Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive645

I've been asked(1) to bring this matter here. User:Tmorton166 reverted my good faith edit with a summary noting that my good faith contribution, one which reinstated(2) a fellow Wikpedia editor's contribution, was simply "Vandalism".(3)

Tmorton166 is directly (4) involved in a content discussion regarding this very subject and is well aware that my good faith contribution, in support of other Wikipedia editors, is anything but "Vandalism". This is unacceptable and should not be excused, it is precisely this type of abuse that degrades the project, injects incivility and turns away both the contributor directly targeted as well as third parties considering contributing. For the record, this is not a "newbie" issue, I am a long time contributor and have for the last several years had a dynamic ip beginning with 99. I am not a SPA by any stretch of the imagination.

The callous lie, application of twinkle and or whatever else has now been triggered in addition to my "revert on sight"(5) vandal status has now caused my edits to be reverted by vandalism patrollers(6), which Tmorton166 himself has noted.(7)

It's easy to Game or wikilawyer someone opposing you on content into a little useless ball of "revert", but it's neither ethical nor does it further the project. My edits were good faith, civil and well supported. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Good faith or not, I count 4 reverts in less than 24 hours by you between your different IPs, which constitutes as edit warring per WP:3RR. Nymf _hideliho! 15:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be good faith, 99, but you're edit-warring to restore a completely unacceptable section header for a BLP. Please read that policy; it's important. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Overview: This IP is persistently editing in a BLP violation claiming (incorrectly) consensus for inclusion on the talk page. I gave them the benefit of the doubt the first few times but persistent re-addition despite numerous requests to desist means I don;t believe he is acting in good faith and the edits are an attempt to BLP vandalise the page. I point out I used Twinkle to revert these changes (not rollback) and although Twinkle refers to this directly as vandlism I used it deliberately to make a point about the escalating severity of my reverting. After the user posted a pretty aggressive message on my talk ending with the words, the utter lack of intellectual integrity you quite obviously possess., I pointed them at AN/I who could weigh in on my actions and hopefully bring more eyes to the article and the header issue. I admit, that on reviewing WP:VAND it may be that this is in fact Tendentious editing (which is no better ;)), however I have no issues reverting it as vandalism with Twinkle - so as a more general question, is this the right approach? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyone needs to go read WP:VAND#NOT, but remember: just because something isn't vandalism, that doesn't mean it's not inappropriate. 3RR is a bright line: do not cross the line unless you understand the narrow limitations for doing so. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The OP's edits are not necessarily deliberate vandalism, so the OP has a point. It would be better to label such edits as "BLP violation", for which the OP will have no defense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly consider this a bad faith deliberate attempt to vandalise the article, the IP did not seem to "get it", hence escalating the type of Twinkle revert. However, point taken, so I retract specifically calling it Vandalism and instead substitute "Gross and deliberate BLP violation, tendentious editing". --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) That's nonsense, my edit restored another editors contribution and is the current, ongoing and long standing subject of discussion. The ONLY opposition to the addition found on the talk page previously consisted of "Convicted for what? ... Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions..." ... "He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign" ... "same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence." These are not substantive arguments on which one can base such an outrageous mis-characterization such as the bullshit, "Gross and deliberate BLP violation, tendentious editing". What was it that Joseph Welch said? It seems it would be appropriate here.99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You've got the same problem there, by saying "deliberate BLP violation", unless you can find statements from the OP admitting to it. Whether it's good faith or bad faith, a BLP violation is a BLP violation. There has been an allegation of rape, but there has been no legal finding that a rape actually occurred. The OP may not understand that distinction. So unless you can find the OP specifically saying, "I don't care, the guy's a rapist, end of story", then AGF requires that you regard his position as good-faith but wrong-headed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the overwhelming insistence is that I retract such an opinion, I will have to do so. But I extremely strongly disagree. AGF is not a license, it is not infinite. The editor reinserted a variation on a header that various IP's (I do not believe this IP) have been trying to get into the article for a while. They were told very clearly a number of times about why the header was innapropriate and they still insisted on inserting it, claiming there was no opposition, they had consensus, it was supported by RS's or that it was censorship to remove it. I was happy to consider it misguided initially, but now (given their clear understanding of WP policy and admission of longer editing history) I believe they are editing in bad faith. shrug, I want them to be aware of why the heading is 100% inappropriate. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that, for the record, the text I supported, and that was introduced by another editor, read: "Investigation of alleged rape". That is all. .99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Make no mistake, that wording was only introduced as your first header was less than neutral. Nymf _hideliho! 16:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Is this now neither vandalism nor a BLP violation? It is the only edit that is at issue, it is the edit that you two have been reverting. The previous one was "Rape investigation". .99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment on that as I have never reverted you, unless you have any undisclosed accounts or IPs. Nymf _hideliho! 16:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Rape investigation" is POV-pushing and a BLP issue. "Investigation of alleged rape" is legalistically neutral, as there is an ongoing investigation, and there has been no legal finding that a rape actually occurred. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The main issue with the header is that it is trying to draw attention to the section, which is inappropriate per BLP policy. There is no need for a heading at all, and this was agreed on the talk several times. I will step back from the issue and as a compromise offer this;

• If the other editors feel strongly that I should retract all insinuation of bad faith I will do so and apologise
• and will not revert further additions but push it to the BLP board for better discussion.

However, I do feel my actions were reasonable and appropriate, if my use of the Vandalism revert a little strong. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Though a long standing technique, misdirection does not make a thing so. Your claim, "this was agreed on the talk several times", is false and has been demonstrably shown(1)(2) to be so on the article talk page. But then, unsupported allegations, mis-characterization and empty rhetoric seem to be a recurring theme here. They do seem to work, but then they're based upon your abuse of AGF, people just assume what you say is supportable. I prefer sourced ref's. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should say that. Looking at the talk page I see Talk:Julian Assange#Hypocracy and Talk:Julian Assange#Section "title" for section dealing with the Rape allegations/investigation/charges. Your diffs "demonstrably showing this to be false" appear to be <ahem> nothing of the sort. There does appear to be a talkpage consensus, it doesn't appear to support your assertion, nor your belief that this heading - in either of the forms you've used - should be used. And what do sourced refs have to do with section headings? TFOWR 16:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Also there is quite extensive discussion of the whole section in the archive, that plus the edit history from the time shows we hashed this out quite extensively. There have been various attempts to re-insert a pointy header in that section but it has been reverted as a BLP issue each time. There are also a couple of threads from the [{WP:BLP/N|BLP noticeboard]] but I don't have much time to hunt them down now. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Investigation of alleged rape" is the only edit at issue. It is the contribution of another editor that I supported and is the edit reverted as "Vandalism" under discussion here. There are no additional content edits under dispute.99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Rape investigation" is also an edit at issue. TFOWR 16:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. It's a Red Herring, textbook application. No one is seeking to reintroduce that edit, you're simply acting as an auctioneer taking bids from the Chandelier. Consensus appears to be for "Investigation of alleged rape". 99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My point was that the text I supported, and that was introduced by another editor, read: "Investigation of alleged rape" gives the impression that you didn't introduce the heading "Rape investigation". TFOWR 17:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually Sherlock, I was trying to neutralize previous headings, "Rape Charges" and "Rape Arrest", it's the Wiki-Way. I change text, others tweak me, we arrive at consensus. The other editor's tweak on me was an improvement. My edits also improved on the past. Your point? 99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The editor who introduced the new wording only did it as a way to compromise. It does in no way imply consensus (or a specific stance) for mentioning rape in the header. Nymf _hideliho! 17:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "Sherlock", no. You added a heading. Describing that edit as "neutralizing" is disingenuous. TFOWR 17:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• • (ec)If consensus says "no heading", then it should be safe to delete the heading outright, with the edit summary "as per consensus". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The ONLY opposition to the addition found on the talk page previously consisted of "Convicted for what? ... Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions..." ... "He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign" ... "same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence." This is not the basis for either a supportable argument or a consensus. It is however a strong argument for lack of neutrality, POV and WP:OR. Bias is not the sole province of IP accounts. And the abusive mis-characterization of my honest, good faith, neutral and well supported edit is still troubling, the underlying content dispute is minor - the Gaming and beatdown attempted there is not. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, even if there is issues over good/bad faith, I don't think you can support the edit as neutral and well-supported. If you review the history of the article you will note it is not well supported, and it is definitely not neutral. It is, in fact, very pointy. I'd also point out that the thing you keep quoting is not any part of the rationale for removing the header - it was a reply from another editor to a wider discussion about the section. Several of us made it very clear the policies and guidance under which the header was removed/disputed --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The OP's contrib history indicates that he re-introduced both versions of the header at different times. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to neutralize previous headings, "Rape Charges" and "Rape Arrest", Rape and Assault, etc, many of which passed through multiple edits and contributors without question until a tweak or change, it's the Wiki-Way. I change text, others tweak me, we arrive at consensus. The other editor's tweak on me was an improvement. My edits also improved on the past. I simply support the last change made by another third-party editor, and have done so unequivocally since his addition.99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So until he's at least arrested or something, why is a heading needed at all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

99, you have not used this argument before, so I'm afraid to me it looks like an argument in retrospect. When you re-added it on the 18th with accusations of apologists and spin etc. your rationale (on talk) was as follows: "Section title "Rape investigation" or "Rape allegation" or "Rape charges" and topic are notable, well ref'd and quite significant - and accurately surmises the section - a header summarizing section contents is quite standard. Topic is simply what it is.". I believe this states a clear aim to add a section header with this content come what may. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'm going to have to stand by my apparently controversial claim, at least according to you, that, "a header summarizing section contents is quite standard.". It's like Red Herring Fest here today. But the Game rewards a furious offense doesn't it? Substance is over rated apparently.99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The section is extensive, notable, well supported and properly summarized by the succinct heading noted above:

On 20 August 2010, an investigation was opened against Assange in Sweden in connection with an allegation that he had raped a woman in Enköping on the weekend of 14 August after a seminar, and two days later had sexually harassed a second woman he had been staying with in Stockholm,^[1][2] but within 24 hours of the investigation opening prosecutors withdrew the warrant to arrest him saying the accusations against him lacked substance. The chief prosecutor Eva Finné said there was no reason to suspect he had committed rape "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape". He was still being investigated for harassment,^[3]which covers reckless conduct or inappropriate physical contact, a charge not serious enough to trigger an arrest warrant. The second woman belonged to the Brotherhood, a Christian affiliate of the country's Social Democratic Party, and was acting as Assange's spokeswoman.^[4] Assange said "the charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing"; his supporters claim he is the victim of a smear campaign.^[5] he acknowledged having had sex with the women, but said it was consensual.^[4] He was questioned by police for an hour on 31 August,^[6] and on 1 September a senior Swedish prosecutor re-opened the rape investigation saying new information had come in. The women's lawyer, Claes Borgström, had earlier appealed against the decision not to proceed.^[7]

There are few paths to proper copyedit available when faced with such prose. Misdirection and obscuring are not within our remit. The subject is not pleasant, but it simply is what it is.99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems I've allowed myself to be derailed. This is not a content dispute, this was User:Tmorton166 reverting my good faith edit with a summary noting that my good faith contribution, one which reinstated(2) a fellow Wikpedia editor's contribution, was simply "Vandalism".(3)

Tmorton166 is directly (4) involved in a content discussion regarding this very subject and is well aware that my good faith contribution, in support of other Wikipedia editors, is anything but "Vandalism". This is unacceptable and should not be excused, it is precisely this type of abuse that degrades the project, injects incivility and turns away both the contributor directly targeted as well as third parties considering contributing. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, a report at ANI runs the very real risk that your own conduct will be scrutinised. Tmorton166 should not have described your edit as vandalism. You should not be claiming a lack of consensus, when the talkpage shows a clear consensus. You should not be edit warring against consensus. Tmorton166 deserves to be slapped with a {{trout}}. I don't believe blocking you would be effective: I'd recommend another admin give consideration to protecting the article - if you persist. TFOWR 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Side note: Since I'm the unnamed editor in question who changed the IP's POV header to a more neutral version I would like to say that I'm not supporting my own or any other heading in this section. The main header/section title does indeed cover it well enough and there's also no separate header for the first paragraph in this article's section.TMCk (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus? Numerous editors have introduced, reintroduced, supported, or tweaked a variety of direct summarizations of the section. No substantive argument has been presented in opposition. Most of the argument for silence comes from apologists and partisans on record as supporting obscuring or removal based upon, "Convicted for what? ... Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions..." ... "He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign" ... "same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence." Not quite the Wiki-Way. Multiple long term edits by numerous editor's to support concise accurate summarization are not trumped by screams of Vandal or empty reverts by a couple of partisans.99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP rules are the wiki way, and they do trump many other considerations. TFOWR at 17:40 above summarizes the situation well. The article should neither make a big thing of this nor try to bury it. The separate heading is a step in the direction of making a big thing of it. Now, if he gets arrested, that's a different matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"No substantive argument has been presented in opposition." In your opinion. Above, you presented diffs of two of your talkpage edits as "proof" of the lack of consensus; I then linked to the actual talkpage threads. Multiple editors on the talkpage disagreed with you. Dismissing editors who disagree with you as "apologists and partisans" - I can tell you for free: that's not "the Wiki-way". TFOWR 17:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did not dismiss them. I quoted them, "Convicted for what? ... Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions..." ... "He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign" ... "same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence.". There was a time when such public proclamation's of pure partisanship were noticed, and rejected for what they were. I guess this is just another milestone in the ever-evolving set of acceptable standards as we whittle our contributors down to the last man standing. .99.144.244.4 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Your being disigneous when you say Actually, I did not dismiss them. I accused you of Dismissing editors who disagree with you as "apologists and partisans" because you said Most of the argument for silence comes from apologists and partisans. The standards here are consensus and WP:BLP. Neither of these are new, neither should come as any surprise. TFOWR 18:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP supports reporting notable events, as is the case here. consensus includes all those numerous editors that have contributed, or supported, section headings as noted above. It is not I that am turning a blind eye to the contributions and discussion regarding the article. And it is not I that have claimed this to be a closed topic no longer up for discussion - nor have I rejected contributions as Vandalism. I have honestly supported a civil and substantive discussion of the issue(1) The record is clear and supports my contention that I am not a Vandal and have engaged in a GF effort to substantively discuss the issue. The same an not be said for all participants.99.144.244.4 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The event is reported. The issue (which you are misdirecting this from) is that the header is undue and a BLP violation in drawing attention to the event. It is not particularly significant in his biography, and the addition of it is quite pointy. I have a groundswell of patience, but you used it up very quickly by being aggressive, rude and ignoring points we were raising. Classic example: your persistent quoting of a badly worded reply on the talk page which was actually unrelated to the header we were discussing and ignoring the points I (and another) consistently raised with you. However, AN/I is not for disputes. I was wrong to use the Vandalism revert, that has been made clear to me, I have apologised. I suggest we take the content dispute to the article talk again and involve editors from WP:BLP/N. Otherwise this looks at risk of going downhill -Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) You are indeed not a vandal, and I believe I had already made that clear. WP:BLP does indeed support reporting notable events: that is not at issue - what is at issue is you adding a header. No one is attempting to prevent the reporting of notable events, and I am surprised you would describe this as such. WP:CON involves discussion, not drive-by editors dropping by to re-add their favourite header while ignoring talkpage discussions. You're to be commended for at least participating in the talkpage discussion; however, edit warring against the obvious consensus there is far less commendable. TFOWR 18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If you check back, most of the headings along the lines of what you added were added by IP or new editors - and were reverted by long term editors under BLP policy. This is consistent in the article history. You, on the other hand, have consistently mis-characterised a consensus for including the header, quoted that above text which is unrelated to the header issue (and I agre badly argued), heaped abuse on my talk page, the article talk etc. and made wide accusations of "apologists", gaming, wiki-lawyering, censorship and so on. This is the main reason I don't find your work on this article constructive. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, TFOWR is someone I very much trust over this (along wiht BB and Jclemens), so I do apologise for using Vandalism revert on that edit. It was a decision made in the heat of the moment in light of the attitude exhibited by this IP, I am sure that others will attest that I am not usually so vindictive. However, I still feel that the IP is pushing to have the header for POV reasons, as backed up by his comments/language --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say that if the IP makes one more harsh and/or disruptive edit with one of their IP's let's go for a wide range-block as far as technically possible of not less than a month (like one of their IP's already received today).TMCk (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit I believe you're referring to, and referred to in this edit summary(1) from the article mainpage as "Excessive sock puppetry: IP hopping vandal persistantly adding WP:BLP material" is not from me - nor does the coincidentally 99.* prefixed IP address geo-locate to the same area as mine. The two quick incidents of juvenile vandalism hardly rated a ten-day lock, especially as a block was made and appeared to stop the offender. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

At 2010 Chechen Parliament attack, User:Lihaas is insisting[1] on inserting material from Kavkazcenter, an Islamist propaganda website. The consensus in these[2][3] WP:RSN discussions is that Kavkazcenter is not a WP:RS and should not be used as a source for the kind of info Lihaas is using. Normally, I would wait until more editors arrive and agree, but unfortunately the article is on the main page (ITN) and I'm very concerned that it currently contains propaganda/misinformation from the Kavkazcenter website. Please see my comments on the article talk page. Could we please get more eyes in this article? I do not wish to edit war. Offliner (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you supposed to warn the editor a discussion pertaining to him is ongoing, which you havent dont (see the tag on editing this very page)

Secondly, kavkaz center has been quoted on wikipedia, has its own wikipedia page, is not illegal outside russia, and per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:Consensus as to discussion on the page, there are 2 editors who didnt find a problem with the edit (despite offliner introducing the debate), and yet he removes on his whim that he doesnt like. If consensus is against the edit then its one thing, but consensus is clearly and demonstrably in favour of it at this moment. That said WP:Consensus can change, and it is in your right to seek further debate, but it is not in your right to WP:Censorship when others think otherwise. Furthermore, another editor reverted the edit without giving a reason or discussing on the talk page. His edit has been duly removed pending consensus.(Lihaas (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC));

Look here, Lihaas, my edit was explained on the talk page you just didn't bother to look. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Anywho, I edit conflicted him but when I saw that message I posted only to correct his mistake which he has now compounded on three pages. Anyway, as I was saying, consensus as I read it accepts only direct attribution of the site's own views, not using the site as a citation for any facts without attribution. I reverted his change on those grounds and advised him to re-edit attributing only the direct views of the site itself. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your allegation that the source cites "fact" instead of due caveat. the original addition does come with the due caveat that "kavkaz center" says, which can be seen in the history and shows that you clearly "blindly reverted" without reading it. Consensus accepts the regards of editors through discussion, not a few people who feel otherwise. Once again, 2 editors had already accepted, another opposed, then you said you opposed because it needs caveat and not as truth. Well it does have the caveatLihaas (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, blindly, etc. I've replied on the talk page - only one of the edits had attribution the other two were uncited or given as fact. There's no point continuing the discussion in two places so deal with some consensus over there, but if any WP:3RR or whatever arises that can be dealt with here or this can be closed if it's resolved. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, seems like its solved on the talk page of the articel and sggh talk page.

Kudos, just as we were on the verge of incivility ;)Lihaas (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Incivilty on Wikipedia? That's un-possible! :) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not resolved as Lihaas simply reinserted the Kavkazcenter material. I also feel that he is ignoring my comments on talk. I'm afraid to make any more edits on the article since I am too near 3RR. Offliner (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll just make sure the attribution is there. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Problem was been located and fixed. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at Ray Bradbury, Stephen King, etc... there's a bad issue with how the website field acts if "http://" is entered on the line rather than just the plain url-less address. There was a change a month ago to Template:Infobox writer to use Template:Url instead of Template:Official to handle this field, but I can't imagine this has gone unnoticed for that long. Someone tried reverting the last change to the Url template today in an attempt to fix this, but self-reverted as it apparently did not work. Anyone more versed in this sorta thing see the problem? Tarc (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Found the issue at {{Str right}} and fixed with this. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good work, thanks. :) Tarc (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Content dispute, submitter blocked for edit-warring.  Sandstein  16:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN

 – GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Faustian inserted into the article the text claiming that the Polish university professors who were massacred by the Nazi were selected to be massacred because "they actively collaborated with the Soviets" and that "they were in talks with Stalin(!) to form a pro-Soviet government." Since such claims that the professors were in such talks with the force who occupied completely defames their memory and furthermore goes against the commonly accepted fact they were murdered because they were of Jewish origin, I removed the claim from the article requesting solid sources in compliance with the wikipedia policy as described here: [4]. The only source Faustian provided is a pdf document in Ukrainian and he claims it is "fact". I am constantly being accused of going against policy and removing "fact" from the article. I request wikipedia administrators remove said text. J.kunikowski (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified User:Faustian. Please note that you should always notify the user(s) involved when you start an AN or ANI thread. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page for details. Here: [5]. The source is online here: [6]. The book is K Patrylyak. (2004). Military activities of the OUN (B) in the years 1940-1942. Kiev, Ukraine: Shevchenko University \ Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. The wikipedia article states "The lists were prepared by their Ukrainian students[2]. According to the Ukrainian scholar I.K. Patrylyak, out of approximately 160 Polish professors living in Lviv in June 1941, the professors chosen for execution were specifically those who actively cooperated with the Soviet regime between 1940-1941, such as members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or members of a delegation that met with Stalin and discussed the possible formation of a pro-Soviet Polish government. [3]" The original source states " Important is the fact that the professors who were shot in Lviv belonged to the group of the Polish intelligentsia, who between 1940 and 1941 actively worked with the Soviet regime. They were members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or delegates from Lviv's Polish community who in August 1940 visited Stalin and conducted talks on the possibility of creating a pro-Soviet Polish government in oppostion to the government-in-exile in London. Therefore, the murdered professors could be intereprested by the OUN as supporters of the 'Bolshevik-Muscovite imperialism.' So, out of the 160 Polish professors who lived in Lviv in June 1941, only those who stood out for their cooperation with the Stalinist regime were chosen for destruction." Hope this helps.Faustian (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The merits of this text are a content matter unsuited for discussion on this noticeboard. Please use WP:DR, e.g. WP:3O, to resolve this. I have blocked J.kunikowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for edit-warring. There's nothing more to do here.  Sandstein  16:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My bad for not noticing that it's just a content dispute; I saw it on AN and noticed it was about a specific incident and moved it here without delving into the details. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute? Not at all, this was a violation of the exceptional claims require exceptional sources policy. Please note the policy states that exceptional sources (plural!) are needed. So far there is only a single PDF to for the claim (presented as fact), and neither do we have a complete translation of the text. At this the claim should not even be in the article IMO. Wikipedia policy requires sources for a reason. J.kunikowski (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Fustian's claim is indeed extraordinary, not backed by any other sources but this PDF article in Ukrainian. Basically it states that professors were murdered by the Nazis because they collaborated with the Soviets. To my knowledge it is completely not true. This is a very serious allegation but I'm sure it will be resolved one day.--Jacurek (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

BrainGym Webmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), an obvious continuation of blocked account Braingym1 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is making legal threats against "Anyone who seeks to block this 'BrainGym Webmaster' Wikipedia user account." I know that it reads in the instructions for reporting issues on this page that "[t]o start a ban discussion, see the administrators' noticeboard", but this being a newly created SPA I figured this was the most appropriate venue nevertheless. I could be wrong. __meco (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, blocked indef as self-promotion-only account, quite apart from the legal threats and socking.  Sandstein  20:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 20:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Rhiannon Taylor (talk · contribs) has had her talk page peppered with warnings about inappropriate files uploaded to Wikipedia, along with a few very clearly worded warnings about why her editing pattern is a problem. She appears to be ignoring her talk page and moving forward with uploading copyrighted images. I think a 24 or 48 hour block might give her the pause she needs to read the guidelines. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 3 days. –MuZemike 20:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Full-protected one week. –MuZemike 21:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ed Miliband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lots of users appear to be edit-warring with each other over this, going past 3RR regarding sourced material, etc. Might be time for some blocks. Deferring to other admins about that. -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• This might also be relevant. The point of contention involves whether Miliband is a Jew or an atheist and was already discussed here just above. --John (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see if temporary full-protection is feasible, if those here are fine with that. –MuZemike 21:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Something should be done to stop the continuous and chronic disruption at the page. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Full-protected for a week. Ucucha 21:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Jew or Atheist"? He could be both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm already somewhat involved in this article, so any action from me would be inappropriate. It appears an editor with a dynamic IP is trolling the talk page. Laser brain (talk · contribs) partially protected the article, but the talk page banter is going nowhere. A couple weeks ago it was 74.226.66.138 (talk · contribs). Today it appears to be 74.226.118.59 (talk · contribs). I blocked User talk:74.226.68.227 (talk · contribs) for attempting to WP:OUT Stonemason89 (talk · contribs) several weeks ago.

I refer you to the talk page. Multiple threads, several of which have been started by the IP today. --Moni3 (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

74.226.64.0/18 blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 22:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It has come to my atention today that a range of IPs in the Philippines have been adding false information to articles on bands and musicans (adding incorrect record labels and labeling J-Pop bands such as FLOW and JAM Project as christian rock bands). All of the edits come from the same range. The IPs are as follows:

• 115.147.230.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.147.202.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.147.202.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.147.230.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.147.230.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.147.230.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The IPs are all registered as belonging to "DIGITEL GSM 3G IP POOL". And considering that there are only two /24s being used here, I think it would be beneficial to Wikipedia to block these two ranges for an extended period of time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like Gerald Gonzales to me. If any admin is interested, the ranges of the IPs above are 115.147.230.0/24 and 115.147.202.0/24. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the crossover with Gonzales.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

These are DjJosh (not verified via CU). I will note though, that these ranges are far too busy to block. Tiptoety ^talk 20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't see what that connection is. Also are the ranges (the two /24 ranges) that busy that they can't be anonblocked?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few anon users editing from those ranges as well, but most of edits appear to be vandalism. I would be careful about implementing them, but if you are going to, start out with short blocks. Tiptoety ^talk 05:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else see legal threats here? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 10:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any legal threats (lots of talk about current legal actions, but bo legal threats against Wikipedia or any of its editors at first glance), but it clearly was a G10 attack page, so deleted. Fram (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There's more that's problematic, in the history of the article. I've written to the author. -- Hoary (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Harbough is only here to publicize dirt about his political/financial adversaries. Toddst1 (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Nothing going on that needs admin intervention at this moment; policy conversation is underway. If issues persist, another venue may be better, unless immediate admin intervention is required. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: This discussion was originally posted by 204.153.84.10 on the WikiProject Comics talk page. I've moved it here, as this seems like a much more appropriate place to discuss the situation. Friginator (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this editor is learning English, or if they just have bad grammar problems, but most of what they have been adding to articles has been difficult to read at best, and incomprehensible at worst. A few different editors have come along and tried to fix what they have written (not an easy task, guessing what they are trying to say), and I was content to help out. Then today, they began making comments like this, which seem to indicate that they feel other editors should be relied upon to fix the mess. I don't know about anyone else, but while I don't mind making corrections and fixes here and there, I don't have time to be checking all of someone's edits, especially when they respond with my criticism with a revert and somewhat rude edit summary. Just please, if you have the time, keep an eye on this editor's contributions, and help them understand why it is important to write intelligibly. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that the writing quality of the original text ("When Spider-Man has been away, Chameleon got the infant"?!) I'm not sure what the problem is. GDallimore (Talk) 06:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, that poor text was added by the same user. I have no solution. Ignore me. GDallimore (Talk) 06:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a new user adding equally bad blocks of text. Is this a WP:DUCK case, trying to avoid scrutiny, or just a coincidence? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If it was someone learning English or who had bad English education I don't think you would see the confrontational attitude that editors have already posted about what he puts in the edit summary. Can this be considered vandalism and something he can be blocked for? Or do we as a group have to stalk his posts to try to correct his work, and hopefully correct his behavior eventually? Spidey104^contribs 13:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't personally think this is vandalism, but it's certainly not constructive. I admit I've been watching his contribution history very closely, simply because many of his edits need to be reverted. This isn't a new problem, though. I've run into several other editors (mostly on comics articles, actually) whose English is deplorable. Whether this is a case of sockpuppetry, I have no idea. Also, it's important to note that Noelemahc's contributions aren't all nonconstructive. Friginator (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A user whose name is "Chameleon" spelled backwards might be a sock? Ya think??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hah! I hadn't even noticed that. :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think he may even have a new sockpuppet: as Noelemahc Hpwertyumdxfghj's first edit. Spidey104^contribs 13:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so now we have two possible socks - time for SPI? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't create from other user.-Noelemahc (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Methinks thou dost protest much. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed:

• Noelemahc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hpwertyumdxfghj (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Revolladerdnaetihwdnakcalbsitahw (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Izggswoerbvcxc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 21:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User:Prunesqualer blocked per the WP:ARBPIA sanctioning procedure. –MuZemike 06:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Gaza War has been an article that has received a fair amount of trouble. Editors have been banned because of it and it has been locked multiple times. Things have been going a little better over the last couple of months with massive amounts of talk page use before things are moved in or out. Unfortunately, User:Prunesqualer has started rocking the boat the last two days. He made a bold edit yesterday[42] without using the talk page. It was very similar to a line that had previously been discussed multiple times. I reverted with an edit summary mentioning the talk page (in hindsight I could have used the talk page first) and he reverted in return.[43] I opened a talk page discussion. The page is on a 1/rr and another editor opened up an edit warring report (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Prunesqualer reported by User:Jiujitsuguy (Result: No violation)). It was determined that there was no violation. And then another editor reverted him. Prunesqualer waited about 24hrs then made an almost identical and still disputed edit without reaching consensus on the talk page.[44] There are multiple issues (where it goes, if balance is needed, word smithing) with it and a discussion is open.Talk:Gaza War#Prunesqualer's edit However, the user bulldozed it in anyways and has admitted that he is not working towards consensus since he dosn't believe it is likely to happen. He is borderlining by treading the edge of policy breach. He is disregarding consensus. This is the sort of behavior that caused so many issues with the article in the past and it is not acceptable in such a turbulent topic area. Cptnono (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: Yet another editor reverted him. He again reverted.[45] That is 4 controversial edits in 2 days with at least two being unquestionable reverts. Is this the type of editing we want on this article? Cptnono (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I would add sactions to him related to the ArbCom case if I was still an adminstrator, someone else should do it, his editing is disruptive. Secret ^account 02:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanctioned under WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions; see log for details. It would be helpful if reports such as this went to WP:AE in future. CIreland (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I was hesitant and starting a something over there since it was relatively minor to some of the explosions over there. I'll follow the correct protocol if there is a next time.Cptnono (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Rev-deleted. JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Scurrilous content regarding named private person/minor posted by IP editor 74.8.133.230. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Seems to have been dealt with. That type of thing can be regarded as vandalsm and just quickly reverted or rollbacked.  Giacomo  15:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Whacked by MuZemike. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently, a sockpuppet who has passed the ducking test still manages to roam around. Seems like an admin didnt exactly ban him. [[46]]. the user still continuously upload non-properly referenced images. --79.78.53.72 (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)