet on with this issue normally relating to supporters groups and where large fan bases have developed (normally due to certain players signing for the club). All it would require from my perspective is for adam to agree to tweak his wording on these issues. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Although its sad that it has come to this i cant really argue about the topic ban given what was said at the previous ANI. However given that no last warning or ban or topic ban was ever given to adam regarding this i strongly disagree with the length of it. Given that a 3 month was proposed but never given last time. This should of been the starting point not a year. As i wasn't advised i couldn't reply before now. Warburton1368 (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree with warburton that if a 3 month topic ban was proposed but not enforced per say, then why has this automatically risen to a one year ban? Monkeymanman (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Weeks after that last ANI thread, along with all the pleas and warnings, he started up again. If, through editing other articles, he can show some understanding about careful neutrality and the need for reliable sources and discussion in this topic area, I see no reason why the topic ban couldn't be greatly lessened. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that and im sure he will do what you suggest, but if no warning or ban was actually given from the ANI then is a longer ban not excessive. I just felt that a warning should have been given originally as to say he never learnt from the original one we are giving a longer ban dosent make sense if no punishment was given. I mean you wouldn't do that with a full ban. In the previous ANI a offer of mentorship was given. Would a shorter ban with the help of a mentor to negotiate further problems be of help. Warburton1368 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've long said, on en.WP, mentors wontedly learn a lot more from mentoring than the mentored. It can become a trying time sink for the mentor, with the outcome being even longer blocks and bans for the mentored. However, now and then, the outcome of mentoring is a happy one. Given Adam's contribution history which so far as I can tell has been broadly helpful outside the Celtic F.C. supporters topic area, other editors may indeed agree to mentoring as worthwhile (they often do here), instead of a topic ban. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, this topic ban isn't punishment for a wrong done, as such. It's only preventative, a way to stop something which other editors see as harmful from carrying on. Hence, if by some means it comes to be that there is little or no likelihood of it happening again, something like a ban or block can be lifted straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that you made the decision with no consensus to make the ban 1 year instead of 3 months, as originally proposed and which consensus was reached. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be. I've begun a sub-thread below where editors can comment on the length. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed wording

    User:Adam4267 is banned for one year from editing articles related to Celtic F.C., broadly construed. This includes talk pages. --John (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggest one sentence format: User:Adam4267 is banned for one year from editing articles related to Celtic F.C., broadly construed, including talk pages. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Done and logged. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please mark this incident as resolved. Glrx (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it is resolved. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. I thought it was resolved when you imposed the ban. Apparently we are now into a debate on the appropriateness of the length. Glrx (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Length of ban

    I notified Adam that the topic ban was for one year, owing to a comment in the main thread above by KillerChihuahua, along with the proposed wording above, which at the time, seemed as though it had, or would have consensus. Since then, some editors have said they think the ban may be too long. How long shall it be? I'm wholly neutral as to both the length and the ban (editors who think the ban is uncalled for are also welcome to comment on that below.) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • The three month ban was never implemented, so I view the year-long ban as unfair. GiantSnowman 22:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the original ban, reached through consensus was 3 months that is what should be implemented now. It is not the fault of the editor that the ban was never formally enacted and notification given.Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As i stated above i feel a year is unfair as no topic ban or final warning was ever given. The original 3 month ban is more appropriate. This would give adam time to edit constructively and work with other editors on other football related projects which he has shown to be good at and hopefully return to celtic related edits if he wishes to in better shape. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three months is fine with me as well, for various reasons given above. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is really only on two pages, Celtic F.C. supporters and Green Brigade. I would even say no ban at all except for a year ban on these two pages. The previous ANI gave Adam a choice I think - either take it as a warning, take stock and change or think I've got a way with it and carry on the same behaviour. Adam has taken the latter option. But the problem is very focussed on those two pages in general. For the record, I only notified the admins involved last time and monkeyman as no one else was directly involved this time round. also for the record, I did reply to Oldpaseo's point, directly below. I think adam should take this time to let bygones be bygones - that's the second time he's brought up some of my edits from my early Wiki editing to this board months (or is it years) since they were written, at a time when I had no idea what even basic terms like original research meant in Wiki terms. There is even one which I deleted soon after I wrote it oncd I realised how wiki works, and Adam has gone about reinstating after I delete it. It's this sort of behaviour and attitude he has to move away from. I think he's someone who finds it very difficult to let go of a situation, which is why I suspect we haven't heard the last of this one. But clearly he does some good work on the football pages with the editors who have responded here, so maybe a lengthy ban on just the main problem pages is worth a try. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A year ban is fine with me. This user was told weeks ago in his talk that he had had a close escape when the original proposal was archived without being enacted, and warned to be careful. They ignored this and continued with the behavior they had been told was problematic. The escalation of the topic ban was made with this in mind. --John (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a thought: if Adam is smart, he'll treat this subject ban as a permanent one, regardless of just how long we officially say it's for. Because if he resumes editting these articles the moment the ban ends, he's going to eventually end up getting into the same trouble once again & his time on Wikipedia will come to an unhappy, although probably not quick, end. From what I've read here, he's shown that (1) he can contribute good content in many areas, but (2) F.C. Celtic is a hot-button issue for him. All Wikipedians have hot-button issues; the smart ones stay away from them, don't get into trouble over them, & become established & respected Wikipedians. (Which means there is hope for me.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • With reference to what i said above, because the original 3 month ban was agreed upon but not imposed, i think this should mean that any ban given at this moment should be 3 months. Although John has correctly reminded us about the strongly worded warning given to Adam about this situation the last time it was raised at ANI. In that respect the one year topic ban could be justifiable. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand where john is coming from with him being told by dmries that he was lucky and giving advice which was correct but as it wasn't official or a really a warning i feel to escalate is inappropriate. Given three months was the initial decision thats where i feel it should go as i have said aboveWarburton1368 (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    I have just happened upon this discussion and am wondering who on earth you all think you are. How can you "topic ban" someone in this manner? Let alone make some arbitrary decision on it's length. How do you intend to impose and enforce such a ban? Who is the judge and who is the jury here? This discussion seems a little unfair on the user and I can't see how it is justified. Has this user actually ever been blocked from editing wikipedia for disruptive behaviour? If not then how on earth is a 3 month topic ban even worthy of discussion, let alone a 1 year ban. This isn't the way to treat valuable wikipedia users. Polyamorph (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That's why they call it a kangaroo court. Seriously though, we are all amateurs and we simply don't have the manpower or level of organization to maintain a consistent infrastructure for the myriad cases of this and similar caliber. This isn't "RfAr material", but a decision needs to be made. --84.44.228.119 (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So there have been some edit wars, but it takes two (or more) to edit war. Have there been any blocks? Come on this is a case for mediation in the first instance. Has an WP:RFM even been considered? Diplomacy is the answer! Not punishment.Polyamorph (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic-ban isn't "punishment", it simply prevents further damage until the underlying conflicts can be addressed and hopefully resolved. In that sense, it may actually facilitate mediation since it gives the user a real incentive to develop insight into why the community regards his edits in that particular area as problematic. --84.44.228.119 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it's punishment, at least in the manner that it has been imposed here it is. This seems pretty much like a lynch mob to me, and I feel very sorry for the user. I'm a completely uninvolved editor but from what I can see the user has been editing in good faith. Polyamorph (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody doubts the user's good intentions, but they don't change the fact that his edits are problematic and that he has so far resisted all attempts at actually communicating with him about his editing in that area.
    If a topic-ban is what it takes (1) for the community to prevent further damage and (2) for the user to start listening to the community's concerns, then that's on the user, not on the community who isn't interested in "punishing" anyone but merely in doing what's best for the project.
    Again, I agree with you in principle that all this isn't "proper" (i.e. formalized) proceedings, but we simply have to look at each individual case and try to determine the best course of action. In this particular case, consensus appears to be that a three-month topic ban is required. It is a rather strong measure, but please consider the user's behavior in and around those articles. --84.44.228.119 (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one object to a three month topic ban because I cannot see any evidence that appropriate action has been taken by all users involved and univolved to resolve this issue more amicably. Be nice to the user and you may start seeing some results. Don't drive another valued editor away from wikipedia. To be fair I've looked at a couple of the edits that seem to be at issue here and can't really see what all the fuss is about. Sure I'm not football expert but I haven't seen anything remotely worth a topic ban, unless of course someone could actually provide some real evidence here that it is actually justified. There are disagreements on wikipedia all the time, that doesn't mean we should gang up on those whom we disagree with the most and eventually drive them away from articles where they actually may be able to make a real difference to. What's best for this project is diplomacy. The user has replied in this discussion and has been completely ignored! Has any form of dispute resolution actually been attempted? Polyamorph (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic ban was decided at the previous ANI [[14]. I was against it at the time however it wasn't given as the ani was archived before issued. The issues appear to have continued and the ban was given by admins set at a year 9 months more than discussed at previous ani. That is why its being questioned to return to previously discussed time length 3 months. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the previous ANI and am not convinced by the arguments there, certainly very little evidence of disruptive behaviour has been provided. I'm not disputing that there is a problem but I think the problem is on both sides and needs to be resolved by diplomacy and following the correct dispute resolution procedure. This does not appear to have been followed. Therefore, as the IP user above notes, this is a kangaroo court and is not fair on the user. The user is being ignored and people are pushing their own point of view on the users actions and behaviour instead of concentrating on content and real dispute resolution. Polyamorph (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you missed the part where the editor in question refuses to abide by consensus, engages in edit-warring, appears to be interested in making their favorite soccer team look as good as possible, and makes no indication of accepting various guidelines such as WP:RS. I don't think you can accuse the other editors here of that. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we see evidence of this? Adam4267 (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly. This, this, and this show the need for a topic ban. At this stage we are just haggling about the length. How long do you think it should be for? --John (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Poly. A few points - firstly, with reference with a point you made on your talk page [[15]] that "Admins are just normal editors with some additional tools". I would disagree. For one thing, admins have far more experience of disputes like this than you or I, have more experience of the likely outcomes and more experience of how to achieve the best results for everyone concerned. A good example of this is Gwen Gale's comment that mentoring tends not to work, for instance - the value of experience. Take away this "kangaroo court" if you will - the result will the break down of wikipedia.
    Admins, in my experience (and most editors come to that) always reference any allegations against other editors. You make accusations, presumably agianst the main editors involved which include myself, monkeyman and drmies, of bullying and disruption [[16]]. Can you show where this has happened? I hope you won't be resorting to episodes in our early wikiering career years ago which we have put down to experience and moved on from.
    above you say "To be fair I've looked at a couple of the edits that seem to be at issue here and can't really see what all the fuss is about." I presume you're referring to the three main issues on Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters that Adam continuingly insisted on trying to include, which are that:
    1/ Celtic shirts outsell Man Utd & Arsenal shirts in Nairobi - sourced from someone associated with Celtic and published by Celtic.
    2/ A marketing company that works with Celtic claims that Celtic have 7 million Japanese fans
    3/ A broker arranging a deal to take a Honduran player to Celtic claims teh deal has sparked "Celtic mania" in Honduras.
    You presumably don't see anything wrong with these. I would argue that these edits all come from people associated with Celtic, so are not neutral under WP:NPOV. To reiterate WP:IS says "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." But you presumably disagree or have found some secondary sources to back those claims up? Can you show them to us?
    As for your comment that dispute resolution hasn't been sought - this leads me to doubt you've read through the talk pages concerned properly. To save you the trouble - here's a list:
    1/ I have left a post on the RS noticeboard here. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters
    2/ I have put some points on the reliable sources noticeboard 1. Feel free to add to it/comment, I just put a few queries up there. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters
    3/ Cptnono, in his American way ;, has shown us a way forward I think; "There should be no question that Celtic have a global fan base. Screw the sources used and delete them for not meeting WP:V. But instead of spending the few minutes to post here go and Google News Archive it to find a better source. And then laugh at Celtic for sucking" Mattun0211 (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters
    4/ Hi Adam, I've reverted your edits as I think ideally you need to take this to the reliable source discussion page as fanzines are undoubtedly a questionable source.Mattun0211 (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Talk:Green Brigade
    5/ Adam please, please, please, please take your two sources to the reliable sources noticeboard if you disagree and if you think they can be regarded as reliable references. Until then i cannot accept them as such. I have learned from past experience that sources such as those have no weight in their reliability.Monkeymanman (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Talk:Green Brigade
    6/No, I will not be forced to clear every single addition I want to make to this page with the pair of you and/or the reliable sources board.Adam4267 (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Talk:Green Brigade
    7/ it's probably time for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Talk:Green Brigade
    8/ I have left a question on the RS noticeboard about these sources here Monkeymanman (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Talk:Green Brigade
    9/ Adam - rather than go through this for the upteenth time, why not take it to one of the noticeboards. You have been very reluctant to do that on a number of occassions, for some reason. Inclusion of Youtube has already received advice from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard here [6] Mattun0211 (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Talk:Green Brigade
    In short myslef, monkeyman and drmies have all tried this approach. Part of the problem is that some of the noticeboards seem to receive little traffic, but in any case adam has consistently decided to ignore tham and the advice given.
    As regards the idea that he hasn't recived any warning, he clearly came within a whisker of a three month ban, escaped without punishment and decided to continue exactly as he was before. How much warning do you want? Mattun0211 (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wikihounding and harrassment

    User:Ruairí Óg's despite me having already warned them here about it along with examples, has recently decided to plow through my edit contributions to either revert changes or make changes where something doesn't suit them.

    Proof that they have been stalking my edit contributions is the fact that from 21:15, 31 August 2011 to 21:58, 31 August 2011 (here is their contribution list) they edited at least 18 articles where they had never made a contribution, but where i just had. You could argue that they were going through people articles to make changes, however when every single one is an article that i had just edited shows that that is not the case.

    Not all instances of his edits are reverts, however Ruairí Óg's is clearly trawling my edit contributions despite being told that it is harrassment.

    Also other than making continued groundless accusations against myself and another editor of allegded "bias" without any proof whatsoever because he doesn't agree with certain edits, he was also recently warned of violating the 3RR rule [[17]], where he simply removed it calling it vandalism.

    Regardless of the 3RR and any content disputes - stalking and harrassment is very uncivil.

    Mabuska (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears to me that Ruairí Óg's is definitely following Mabuska's contributions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to me that regardless of stalking etc. their edits on Luke Wilton seem not neutral, and their edit-warring is certainly not acceptable. The talk page discussion indicates that they are not even willing to engage in reasonable discussion on sometimes tricky issues. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of my edits on the article's talk page indicate an unwillingness to engage in reasonable discussion? I'm curious. JonChappleTalk 10:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Drmies is using "their" to refer to Ruiari, as in their edits, not everyone. Maybe i'm wrong, clarification please? Mabuska (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Ruiari's edits are under scrutiny here, and I use singular 'they' to refer to Ruiari. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. I thought you were referring to all of us with a plural "they". My mistake. A most troublesome word indeed... JonChappleTalk 15:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Mabuska is a biased and distruptive editor who crusades across wikipedia pushing a pro-British, anti-Irish agenda. That is a given and recognised and acknowleged be multiple editors in discussions with him. He is also backed up on every page by Jonchapple and the pair have been inolved in canvassing with each other to ensure articles remain skewed to their POV.
    Yesterday I noticed a number of dubious POV edits carried out by Mabuska on articles on my watchlist, most of which were undertaken against policy and towards his POV.
    Unless I am a complete idiot then I am of course going to look at the rest of his recent edits to see if he was up to the same mischief on those articles as well. If that is "harrassment" or "hounding" then this is a mad house. I would call it conscientious editing.
    This is not stalking or hounding this keepin an eye on a disruptive editor, am I supposed to ignore edits which are against policy because they are made to articles not on my watchlist.
    I will come back to the reasons that made reverts in a moment but I would like to deal with Mabuskas other claim first.
    Mabuska states that "Also other than making continued groundless accusations against myself and another editor of allegded "bias" without any proof whatsoever because he doesn't agree with certain edits, he was also recently warned of violating the 3RR rule 45, where he simply removed it calling it vandalism."
    Who was I warned by? Mabuska. Forgive me if I take what Mabuska says with a pinch of salt. Mabuska warned me about edit warring on the Luke Wilton article page. You wont need to think to long about the reason that Mabuska was in conflict with regards this article.
    As I said Mabuska has an agenda and a strong pro-British POV. That is to remove any reference to any person or body being 'Irish' and to push a 'British' and 'Northern Irish' identity on all pages. This is highlghted in this exact article.
    Mabuska removed refereced material which described Wilton as Irish. Simply removed it, no discussion, no alternative source, nothing. Just removal. The removal of sourced information without disussion is vandalism.
    Now Mabuska had been on this article before. Have a guess what the edit was? A very revealling one and one he makes on literally 100's of pages, a pattern I will explain and provide evdence for. He changes the nationality in the infobox from Irish to British. Cloaked under the wonderful edit summary "per WP:MOSFLAG, also adding actual nationality". No discusson, no source to say why the current nationality is not the 'actual nationality' and no source to prove the altered natioality, pure POV and agenda. Now am I living on this planet or is this the type of dsruptive trouble making editing that needs to be stamped out.
    I later changed it back, this time adding a source (how quaint) here.
    But Mabuska did not like that and reverted back to British, removing the source and replacing it with his POV and NO SOURCE. Is this how wikipedia works?
    Then after some edit warring his friend who has been engaged in canvassing with him, User:Jonchapple turns up to help him (like he has done here) in his edit war, with one of the most fantasic edits I have ever seen. Again removing sourced information with a quite frankly ludacris edit summary stating "and here's one calling him an Ulsterman: www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=26127. See how it could get messy without self-identification? Newspapers can print what they want". Ulster is a province not a country or nationality and obvious he thinks his opinion carries more weight than "newspapers" so we obviously dont need WP:RS anymore because we have Mabuska and Jonchapple, brilliant.
    Above, Drmies states that I am unwilling to enter into a discussion. That is funny because I am the one that said the edit warring should end and the matter should be taken to the talk page. Maybe Drmies can also count my edits on the count page as well.
    For example here is another article where this same pair are arguing that a boxer who's nickname is 'Ireland John Duddy, who is referenced to by multiple reliable soures as Irish and even is pictured with an Irish tricolor drapped around his shoulders is 'not Irish'. This is the level of the agenda that we are dealing with. This pair thinks they have make edits without needing a source and ignore sources that do not suit them.
    Going back to the edits from last night. I will go through a few to show you the reason I edited them. Please note I did not revert all of his edits just he ones that were blatantly POV pushing. Again, as always the edits will be to push a pro-Brtish anti-Irish POV across wikipedia.
    • Bronagh Gallagher, Mabuska's edit is to remove the nationality in the info box from stating that she is Irish. He includes the spurious edit summary "and as far it appears, she has no connection to the RoI, so best to avoid a potentially problematic marker". The editor knows full well that you do not have to be from ROI to be Irish and that those from NI are equally entitled to be Irish or British. Again no fact tag added, no discussion, just removal. If even the quickest of searches had of been undertaken then sources of a high calibre would show that she is Irish. But that des not suit his POV.
    • Stephen McGonagle, Mabuska's edit is to add a Northern Irish identify. There has been a long understanding that the term 'Northern Irish' should never be used to desribe someones natoionality because it is technially not a nationality unlike Welsh or English. Whereas Mabuska crows and immediately reverts even when sourced edits are made to describe someone as Irish, here Mabuska adds the highly controvertial description of 'Northern Irish' with NO SOURCE.
    • Lisa McGee, Mabuska's edit is to remove the nationality in the info box from stating that she is Irish. No fact tag, no discussion, just removal. If even the quickest of searches had of been undertaken then sources of a high calibre would show that she is Irish. But that des not suit his POV.
    It is Friday evening and I am damned if I am to go through every single edit hypocritical, POV ridden edit that he has made but hopefully an admin with even a single bit of witt about them will see the orcastrated agenda and attempt to wholesale remove anyone from being desribed as Irish whilst replacing it at every turn with their favoured unsourced term and arguing black is white when a sourced edit is made contrary to their POV. If you wish me to further explain my edits I will.
    Mabuska and his crony are here to cause a fuss and ensure no one can check on their POV editing, plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ruairi, so far as I can see, you are in the wrong on every one of those. The Wilton source did not support identification as of Irish nationality, there's no source demonstrating that Gallagher has Irish nationality, Mabuska realised his mistake with McGonagle and corrected himself etc etc. You appear to be edit warring on multiple fronts, and I suggest that you stop promptly and discuss the matter in a civil manner on the relevant talkpages. If a public figure born in the six counties chooses to identify as Irish, there will be sources which recount them doing so, and if there are, Mabuska must accept them. What is not acceptable is carrying on like you have above, and it will result in trouble if repeated.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in the wrong am I? "The Wilton source did not support identification as of Irish nationality". Maybe you are missing the point on purpose. Mabuska swapped the nationality from Irish to British - No source used whatsoever. Where is his source to "support identification as of British nationality"? I added a source which describes Wilton as Irish. But you seem to have an issue with that but dont have an issue with the editor that makes controvertial edits and nevers uses a source. I find that extremely strange. One person using sources is bad, the other person that feels they dont need sources is fine. Please explain to me the logic of that because I can not get my head around it.
    Then you said "If a public figure born in the six counties chooses to identify as Irish, there will be sources which recount them doing so, and if there are, Mabuska must accept them", their is no policy that states their must be self identification. Take the John Duddy article, despite multiple sources calling him Irish and articles showing him with the Irish flag Mabuska and his friend JonChapple argue that he is not Irish. The is the kind of argument that I am up against. However, despite me putting forward multiple sources on that article these are not accepted by Mabuska and his friend but their UNSOURCED edits are supposed to go unquestioned for fear of being labelled a stalker. He plays a good game, I'll give him that and knows how to work the system. Maybe I need to be as sneaky, sly and slippery.--Ruairí Óg's (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You want I block you for incivility? No? Then dial down the aggression please. Now, you and I both know that if someone is born in Northern Ireland to British citizens, they are entitled to British citizenship. We also know that ROI regards anyone born anywhere in Ireland as entitled to Irish citizenship, anyone born to an Irish citizen elsewhere in the world as entitled to Irish citizenship, and anyone born to someone entitled to Irish citizenship as also entitled to Irish citizenship. So he could be an Irish citizen, but then so could my kids and they are qualified to play cricket for Yorkshire. We also know that under the terms of the Good Friday agreement, individuals born in the six counties can hold citizenship of both countries or choose to hold only one. You are assuming he flew to the States to start his career on a green passport, and he's never held a red one. Do we actually know that for certain? Incidentally, boxrec seems to insist that he's British, on the grounds that your nationality is where you are born, which isn't always the case, so I think they are dubious as a source for that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You may have already noticed Elen of the Roads, but Ruiari Og's also likes to keep repeating the same old accusations without reading explainations given. I described the Luke Wilton edit below (before their last response here) but they ignored that and rehash the same accusation regardless. This is what i have continually had to put up with, and to me its bordering on serious disruption as they are totally unwilling to listen to other peoples arguements or follow reason, whilst making continuous bad faith and uncivil accusations that have no backing or evidence whatsoever despite refutes being given which show their arguements being utterly groundless.
    To further highlight Ruiari Og's unwillingness to engage and eagerness to twist things to suit themself, on the John Duddy article talkpage i offered a compromise that the picture might be enough to state he is Irish if its in context, yet Ruiari states that compromise is "utter lunacy". I gave him an avenue to have Irish added to the article but he threw it back in my face. How can i work with this? Mabuska (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    I expected more groundless accusations, but by heck your really ramping it up a bit to drown out the discussion. Whilst i know better than to bite, i have to refute these utterly groundless claims and twisting of things to suit the false picture Ruiari is trying to paint:

    1) Ruairi Og's claims of a so called anti-Irish, pro-British pov, are supported only by a very select picking of my edit history. Notice how they never mentioned all these articles i've edited but never removed the term Irish from: Robert_Greacen, Éamonn O'Doherty (sculptor), Charles McGuinness, Laura Patterson, John Park (VC), Bobby Browne (footballer born 1912), Liam Ball, William Beatty (surgeon), Don Mullan, need i go on? I don't think so. I think that speaks volumes on its own. Oh wait here is a talk page discussion where i backed the use of the Irish for a Northern Irish person.

    I also suppose articles that i've created or greatly expanded such Cruithnechán, Keenaght_(barony), Lecale, Tirkennedy, Tirkeeran, amongst many other articles are all anti-Irish despite the fact they almost all solely go into Gaelic-Irish history and i've made quite a bit of use of Irish-Gaelic in them!

    2) In regards to "canvassing", i warned JohnChapple that his message to me could be considered canvassing. Where has any canvassing actually gone on? More than likely JohnChapple has been doing the same as you - trawling through edit contributions, and that is no fault of mine.

    3) "Who was I warned by? Mabuska." - JonChapple left you this warning for you breeching 3RR which you removed. I think he may be in breech of it himself.

    4) When it comes to Ruiari Og's sources, they have been told even by an administrator, User:Canterbury_Tail, that the sources don't backup Ruiari's claims, but they argued and reverted an administrator anyways! Every source they've provided doesn't mention what they use the term Irish for - it could be nationality, ethnicity, or topographical, or simply an abbreviation of Northern Irish which is all too common with the press. They've been told of this before but act on regardless. Their sources aren't explicit enough for a problematic and tricky issue. That is not pushing a POV or anti-Irish agenda - thats trying to keep the article neutral.

    5) When it comes to these articles: Bronagh Gallagher, Eamonn McGirr, Lisa McGee - i contravened no policy. There is no evidence or sources in the article that they should be listed as Irish above anything else especially when they could also be easily called British or Northern Irish. The most neutral path is to leave it out altogether without explicit evidence. I was recently told by several editors and a couple of admins that for UK BLP's we have to go with self-identification due to the problem of Irish/Scottish/Englush/Welsh or British etc. None of Ruiari Og's sources meet that criteria. In fact most BLP's on NI people leave out a description altogether which makes perfect sense considering the problem!

    6) Stephen McGonagle is a different kettle of fish altogether. I left Irish in the article and added Northern Irish seeing he was from there and spent most of his trade unionist career in Northern Ireland. I kept Irish because he later in life moved to the Republic and was a member of its senate which would clearly mark him out as also being Irish. Quite obvious really.

    7) Also who is saying Northern Irish is a nationality? I've never said it was. It's a topographical term meaning someone from Northern Ireland - if your born in Northern Ireland it's quite safe to say that they are thus Northern Irish regardless of your citizenship - and sources are only really needed for questionable statements or things open to question. Terms such as Irish and British are problematic however and many editors who work on Ireland related articles would tell you that. Also there is no clear marker as to whether a term in the lede is being used for nationality, it's not an infobox where its explicitly stated as "Nationality".

    8) On Luke Wilton, he wanted to fight for the British title, and well seeing as Barry McGuigan had to get British citizenship to fight for it all those years ago, i'd assume you still have to be a British citizen to fight for it. Maybe i shouldn't assume things.

    I'll let our actual edit histories do the talking, and from what i can see there is no justification for Ruiari Og's to be stalking my edit contributions.

    Mabuska (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This SPI is probably relevant to the discussion. Valenciano (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an impressive piece of work. If that SPI does not lead to an indef block (and I don't see how it couldn't), and wiki-hounding is not deemed established, then a block for edit-warring and disruptive and tendentious editing is still an option. Drmies (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sod it. I thought he sounded familiar. The first thing I wondered when this came up was 'why has this account 2007 managed to avoid a block previously, given its manner.' The answer is that it was created 28 July 2007 - two days after Vintagekits was indeff'd for the first time - but stopped editing 14 April 2008 when Vintagekits was trying to get unblocked, and had been rumbled for socking in February of that year. Didn't come back until 21 July 2011, so that's what six weeks from starting editing to ending up here. Blocked indefinitely. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note for anyone editing in this contentious area. The Good Friday agreement included the following provision

    • (vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland. [1]

    This gave bodies such as FIFA and the Olympic committee conniptions for a while, until they all decided to accept whatever it said on the chap's passport. In determining what to put under 'nationality', other than 'Northern Irish' - which just describes where they come from - no assumption should be made, and a source should be sought. If they have a passport, it may be reasonable to go by that, as FIFA does. At the same time, if according to a reliable source, someone from Northern Ireland describes themselves as "Irish from Derry", it should be taken that they have identified as Irish, as is their right (or equally, if they declare themselves "British from Londonderry" they should be identified as British). Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've no problems with any of that at all as self-identification is the most neutral way to take it IMO when we can't get an explicitly clear source.
    Wierdly enough i always suspected that Ruiari Og's was a sockpuppet for somebody, but i never guessed it would be VintageKits who i can still remember. Mabuska (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I never spotted the VK link, something I should have done given how involved I was with VKs editing. I must be getting old. Canterbury Tail talk 11:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A persistant pattern of tendentious editing by User:Bus stop

    I think it is readily apparent that User:Bus stop and myself have had disagreements in the past, and I'll readily admit that on occasion my own behaviour has been less than examplary. However, in recent days, in a discussion over our Adam Levine article, Bus stop has displayed a pattern of systematic obstruction to reaching a consensus. To cut a long story short, the debate has been regarding Levine's ethnicity, ancestry, and faith, and the degree to which any of these should be discussed in the article. We are all agreed that none of these matters are related to his notability, but there seem to be reasonable grounds for adding a little background information. After much discussion, Bus stop proposed the following text:

    Levine is Jewish.[34][35][36][37] "Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish."[38]
    "Like a lot of Jewish musicians, Levine has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life. It was inevitable, really: in a way, the Bible and its characters were supplanted at a young age in his imagination by the heroes of pop."[39] [18]

    In terms of content, this seemed to meet the concerns of the others involved in the discussion, but it seemed to me to be problematic from a style point of view. I therefore proposed a rewording, and after some discussion with User:All Hallow's Wraith, we arrived at this wording:

    Levine is Jewish like his father, and like his grandfather on his mother's side. As was noted in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle, "Like a lot of Jewish musicians, Levine has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life. It was inevitable, really: in a way, the Bible and its characters were supplanted at a young age in his imagination by the heroes of pop." [41] [19]

    As can be seen, there is nothing in this that wasn't in Bus stop's proposal, other than an attribution of the quoted text to the Jewish Chronicle (as required by WP:INTEXT). I had assumed that this would be acceptable to Bus stop, but he has for some time gone out of his way to avoid either accepting it, or explaining what he sees wrong with it. Instead he has moved a comment I made in reply to User:causa sui against my express wishes, and in violation of Wikipedia:Indentation guidelines, [20][21][22] attempted to start a debate about a statement of mine that was irrelevant to the text being discussed [23], repeatedly ignored my request that he explain what he sees wrong with the proposed text, again proposed versions which use direct quotations without inline attribution (as required under WP:INTEXT), and complained that the version proposed by me doesn't state that Levine is Jewish, when it self-evidently does [24]. Finally, after I suggested that I would edit the article anyway, unless it was explained what the problem was, Bus stop finally replied by suggesting that my wording "Levine is Jewish like his father, and like his grandfather on his mother's side" was somehow unacceptable on the grounds that I am "insisting on taking two sourced assertions and writing them as one assertion". [25] Frankly, I cannot see any logic in this at all, given that it can all be sourced from the Jewish Chronicle article, as Bus stop is well aware. At this point though, I think I've just about had enough. This endless nit-picking over words (on talk pages as well as in relation to article content), diversionary tactics, unwillingness to give a straight answer to a simple question, and general obstructive behaviour when things don't go his way, are symptomatic of a pattern of behaviour grounded in Bus stop's obsession with labelling people as unequivocally 'Jewish' regardless of its relevance to article content. Frankly, I think he is a net liability to Wikipedia, and is likely to remain so, for as long as he is permitted to persist in this manner. I understand that he was topic-banned in the past over this, but he evidently feels free to behave like this regardless. I can see no solution other than a permanent topic-ban on him in relation to any article regarding the ethnicity, faith, or other 'Jewishness' of any individual. He is just too emotionally involved to adhere to WP:NPOV, and to behave in a collegial manner.

    At this point, I think I'd best leave this for others to respond to - if further evidence of Bus stop's obstructive behaviour over the long term is required, I will of course be prepared to provide it, but think the latest episode alone is quite sufficient to demonstrate why I see his behaviour as unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Article ban? Are there issues outside this article? This seems, quite frankly, one of the most hilarious cases of nitpicking ever. Now, boomie time, no need to exaggerate the danger this user represents... I know you Grumpus Maximus, etc, but come on, why the hyperbole? Just today I saw two attack accounts created, and some dudes page extremely vandalized with death threats and stuff. Those are dangers to Wikipedia. Some dude that doesn't work well with others and seems to nor realize when there is enough horsemeat is not a net liability to wikipedia, probably just to himself :)--Cerejota (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Issues outside this article"? See Bus stop's block log: [26]. See this thread on my talk page from June, where four experienced Wikipedia editors (Yworo, Collect, Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, Topperfalkon) discussed the problems that Bus stop has been causing - sadly, nobody took any action at the time [27]. Do a search on Wikipedia talk pages for this [28] where you will find Bus stop frequently refers to the following website: Judaism 101. Bus stop has repeatedly tried to use this as a source for assertions about Judaism after I pointed out to him that its own author states that she is not an expert on the subject. And note this [29] entry on Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn, where Bus stop cites the said non-RS website for the following: "A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do". And then note that Adam Levine (the person whom the current discussion is about) is almost certainly not Jewish, by this definition. This is entirely typical of Bus stop's attitude to sources - when they suit his arguments, they can be used (actually, must be used is more likely, from his POV), but if they don't he conveniently forgets them. Still, if you think this is exaggeration, fine. Maybe I should stop wasting my time trying to prevent Wikipedia turning into a enthnoreligious database full of misleading crap about how all the good guys are Xish, whereas all the bad guys are instead from Y, where every BLP has to include a compulsory section on the religion of the person's maternal grandmother, and where having once been inside a synagogue makes you a clear adherent of a religion, but refusing to have a Bar Mitzvah cannot be taken as any indication that maybe your commitment to the formal practices of the same isn't quite a strong as the adherents would like to think. The simple fact is that Bus stop doesn't give a rat's arse about 'truth', 'verifiability' or even common sense if it gets in the way of his obsession with Jew-tagging. He consistently twists sources to say what he wants them to, and then stonewalls when people point out that they don't: between the time that I made my initial proposal on the Adam Levine talk page regarding the proposed text [30], and the time that bus stop finally came around to giving his (bizarre) reason for objecting to it, [31] he had made around 20 edits to the talk page [32]. If it takes that long to get even an irrational answer out of him over his objections to the minor rewording of content he had already proposed, just how exactly do you expect anyone to have the patience to work with him? So yes, he is a net liability to Wikipedia - and if he isn't, then frankly, Wikipedia has a grim future... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, my apologies for the move. It was clearly inappropriate, and I shouldn't have let my frustration get the better of me. So no, I won't do it again. As for me being 'obsessed' with anything, yes - if you think that trying to ensure that Wikipedia articles are even approximately in line with policy, and not used for endless ethno-boosting is an obsession, rather than something to be expected from contributors. This isn't really the appropriate place to discuss what is wrong with the laureates article however - If you want to pursue this further, I think that another thread would be more appropriate (where will of course depend on whether you are concerned with my behaviour, or with the violations of policy present in the list). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But why this particular list, as opposed to the more egregious ones, such as List of Jewish American politicians, or List of Jewish American entertainers? Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's assume, just for the purpose of this discussion, that Andy is right and that Bus stop is a "liability" to Wikipedia. Even so, this particular "controversy" doesn't seem like the one that should trigger administrative action. As an aside, I don't like any of the wording, either the first, or the second. The stereotypey (just made up the word) phrase "Like a lot of Jewish musicians" makes me cringe, whether it's sourced, quoted, or pronounced by a supreme being.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it is indeed cringe-making, and the source is not sufficient to support the fact, as it's the writer's opinion only. (In fact, absent a massive survey of some kind, I don't see how you can source that kind of over-generalized statement.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I remind people that this is AN/I, and this thread isn't about article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is always about content, and this thread is about the intersection of behavior and content, not uncommon on ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If the content in question was under dispute, that might well be true. However, the usage of the particular quote you cite was agreed on by all the participants in the talk page discussion. Bus stop suggested it, and others agreed. It is the remainder of the wording that is at issue - or rather, it is Bus stops stonewalling etc in regard to the rest of the wording that is at issue. If you want to engage in a discussion on article content, I suggest you do so on the article talk page. Further outside input would be most welcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    When it comes to problems on Wikipedia, this is definitely a case of WP:SHED. But, FWIW, as someone who actually had enough time on his hands to slog through the essays they've written on Talk:Adam Levine, I have to say that Bus stop exhibits (for whatever reason) a marked inability to communicate with others. Frequently he leaves replies that simply continue whatever he was saying previously as if no reply had actually been given, though he formats them as if there is a discussion occurring. That can be frustrating, and it would in my opinion be actionable if the issue being debated weren't hall-of-fame level triviality. For my part, I'm blocking people who edit war on Adam Levine and leaving it at that. Andy, if you are sure that more action is necessary, I think a user conduct RFC would be the next step. Regards, causa sui (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, you may well see this as 'hall-of-fame level triviality'. If this was just about Adam Levine (who I didn't know from Adam anyone else before seeing a comment about the article on BLP/N), I'd just let Bus stop have his way, stamp Levine with a Jewish 'identity', and ignore the whole thing. But then he'll go on and do exactly the same thing somewhere else. And no, it isn't just about an ability to communicate with others. It is about an inability to actually perceive the subject of Wikipedia BLPs as anything other than subjects for his obsession. The only thing that matters is to classify them as 'Jew' or 'non-Jew' - and this is downright offensive. It makes no room for any nuances, exaggerates what is often a minor part of the subject's life (if relevant at all), and makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. Bus stop isn't alone in this obsession with tagging people as members of some group or other, but others with similar proclivities are usually at least capable of communication. If I though that a RfC/U was likely to get anywhere, I'd support it - but I don't. Wikipedia already has policies and guidelines regarding the expected behaviour in article talk pages, but they simply aren't being enforced. We don't need to look into Bus stop's editing history, or anything else - it won't tell us anything we don't already know. He stonewalls, endlessly nit-picks over trivia, forum-shops and then drives everyone else away with his endless repetitions - and gets rewarded for his behaviour. His simple stubbornness usually results in 'concessions' to him that have nothing to do with the merits of his arguments. Maybe this is symptomatic of a fundamental flaw in the way Wikipedia works - but I don't think it needs to be. A willingness to actually deal with stonewalling non-communication by methods that don't themselves result in further prevarication would be a start. So, if anyone wants to start an RfC/U on Bus stop, I'll of course participate (though I think it would be better initiated by someone else, given our past history), but I don't think that this is likely to actually solve the fundamental problem, which is that Wikipedia rewards bad behaviour on talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Bus Stop has a remarkable propensity for lengthy posts iterating his same few points - on any topic remotely connected with Judaism. See Talk:Judaism for examples, as well as innumerable noticeboard discussions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And he's at it again

    Just as it looked like we were moving towards a consensus on the Adam Levine article, Bus stop has chosen to post another lengthy repetitive screed [33], where he totally ignores everything anyone else has written, drops any concessions to consensus, and restates a POV that has already been rejected as unacceptable. This is no longer merely tendentious - it seems to me that it is now a matter of basic competence. If we can't ban him from topics in general, can we at least ban him from this one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    AndyTheGrump—I have asked a question (or two) of you here. I believe it is on-topic. I don't believe you've addressed it before. I would appreciate if you would use the article Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bus stop, you are merely repeating the same points you have made many times before. Endless repetition isn't 'on topic'. Furthermore, this isn't the appropriate place to debate article content. I have complained here about your behaviour on the talk page, which I (and others as well, apparently) see as tendentious, and contrary to expected standards of behaviour. I would like to see your response to this. Do you accept that you have been in the wrong? And if not, can you explain why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    People born in French Algeria : Nationalistic edits by Dzlinker

    Hello,

    The user Dzlinker is processing a wave of nationalistic edits by replacing French Algeria by Algeria in biography pages of French people born in pré-1962 Algeria, here are some examples:

    On each article he was reverted by many users, but he keeps pushing his nationalistic edits.

    I'm not asking to block him, but to explain to him that he can't push his PoV this way, but that he has to start a global discussion about people born in French Algeria to seek for a new consensus.

    Thanks in advance.

    Omar-Toons (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • While I don't agree with their edits, I do not see where in this content discussion there is any kind of talk going on, on their talk page or on the articles' talk pages, about why their edits are (supposedly) wrong. No discussion from your side, no discussion from their side--I think you know where this might lead to, after the edit war at Template:History of Morocco. Omar, engage in discussion before you come to ask for the stick. To put it in other words: there is nothing actionable here for an admin right now. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay then, I'll try to discuss that with him, even if, I think, the one supposed to start the discussion is him, since he's one who breaks "stabilized versions" and who is reverted by many users, but no prob' ; I hope that it will work this time (since discussion is never easy with him).
        Thx for the answer.
        Omar-Toons (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Omar, we've met before, I believe, and I hope you understood this in the spirit in which it was offered. Yes, perhaps they should initiate discussion, for the two reasons you cite, but they don't. At that moment it becomes incumbent on you (in my opinion) to at least make an effort. If you make that effort, and it's beyond reproach, and they fail to respond and/or modify their behavior, you can claim without doubt that you're dealing with a disruptive/incommunicative/whatever editor. It will take more time, but the end result is more likely to be a. changed editing behavior or b. forcible behavior modification. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    this is really totally non human. I asked to discuss the matter with this reverter 2 months ago [34]!!! i suggest a block on him since he refused the talk imposing his PoV. Dzlinker (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk may go on the same page (tp). Dzlinker (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So... I see that it will not be easier than before.
    Maybe we can find a solution through WP:CCN?
    Omar-Toons (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahem. "non human"? The 'proposal' linked to by Dzlinker starts with "stop defending your false useless point of view". That's nonsense, and we don't have to take that seriously. It is also written in a grammatically challenged way, raising issues of English competency--a fair point, given that this is the English wiki. I note also that they do not address the perceived problems with their edits, noted here by a couple of editors--instead they call for a block on Omar. That's ridiculous.

      Dzlinker, if you wish to help your case, help it. If you don't see what the problem is (and it seems like you don't--perhaps also a linguistic issue) then it is fair to ask whether you have the competence to operate here. Omar, I'm not sure if that board is the best option since Dzlinker's commentary hardly rises to the level of political discourse; it is little more than knee-jerk responses which can be dealt with by successively warning for what is really vandalism: disruptive and unsourced edits with an ethnic slant. Drmies (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, if this is a clue of the "discussion" we are supposed to start (even the previous one was more meaningful), I don't think that we will find a solution through Dialog... Correct me I'm wrong. -- Omar-Toons (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am of the opinion that this might not be a only a "user issue". I think Dzlinker can be reasonably convinced; normally constituent country of birth -which still have to be defined according to each case- is indicated, which in this case would be French Algeria. But I can't find a policy or a clear a consensus on this and thus this is not applied with scrutiny and random searches indicate that it boils down to the main contributors preferences. A centralized discussion about country of birth has taken place here back in 2008, result: no body could agree on anything. Also keep in mind that sometimes users come from other wikis which had adopted other standards which of course do not apply here; this should be clarified for users who might not know it. Tachfin (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Freedoms of IP editors

    Hi!

    I do not know if this is the appropriate place within wikipedia for this or even if such can be dealt with but here goes.

    202.124.73.181 (talk), has perform two acts which may not be permitted by IP users vs. registered accounts:

    1. the user has put Proposed deletion/dated template on an article Metadefinition I created and
    2. has voter on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (art).

    If IP users are allowed to do these two acts, please advise. If not could someone either remove these or take whatever appropriate action is needed.

    Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. Marshallsumter (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editors are permitted to WP:PROD articles, and are permitted to participate in AfD discussions. Monty845 03:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears it is actually two IPs, 202.124.73.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 202.124.72.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Monty845 03:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They can do that. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, no problems there. IP editors are "allowed" to do anything which they are technically able to do, such as edit existing articles and comment in discussions. Anything IP editors are NOT allowed to do has already been prevented at the software level. --Jayron32 04:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there is a problem. Why are two separate IPs on Australian cellular networks making such edits to the same article within a 24 hour span? N419BH 05:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd think the cellular provider, more than likely, automatically assigned another IP address to the phone for the second session. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking more along the lines of this being a potential WP:DUCK situation. N419BH 06:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lacking a block on either IP I can't see why they'd be trying to sock behind another IP. Likewise if it were an editing dispute (I'm not aware of one) they'd more likely try coming back through an open proxy or something, to make it look like someone else. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I also don't see a motive to WP:DUCK because the AfD looks one-sided. Marshallsumter hasn't suggested a potential sock. I'm more concerned about Marshallsumter creating a large number of dubious Dominant group (X) articles similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (art). My read is MS is looking to suppress opposition. Glrx (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - that seems to be the real problem. Marshallsumter is synthesising dubious articles, and the IP (if it is a single person) has merely noted this, and acted accordingly. Entirely right and proper behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This needs to be a WP:BOOMERANG thread about Marshallsumter's (re)creation of another article that fails WP:OR policies rather than what IPs are allowed to say. 86.104.57.135 (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    An examination of User:Marshallsumter's contribs identifies several articles:

    All of these articles are currently in AfD with the exception of metadefinition (which is proposed delete). Glrx (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW I am the proposer of most of those, and that is not my IP - I will say however any mentors who want to approach Marshallsumter and explain why all of these articles are being deleted are invited to do so. WP:SYNTH and even WP:FRINGE issues abound...--Cerejota (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Gamewizard71

    I've blocked Gamewizard71 (talk · contribs), as he's making edits making it difficult for me to revert his improper move of "List of years in X" to "Timeline of X". As I posted on his talk page, if he promises to revert his moves before making other edits, I'll unblock. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate, please feel free to unblock.

    For what it's worth, over 10% of his total edits are in this last set of moves, some of which might be copy/paste. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've unblocked, but there are a few more copy/paste moves this month which need work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure this is resolved. I've unblocked, but there are other complaints (see, for example, WT:MATH#Undiscussed List -> Outline moves, and a fair number of problems noted on his talk page. Now that I've adding a current complaint, I'll inform him/her of this thread. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He is still moving pages, claiming that List of general topology topics was in outline format (hint: it is not). Meanwhile the discussion at Mathematics wikiproject has unanimous support for undoing all his moves, and I suspect that other wikiprojects would agree. A block could be necessary. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also see this edit, for an example of a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, as well as probable violations of WP:NPA and WP:CONSENSUS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a warning about the page moves. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The consensus at WikiProject Mathematics seems to be that all the page moves ought to be undone. Is there an admin willing to assist with this large task? Jowa fan (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have undone as many of the moves as I can, but I can't fix them all. (I'm not an admin and there are pre-existing redirects.) Can someone fix the rest of them? Ozob (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While we're at it, it seems like it is about high time to discuss the overall disruptive impact that Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines has had on the project as a whole. The modus operandi of this (small) group of editors seems to have been unilaterally to rename "List of..." articles to "Outline of..." instead, despite what seems to be a clear consensus against these moves. Many of these moves have been reverted over the years, but many have not, and the continued presence of these articles seems to have perversely perpetuated this dubious enterprise. See, for instance, User:The Transhumanist's arguments at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Contents/Outlines that because there are hundreds of "Outline of..." articles, the project should be allowed to continue. This argument seems to have convinced other editors at that discussion, who felt that MfD was not the right venue for the kind of discussion that could affect hundreds of existing articles. However, it seems to me that WP:OUTLINE does little but disrupt the project. Various RfC's have been promised over the years, but none have actually been issued (as far as I can tell). On the contrary, the modus operandi of this Wikiproject seems to have been, rather than soliciting any kind of community input, instead to throw everything at the wall knowing that something must stick. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Let not a clearly misguided overly-bold efforts of one editor determine the purpose and impact of the whole project. Those pages should not have been moved without proper discussion; I think everyone can agree. If we don't want to call lists "Outline of..." then we don't have to. However, you should not describe the whole project as "disruptive impact" unless you are suggesting all of the project's work is disruptive. The editor was never endorsed by the project or any consensus to carry out the moves, so please don't blame the project and assume some good faith. The lists are useful and so is the category/banner by which to find them. Yes, those moves were undiscussed; yes, there is no consensus for them; yes, it created work and angered many editors now. Unfortunate, but so it is. Let us now revert these moves and do proper consensus building. Do you perhaps want to start an RfC about this (naming convention; project purpose; list necessity; etc.)? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Myself, I do think all the project's work is disruptive. That's because I have never seen it do anything except make disruptive moves. I would welcome an RfC on the forcible disbanding of this project. Ozob (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2011
    So this Outline of video games is a disruptive article [35]? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it's a special case because the audience for the video games article isn't interested in text? But normally the readers of an encyclopedia are expected to be, well, readers. Hans Adler 19:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's another example of the project's modus operandi: Here is the move from the original title, List of video gaming topics. You can see easily from the lack of discussion at that page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games that consensus was not even attempted. Ozob (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Like lists, outlines are not articles. And they are almost completely useless. (Some kinds of lists have the same problem, by the way.) I don't see them as a legitimate part of the encyclopedia, and they are certainly not worth the disruption they are causing by encouraging hyperactivity of a certain type of editor who apparently is not interested in working with text. In my opinion outlines should either be deprecated or used out of article space (preferably into portable space, as they are somewhat similar in purpose). Hans Adler 19:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument that this is the misguided effort of a single lone-wolf editor is flawed. This is how the project has historically behaves as a whole. It seems that every six months or so, we're left cleaning up after project members like User:Transhumanist (who, as far as I can tell, is the de facto leader of that project). It has to stop, and the long-term damage to the project should be reversed. There may be some valid "outlines" as such, but most "outlines" I have seen were simply moved en masse over the years from lists, without any regard for their contents. It seems that there has been a very clear consensus against this, demonstrated over the course of every public discussion I have seen on the topic, yet insufficient community will to do anything about it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean User:The Transhumanist. Ozob (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with the history of the project and controversy surrounding it. As much as my comment was in good faith, it doesn't seem to have been taken so. As before, all I can suggest is opening a well-formed RfC. I have no problem with following consensus, even if that means deleting the outline pages or something. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Elimination of outline articles

    See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Elimination_of_outline_articles. Ozob (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drrll disruptive behavior at WQA

    User:Drrll insists on refactoring the closing commentary on the report at WQA he opened against User:Hrafn (which included spurious allegations against an admin and a report here at ANI). He did it twice already. I have reverted him twice and placed escalating templates (and a comment in between) explaining why this is unacceptable. Diffs on request.--Cerejota (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Cerejota, tactfulness comes in handy in these situations. Drrll probably reads your close as a violation of WP:CIVIL. It is my opinion, Cerejota, that you often fan the flames of these disputes rather than helping to extinguish them. Drrll and I don't see eye to eye on much of anything, but I can empathize with his refactoring and reversion. Message to Drrll: try to ignore Cerejota. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand your point, but there is nothing uncivil in what I wrote - unless you consider pointing out that there was a consensus that there was no merit to the report of personal attacks as "uncivil". --Cerejota (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Read closer: your close could be perceived by Drrll as uncivil and as an attack on his character. When you close a report, try to put yourself into his shoes, no matter how hard you might find it. If you had, you would have closed it with a short message simply stating that no action was required. Instead, you launched into an editorial that only served to upset Drrll. We're not here to pour gasoline on the fire. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe competence is required and the rules tell us to assume good faith and no competent person assuming good faith can see my closing as WP:UNCIVIL:


    So I think your comment is more about the beef you have with me, than some deeper insight into Drrll's psyche. I would prefer to hear his reasoning, and of course opinions of people who do not patronize me at every opportunity :) --Cerejota (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Your close violated WP:CIVIL when you edit warred and deleted Drrll's final statement from the WQA report, not once but twice.[36][37] It remains deleted at this time. You should not have closed the report due to your heavy involvement in the discussion and your obvious "beef" with Drrll and the fact that Drrll himself objected to the close in the comments you deleted. When faced with such a situation, you revert your close and request the help of an uninvolved party. Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    By this definition, pretty much the entirety of wikipedia is uncivil! I have no beef with Drrll, at all (in fact, I do not recall ever being in an edit conflict with him) - do have a beef with false reporting and false claims of personal attacks against admins and editors in good standing. I do find interesting in your logic you support his refactoring of my closing comment, yet not my reversion of his borderline vandalism - you seem to think my behavior was uncivil but not his. That's ok, it only solidifies my opinion of you.--Cerejota (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and no need to repeat I reverted him twice. I mentioned it at the very top of the report. :)--Cerejota (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you fail to report that you, not once, but twice deleted the 182 word, 1049 character closing response from Drrll that commented on and questioned your close? Per WP:CIVIL, "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." Are you ignoring the concerns raised by Drrll, Cerejota? Based on these concerns, why did you not revert your close and ask an uninvolved user to do it instead? To summarize, you violated CIVIL and you edit warred over the closing of a WQA. WP:BOOMERANG? Viriditas (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly. Yet you are hardly in the position to opine, calling me a troll, and instructing editors to engage in meatpuppetry:[38] zoooooooooom - thats the sound of WP:BOOMERANG!--Cerejota (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you going to 1) restore Drrll's comments that you deleted 2) revert your closure, and 3) request someone uninvolved to close the WQA? Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not upon your request, for obvious reasons. And even then, I do not see the reason why, so I would need to hear a persuasive argument from a non-patronizing, uninvolved editor or admin whose judgement I trust, and who doesn't have a proclivity to poison the well when he doesn't like what is being said.--Cerejota (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Cerejota, I would strongly urge you to avoid accusing every editor you're in a dispute with of being incompetent. That you link these accusations to WP:CIR when you make them does not make it OK. 28bytes (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies for not making clear that my use here was rhetorical (ie explaining myself) and not intended to be part of the report. I think Drrll is very competent and so is, obviously, Viriditas.--Cerejota (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I would never have dreamed of closing that WQA, because after commenting on the situation in a way that one party wasn't happy with, it would not have been helpful. Cerejota has already pointed to the rule "competence is required". As a corollary, a certain minimum amount of good sense is also required, and this applies to Cerejota as well as everybody else. Hans Adler 08:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cerejota: Except perhaps for Hrafn, I am the editor that has had the the most heated disagreements with Drrll in the past month or so. Quite honestly, I strongly dislike his editing style, fillibustering, forum shopping and general unwillingness to listen and accept consensus, and find it hard to empathize with him. Nevertheless, I was taken aback by your closing summary, and can certainly see why Drrll could interpret it as antagonistic, inflammatory and taunting (telling a forum shopper to continue forum shopping was especially questionable). All the more so in that it came from you, who has had a mano a mano with Drrll resulting from this WQA. I generally support you in your battle with Lionelt et al., but here I think you overstepped the bounds, and ended up pouring gasoline on the fire. Furthermore, I think your responses to Viriditas above were out of line. In my opinion, it would be best if your took a breather, refactor the closing comment to be as terse and matter-of-fact as possible, and withdraw this ANI. I don't see anything constructive coming out of it, or in any further discussion of the matter. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate your insight, and thank you for taking the time. However, who is this Lionelt you speak of and why I am in a battle with him? This is news to me...--Cerejota (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. My mistake. I confused you with another editor who was in a dispute with Lionelt. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Fakirbakir - personal attack, disruptive editing, not assuming a good fight

    I would like to report predominantly for this: "Samofi you are a Slovak nationalist user who hates Hungarian pages" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Principality_of_Hungary). Iam not nationalist, I have adviced him to move the page Principality of Hungary to the sandbox, because there was a lot of unsourced matherial [39]. It is very hard to make a conversation and compromises with this user because he is confident about his right. Instead of the discussion, he calls me again a nationalist and contact the administrator [40]. He often finds a contradictions without the reason, for example at Andras Hadik page: [41]. Btw I used the Hungarian source in this article. Also I have used the Hugarian sources in the articles about Janos Jedlik, Imre Thokoly, Balint Balassa and others. So to call me a nationalist who hate the Hungarian pages touched me deeply. He and his meatpuppet[42] Koertefa vandalized my talk page for a few times with unjustified warnings. I have read them, accepted and deleted but they were put back [43]. He also abused other editors because he is too keen about his own right: [44] [45] The most significant problem is that this user redirect pages, delete or rewrite a lot of matherial without the discussion or consensus [46]. He just tries to use his own point of view and the sources which he likes (usualy magyar nationalistic, or as he said "patriotic" sources) - this is a English wikipedia and all significant points of view should be mentioned and we should discuss the big changes or the new articles. And I was deeply touched by this: [47]: "Now I know who is the disruptive user. I did not want to believe your editing at page of Principality of Hungary or Page of Hungarian invasions of Europe". I just recommended to move his new article to sandbox - they were like a not neutral high school essays and I opened the discussion. Because according the majority of english language source (including the sources from hungarian authors for example: http://books.google.cz/books?id=SKwmGQCT0MAC&lpg=PP1&dq=history%20of%20hungary&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q&f=false) the Hungarian principality in the 895 is the fiction, they just came to the Carpathian basin. Hungarians started to make their own state of the modern type after 955. It was the conquest of the Carpathian basin by Hungarian and Kabar tribes. From the article: its not known where each of the tribes settled the originaly. Tribal chiefs became a local aristocrats. In the book is nothing about Hungarian principality before 980. There is written: There is no reason to believe that the conquering Hungarians considered the Carpathian basin their final home. The were a semi-nomadic people. So are we creating a new Hungarian history in wikipedia? About Hungarian invasions: Invasion - "The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer". According to the majority of sources it were raids, they just wanted a food, guns and gold. The semi-nomadic people were not looking for a permanent territory. Hungarian raids: 522 searches - http://www.google.cz/search?q=%22hungarian+raids%22&btnG=Hledat+knihy&tbm=bks&tbo=1 and Hungarian invasions of Europe has a 0 hits: http://www.google.cz/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=%22hungarian+invasions+of+europe%22&btnG= So are we going to create a new famous Hungarian history in the 21. century? So the points for a ban: this user attacks the other users, this user is not open for a discussion because this user tries to use only "patriotic"(as he said) hungarian sources supporting his point of view, this user manipulates with facts, this user removing big content or redirect the articles without consensus. Its my report, thank you. --Samofi (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Admins, Samofi wanted a speedy deletion at page of Hungarian invasions of Europe, and a speedy deletion at page of Principality of Hungary. He did not appreciate my work. I used reliable sources about the themes. I was upset because of him, because his aim is to ruin my work. I apologized about my tone at talkpage of Principality of Hungary. As you see, he uses offensive tone in reference to me.Please check his editing. at Page of Natio Hungarica or Page of Martina Hingis. He disregarded the admins two times. He does not like subjects if those have connections with Hungarians.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreover, be careful with his links, for example, my conversation with RHaworth was not full citation. User_talk:RHaworth#Principality of Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It was just a nomination for a speedy deletion, i recommended to use a sandbox and the discussion was opened. You attacked me that Iam nationalist and you called admin. So why did not you discuss with me? I have not deleted your work dear friend. And you again dont discuss about you just a blame me. This is not about me but about You, so stop to attack me and stop to show a strong battleground behaviour. Talk about You and not about me. I did not know firstly that users were admins - so I made it in my best will (after i knew thant they are admins i stopped). So stop to talk about my edits and stop to be offensive to me. "He does not like subjects if those have connections with Hungarians". Why do you say it? Why do you make a chauvinist from me? I like to edit historical articles related with the Kingdom of Hungary and I try to discuss. Its you who tries to make a nationalist form me. Its the reason why you are here, its reason for your ban. --Samofi (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Samofi, Why do you threat me?Fakirbakir (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just reported your behavior and I dont threat you. Only you think that I threated you. Your reactions to me are not compatible with the rules of wikipedia. personal attacks, not asooming a good faith, no discussions, removing a content without consensus ([Royal Hungary]). My opinion was that principality of hungary did not exist in 895. The majority of the books about Hungarian history says nothing about this early principality. I cited from one of them, but I can find much more. What was your reaction insted of discussion? You called me a Slovak nationalist and you told a much more bad things about me. So thats the reason why I reported you. --Samofi (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "Its the reason why you are here, its reason for your ban"- You have threatened me. You would like to see me as a banned user. I apologized because of my statement (talkpage of Principality of Hungary) a few days ago, I do not want to repeat myself.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    it was just a statement and not threating. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/threatening --Samofi (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The pot calling the kettle black. User Samofi is much more guilty of these issues than user Fakirbakir. I agree that user Fakirbakir should not have said that sentence (and it is good that he apologized), but he was obviously provoked by user Samofi. User Samofi usually edits articles related to either Hungarian history or people with Hungarian origin. He mostly concerns with adding negative statements and deleting information (or initiating the deletion of whole articles), instead of real constructive contributions. He doesn't really know what "good faith" means: he rarely discusses the issues on the Talk page of the articles before giving warnings and accusations. An example could be his attack on my Talk page User_talk:Koertefa#Google_searches. Therefore, user Samofi is the one who disturbs others and unable to settle differences by civilized discussions (which should be primarily done on the Talk page of the articles). The aim of the whole accusation of user Fakirbakir is that user Samofi wants to intimidate editors with different opinions. -- Koertefa (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like a next personal attack:"User Samofi usually edits articles related to either Hungarian history or people with Hungarian origin. He mostly concerns with adding negative statements and deleting information (or initiating the deletion of whole articles), instead of real constructive contributions." Which one negative statement have I used? Did I delete a whole article? I have a real contributions. Its user Fakirbakir who delete the reliable content: [48] here is the lot of sources: [49] Than he redirected article Royal Hungary without discussion and consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Hungary&action=history And please to translete what have you written about admins in your talkpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Koertefa):

    "Dear Koertefa, As you see, user PANONIAN (the first one, who redirected principality of Hungary, a Serb user)and user Samofi (a Slovak user) can ruin our editing easily. Unfortunately, English editors, administrators do not know Hungarian history however they can judge existence of page without any (proper)historical background. But, your comment will help us because that page can be "free" again, it depends on wish of admins. Thank you for your supporting! (Nálam kicsapta a biztosítékot ez az admin húzás) Fakirbakir (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)" "You're welcome, and it is sad that articles such as this could be redirected based on vague arguments, for example, claiming that it was an unwanted fork. I think that this topic clearly deserves an own article and hope that the protection will be removed, soon. Probably, as you suggested, we should find an unbiased admin for that. Naturally, we should not give up, even if there were some malicious edits and unfair redirections (és ezen az átírányításon én is eléggé meglepődtem). -- Koertefa (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)" --Samofi (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not assuming a good fight?! [50] Must be some sort of Freudian slip from the filer. 86.104.57.135 (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CustoMess

    Resolved
     – Article provisionally restored per IAR and AfD re-opened. Hope Fastily won't mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Fastily deleted the article CustoMess as a copyvio of a book. I informed the admin that the book got its content from Wikipedia because the book's description says "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" Apparently I'm being ignored. Can someone undelete the article so that the AfD can continue correctly? SL93 (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've commented on Fastily's talk page (and informed him of this thread). From what I can see you are correct. Fastily doesn't seem to be editing right now; if he doesn't come online sometime in the next few ours I guess I'll go ahead and restore it, and re-open the AfD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. I didn't inform because I didn't think that it was necessary since it isn't meant to get him in trouble. I am hoping that he didn't just skip over my message to respond to other later messages. SL93 (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion" ... it's pretty unambiguous (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    However, this was a simple request for undeletion: the AFD, not Fastily or Fastily's behavior, was the subject. Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Late medieval Doom paintings

    I object to this abuse,[51] especially on an article talk page. It makes it harder to work together, and probably puts off any new contributors. Maybe someone who works well with Ceoil could ask him to tone it down a bit. Tom Harrison Talk 18:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And ask them that I pretend to like and trust you- given what Ive seen , not bloody likely; and all suspicions now fantastically confirmed by your petulant run to a/ni. Grow some stones. And by the way doom paintings are early medieval, but thats some pretentious section heading all the same; well done. It might be excusable if you wrote the article and were self promoting, but you didnt, and diefantly refuse to distinguish between 11th and 15th century painters. Across more than a few page I've tried to explain that an 11th century fresco carries a far different message to a Michelangelo. But does it sink in? Not at all. On and on, and now here. Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not wanting to rain on your parade, but surviving English Doom paintings are 14C and 15C there are very few earlier than that. Beauchamp Chapel Warks mid 15C, Lutterworth late C14, Beckley Ox C14/15, West Somerton Norf mid C14, Holy Trinity Coventry C15, well you get the picture. John lilburne (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure John, but those are specific examples; Doom paintings originate in the early 11th c. in manuiscripts and frescos, best as I have seen. But anyway, would you label Judgements by van der Weyden, van Eyck or even Michelangelo as having the same intention, ie to scare the populace. Would you go further and report anybody who removed thoes labels to this notice baord. This is a content thing. Ceoil (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The English ones tend to be Romanesque/Gothic in style with some resonance to French C12 works. They are moralistic in nature and much like the sculptured western portals showing similar scenes at the cathedrals of Amiens, Bourges, Notre-Dame Paris. Some as at Lye in France simple show Christ in Majesty with Angels blowing trumpets. Michaelangelo has a far more sophisticated style to the works in village churches. However, the subject depiction conveys the same message whether by Michaelangelo painting for the Pope in Rome, or by a jobbing C14 painter in small village church. John lilburne (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. But the later intention is quite different although the subject matter is the same; hence the suggestion of a spin out. My impression is that doom paintings were limited commissions of journeymen to reflected a very restriced dogma for a very specific purpose. When you get to the likes of Bruege and Bosh, well, thoes guys were letting their imagination run wild, and god only knows what they were thinking. Michaelangelo was always more interested in form and anathomy, regardless of what Paul wanted. But all this is irrelevat, a discussion like this (which I enjoyed by the way) is impossible with tom, he goes as far as "No. Doom painting. End of Story". I can deal with him by ignoring, I suoppose. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't necessarily disagree with Ceoil's points about the article's content - any disagreement is moot now anyway, after another editor's changes and the plans for a new article. What I object to is being called a "small minded know nothing prick" and having him tell me "fuck you". That seems well beyond the bounds of civility, and likely to interfere with editing. Tom Harrison Talk 19:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you cant handle being called a tool, best thing to do is stop acting like a tool. Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record I did, rightly, call Tom Harrisson a "small minded know nothing prick", but a week ago. And for the record again, I want to build the new article tom mentions above, reason we are having this fight is because I want him to have nothing to do with it, as he knows nothing and is seemingly willfully ignorant. The other editor disagreed with Tom compleatly, did not edit the doom article, just mentioned that renessance Judgement paintings were a different altoghther, and should have their own page. Precisely the thing I was arguing with Harisson about. Nice spin, man. Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact the other editor substantially rewrote Doom paintings last week. I'm happy with it as it is. I object to you saying "fuck you" to me, as you did earlier this afternoon, and I object to your calling me a prick, as you do just above. Tom Harrison Talk 19:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And again, I'm okay with having a separate page for the Last Judgment in art. I said so here. You responded by saying "I'd prefer if you preoccupied youself with other, resource draining, ill prepared FAC noms", eventually ending the discussion with "fuckyou". Tom Harrison Talk 20:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't disagree there's no reason to bait over a bunch of talkpages only to end up here. Just let it be. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ceoil has an interesting point as to the intentions of the works and artists discussed. The subtle and not so subtle differences between various artists transcend themes, and otherwise give rise to various misunderstandings and misreadings...Modernist (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Whacking with a Wet Trout?
    Ceoil should refrain; rather he should say: "Mapplethorpe - you". 98.163.75.189 (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, since every time Ceoil speaks to Tom Harrison, it seems to involve some reference to genitalia or sexual acts on Ceoil's part, maybe it is to stop an ongoing situation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely, Elen; as I made clear in my block notice, it is not just the string of personal attacks that is the problem - it is his refusal to accept them as his problem and his tacit admission that he will make more as he sees fit. Ironholds (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sean Peyton Ross

    Sean Peyton Ross (talk · contribs) Not sure if this is the right place for this. I posted a message regarding concerns about the content of the user's userpage with no response. The user has since posted more links to unrelated websites and personal information. If this is the wrong venue please let me know and I'll take it there. Mlpearc powwow 17:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I moved this from WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    User notified. Mlpearc powwow 19:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly is it that you think is wrong with the user page? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 19:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing wrong his user page by itself, but the only edits of this account are limited to his facebook-style user page. His "friends list" made me chuckle. 86.104.57.135 (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone just needs to tell him that we expect people to start editing articles, too, not just userpages. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User: AritaMoonlight81 on the Haplotype O2b page

    AritaMoonlight81 (talk · contribs) was engaged in an edit war with the ImtheMars (talk · contribs) on [52] regarding where the Haplogroup originated. The edit war led to a series of non-productive edits which were eventually reverted by Ebizur (talk · contribs) to a NPOV version, but AritaMoonlight81 (talk · contribs) persisted in advancing his own POV after the revert. Particularly problematic is AritaMoonlight81 (talk · contribs)'s misuse of sources to advance his own interpretations that are not properly sourced, and which is in pursuit of his original edit war with ImtheMars (talk · contribs) even though said user has stopped editing the article. This includes the bold claim that the academic source cited in the article, Hammer et. al, is erroneous, which lacks basis and authority, and independent interpretations of the data according to his own POV. When I reverted the edits, he simply reverted them back without any attempts at discussion and/or mediation. Looking at AritaMoonLight81 (talk · contribs)'s talk page, the user has apparently been accused of such behavior before, so I doubt this is an isolated case.Lathdrinor (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He has previously been accused of edit warring alright, but I have no idea which one of you is right (he seems to be citing a reference to a reliable source, and we're not talking about Holy Writ here), and I see no discussion on the talkpage. Article has been fully protected for 10 days - you two can talk about it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent press template

    Lots of heat, little if any light. Try a WP:RFC. lifebaka++ 03:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    This report is in reference to the use of {{Press}} on discussion pages. It is not about if the story is a reliable source. It is not on if it should be an external link in an article.

    The highly biased FrontPage Magazine had a scathing piece that mentioned several articles.[53] There has been reverting on multiple article talk pages on its use with other media stories in the template. I could accuse the editors who are trying to remove it as censoring information and being biased but I think there is a good enough argument to keep without going that route. Although we might disagree with the conclusions the piece made, it actually offered some useful stats. I for one appreciate the feedback. I want to know how people read the articles we right regardless of their political leanings.

    An example is his critique of the Glenn Beck article. I have been a proponent for not including an independent "Controversy" section since such sections are POV in nature. However, the author actually thought it was more POV to have the criticism scattered throughout. We should be able to handle criticism without shutting it out. And when the criticism actually has in depth figures and analysis then it means we should at least have it available for editors to see. Cptnono (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Next thing you'll ask us to add it to User:newyorkbrad's page because he's mentioned there too. There should be a common sense limit to adding the same opinion piece to dozens of articles that are barely mentioned in it. Seek WP:CONSENSUS beforehand for controversial changes involving multiple artiles, like by starting a RfC. ANI is not the place for that. Try WP:VPR. 86.104.57.135 (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is linkspam: the article is nothing more than an attack piece on Wikipedia on David Horowitz's blog/website. The template refers to articles which are "mentioned by a media organisation". I don't see how a personal website can be seen as a media organisation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't we link to posts at Wikibias or any of the other blogs critical of Wikipedia? They've also mentioned specific articles. As Andy says, they're mere blog posts: they're not reliable sources, and they're not reputable "media organizations" for the Talk page either. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Cptnono et al, the press template is actually being used for two articles (part I & II, both by David Swindle ---> essays) from the same source i.e. David Horowitz's online blog FrontPage Magazine. They are How the Left Conquered Wikipedia, Part 1 & How the Left Conquered Wikipedia, Part 2: Coddling Progressives. These entries were originally generously added (or spammed depending on one's view) to the talk pages of Al Sharpton, Al Gore, Bill Maher, Che Guevara, Glenn Beck, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter and Keith Olbermann by User:Truthsort. However, their additions have been reverted by User:AndyTheGrump, User:Xenophrenic, and User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper respectively, only to be re-added by User:Hearfourmewesique and User:Cptnono. For the record, "Part I" attacks me personally (not sure if I am covered in WP:BLP) and makes a range of specious arguments (for which I was given no chance to comment or respond), essentially painting me as either indicative of, or the quasi-head of, some coordinated "Left(ist) cabal", which has in the author Swindle's words (no pun intended) "Conquered" Wikipedia. For the record, "Part II" attacks the administrator User:Malik Shabazz personally, and again makes a range of accusations questioning his editing integrity / identity etc. Not only would I wager that this polemical editorial (one might call it a "hit piece") is WP:Undue, considering Wikipedia is mentioned dozens of times in the press daily, and that the source may not meet the requirements of WP:Reliable; I believe it also is extremely unfair and unscrupulous in it's accusations and insinuations towards myself and Malik Shabazz - for which we are given no chance to retort.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cptnono: If you believe the blog screed posted on a non-reliable (if not banned) source "actually offered some useful stats" or "feedback", then find a suitable Wikipedia policy page, bias page or "village pump" equivalent in which to discuss that material. Spamming that link into numerous BLPs when the piece only mentions those articles long enough to compare them to other BLP articles (usually a single sentence) is not productive. It serves no useful purpose to post that link to BLP talk pages. That, alone, is enough to reject the spamming of your link, without even mentioning that the screed also "outs" Wikipedia editors, disparages Wikipedia BLP article subjects and contains numerous ridiculous inaccuracies. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You see, Xenophrenic, I specifically did not mention any editors. I also did not spam anything since I was not the one who added the link originally and I disagree with it. So how about you try and argue the discussion? If you want to accuse people of spamming then come out with it but I assure you I do not read that filth. And like I said: We are not discussing the appropriateness of an RS. It has nothing to do with RS so don;t hal;f raise that spectyre.Furthermore, I have just reverted an editor who chose to remove the link to this discussion. He was making it hard to keep the knee-jerk "your censoring bastards" editors at bay. I would prefer to think that editors just don't like the link. Cptnono (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You see, Cptnono, I never commented on your mentioning or not mentioning other editors, so ... you lost me there. Spamming links has nothing to do with who spammed those links first, or whether any of those spammers agree with the links. Which discussion do you think I am arguing, if not this one? I agree that we are not discussing the appropriateness of a reliable source; but the fact that the source does not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards has already been raised, so ... too late. Now back to the main concern I raised, and that you have glossed over: The screed to which you linked does not serve a purpose specifically related to the articles upon whos talk pages it was placed. If you feel, as you seem to have indicated above, that there is some sort of useful information in what you linked, then please find a suitable forum for its placement so that it may be discussed -- surely there must be a "Wikipedia is biased" venue somewhere. Mass-linking it to many BLPs is not proper placement. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If Redthoreau cannot stand behind what the author said he said then I am OK with removal. I would prefer editors see feedback but would rather not see an editor slandered. Redthoreau, please confirm that you do not want the link due to a misquote and/or outing so that we can get this revdeld. However, if you just don't like the tone we should keep on discussing it.Cptnono (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Cptnono, there are a myriad of inaccurate assertions and insinuations just towards myself in the "part 1" editorial - to say nothing of the accuracy of the entire piece. (1) He identifies me as part of the (political) "Left", which I do not self-identify with. My own personal political persuasion is not relevant to Wikipedia and I purposely do not identify with any political party or philosophy on my home page. (2) He refers to my "Redthoreau" name as "telling", with the quasi-McCarthyist insinuation that since my name contains the color "red", that I must be a communist/Marxist etc. Setting aside that simplistic absurdity, and the fact that I am sure the author himself favors Republicans i.e. "red state America", the name doesn’t have anything to do with politics – as the "red" is my nickname based on my appearance, and the "Thoreau" is because Henry David Thoreau is my favorite author (and not a communist or in many ways even of the "left"). (3) The author claims that I am "the primary author and watchdog of Humberto Fontova's entry", which I would also dispute. (4) The author misrepresents my position by stating "Fontova’s informed view is missing from the (Che Guevara) entry because Redthoreau objects to Fontova describing Che as 'revered by millions of imbeciles.'" However, this is not my position (as he knows since he cites one line from my post), as I have a very detailed and ---> lengthy explanation on the Che talk page (citing specific policies) explaining why Fontova fails nearly all Wiki benchmarks for inclusion at present, and why he has in the past long before I even edited the article. Finally, making matters worse, I would have given the author this information myself, but I was not even contacted for a chance to address his accusations (I provide my email on my talk page) – which is a basic tenet of journalism 101.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I mentioned on your talk page, I don't care if he attacked you. But if you feel he has made blatant misrepresentations of you then we should not have it here. I would be fine revdeling this ANI, talk page notices, and edits. I feel that the author has some good things to say. Some of what he laid out was not off the mark. But we have to watch out for blatant lies especially when it comes to living people and one of our own. Just make sure that you can honestly say the guy went from constructive criticism to lies.Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should it matter if the news article misrepresented an Admin? We're not using it as a WP:RS to support a claim one way or another. What matters is WP:V. The article exists online and is accessible, and tens of thousands of people have read it. Wikipedia should be acknowledging that, not fleeing from it and sweeping it under the rug. Moreover, it's been said here that Front Page Magazine is David Horowitz's blog. That isn't true. FPM is an online news magazine that includes Horowitz's blog, but the two aren't identical. FPM publishes reports from dozens of contributors, one of whom is David Horowitz. The articles we're talking about extensively cover a number of pages in our encyclopedia and make what sound prima facie like empirical claims in their regard. That they're unpleasant for some of us to acknowledge isn't in itself a reason to disqualify their validity. And certainly the fact that two Admins are mentioned in a negative context needs to be taken into account when considering those two Admins' opinions here. If there were newspaper articles critiquing my neutrality as an editor, naturally I'd be made uncomfortable by having them linked to through the Press Template. But does that matter? Is that a valid consideration? I don't think it is. What matters ultimately is that Front Page Magazine is a news site unto itself – biased, yes, but not a personal blog, and kosher per the criteria of Template:Online source.—Biosketch (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice straw men. The fact is that these are David Swindle's blog posts (David who?) and linking to them from an article's Talk page is probably a BLP violation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that you disagree doesn't make it a straw man. A BLP violation, on the other hand, is a valid concern. Whose bio?—Biosketch (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See the list of biographies linked above, add Morris Dees, and scratch Che Guevara (BLP doesn't apply). In short, almost everybody who is mentioned in Swindle's blog posts. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop bickering and Malik is not innocent in deflecting/changing-the-subject-sort-arguments on this one. But it doesn't matter anyways. If Redthoreau was needlessly dragged through the mud then that is all we need not to use. Just waiting for his confirmation that the writer was actually wrong before signaling complete support to not use the link.Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe a case can be made a-la BLP violation. I'm still pretty sure that linking to an article on the Discussion page that says stuff about Al Gore that isn't in his bio doesn't qualify as a BLP violation because no claim is being made directly vis-a-vis the subject of the BLP. Otherwise we'd have to erase any mention of Fahrenheit 911 and even having an article on it because of the claims it makes in reference to George W. Bush. What I definitely don't understand is what User:Redthoreau has to do with this. So what if the articles said negative stuff about how he edits Wikipedia? Wrong or right, why should it matter at all?—Biosketch (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still pretty sure that linking to an article on the Discussion page that says stuff about Al Gore that isn't in his bio doesn't qualify as a BLP violation because no claim is being made directly vis-a-vis the subject of the BLP. I think you're 100% wrong. We can't use a link on the article's Talk page as a back door to include information not reported by a reliable source that would not be acceptable in the bio itself, just because the blog post says Wikipedia ignores the fact that the subject snorts coke/robs nuns/sleeps with young children and small animals. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Our BLP policy states"BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." This by the way includes comments on other editors, even if we often deal with them in other ways. Dougweller (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Biosketch, "what I have to do with this"? I am cited as either a textbook case of / or the ring leader for – the "Left", who he claims is supposedly "conquering" Wikipedia through dishonest means. It's not just that he criticizes me WP:NPA, he makes untrue accusations against me with no cited evidence, and his editorial is devoid of any context whatsoever (+ last time I checked, I am a living person as well). He clearly doesn’t understand how Wikipedia functions or its policies, and cherry picks 2 of the 3,000 + articles I have ever edited to make sweeping generalizations about not only myself, but the hundreds of thousands of other Wiki editors – who are in his imagination being "conquered" by some shadowy leftist cabal of gate keepers with the mission of systematically "rewriting history" by keeping Wikipedia from looking like his stated paragon of truthful reporting - Conservapedia. Lastly, what are his qualifications to opine on how Wikipedia supposedly functions or operates? Has David Swindle shown any notability or recognition for having the slightest clue about the topic he is writing about – other than the fact he is a blogger for several ultra-partisan websites who thinks "It’s Evil to Pay Janitors $50,000 Salaries", "Barack Obama is a Socialist Working to Destroy America", and "Ann Coulter (is an) 'elegant' and 'sophisticated' Exorcist"?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Betting pool

    Facepalm Facepalm We should have a betting pool on this "piece" on the personal blog of David Horowitz resulting in severe meat and sock puppetry in the topic areas covered for at least a year from now. Every time some political demagogue decides SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE WIKIPEDIAS, WHICH R SRS BZNS, we have to deal with the tons of POV warriors, some of which actually have staying power. What are the bets that this will result in another scandal like the CAMERA sock/meatpuppets? One advantage of extremely low RfA participation is that at least this time the admin massacre will not be as severe... This is why we should have a separate wikipedia for current events and BLPs. Then the controversies here can be nerdy and geeky and awesome, not the "MY TRUTH IS BIGGER THAN YOUR TRUTH" bs. --Cerejota (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Tell me you didn't just imply David Swindle is a demagogue. And if you're gonna write a check to the effect that editors here are POV-warriors/socks/meatpuppets, you need to have capital in your account to be able to cash it. To which editors are you referring and what evidence are you basing your accusations on?—Biosketch (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm 2 I haven't accused anyone, I just made an observation that bears out from experience. Also, if you do not consider the piece he wrote demagogy, you seriously should reconsider taking on Wikipedia as a hobby - because it was a demagogic attack on every principle we stand for, or at least, try to stand for. --Cerejota (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolute nonsense. Criticism directed at an individual doesn't equal demagoguery. And his opinions regarding the BLPs he discussed issued from a quantitative analysis of the ratio of critical content relative to the overall size of the BLP. His conclusions weren't based on the identities of the BLPs. He drew conclusions based on empirical data, which led him to construct a pattern in relation to the BLPs he sampled.—Biosketch (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I get it. Swindle is a misunderstood scientist. He didn't set out to prove his theory that Wikipedia is controlled by leftists; he came and took a statistical sample of articles and came to that conclusion scientifically. If you believe that, I have a bridge I can sell you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 Cerejota likes this comment by Malik Shabazz--Cerejota (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you in the business of selling bridges to people? I guess that would make sense. But the fact is this was probably the first time either of us ever heard of David Swindle before. Whoever he is, he wrote an interesting article suggesting that a pattern underlies the manner in which certain biographies are presented to the public. He published it at a news site affiliated with David Horowitz. His article implicated two editors as sharing much of the responsibility for the way things are here. One of those editors is you. Now there's a campaign to ensure that the article is never mentioned again outside the confines of this Noticeboard.—Biosketch (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Please read the sources provided at Reliability of Wikipedia and find real scientific data on the topic. There is bias in English Wikipedia, but it is not political bias, it is geographical/language/ethnic bias that allows for overcoverage of Pokemon and endless American tv series episodes and under coverage of Kazakhstan or what happened in the 8th century in what is now Kenya. By and large, whatever political bias has is that it tends to the centrist, because NPOV cancels the extremes, but that only offends extremists, which is why I call the article demagoguery.--Cerejota (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Malik, apparently we missed the memo that obscure websites like NewsRealBlog (where David Swindle is the Managing Editor --> link), which photoshop Jimmy Carter to look like Yasser Arafat, while Horowitz hyperbolically denounces him as a "Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, (and) Liar", are just academic outlets for serious and objective qualitative research.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotta admit, thats a hilariously bad shoop...--Cerejota (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    [Swindle's] article implicated two editors as sharing much of the responsibility for the way things are here. One of those editors is you. Boo hoo, boo hoo. Get real, Biosketch. Do you really think I give a flying fuck what some neocon named Swindle says about me? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    More seriously, we are getting Swindled :)--Cerejota (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of us, anyway. Good night. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fuck your face palm Cerejota (and forget anyone who cries over me saying "fuck" because that is basically what a face palm is and Cerejota knows he was being a condescending dick with it). Like I said: If Red thinks he was spit on by the source the I am fine not using it. But don't pretend there were not valid reasons to use it and don't poison the well by being a jerkoff. But since I am a betting man: I think it will go nowhere. The author will finish his "essays" on Wikipedia and editors will choose to ignore it. Unlike you, I actually give a shit about how articles read. Unfortunately for me, that means that even biased opinions get some play. I would laugh if he actually discussed this ANI but doubt he knows the project well enough. Cptnono (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why we can't have nice things: people think they can abuse anyone who disagrees with them, like Swindle does. I do care about how articles are read, I just don't respect opinions that are designed, consciously, to disrupt the project for ideological reasons - regardless of what those reasons are. Its bad enough when editors wipe their asses with WP:HONESTY and start claiming with puppy eyes that they are not meatpuppets brought together by off-wiki stealth canvassing, but then on top of that we have to deal with "POVBOTS, ACTIVATE!" messages in the blogosphere. Which reminds me, what Swindle is doing is a total violation WP:CANVASS proscription on stealth canvassing, and when his user account is located, it should be indef blocked for such behavior. In particular launching personal attacks against specific editors was pretty awful. Its sad that you support such anti-wiki actions while claiming to defend the wiki, and I seriously think you should then reconsider this hobby if people who disagree with you make you so mad. Am not even mad, brah. Also, please read facepalm, I think you seriously mistake the meaning of it: being exasperated is not the same as being a dick. Telling people to "fuck off", however, its pretty much the definition of being a dick - and is not justified even as a response to dickery.--Cerejota (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Cerejota (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    OH NOES!! WIKIPEDIA IS A PLOT OF THE REDS TO TAKE OVER OUR BODILY FLUIDS!!!--Cerejota (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is tiring. A series of "cry wolf" name callings will not change the essence here: the "blog" is an online magazine, and Swindle's writings cannot be deemed as "unreliable" just because they don't appear plausible to some editors. This is the ultimate proof that his article is 100% right: not only is there a "consensus gang" that keeps articles about Michael Moore and other "commies" heavily biased, but the mere mention of these unlawful tactics is instantly wiped from talk pages. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    So the proof that the blog is correct is that people suggest that it isn't? Isn't conspiracy theory logic wonderful... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the proof I talked about is that there is bias, and there is a clan of editors enforcing it. Funny... you're the guy that vigorously protects Michael Moore's article from any source (even multiple WP:RS by all Wiki standards) that exposes him as the conspiracy master he is, yet you have zero problems calling those who disagree with you "conspiracists" without any proof but your own logic. Isn't this charade wonderful... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What is even funnier is that I've made precisely one edit to the Michael Moore talk page, and none at all to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We discussed the Moore issue on ANI the NPOV noticeboard (diffs can be provided upon request), and by the way, I replied to your queries yet you left me hanging in a very convenient spot. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Michael_Moore you mean? Where everyone told you that we (a) don't usually have 'controversy' sections in articles, and (b) definitely don't base them on original research? I suppose that everyone else that disagreed with you there is part of this red plot too? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... no, not "everybody" since more than a few editors agreed with me. "Don't usually have" is not a valid reason, per WP:OSE. And finally, there was no original research, just your – and other editors' – laziness since no one actually verified the source I provided. Please, at least don't lie, OK? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Go boil your head... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice, it's down to ad hominem now – how about a decent reply? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And your ridiculous conspiracy theory isn't ad hominem? If you prefer, a microwave would be quicker... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My conspiracy theory? I'm lost now... or am I David Swindle all of a sudden? But of course, all this is nothing but a scrim hiding your failure to examine Michael Moore Hates America or take it seriously, same goes to Swindle's article, which actually uses data collected from examining various WP articles, to conduct a legitimate analysis. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the comments below Swindle's editorial (which also attack several Wiki editors specifically against WP:NPA) are golden!
    Paging Mr. Poe! Below are my two favorite ...

    Wikipedia is the online mouthpiece for the secular atheist islamo-fascist anti-jewish communist pro-gay environmentalist wiccan culture that George Soros and Al Gore want to impose on good christian americans! You have been warned!

    — ImWithBachmann, FrontPageMag, August 30, 2011

    Wake up folks it's not just PBS, NPR, Wikipedia and the lamestream liberal media that are biased! Even the Christmas holiday has a liberal/letfwing bias, ever notice how Santa Claus​ wears red (just like those Hugo Chavez​ thugs and chinese Maoists) and has a thick beard, just like Marx!

    — I'mNotParanoid, FrontPageMag, August 30, 2011

    So "wake up", because "we've been warned"!!!  Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And did anyone else notice that on Wikipedia, the herrings are red too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And the "whack" in {{trout}} is red too... and the uncreated articles are red, clearly an invitation to fill them up with red ideas, hmmmm maybe there is a conspiracy after all...--Cerejota (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Careful Cerejota, how deep down the red rabbit hole do you want to go?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A radical suggestion

    May I suggest that this thread be closed? It's clear that Cptnono's original purpose, asking for outside opinions, has been thwarted by our bickering. Let's just call it quits. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wouldn't you just love that... no. Please address his concerns, along with Biosketch's and mine. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already done that. Maybe you should read before you type. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see lots of red herrings. Have you countered the main point – being that Swindle's article compares and contrasts WP articles based on content and proportion, thus conducting a legitimate analysis? Have you explained why Frontpage magazine cannot be taken as an RS (other than pointing at political cartoons that exist in any major newspaper)? Etc. etc... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been here for two years and you wonder whether FrontPage can be used as a RS? Maybe you should search the archives at WP:RS/N. As for the rest of your message concerning Swindle's blog posts, res ipsa loquitur. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    More shiny words with no meaning. This is actually what constitutes demagogy, maybe you should read a dictionary... Besides, FrontPage is not used a a factual source, but a third party analysis mentioned on a few talk pages, which is obviously different altogether. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between a serious third party analysis and a plain hit piece.TMCk (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your criteria for annulling the legitimacy of this analysis and calling it a hit piece? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Common sense.TMCk (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I will ask again, and expect a scholarly answer this time: what is your criteria for dismissing the analysis, other than the fact that it carries an opinion which differs from your own? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That there is total lack of rigor in the methodology used, and there is confirmation bias in the hypotheses put forward. There is also a lack of peer review that submits the study to a process of scientific verification by scientific peers.--Cerejota (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Swindle present claims, such as "there is much less criticism of public figures that represent a certain part of the political spectrum", backing it up by numbers from several concrete examples, such as the failure to fully cover Al Sharpton's anti-semitic and anti-white actions, while retaining a disproportionally large controversy section on Ann Coulter. He couples that with the fact that Wikipedia is highly ranked on Google, thus feeding its inaccuracies to the public. This seems reasonably rigorous to me, as he makes sure his claims are backed up. On the other hand, there is no need for peer reviews here, as this is not used as a factual source for an article, but as a small "media mention" section on talk pages. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Without getting into the verifiability issues of those specific cases (on which I do not have an opinion either way), they are what in scientific discourse is called "anecdotal evidence". As you can read in the wikilinked article, anecdotal evidence in general is ignored in scientific research because "of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be true but unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise unrepresentative of typical cases". From a scholarly perspective, Swindle's articles fail even the basic standards of seriousness and method.--Cerejota (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Swindle cherry-picks his data. And yes, if you are representing this as science, it needs to be judged by the appropriate standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Put simply, even if Swindle is correct (And again, I am not saying either way) on his criticism of the Al Sharpton article, he takes an specific example and then stamps the whole project with the "biased" brand. Making generalities out of specifics is a violation of the scientific method as generally understood. His views are an opinion with no a shred of scientific validity, and his conclusions are direct attacks on the entire project. Defending him is ludicrously disruptive.--Cerejota (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    FrontPage is not a reliable source anyway. I fail to understand why this is at AN/I. If there is a reliability question it should go to RS/N, where I'm sure editors will be reminded that this is not a reliable source, on top of being highly biased.Griswaldo (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What Administrative Action is Sought Here?

    What administrator intervention is needed here? This is not the appropriate venue to discuss the reliability of sources, which is what the discussion appears to have devolved to, though I don't understand the original posting here either. Can this be hatted or otherwise cloesd?Griswaldo (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As I understand it correctly, the issue is spamlinking of the Swindle piece using {{press}} on the talk pages of the mentioned articles. In addition, my section, even if it quickly lost this aspect too, was intended to alert admins about the misbehavior that generally accompanies off-wiki stealth canvassing. --Cerejota (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To your point Cerejota, perhaps the named articles in the Swindle piece i.e. Al Sharpton, Al Gore, Bill Maher, Che Guevara, Glenn Beck, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Keith Olbermann, Humberto Fontova & Morris Dees - could receive semi-protection (if they don't already) from ip edits for the time being?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been no edit warring or vandalism by IP editors, so asking for semi-protection would be unwarranted. On a whole there doesn't appear to be any continued edit warring on the article talk pages over the addition either, despite a couple of reverts on each initially. I just don't see the need for admins here, nor do I think AN/I is the place to establish or reaffirm consensus regarding the validity of using a hit piece from FrontPage in the recent press template. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Exidor blocked indefinitely

    I have blocked Exidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely for incivility and personal attacks. If you go through his contributions, the examples are plentiful. I gave him a warning about this and received this response. In light of his incivility taking place throughout his entire "career" and his user page's statement, I have blocked him indefinitely. Review is welcome. either way (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Has he been blocked before? That seems REALLY like overkill. You should never block someone indefinitely as a first recourse, even if they tell you to fuck off as he did. -- Avanu (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A block would be good, but a permanent one seems a bit harsh. GiantSnowman 22:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agreed. He was very civil posting on my talk page. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 22:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Schyler, the post he made to your user talk was a template. The only thing that was his personal writing was the "You think you're smart, don't you?" heading. The notification of being on ANI was through use of {{ANI-notice}}. either way (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is what Schyler was referring to... GiantSnowman 22:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He has not been blocked before, but if you look through his edit history, there are plenty of examples in a very short "career." Also, if you read his user page, it's clear his intent is to not work within the parameters of a Wikipedia environment collaboratively. I'm headed offline, so if a consensus is reached to change the block, I'm more than okay with it. either way (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In checking his contribution history, he's been here since 2007. One of the tenets of civility is that we don't template the regulars. While I think he should not have used profanity, it is not a requirement that we always demonstrate perfect behavior in Wikipedia. We're expected to be Civil, but not to stop being human and fallible. I think this block needs to be removed immediately and a discussion needs to take place first. -- Avanu (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaving aside the fact that nobody was "templated," I've always gotten the impression that WP:DTTR is a means to protect the average, well-meaning editor from getting a generic nastygram after messing up once or twice. That clearly isn't the case here; it only takes one look at the user page to see that User:Exidor is acutely aware of the rules and just doesn't care. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He may have started editing in 2007, but he's got 189 total edits, took a pretty lengthy "break" between October 2009 and January 2011, and is clearly abusing edit summaries and other editors. He's not a "regular" as meant by the DTTR essay. Doc talk 22:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)x158 Good block. @Giantsnowman: This is NOT a permanent block. As soon as he demonstrates he won't behave incivily, he can rejoin the Wikipedia community. --Jayron32 22:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on the user's edit history, I'd say an indef block is long overdue. If he wants to edit, let him first explain how he's going to change the tone of his edits. Rklawton (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Content moved from userpage to article space

    Apologies if this isn't the right place, I've never had cause to report anything before. Kindly redirect me if so. A few days ago, the entire page+history at my userpage/sandbox was moved to article space (at Ranveer Chandra). I can't find any information at RfM, that's why I'm here. The move is a problem for several reasons. First: the content is not ready, I don't think it would pass WP:NOTABLE and I don't want my name associated with bad content- especially biographical content! Second: I wasn't informed in any fashion. Third: Ranveer Chandra now reflects the history of my sandbox, making it appear as though I made multiple edits to that page when in fact they were all test edits of my own sandbox, and User:Matttoothman/sandbox no longer exists. I'd like for this to be reverted so I can get my history back, and I don't want my account associated with Ranveer Chandra. The content is only a few weeks old, and quite small, so I don't feel that it violates any userpage policy re: keeping draft articles. Thanks for your attention. If the right answer is "just revert it", I'm glad to do so - but I want to make sure that the history of both the article and of my sandbox are properly sorted. Again, longtime editor, first time admin-help-requester. Thanks, Matttoothman (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like IP editor 24.22.248.28 asked for the draft to be moved to mainspace.
    If you want to delete the edit history before a certain point—before you began drafting this article, say—that's easily done. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In the alternative, of course, you could move it back to your userspace. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Any solution that doesn't make it look like I'm the main editor of an article on a living person who I don't think is notable is fine with me. I had the same idea as the IP editor (working on pages for TR35 winners), but I don't want to support this one publicly, yet. What's the least disruptive solution that leaves me out of it? I'm done with the project so I really just want to wash my hands of it. ALso, thanks for the quick response(s).Matttoothman (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Two more options. You can request that it be moved back into your userspace or you can add request its deletion by adding {{db-g7}} to the top of the page (or blank it).--Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One of those options is probably best. Under the terms of the GFDL, you have to be listed as a contributor to the article, so there's no way to keep the article (in mainspace) and remove your name as a contributor. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving the page restores all aspects (history...) to original state, right? If so I'll just do that and then blank it...will that prevent this happening in future?Matttoothman (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for reference, the move request was made here. Monty845 04:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) No, moving the page keeps the edit history just the way it is, but there would be a redlink for Ranveer Chandra and the draft would be back in your sandbox. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    After you move the page back, you should tag the redirect at Ranveer Chandra with CSD R2. If the IP editor or anyone else wants to restore the article from your draft, he can ask you. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverted, deleted redirect, blanked page per much excellent advice. Thank you to all.Matttoothman (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Using content from another editor's user space is uncommon, but it has come up before, for example WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive666#Copying content from userspace (January 2011) and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225#Reusing content from another user's sandbox (June 2011). This is the first I've seen facilitated by a third party. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was pretty surprised - especially since it's clearly in progress and no notice was given. Definitely weird. Also, the interested audience for that page has got to be small - but I guess that's what the interwebs are for, right?Matttoothman (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What's even more surprising is how did 24.22.248.28 even know your sandbox article existed? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You've got me there, Ron. Do user (sub)pages show up in (internal or external) search results?Matttoothman (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They turn up in external search results by default (unless specifically tagged to be no-index), and internal will turn up anything if you check appropriate name space under an advanced search, even if no-indexed, but by default user space is not searched. Monty845 23:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They show up in autocompleted article names in the search box. So if he started in User:Whatever, all of User:Whatever's sandboxes are going to show up there.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to move Non-trinitarian back

    An editor has moved the page "Nontrinitarian" without discussion or consensus. This subject has been previously discussed at length and the non-hyphenated form was the preferred version. The editor who has just moved it has not been part of past discussions to my knowledge, and the only communication on this was in the edit summary of the Move itself. Please move "Non-trinitarian" back to "Nontrinitarian". Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Done For future reference you can do this yourself using the "Move" function. Just make sure that, unlike the person who moved the page in the first place, you check and make sure that the move is a good idea and hasn't already been discussed and rejected, as this move was. N419BH 06:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Regular" editors can't do it if there is a redirect there. The Move process fails because the page already exists. -- Avanu (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have started with "Thank you". I appreciate you taking a moment to help with that. -- Avanu (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor who moved it a moment ago, has *again* moved it, and left a slightly more insistent edit summary. I hate to ask, but... would you mind moving it back once more? I was just about to leave a note on his Talk page about getting consensus for this, and noticed he already moved it again. -- Avanu (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a regular editor and the move worked fine even with the redirect there; perhaps there is some other issue which prevents you from moving the page? I'd rather not start a move war so I've instead pinged the user who did the move asking him to undo it. N419BH 07:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Must just be something I did wrong at first. I don't move pages very often. It looks like I was able to move it without a problem. Thanks again. -- Avanu (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem. I've got the page watchlisted in case it's moved again. Still figuring out how to fix the double redirects. N419BH 07:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why admins lurk here. -- Avanu (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as an FYI, non-admins can (generally) move an article over a redirect if the redirect only has one revision in its history. Any more than one and an admin is required. Jenks24 (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I could be wrong, but I believe that moves can be undone by anyone if there have been no edits to the redirect which is left behind since the move occured. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That sounds right, since having an additional edit (or more) would create a need to preserve the page history to be compliant with the CC license.

    By the way, a move discussion has been initiated at Talk:Nontrinitarianism concerning the movement of this page. The initiator of the discussion, Jasonasosa (talk · contribs), opened with a rather uncivil statement, and included what might be considered a personal attack in the edit summary. N419BH 09:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just while we're on the subject of Jason, is this userbox entirely appropriate for a user page? How can you "highly oppose" a gay or trans person's lifestyle? Very odd. User:Wolfdog406/UBX/Natural Family JonChappleTalk 09:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say not, whilst not a PA on an indivdual, it does come across as a PA on a group of people. IMHO, the userbox should be deleted. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an especially "nice" userbox, and it is pretty negative (as opposed some a UBX saying "this user supports heterosexual relationships", or something). On the other hand there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with being opposed to GLBT lifestyle (and associated politics, as listed in the usebox). As long as it focuses on the UBX owner and is not saying "X lifestyle is idiotic" (or worse) then there isn't much concern IMO. --Errant (chat!) 10:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also ironic that the UBX contains a spelling mistake - ignorance often leads to xenophobia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah you're right, I never noticed that it was missing the "t". Jasonasosa (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (I'm not really sure why Avanu fixed it ... I think the message was much more effective with the spelling error) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What it really needs to say is "This user highly supports telling other people how to run their lives." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The user removed the offending userbox. However, it remains at User:Wolfdog406/UBX/Natural Family. It should be deleted. Ironically, its creator claims to be against Nazism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As to the original topic... I have move protected the article for two weeks to encourage discussion on the talk page. LadyofShalott 14:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits by user:Slowking4

    I was alerted by User:DGG to the edits by user:98.163.75.189, who ran into a block for persistently adding external links which were reverted by User:XLinkBot (the bot reported the editor to WP:AIV, and the editor was blocked by user:5 albert square). DGG unblocked and alerted the operators of XLinkBot: User talk:XLinkBot#unblock. That prompted me to review the edits by the IP. Indeed, I think that indeed a block was not warranted, and actually the links the editor has been adding were all OK, though on XLinkBot's revertlist (as in many cases, these links do not comply with the guidelines, but since there are exceptions, they do not qualify for blacklisting - we are talking YouTube, MySpace, FaceBook, Twitter etc. links here).

    Actually, when reviewing the edits and the warnings, I noticed the following things:

    That gave me at that point an immense quaaaack-feeling. The style of editing, knowing its way around, said that this was a regular editor editing logged-out. I could not pin-point which editor, but the case is clear at that point.

    However, the IP is implying that they want to stay anonymous:

    Now, ever since the beginning there have been provisions in XLinkBot regarding these things, and this could have been resolved earlier given proper notice. Note, those provisions were first off-wiki, but are now accessible to every admin on-wiki. Also, ever since the beginning it is known that XLinkBot does make some 'mistakes' (but reviewing, by far most of the reverts are indeed cases which should be removed, either on the basis of WP:EL, WP:SPAM, or on WP:NOT or even WP:COPYRIGHT). Of course, it is possible to find links which XLinkBot should not revert (otherwise these links would already be blacklisted), that has also been one of the provisions since the beginning. And it is also made sure that all the edits of XLinkBot can be reviewed by recent changes patrollers (XLinkBot intentionally does not have a bot-bit for that reason).

    I do take it upon me as one of the bot operators, that I did not notice this earlier and took appropriate action earlier. I will take action so this will be noticed earlier on (and hence, can be handled upon earlier on).

    Today, I noticed the following three edits:

    • diff - changing the unblock request of 98.163.75.189 (I should have noticed this last week).
    • diff - changing a comment from 98.163.75.189 regarding a post by user:Intoronto1125
    • diff (followed shortly by diff - warning Intoronto1125: "please stop leaving wrongful notices on my talk page. it is disruptive" .. the notice was on the talkpage of the IP, not on the talkpage of Slowking4.

    and unrelated, though showing the mission: diff.

    Hence, the IP, 98.163.75.189 (talk · contribs), is Slowking4 (talk · contribs) logging out, and, IMHO, trying to disrupt Wikipedia processes, on a mission trying to make a point. I'm sorry, making pointy edits is not the way to show 'wrongdoings' on Wikipedia.

    Since I am involved in XLinkBot's edits, and have commented towards DGG regarding the IP, I think that it is better that I leave this to independent review. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The problems about external links such as the ones he has been adding have increased as even very conservative organizations and people who would in earlier years have used official websites, now use places like Facebook for their principal sites, or even put their official material on YouTube & the like. And of course, it's our policy to link to a organization's external site, if we have an article on them. Obviously most links to Facebook etc. will be bad links, sometimes very bad links to copyvio or worse, but not quite all of them. (I tend to see this because I do a lot of work with organizations and their often COI editors) I have been dealing with this user while AGF, but not naïvely so: I quite realize from my own as well as reported experience that a user who takes a stance like this may be acting deliberately in such a way as to play games with us, or even to be borderline disruptive. I finally made clear to him--at least, I hope I made clear to him -- that I was not going to exert myself to defend his work if he continued to refuse to get an account. That he may have been involved in similar activities before, disappoints but does not surprise me. I have nothing but the highest regard for Dirks's actions in this and related matters, but, like Dirk, I think some wider involvement would be better. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User holding stake in contents wielding his administrative power

    I am in dispute over WP:N and WP:SOURCES with user:Jehochman who is an editor who happens to be an administrator
    After reading comments on WP:DR it looks like this is the place to come for a dispute between a normal editor vs administrator.


    I am not sure if I broke any policy, however instead of reverting and civilly explaining if or what rule was broken as I would expect from an administrator, he responds by wielding authority and retaliates by blanking my delete/keep vote as well as my comment.

    This is the comment he left. I didn't know he's an admin at the time, but when I did, it became clear he's wielding his administrator power "Don't edit my comments. (A) Not spam, (B) I will have you blocked if you do it again."


    To threaten to use admin power over a disagreement on an article he that he originally created that is being challenged presents an issue of WP:Involved#uninvolved and blanking out my contents in retaliation is a poor representation of what is expected of an administrator.
    In the article itself, he restored contents that failed verification despite my detailed edit note.
    * Restoring contents despite having failed verification
    Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes perhaps he shouldn't have said he'd block you being WP:INVOLVED but he was right to restore his comments that you improperly removed. This is a discussion about whether or not Aaron_Wall is notable and he has every right to list links to sources that he thinks establishes notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly it. As someone who holds the power to do so, I feel that asserting power is abusing privilege much the same way someone who has direct power to effect your status telling you "I will have you fired" for something they personally didn't like. if you check his edit and my edit immediately preceding it, you'll see he not only restored what I removed, but he removed my deletion vote and my comment about his WP:COI in what looks like a retaliation. Since he's admitted his involvement in subject matter and his bias, I left him a WP:COI note on his page, because I feel that based on his closeness to the topic and his admission that his perspective is biased as an insider, I felt that there is a COI and he responds with threatening sounding confrontational message on my user talk.
    He replied claiming harassment and threatening to seek sanctions if I write on his user page again. I feel position advantage leverage again. Is this how Wikipedia expects administrators to use their position when they personally disagree with comments left on their user page? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no example of him misusing a "position advantage" here. Where in that post did he say "If you post here again, I will block you"? He said "I will go to ANI and ask others to examine the case and see if sanctions are needed." These are two very distinct things. Also, please WP:AGF. Yes, his revert of your removing his links did remove your delete vote as well, but it's more than likely that he did not realize that as he reverted you. Please do not assume right away that it is "retaliation." either way (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "I will have you blocked" is not the same as "I will block you", is it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming from someone who has the ability to do it personally, it can be construed as the same. It didn't become objectionable to me until I realized he holds administrative power. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What exactly are you looking for us to do here? The AFD is on going. Based on this comment, it seems like Jehochman is more than willing to work with the community/other AFD participants. His removal of your comments was him reverting your removal of his links (so it's likely he didn't notice your comments in his revert, or just forgot to restore them). He reverted you once on the actual article. All of these incidents took place 2-3 days ago. As BWilkins points out, his statement of I will have you blocked is not a threat saying "I will personally block you." What do you want us to do? either way (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To provide clarification if his confrontations and threats to have actions taken is appropriate while being in position of authority as an administrator. His comments came across as threatening when I learned that he's in position of power with the ability to impose a ban or to make influences using his position as an "administrator". It is like a professor in position of being able to remove a student telling a student "I will have you removed from class" vs another student telling him the same. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But he did not say he would block you or in any other way use his admin tools to further any agenda. You deleted someone elses post in a discussion (a pretty serious no no to most of us here), he warned you not to do it again or you could be faced with a block, which often does happen to people who continue to modify others comments without their consent. Heiro 18:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You were deleting another editor's signed, non-abusive comments in a discussion; it is entirely unsurprising that you were warned that continuing that behavior could lead to a block. The fact that Jehochman is an admin should only have indicated to you that he would have a pretty good idea of what constitutes block-worthy conduct.
    While your intentions were no doubt good, you were badly misinterpreting our rules regarding spam, and accusing an experienced Wikipedia editor of being a spammer. Continuing to beat the dead horse here doesn't reflect well on your judgement, nor does your decision to pester Jehochman with spurious templated warnings on his talk page: [54]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, the use of IPSocks in deletion discussions [55] is really not a good idea. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a surprise. I find that the IP is in Romania and its made an edit on one page I have not touched whatsoever. I just changed my password and I'm trying to figure out if someone else's been getting into my account. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion on threats of homicide

    Hi all, I apologize before hand if this is inappropriate. I have been getting emails from one of the indefinitely blocked users of Wikipedia called Catherine Huebscher (talk · contribs), threatening me with dire consequences if I continue editing Madonna related articles. The first message came yesterday saying such offensive language I won't post here, and the second one arrived today with threats of maligning my name across internet. What does one do in these cases? The user in question was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry, personal attacks and foul language usage on Who's That Girl (1987 film) and W.E (film). After block the user came back through IP socks and tried to post negative comments again. Alas, I was instrumental in catching the socks. It seems he/she has a personal vendetta against me and is suing terms like "I know how to deal without scumbags like you, and wipe your ass from editing ever". Please help. — Legolas (talk2me) 13:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Depending on your e-mail system, it's simple enough to block all e-mails from her e-mail addresses. Posting here simply feeds her need to upset you. Rklawton (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I just wondered if it was better to notify the community. — Legolas (talk2me) 13:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Depending upon how often you use the feature, you can go to Special:Preferences and uncheck next to "Enable e-mail from other users". Unless you've posted your email someplace, and as long as you haven't emailed back to the person, they would no longer be able to send you emails. The downside is that it will impact all potential senders of emails from being able to send you emails via the "E-mail this user" link on your userpage. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Another administrator has blocked Catherine's access to the EmailUser interface. Unless you have ever replied to her e-mails (and she therefore has your address), she could only e-mail you by creating another account—so please continue to report suspected socks at WP:SPI as you previously have. I hope her comments are not distressing you in any way. Best, AGK [•] 14:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks AGK and Barek. I have blocked that particular email-id from my account. Alas it seems I have to continue blocking ids until this stops. It was a wee bit stressful as nothing like that has happened to me before. Thanks guys again. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And bear in mind that you can always report threats of violence (WP:TOV) to the authorities if you wish--Jac16888 Talk 14:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I could be mistaken, but after a brief overview of her edits, I'd say she looks a lot like the sock of User:Cathytreks (banned here and in Commons). They both take an obsessive interest in celebrities, they've both created their own fan websites and then used them as references in articles, they've both been described by various editors as "crazy" - and much, much more. Cathytreks has created multiple online personalities, so we can just add one more to the list. Except that Catherine Huebscher is already indef'd you could pursue CU and see what turns up. Speaking as her former nemesis, Cathytreks is harmless, so if they're the same, you have nothing to worry about. Rklawton (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Non-admin comment: In my opinion If that person is doing that to you, I'd just suggest that you call the police and let them deal with it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To all concerned, should I really call the cops? I'm in India and this person is somewhere else as per the CU geolocation data. After receiving these threats I was searching internet with my id when I came across this and this. All of them seem to have originated from the time this user was indefinitely banned and seems to be directed at me. Should I just ignore this and not add fuel to the fire or go to the cops? — Legolas (talk2me) 14:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Rklawton, I was seeing Cathytreks edits, and I admit, they are surprisingly similar to Catherine Huebscher. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It'll take me awhile to review her edits, but here is an interesting quote: "My source cam straight from Justin's blog and Justin Kreutzmann himself who is my friend." Now, tell me who wrote it (without peeking), Treks or Huebscher? I can't tell the difference, either. Rklawton (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that if you called the cops they wouldn't do much. Even some very prolific cases of internet harassment can persist for years because the authorities don't do much about them. Hut 8.5 14:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Rklawton, did Cathytreks ever edit article of Paul Robeson? If so, then its a confirmed sock. Thanks Hut for your response. Seeing the situation, should I appeal for a ban. I really don't like these stresses nor do I condone such behavior. I like creating articles and that's what I do. My track says so. Anyways, you guys are more experienced at this and decide. I'm fine with whatever you comes come up with. This is just nonsense. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Cathytreks never edited the Robeson article, but her obsessions rotate. At one time it was Star Trek, then Lincoln, another time it was John B. Bachelder, Kennedy, and so on. Rklawton (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to contact YouTube and get that account locked down (and hopefully that of the person who created that account). –MuZemike 17:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    After reviewing all edits to Catherine's talk page, it's clear to me that her learning curve and intelligence levels don't match Cathytrek's, and I'd be very surprised if the two were the same. Sorry I jumped the gun. Some days I miss my old nemesis. Rklawton (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Farsight001

    User Farsight001 keeps removing talk page comments on the Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases, see here, here and here. In addition, she practiced name calling in her comments (>>if you want to rate the article, IP hopper, actually rate it.<<) The comment she is removing as given is about the article's deficiencies and has a suggestion how to improve it.

    The same user is already warned against the same bad behavior earlier here, here, here and here, where she uses foul language and racist slurs.

    My understanding the Wikipedia guideline is good faith, collaboration, and ultimate respect of other users and different points of view.--71.178.110.141 (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As I already tried to explain to you multiple times, calling you an IP hopper, even if that is not what you are (though it is painstakingly obvious that you are), is not name calling or any sort of policy violation. In addition, I also already explained in the edit summary that a discussion on this exact subject already exists. You are trying to start a new one so you can ignore the previous comments where you were disagreed with rather than continue the conversation and address what was said in response to you.
    Lastly, 3 of the 4 of those were not warnings. One was a mere query on my talk page. Another was retracted by Eraserhead. A third was a completely invalid warning as I in no way used racial slurs, nor is use of profanity a violation of policy. (though not the most charitable way of speaking). And the first one involves you, hopping from IP to IP in an attempt to circumvent the 3rr so you don't have to actually discuss the issue.
    Also, I am not a she. I am male.Farsight001 (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)I don't approve of removing talk page content (such as here, for instance), but it is true that there already is a thread on that talk page, and that lengthy commenting has slipped into soapboxing. Betty, please stop removing talk page content (and please drop the all-caps). IP, please stop soapboxing. I am not going to restore the comments by reverting; IP, you are welcome to add concise comments to the earlier thread. Your claim that it's "RCC clergy or ... some deaf and blind Catholics" who are editing the article, BTW, is easily read as a personal attack, and that in itself is actually a valid reason to scrap those comments: "ultimate respect of other users", right back atcha. Since this is a bit of a gray area, between commentary on the article and soapboxing, others here may differ--this is my personal opinion. I propose no administrative action, unless this escalates, in which the personal attacks should be dealt with first. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG. My name is not Betty. Also, I remove talk page comments when policy dictates in - if the comment is not there for article improvement, if an active discussion already exists on that exact subject, or of the comment is disruptive are all valid, policy based reasons for removing talk page comments.Farsight001 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I misread your user page--it's the user page that is called Betty, not you. Mea maxima culpa. Here's the thing: you removed talk page comments when you say policy dictates it and you're just going to have to live with the fact that not everyone agrees with you on what is dictated when by which policy. It's a matter of interpretation; there is no black and white in this issue. I am suggesting to you that you probably should be careful with removing comments. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I misread his user page, too. I think he named his user page Betty like someone who names his car or his boat. And here I always thought user pages were gender-neutral.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Mine is transgendered, though I don't wish to disclose that given that my user page's employer is a bit oldfashioned and my user page doesn't want to get their benefits revoked. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by User:Sliceofmiami

    Controversy is nothing new at Talk:Calvary Chapel. Recently, however, I think there has been some good movement towards consensus on some difficult issues, but the disruptive behavior of User:Sliceofmiami has been a major challenge. While the problems include some substantial incivility (much of it directed at myself), I think the most important issue is the user's consistently tendentious editing, which makes it very difficult to make progress on improving the article.

    I have not generally been involved with this page, but I did step in to mediate a controversy nearly three years ago, and was fairly successful in that endeavor, I think. Based on that exchange, a month ago I was asked to weigh in on the current controversy. I contributed to an already-moribund mediation cabal case and cross-posted to Talk:Calvary Chapel. In the ensuing conversation, I proposed a compromise edit, which at the time seemed to meet with general approval. One or two editors have since voiced some reservations, but I am confident that consensus can be reached on that particular issue.

    What I didn't know was that that consensus was reached so easily because User:Sliceofmiami was on a several-month break from the page. He soon returned and began advocating for a raft of poorly-supported edits that all would put the article subject in an unfairly bad light. I and others engaged him in conversation for a while, but it was very frustrating because every time a good point would be made against his suggestions he either ignored it and continued arguing his original position, or he dropped the subject and went on to another one. For example, he has complained that sections of the article that describe the subject's beliefs and practices are largely drawn from sources published by the article subject, from which he charges that the entire page is simply advertising; but when I responded that the same charge could be leveled at the article on the Catholic Church, he consistently refused to respond to the point ([56][57][58][59][60][61]), and eventually dropped the subject and went on to other equally-unconstructive subjects. More recently, he has again made the same original charge, without any acknowledgement of (much less response to) the counter-argument. This is only one example of many that could be cited of Sliceofmiami's tendentious behavior.

    Sliceofmiami's incivility is also an outgrowth of his tendentiousness. He seems convinced that those who disagree with him are "fans" of the article subject and that only he is objective. He has repeatedly tried to tag the article with the {{fanpov}} template and labeled his opponents as "fanpovs" and "fanbois" (the latter a pun on WP:COI, another perennial accusation of his). Here are some extended rants directed at me (which suffice to make the point, though many more could be cited), including one accusing me of being a blind acolyte of the article subject's founder Chuck Smith, and two others accusing his opponents of being some kind of brute squad for Chuck Smith. In fact, as I have clearly disclosed, I left the article subject organization 15 years ago and have significant disagreements with it; my primary motivation in this discussion has been to portray the article subject, including its substantial weaknesses, fairly and in context. My theory is that I have attracted his particular ire by forging ahead to work for consensus changes to the article, rather than being paralyzed by his tendentiousness.

    Finally, I would like direct attention to this section, in which practically all active editors on the page came to a consensus regarding Sliceofmiami's disruptive behavior. In particular, User:Ltwin (a well-respected and long-established editor who has not been involved in the discussion except for sage comments such as this) urged Sliceofmiami to reconsider his behavior and the rest of us to cease the back-and-forth with him. Unfortunately, Sliceofmiami does not appear to have taken Ltwin's advice.

    Thank you for your attention. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blue, without having looked at all the diffs and without having read through all the material, I still think I can say with some confidence that unless you have specific violations to report, such as 3R or edit-warring or other unequivocally disruptive behaviors (by which I mean 'simple' disruptions), your best route is probably Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I hope others will weigh in here and comment, and I don't mind being overruled here, but this seems to be a pretty serious (and complicated) matter in which simple administrative solutions might not be forthcoming, and I wish you the best. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I wholeheartedly agree with BlueMoonlet's assessment of the situation. Sliceofmiami's conduct has been that of a griefer, and Blue's edit summary shows but a tiny history of the overall behavior which is well documented on the talk page in question. As a matter of fact, I am surprised Blue did not include this shocking example of incivility in this discussion. Please also reference my email to arbcom-l on 8/31 at 9:18 PM ET regarding more serious issues with Slice. Finally, recent examples of edit warring by Slice when other users have gained consensus can be seen in multiple cases: [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], and [67]. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocking request: User:CRumens

    A request was made to blacklist the spammed website 'Best Poems' (details given here) by one editor hopping between many accounts. Using the account User:CRumens the editor responded with a personal vitriolic attack. It seems he has been blocked twice before. As the above log shows many IP addresses were used to post and repost the weblinks, but clear WP:SPAM warnings were given in the edit summaries. I request the account User:CRumens (created on 26 August 2011) is permanently blocked and also other sock puppets if possible. Such speech has no place on Wikipedia. To be clear, there is nothing on this or any other of the other user pages or in edit content to reference Algerian or any other descent. User:CRumens has been notified of this post. Thank you. Span (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    CRumens also hasn't edited since August 26, and his last post was asking how to delete his account. I get this funny feeling that we won't be seeing him again, anyways. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect he will turn up in different guises all over the place. But still. Span (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's always possible. Regardless, it seems I was wrong. As CRumens mentioned on your talk page, I received a short email from the account. I've indef'd CRumens, as they don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Let me know if something else comes up, Spanglej. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate action by administrator User:TenOfAllTrades

    Methinks this is clear WP:BOOMERANG, in particular WP:NLT violations at WP:ANI as pretty awful.--Cerejota (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unrelated personal disputes:

    I believe one administrator used his administrator rights improperly and even defamed me on the block message. Namely, he accused me of an edit warring that never happened (only 1/2 reverts actually occured, see below) which I find outrageous. This is not by any means personally inclined so I would like other experienced administrators or bureaucrats to comment this situation. I assume that this situation was just a huge misunderstanding from User:TenOfAllTrades.

    I'm now taking this request to this board, since the administrator's actions definitely scarred my name on this "block log" list forever.

    I would like to present this situation to you in the most neutral point-of-view.

    The beginning

    This incident started the day when one user Nickyp88 reported me of edit warring over the "Moves Like Jagger" article but first let's go back to the event that triggered this situation.

    • 23 August, 2011: I noticed that there is already mentioned "nu-disco" in the article and the infobox, so I added a suitable category for the genre.
    • 25 August 2011: Actually two days later, User:Nickyp88 added a term "disco-pop" to the infobox [68]
      • Note that the user had been criticized by the same reasons he is now accusing me of
      • Here, I reverted his edits, assuming that this belongs to a "composition" section whereas the genrebox should contain more relevant and contemporary genres.
      • User:Nickyp88 posted one of these generic warning templates warning new users on my talk page. I removed his assumptions, then he coincidentally removed the content from his talk page.
    • 26 August 2011: User:Nickyp88 reported me on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents board, even calling non-controversial categorization – that means changing category from "disco musicians" to more accurate "(-demonym-) disco musicians" – disruptive.
      • Although I was perplexed by the absurdity of the whole situation, I still assumed good faith yet multiple unrelated users called me obnoxious and uncivil, basically considering non-abusive ad hominem reactions as abusive. Again, it wasn't personal – more like it was intended in a jokingly manner, which some users regarded as "vile personal attacks" – but I let you to form your own opinion on this. I personally would never bully a user so the accusations are not true and outrageous. I used the term "angst-ridden energy" in a good faith manner as a reference to a possibility that people under [the influence of] emotions - like you, me or User:Nickyp88 - are doing various things like for example reporting you to AN/I for basically doing your job and because of one (!) revert in a random article (note that it wasn't even a 3RR situation).

    The Happening

    As you can tell from my personal statements, I mostly make exaggerated humorous responses, especially on my talk page. This has been used as an excuse to call me a "personally-attacking non-productive member of the community" which resulted in a 24-hour ban. As the other users from AN/I will not tolerate my "personal attacks", I will not tolerate inappropriate actions made by either users or administrators.

    • The administrator officially banned me because of this unrelated edit of mine (which was coincidentally a revert of Nickyp88's unreferenced speculation), which was intended to change the category from "Disco musicians" to "Nu-disco musicians" per WP:COMMON and backed by the URB (magazine) reference, let me cite: "To die-hard Kylie Minogue fans, the Australian nu-disco diva can do no wrong." which put an end to this absurd dispute, since it disproves the unintelligible summary of User:Nickyp88 ("Nu-disco. No. Disco, Nu-disco is different than disco") and clearly shows that User:TenOfAllTrades's reaction was excessive and then harmful. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your initial response to the block was "whateva" and you never appealed it. Yet now, six days later, you suddenly care? Anyway, you were blocked for a pattern of behavior, as established in this ANI thread, not a single "unrelated edit".--Atlan (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He also said he "couldn't care less". See diff.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) From an uninvolved editor. I looked at the history of this little tempest and finally gave up. My sense, though, was that you need to move on, tone down your rhetoric when editing (lose your sarcastic style that you admit to having - it's not conducive to virtual communications), and spend your time on something other than resurrecting this dispute. Even here, your rhetoric is over the top. You really think that a 24-hour block will "scar" you forever? You really think that Ten "defamed" you with the block? Come on. Use your time more productively, and drop it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read through the original AN (thanks Atlan), I have to ask "do you want to drop this now, or do you want to find yourself in even more trouble." Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your comment that "This has been used as an excuse to call me a 'personally-attacking non-productive member of the community' which resulted in a 24-hour ban," do you have a diff of this happening? You should also review the difference between WP:BANs and WP:BLOCKs, because they are not the same thing. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As the administrator in question, I'd say that the independent views to this point have pretty much grasped the essence of the situation; I don't think there's anything important to add, though I am willing to answer any specific questions that might be floating around. As an aside, I would greatly appreciate it if ItsAlwaysLupus could make an effort to tone down the legal language; declaring that he's been "defamed" (above) and accusing me of "libel" isn't appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review Image Situation

    I need a neutral admin to review the situation which led to this message [69]. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise challenged an image at Royal Navy uniforms of the 18th and 19th centuries, which is fine, leading me to post a "hold-on" response to a speedy delete image notice. Future Perfect appears to have gotten angry with my challenge, deleted the image himself, and then posted a message that I was lucky not to have been blocked. Furthermore, when I asked what the problem here was, perfectly willing to work with others here, this was posted as well. [70]. What you have here is someone with admin powers involved in a dispute, deleting material themselves, and then threatening the other party in a dispute with a block as a punishment. I cannot think of a greater violation of admin trust and powers. I would like a neutral party review - BTW, I am actually fine with the image delete, just not about the admin abuse. -OberRanks (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • On the other hand, perhaps you could explain why you edit-warred to include an image which quite clearly failed WP:NFCC#1? FPaS' edit summary on the first removal was quite clear, and it's not even a debatable failure of policy. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Warnings and use of the delete tool are appropriate when enforcing our non-free content policies- as would be blocking, as FPaS said, in certain cases. This is not a "content dispute" in the sense of determining how to format a page, or whether a particular factoid is needed in an article, this is policy enforcement, more comparable with removing negative information about living people or spam. If you're not familiar with/do not like the non-free content criteria, that's fine, but if that's the case, you should not work with it, and most certainly should not revert administrators who are working to ensure that articles are policy-compliant. J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My understanding of any kind of dispute is that a party in the dispute, especially the nominator, should not themselves make deletions nor use any kind of admin enforcement tool against other parties in the dispute - rather alert uninvolved admins who would then review the situation and make the call. There was also no intentional edit warring, as Prof FP was making reverts in the middle of my own addition of new material. When I saw what was occurring, I posted my concerns on the article talk page and stated I would no longer revert any changes and abide by whatever decision was made. I have just been seeing more and more of this on Wikipedia, with angry admins using their enhanced editing tools to their advantage. In any event, image deleted no harm done, I suppose. -OberRanks (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Most of the time I leave non-free image issues to the experts but my understanding is that WP:NFCC is one of the few policies that is enforced "prescriptively". That means that "out of process" deletions of non-free images are sometimes necessary and doing so is more acceptable then it is for articles. Yes, this image had to go. What I don't support is treating those who disagree with an image deletion, even near "slam dunk" cases such as this, as if they were vandals. OberRanks had what he in good faith believed was a plausible argument for retaining this image. Shouldn't he have been allowed to make it without having it called "disruption"? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Request review of a block

    Can an uninvolved third party take a look of my block of DeathToEnemies (talk · contribs)

    The user has been edit warring over the addition of copyrighted content (copy and pasted from multiple Wikipedia articles, with no credit to the original sources of the information, nor to the multiple editors of those articles whose combined contribution histories are being omitted). The user has brought this up at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#UMMMM...., User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#OMG, and at User talk:Barek#Really ... as well as receiving a warning at User talk:DeathToEnemies (this last one has been removed by the user).

    As it's clear copy/paste copyright issue, I feel comfortable with the block - but would still appreciate a third party to review it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A friend of the user has also posted an unblock request (but on my talk page, instead of at user talk:DeathToEnemies). I've left it for now, and will let someone else address it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Zhand38

    • Zhand38 (talk · contribs): Longterm difficulties working in a collaborative environment: hundreds of edits adding promotional and unsourced content, a determination to edit war using multiple IP accounts, apparent copyright infringements and removal of maintenance templates. See discussions [71], [72], [73], and this comment [74], which nicely sums up the attitude. User Donlammers has been very patient trying to deal with this, but the endgame seems to be ownership of the Cincinnati Zoo article, padding it with unsourced text, numerous NPOV violations, poor writing, and a resulting diminution of the article's quality. 76.248.145.169 (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not looking for any trouble and because I did create the animals and exhibits section, I do believe I deserve recognition for it. I worked for 6 months finding all the right info. I also have citated everything.

    Vast tracts are unsourced, promotional, and unencyclopedic; to offer but a few examples:
    • This attraction opened in 1993, and is rated the greatest and probably the most favorite attraction at the zoo. Jungle Trails received the American Zoo and Aquarium Association's prestigious exhibit award in 1994. It is a naturalized rain forest habitat, teeming with rare and exotic wildlife and hundreds of plant species from Asia and Africa..... When you walk through the trail, you feel a transformation that your not in Cincinnati anymore. the first trail is called the Tropical Asian Animals trail. The first exhibit is an island and holds one of the howlers of the morning, the Mueller's Gibbon, there you will see a Mother Daughter pair. Keep going down the path way and you will see a very large bird, the Lesser Adjutant Stork, and the large exhibit aside from that contains a single female Sumatran Orangutan named Lana....M'linzi was born on December 7, 1982 from Ramses I and Amani. She can be identified by her angry looking eyes.....When visitors walk in it is full darkness, and then they realize they are being stared down by one of the largest owls in the world, the Eurasian Eagle Owl. Keep going and there is a small domestic looking cat, the Pallas' Cat who recently had Zoo Babies and can now be viewed in the CREW building.....The exhibit also held a Giant Anteater and Golden lion tamarins but it is once again now home to the largest monitor lizard species, his name is Hudo and he is a Komodo dragon. Hudo came to the zoo in the summer of 2010 when the building re-opened, he also has two amazing indoor and outdoor enclosures......Close-up viewing on both dry land, as well as dramatic underwater viewing of magnificent animals, including charismatic manatees, provide an exciting experience for every zoo visitor..... I starts out as a Greenhouse, it simulates the humidity of Florida which is the whole point of this attraction. The first exhibit everyone seems to miss contains a single and large American Alligator.....These amazing exhibits were opened in the year 2000. If you go to the right of the under-water viewing area there you will see an uphill enclosure, this exhibit contains a single Barred Owl.....Sea Lions This exhibit was opened in 1877 but it didn't look anything back then like it does today. Before guests walk into Wolf Woods they will see Callie and Duke, the California Sea Lions. They had to be separated from each other because Duke is blind and Callie kept messing with his tail, but everything is all good now.

    Malleus Faturorum and disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT

    User:Malleus Fatuorum is a talented editor and hard-working Wikipedian whose many contributions one must admire. I would still respectfully request that if some kind uninvolved admin would ask him to stop posting aggressive comments at WT:DYK it would be a benefit to the project by freeing up considerable time for more worthy tasks. That page is intended for "discussing improvements to 'Did you know?' " Instead, discussions of practical matters are disrupted by random rumpus-questing freeform insults such as ...

    • You have explained nothing, you have simply obfuscated. The page says "This serves as a way to thank editors who create new content, encourages editors to contribute to and improve articles". I assume that you can read? Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Have you actually understood anything that's been said here? Malleus Fatuorum 04:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    • There's no sense here, just entrenched positions based in a cult philosophy. I gave an example earlier today of an article that was taken to FAR at 34kB (5918 words) and ended up kept at 19kB (3335 words), a lesson that very few here seem prepared to learn. Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
    • You may of course assume whatever you like, but it is quite clear to me that Rjanag has no experience of article improvement as opposed to article expansion. And considers that article improvement is no part of DYK's remit. Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Or else? Plagiarism in DYK is endemic, part of the culture. Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Your answer is yes to what? That DYK's mission is to improve articles and the encyclopedia? I think you might find that a hard sell. Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • No, it doesn't, so why tell porky pies? Any old shit is passed at DYK, and reviewers clearly don't even take the trouble to read the whole article. Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • But on the basis of less being more I'd suggest that "This serves as a way to" panders to the prolix proclivities encouraged by the defenders of DYK. There have have been many better suggestions made on this page, of which Kiefer's stands out as one of the few written by someone with a full complement of brain cells. Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

    Of the past 250 comments on that talk page, 49 were made by Malleus Fatuorum. Since I don't know what more to say, I will stop there and ask more experienced people to comment. Sharktopus talk 02:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Many of the opinions you quote from Malleus are shared by others like myself. DYK is broken. You don't like that he is being a bit snarky? Have you tried WP:WQA? What exactly do you want an admin to do? Ask him to change the way he disagrees with other editors about DYK?Griswaldo (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Malleus has said much worse---and has had much worse said to him. The above is NOT wp:point, might be borderline civility... but even there it is weak. Of all the cases that I've seen brought up about Malleus, this is one of the weaker complaints. IF you want to make a complaint, it might be better to expound on what you think his POINT is and what you think he's trying to accomplish.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 03:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Malleus is of course fully entitled to his opinions. What I am requesting is that an admin could ask or require him to post those opinions freely everywhere he wants to post them except at WT:DYK. Does it not seem to you a bit excessive that fully one-fifth of the posts to a page supposedly about improving a project, which I take it you agree needs improvement, are not about improving DYK but about provoking fights with people trying to improve it? Do you think it will improve DYK to disrupt the efforts of people to improve it? I am not trying to make a case "against" Malleus. I am trying to make a case on behalf of people working to improve DYK. Sharktopus talk 03:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if every fifth post at DYK, over hundreds and hundreds of posts, is from Malleus, who doesn't submit anything to DYK, then that's him failing to make a point, not him making a WP:POINT. Any person could suggest that he would benefit the encyclopedia more by spending his time elsewhere, so why does it need an administrator to do it? Is an administrator going to make him do so? I don't think so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)With the caveat that I am not uninvolved here, I would be as likely to warn you, Sharkotopus, for POINT violations regarding your recently-removed section about Malleus at that page. Some of his commentary may seem abrasive, but so is that of others, and both "sides" make some decent points. Ending the discussion artificially would not resolve the underlying issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not trying to disrupt anything then or now. No, you are not uninvolved, but I salute your self-identification as having a previous opinion. My point is not that MF is the only abrasive person at DYK, it is that he is completely off-topic if the topic on that page is improving DYK. The only "improvement" he has suggested is that DYK should reward shrinking articles instead of expanding them. Sharktopus talk 03:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ "The Agreement" (PDF). Northern Ireland Office.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=448692058"