Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive668

I have created the article David Wood (Christian apologist) and unfortunately people started voting several hours before i was finished referencing and gave all sorts of uncited and not-notable-enough objections. I was done referencing the next day (today) but people were already voting at 12 noon. Ideally i'd like you to somehow restart the process all over or renew the voting for Articles for deletion. It was hard to find references because his name is so common. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Help desk would be a better bet for this question. In any case you probably want to start off with WP:VOTE and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And although AfDing an article quickly after creation is discouraged, it is really the author's responsibility to have a well-referenced article right when it goes into mainspace. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I was the person who started the AfD. It was started about an hour (I believe) after the article was created, plenty enough time for referencing.

Also, being the starter of the AfD, I was not notified of this ANI thread, nor were the other editors. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Christian apologist? What the heck is that? It's not a profession that I know of and is probably a form of POV "name calling" that is completely inappropriate in an article, especially a BLP. —Farix (t | c) 12:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

See Christian apologetics and there appears to be a reference for calling Wood that. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - "apologist" is not a derogatory term as some seem to think, it's a genuinely accepted term for those who defend a religion. In fact, it means something like "defender", and should not be confused with the modern usage of "apology" as in saying sorry. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Still seems rather opinion pushing and derogatory as it implies someone who apologizes for Christianity or being a Christian. So I would recommend either removing or replaced with a more neutral term. —Farix (t | c) 00:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it simply doesn't mean "to apologize" at all - "apologist" is the correct term and is a formal term used in theology. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Right. It's not in common usage anymore, so it's confusing people a bit here, but it's a term of art / jargon term in theology. It's being used correctly here and is not derogatory, as far as I can tell. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Farix, see the article apologetics for info related to non-Christian religions. Or G. H. Hardy's A Mathematician's Apology for a non-religious example, or Apology (Plato) for the original(?) use of the term. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

NeutralHomer, I disagree with some of the things you did:

• You had no binding obligation to first raise your concerns before nominating the article for deletion, but I think you should have using one or more of the following methods:
  • Article templates (such as {{notability}}),
  • Comments on the article talk page, and/or
  • Comments on Someone65's user talk page.
• I think you should have considered that Someone65 was actively building the article as indicated by the article's page history: 16 edits in the prior 70 minutes, the most recent 6 minutes before the nomination.
• The fact that the article's creator, Someone65 is an established Wikipedia editor with thousands of edits. That doesn't automatically obligate you to show special trust or deference, but personally I try to give a little extra consideration in these situations. Think how you felt when you learned of this ANI discussion without any prior warning from Someone65 -- that's probably how Someone65 felt when you nominated his article for deletion without trying to discuss or improve it first.
• While the article's creator, not the AfD nominator, is technically required to provide the references, a quick Google News archive search would have shown lots of mainstream media coverage. I always do a news archive search before considering article deletion. With a common name like "David Wood" sometimes you have to be creative and specific; in this case I added the last name of one of his colleagues, "Qureshi".

Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion -- it's got good guidance on how to handle articles prior to bringing them to AfD. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with the above by A. B.. It seems rather hasty to nomimate for deletion an article that is actively being worked on, which it was in this instance. There has been a lot of improvement made to the article and I think that some time (perhaps one week, or whatever is standard, as most editors have real world commitments too) should have been given to establish notability better before adding it to AfD. It also should have been templated to request improvement first. DMSBel (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not good advice, as these comments are characteristic of the WP:ARS point of view of how to handle bad articles, a point of view that is not universally accepted here. Other than a quick glance through a google search, I pretty much reject WP:BEFORE when bringing a article to AfD. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't read ARS (but have given it a quick glance now), however regardless of that what A. B. pointed out above seems to me the better way to have proceeded, we are talking here about an article being worked on, we don't know how notable or not the subject of the article is until it is finished. If it had been found to have had no-one working on it for weeks or months that would be another matter, but that has been far from the case here. DMSBel (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Then it should have been worked up better in user space, the article incubator, or somesuch. "It's just new" should never an excuse to retain a bad article; doubly so if we are talking about an article about a living person, which should never see the light of day until it is properly and reliably sourced. Maybe a new article about a movie or a novel could have a bit more leeway in regards to time to properly source, but there should be Zero wiggle room for BLPs. Tarc (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it would have been better to have had the page underway in his userspace, if he was aware that was an option. I would not have known that either, except it was mentioned here by yourself. I think that efforts to continue to improve and establish notability should be acknowledged here.DMSBel (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, "WP:BEFORE" (i.e., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion) is part of our procedure for deleting articles. Unlike WP:ARS (Article Rescue Squad), it's not just an essay. If you really think it's wrong and that it doesn't reflect community consensus, I recommend you start the process of changing it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the requirement for proper and reliable sources is good goal to aspire to when creating a BLP, however it would be a big ask to fully source everything before putting an article in mainspace. Would an article like Bill Clinton for instance have appeared even close to fully sourced initially? As I see it: in an admirable attempt at neutrality the creator of the article here has included several sources that might be less than sympathetic to the views of the article subject (some of these might not be the most reliable). Someone65 should certainly be commended for NPOV. And other editors could learn from him. Tarc is correct in stating that BLPs do need to meet a higher standard (in terms of getting reliable sources in quickly and if possible before going into mainspace) than maybe an article about a movie, but I think Someone65 has made considerable effort to do that. DMSBel (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

AB, as you note, "Before" is part of a procedure. Not policy, not even a guideline. I purposefully and intentionally ignore the bulk of it. Clear? As for Someone65 and the article, I note that some work has been done since the AfD was initiated, yes. Not enough to satisfy the notability concerns IMO, but at least it is better than when it began. But again, that effort should have preceded article creation. Tarc (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, I looked at your record of AfD nominations; you had a large percentage of your deletion nominations fail. Community consensus worked against you. I commend "WP:BEFORE" to you -- you might get better results in the future.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to refine your search parameters then, as my record is actually quite good...it is unfortunate that some of the latest ones have run aground on the ARS "keep everything" battlefront, a few get saved by pro-israeli aggressors, and the like. I can also think of several off the top of my head that either didn't survive a subsequent AfD or were instead turned to redirects shortly after. Not to mention the many successful prods and speedy delete noms that will not show up there. So if you're done trolling through my edit history, then go take up my actions in the appropriate venue if you think you have a case to make. Otherwise, drop it. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, a 33% AfD success rate (by your own reckoning) is "actually quite good"? 3 successful prods and 1 speedy delete nomination in the last 2 months = "many"? Clearly we do use different "parameters"!

Cheers, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could create a notice/template for this type of situation, that says something like : Article is being worked on, please wait before nominating for deletion. Or something like that. Someone65 (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You could use {{Under construction}} to show that you are working on it. – SMasters (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll use that next time Someone65 (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of User:AP1929. I've just noticed this. Do I have to take this kind of abuse? Frankly I'm furious! Every now and again I discover some ridiculous reply like this one one of my posts, a personal attack that's been left standing for months. How many does it take? If someone has any doubts, please note the account's history of personal attacks. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That edit was four(!) months ago, and the guy hasn't edited in over a month. Grsz 11 02:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding right? That isn't even close to a serious personal attack and if you were that concerned about it, you should've noticed it a 4 months ago when it was posted. You're just now finding it and seeing that the user hasn't edited in a month...? Dusti^*poke* 02:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I do think the comment crosses the line into a personal attack, but it's a moot point. AP1929 has already been blocked twice since then for violations of WP:NPA, so we can't indef them for something that happened before those incidents. If it happens again, bring it here right away and folks will decide whether to block again and for how long. — Satori Son

I have notified the editor of this thread. Basket of Puppies 03:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So... its ok to call someone a "paid propagandist", or state I "embarrass someone intellectually", as long as they only notice it a few months later? What an interesting aspect of WP:NPA. If I call someone an SoB in September, they don't notice, and in November I get blocked 2 weeks for telling this person to go f*** themselves, the fact that I called someone an SoB in September is now suddenly a moot point. The courts should adopt this same principle.

The fact of the matter is that a personal attack is all the worse for not being noticed. This guy's trolling "disclaimer" concerning myself remained posted on the talkpage for months. I'm also not seeing the significance of his temporary absence from editing (following his 2 week block for breaching WP:NPA). Again, this user's behaviour towards other users is beyond personal attack: its political and moral slander. "Comment on content?". This last "discovery" should be taken in the context of the user's history (e.g. COMRADE DIRECTOR!). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You've heard of the statue of limitation right? The fact that YOU didn't notice a comment about YOURSELF is the issue here. While it's an off color remark, you're bringing up a four month old diff and that individual hasn't edited in a month. What do you expect to be done? There's no recent editing activity and no sanctions against the user.I just noticed the block log If he comes back and start's another issue, the please, come back. Dusti^*poke* 03:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard of the statue of limitations - its closely defined in virtually all legal systems. Is there any objective criteria by which we can judge the comment to be dated? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's objectively from before the last time he was blocked for personal attacks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The diff itself is stale. I'm surprised, however, that no one bothered mentioning WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions. Considering that

• The user was topic banned for 6 months in 2008 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for, inter alia, disruptive POV-pushing on the very same article;
• Their first edit after their return from said topic ban is entitled "I'm Back - With Bones to Pick";
• They have been the subject of various ANI threads:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive503#Offensive language and personal attacks by User:AP1929,
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#Trolling, and
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive653#User:AP1929 at it again;

• As a result of the two latter threads, they have been blocked twice for personal attacks;
• The username "AP1929" is an abbreviation of "Ante Pavelić 1929", "1929" being the year Ustaše was founded;
• Their recent edits in December 2010 do not reflect a substantial change in behavior from 2008, and there is no reason to expect such a change in the future; and
• The user edits only sporadically, making timed blocks and topic bans ineffective;

I am convinced that anything short of an indefinite block and topic ban will be ineffective in preventing the disruption caused by the user's repeated tendentious editing and personal attacks. Accordingly, I'm blocking AP1929 (talk · contribs) indefinitely, the first year of which block is made under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions and subject to the usual protections accorded to AE blocks specified by this motion of the arbitration committee. In addition, under the same authority, AP1929 is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Balkans, broadly construed, as specified in WP:TBAN. The topic ban is to run concurrently with the indef block, and shall come into effect if the block is lifted for any reason. T. Canens (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You obviously have significant experience with this issue and this user, so I fully support your decision. Good catch on the name, too. — Satori Son 15:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The guy is an Ustaše-supporter (said so himself numerous times). The Ustaše are the Balkans equivalent of Nazis, different perhaps in that they were not quite as "gentle" as the latter (adding a bit of the old "Balkans touch" to Nazism). One of the most murderous genocidal military/political organizations of WWII, with some 400,000 victims to their name. Every now and then AP likes to post his pro-Ustaše tirades along with a few personal attacks/harassment etc. against me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Good call, TC. I read AP1929's latest contribution at Talk:Ante_Pavelić#Suggestions_.2F_Concerns. Besides being an Ustase apologia, it ends with "I would much rather prefer to discuss these issues with people who aren't paid to be here to push the Republic of Croatia's alleged anti-fascist political agenda; who have legitimate Western educations and actually know how to communicate in the English language. AP1929 (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)" and a later "... you have demonstrated nothing beyond what kids in grades 4 to 8 learned in SFRY. AP1929 (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)" The previous NPA blocks were apparently ineffective in changing this user's conduct. He can hardly write a post without an ad hominem. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Good block. Call it an indef community ban, as far as I'm concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I was looking up John B. Kimble who is a United States politician from Maryland and the article was deleted using information that was almost three years old?? The article should be put back on as he is noteworthy and this issue was resolved years ago. He is a candidate in 2012 for the US Senate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.66.1 (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not here. Mention it at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion Purplebackpack89 04:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Previous deletion discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kimble. If you believe the subject now meets the requirements of the general notability guideline, then please see Wikipedia:Deletion review. — Satori Son 15:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mere candidacy doesn't make one notable; all the more so in the case of a perennial candidate. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

An indefinitely blocked user LouisPhilippeCharles created yet another sock puppet called "I'm From England" and on the talk page of that account LPC claimed that he could not edit User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles and produced a screen dump "" which he claims shows that the page is "locked" to the account LouisPhilippeCharles. Can anyone see a reason why this should be so? Has it happened before? -- PBS (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks a lot like he has faked that screen. --Errant ^(chat!) 07:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he (LPC) is lying. His current block shows as "18:10, 7 January 2011 Favonian (talk | contribs) changed block settings for LouisPhilippeCharles (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (Block evasion: Block made indef per ANI discussion)". He can edit his LPC account talkpage just fine. Block the sock, block his range as well so no more socks can be made and then ignore everything else just for good measure. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess the only reason why this might actually be happening (other than an out-of-the-blue software failure) would be if there was also a concurrent block on his IP, with talkpage-access-disabled? But that would likely be an indicator there's somewhere some additional good reason to not unblock him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the account is globally locked (lock log), and is therefore unable to edit. --Bsadowski1 09:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, given the global block, we should deal with this as WP:RBI, specifically ignoring anything he says. Just block him, clean up his mess, and move on. If he wishes to be unblocked, he can be directed to the arbcom mailing list for that purpose (WP:BASC). But there is functionally no reason to let this person keep wasting our time more than is needed to block him. --Jayron32 16:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am furious with this guy, Intoronto1125 (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email). He reverted edits without appropriate reason, and seems not getting the guidelines and cannot BOLD. Other than abuse the rollback tool, then he comes with a ridiculous message, cannot come together and denied he making any wrong, uncivil and cannot judging the source. This affected my improvement to article, though i cannot always can use the rollback tools, and have a ridiculous business to dealing. --Aleenf1 12:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Intoronto1125 does not have rollback. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The user in question is quite prolific. Please provide diffs to substantiate your complaint. Favonian (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

At least everyone have undo button. This is significant and more edit like this from his contributions for his "undo" abuse. He left ridiculous message all over my talk page. Cannot accept people bold move --Aleenf1 13:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, there is a content dispute, which we can't go into here, but with regard to behavior, the example you quote has a factual edit summary, whereas your preceding and succeeding ones are rather uncivil. The latter in fact accuses Intoronto1125 of vandalism, which is clearly not appropriate. Favonian (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) but was going to make the identical point. Neither of you has gone to the article talk page on this, which is where it belongs. Is this the only diff, or are there other examples? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have notified Intoronto1125. Favonian (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

More revert: diff, diff, diff, diff. Either he is try to adapt his own way or maybe something? --Aleenf1 13:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys I reverted his last edit, because the other pages did not have what he had put on the 2011 edition. Moreover, the information provided is in the main article of that tournament and it is unnecessary to list it twice. With that being said, Aleenf1 is the one who is 'uncivil' i tried to apologize to him on his talk page but he rejected that. Intoronto1125 (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Aleenf1, you should be reminded that calling a constructive edit "vandalism", especially using semi-automated tools, is highly inappropriate and may lead to your loss of Twinkle privileges. HeyMid (contribs) 14:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

By refering to 2010 ATP World Tour Masters 1000, can you say "that" article is repeated twice? I can't recognised that Intoronto1125 idea of removing summarize results is a very "constructive" decision. If administrator judgement of having that as my wrong. Then i have to say "thank you" enough. --Aleenf1 16:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, why this man always obsessed and calling 99% of my editing wrong, i can't imagine. I need his explanation why he want to be apologize but at the same time he always UNDID my editing. Is his priority to do that? --Aleenf1 16:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Another is the past season format did not mean you shall "carry" through all season, an improvement can be make. I think someone just very narrow minded and cannot think out of the box! --Aleenf1 16:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Aleen, please comment on edits, not editors. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That still doesn't mean you have the right to call a constructive edit "vandalism". Semi-automated tools should only be used to revert obvious vandalism, unless you're providing a personalized edit summary. HeyMid (contribs) 16:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys it is clear Aleenf1 is being uncivil by calling me edits as vandalisim, and calling me names. Maybe some sort of block is due here? Although I have called many of his edits wrong, to be fair I have also went back and put some of his information provided back into the artice therefore the 99% is ridiculous. Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

USchick (talk · contribs) has continued to incorrectly tag pages for speedy deletion after being warned multiple times by editors on her talk page. Her only explanation for her taggings was the text of the A7 criterion, which was completely irrelevant to the discussion. She either needs editing restrictions for tagging pages for deletion or some other resolution. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite: where was the "credible assertion of notability" in "Denys Wortman (2 May 1887-20 September 1958) was a painter, cartoonist and comic strip creator."? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A poorly made assertion I agree, but it does cite the American National Biography. Wortman appears to be notable: a Google search brings up this which looks promising. I would have declined the speedy myself. But the point for AN/I is: does USchick make too many false positives on her tags? Or is the proportion acceptable for a busy editor who tags a lot of articles and does most of them well? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A very quick scan shows about 30 successful deletion tags over the last three days, and six challenges reported on her talk page (it's possible there might be more where the editor declining the speedy failed to say so.) I think a one-in-six false positive rate is a little high and may indicate over-enthusiastic tagging. This account seems to have been dormant for nearly a year before starting up again in the last couple of days. Maybe she needs to review the criteria a bit more carefully? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not used drawing this kind of attention to myself, so perhaps I do need to review my actions. If you review my record, there were 39 pages deleted for good cause. Six were challenged, and out of those six, 3 were improved to the point where they are now acceptable. So that's 3 out of 39. For the record, I was not on a "deletion spree," I was working off the Dead-end Category and cleaning up as I went along. USchick (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? I see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. In the last 24 hours, that is. This isn't just about the swing-to-miss ratio, but more a misunderstanding of what qualifies under speedy deletion. USChick's response to multiple warnings, declines and queries was to quote the A7 policy back to the person warning her, which seems rather amusing given that Zimao mountain and Vijayanarayanam, geographical locations - were tagged with A7. Ironholds (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a fairly experienced New Page Patroller, I'd have definitely tagged Mix n Blend for G11; I'm not sure how that slipped by. The We are Trans-MIssion one is right on the border too, that would depend on the admin; I'd have PRODded it myself (I'm obviously not an admin), but that's not a totally unreasonable tag. The others are pretty cut and dry, though. If USchick would like, I'd be more than happy to spend some time and work on it with her; A7 can be tricky, and it took me a while to get a full grip on A7/A9, so I can relate. I've been doing NPP for around 8 months now, I pretty well know what I'm doing, and we really need more New Page Patrollers. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree, but it's a thankless task, due to problems like this where the patroller is always in the wrong. Corvus cornix_talk 20:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A very select few of us (I won't name names, those who I'm referring to know who they are) do a disproportionately large chunk of NPP (i.e. almost all of it); I think what we need is more things like WP:GARAGE that highlight the lighter side of it. I love doing it, but we still desperately need more people, and even one more will be great; hence my above offer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, if I understand your offer correctly, you will teach me how to use WP:GARAGE as a criteria for speedy deletion? Ok, I'm in! :) Seriously, the real reason we're here today having a discussion on an Administrators' noticeboard (in my opinion) is because the person who started this discussion is an aspiring administrator, (but no one has taken him up on his offer). So I am at your mercy, do with me what you wish, and if I can be helpful in any way, I'll be happy to follow your instruction. USchick (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good; I'll get some stuff in order and get you going. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

All done, please check results on my talk page, thank you! USchick (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• I would also refer folks to WP:WIHSD, one of the best essays we have on the subject, and one which should be required reading for NPP (imho). Arakunem^Talk 17:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  Absolutely; speaking as an NPPer, I love the title and the message. It's very helpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  Just spotted this change to a topic I thought was closed and had to look - I've not seen WP:WIHSD before but having looked, I can only recommend it very strongly! In practical terms, the 38 examples of speedy deletions give a great crash course in what CSD criteria really mean. I thought I knew CSD pretty well but some of these really got me thinking. I'd advise any editor who places CSD tags and any admin who acts on them to read the whole family of pages from this one. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

User:212.41.203.164 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) evidently from the subject academy's Swiss offices has repeatedly edited European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, inserting unreferenced content in an apparent violation of wp:COI and wp:NOTWEBHOST. This despite repeated warnings on the ipuser's talkpage. The editor has not engaged in discussion. My prior request for advice here (Archive 220) got no response. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not seeing "dastardly" editing from this account - although the content is not referenced to WP:RS there is nothing controversial in it. Per WP:NOTBLOG I suppose they can be removed, but then that is a content issue, which is not what this board is for. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully ask for help in resolving a dispute that is spiraling out of control between myself and User:Racepacket. This user came to WikiProject United States(WPUS) a couple weeks ago and along with 3 or 4 other users voiced concerns about the scope of WPUS (for a full description please see the projects talk page). I started off being calm and nice and admit to losing my temper as I have become frustrated by this users continuous innapropriate tactics in trying to steer the discussion to their point of view by providing inaccurate details and misrepresenting what was said to other users.

Racepacket has made numorous accusations towards the activities of the project and its members (especially me) and has continued to display increasingly unnacceptable behavior. The project has made several attempts to appease this user by drafting a new mission statement (which Racepacket deemed not good enough), we rewrote the importance descriptions to clarify what importance an articles should be in the context of WPUS (also not good enough to Racepacket) and more. Specifically my concerns wiht the conduct of this users are as follows:

1. Failure to allow and accept that the 180+ project members have the right to set their own mission and scope and not have that directed to them by 4 or 5 editors who are not members of the project.
2. To stop his tactics of Forum Shopping, votestacking and campaigning which I have asked him to stop and he continues to do
3. To stop misrepresenting the facts when leaving message such as "People from a variety of WikiProjects have had concerns about the scope of WikiProject United States and its relationship with other WikiProjects. We have created an RFC and invite all interested editors to discuss it at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject United States#Mission statement for WikiProject United States. Thanks," that he is currently spamming on the talk pages of every Wikiproject as seen here.
4. Attempting to unfairly restrict the activities of one project (WPUS) over those of others by forcing the project to establish policies restricting them in ways that does not apply to any other project.

Thanks in advance for you assistance in dealing with this matter. --Kumioko (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As a member of WPUS, as well as WPCALI, I generally am against what Racepacket is doing and agree with the majority of Kumioko's criticism, but also think that Kumioko has taken it a little too far. For example, when I wanted to discuss a topic, it quickly degenerated into a Kumioko-Racepacket slugfest. I'm not an admin, but I think an interaction ban between the two of them on any project is probably the way to go Purplebackpack89 16:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think Racepacket is all that out of line. Some of what you are doing however, is crossing some lines. I suggest you tone down your replies and let others speak. The feeling I have been getting from you over at that project is that you think you own it. I know I have personally been staying out of the discussions because of how you hound anyone that is not agreeing with you and don't let others speak. I wager a bet the discussion would probably go along alot more smoothly if you pull back alot on your replies and let others speak. -DJSasso (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

By "you", you're referring to Kumioko, no? Purplebackpack89 18:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I am indented under him and not under you. :) -DJSasso (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that an RFC/U might be a better place to address the underlying problem than ANI. I am active in WikiProjects for Illinois, Virginia, and the Washington Metro. Since November 30, I have been commenting at WT:WikiProject United States on a number of issues regarding a rather aggressive stance that User:Kumioko is taking toward other WikiProjects. E.g., leaving messages challenging whether the project is still active, proposing to fold all other US-related WikiProject banner templates into the WikiProject United States, sending out 3000 "invitations" to join WPUS on editor talk pages, and sending repeated spam messages on the talk pages of related WikiProjects inviting them to participate in WPUS. The most recent one, sent on Jan 15, proposed that other WikiProjects nominate articles for new WPUS collaboration of the month even though the articles may not have nation-wide implications. The totality of his unilateral efforts have the effect of sucking all of the oxygen and enthusiasm out of other WikiProjects. This has prompted a number of people to leave messages on the WPUS talk page. Upon reading these other concerns, I posted an RFC and started a centralized discussion on that talk page. I have proposed that we get consensus on revising the first paragraph of the Project page as to what WikiProject United States' scope and mission are. I have also proposed that WPUS adopt a "Communications Policy" that instead of sending out postings on behalf of WPUS to 200 (according to Kumioko) other WikiProjects without any prior review or consensus, that no communications go out until at least 5 editors agree on the text.

The idea of a centralized discussion is having comments in one place, yet Kumioko leaves comments and starts discussion threads behind my notices. diff diff , then he accuses me of "forum shopping" only to actively resist my suggestion that we keep all of the RFC discussion together in one section. diff. Once the discussion got underway, Kumioko insists that people who are not "members" of WikiProject United States have no legitimate voice in the controversy and that the 180 members of WikiProject United States who are not interested in participating are assumed to "vote" in agreement with Kumioko's views. This has lead at least User Markvs88 to be chased away from the discussion. In order to assure that the affected editors have notice of the dispute, I posted what I considered a neutral description of the RFC on WikiProject talk pages, with Kumioko threatening me and the following up with POV-laden rebuttal notices. The bottom line is that his WP:OWNnership problems with WikiProject United States and his refusal to work toward consensus with people who have views different than his own has been disruptive for the work of a number of United States-related WikiProjects. I have tried to stay within the RFC guidelines for giving notice of centralized discussions and have tried to resolve the points of concern in a manner respectful of all interested editors. Also, I have gone out of my way to incorporate Kumioko's own language as we have drafted proposed text. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I feel compelled to reply to such blatant accusations I am not as promised other than to say that there have been comments and statements made by both of us that were at times crossing the lines of professoinalism but in the end most of the comments that Racepacket has made are baseless accusations and a general assumption of bad faith on the behalf of myself and WikiProject United States. A more detailed description of the problem can be seen by reading the unfortunately very long ongoing discussion on the WPUS talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to explain what you mean by "Maybe they [Racepacket's actions] are perfectly acceptable, I'm not sure I will leave that to ANI to decide." [3][4]

This single sentence by Racepacket is a perfect example of the problems that Racepacket is creating:

"I have also proposed that WPUS adopt a "Communications Policy" that instead of sending out postings on behalf of WPUS to 200 (according to Kumioko) other WikiProjects without any prior review or consensus, that no communications go out until at least 5 editors agree on the text."

Racepacket's proposals all ASSUME BAD FAITH on behalf of the project. He is attempting to impose restrictions on this project that apply to no other projects. If the proposals have merit, they should apply to all wikiprojects. I can't think of any PRECEDENT for taking actions against a project based on alleged behavior of an individual.

There are WikiProject guidelines that govern the activity of wikiprojects. I don't see where anything done by any member of this project has violated those guidelines.

The guidelines provide:

"A WikiProject is fundamentally a social construct; its success depends on its ability to function as a cohesive group of editors working towards a common goal. Much of the work that members must do to sustain a successful WikiProject (quality assessment and peer review in particular, but almost anything beyond the actual writing of articles) is tedious, often unrewarding, and usually unappreciated. To be effective, a WikiProject must foster not only interest in the topic of the project, but also an esprit de corps among its members. When group cohesion is maintained—where, in other words, project members are willing to share in the less exciting work—a WikiProject can muster the energy and direction to produce excellent articles systematically rather than incidentally."

For outsiders trying to tell the group, as Racepacket is doing, that it must rewrite its mission statement, is destructive of the creation of a "cohesive group". Having expressed his problems with the group, it is up to the group to decide how to react. If the group fails to act, and there ARE ACTUAL VIOLATIONS OF WIKIPEDIA POLICY OR GUIDELINES, then the remedy is to pursue those avenues available for enforcing such policies AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL, not the group. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

How is he an outsider? You do realize any editor on wikipedia is able to comment on any discussion. Saying someone is an outsider borders on ownership issues. Wikiprojects don't own their articles. And anyone is able to be a part of creating the scope of a project. He has as much right as anyone to participate in that discussion and express his views. -DJSasso (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Read the guidelines that describe how projects should operate. I keep seeing words like "members" and "group". All issues regarding the internal operations of the group must be determined by a consensus of the group -- it defeats the whole purpose of even creating a project if non-members can dictate the internal operations of the project.

Ownership of articles is a different issue and the guidelines make it clear that ownership is forbidden for ANY WIKIPROJECT. If ALL PROJECTS should be required to have ownership disclaimers on their project page, then propose it on the discussion page for the guidelines. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

His commenting in the discussion makes him a member of the project, no one is required to sign a list for any project to say they are part of the project. Anyone interested in the workings of a particular project can be considered part of a project at any time. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tom on the idea that outsiders or newcomers, and with DJSasso that Kumioko's taking too much ownership. I disagree that WPUS is taking too much ownership Purplebackpack89 18:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The extent and frequency that WPUS posts promotional messages on the talk pages of other WikiProjects is not a matter of internal operations and should not be left to a single individual. If everyone agrees that the promotional messages will be discussed and that at least 5 different editors must approve them, WPUS can benefit from more thoughtful communication that would be free from spelling errors and potentially more diplomatically phrased. I am not trying to dictate adoption of the proposal, but am offering it as a win-win solution. I am willing to discuss my proposal further on the WT:WPUS page. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket, is it really necessary and appropriate to continue to spam POV messages of your own on the talk pages of all the projects if that is one of the complaints you had against me? --Kumioko (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think an interaction ban of some sort might be helpful here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with a ban however if we are banned from interacting with each other and he is allowed to continue to spam the talk pages of the projects with POV statements its not really fixing the problem. --Kumioko (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

His notices aren't POV Kumioko. They are neutrally worded. They don't say hey come to this discussion and vote against Kumioko's opinion or whatever. All they say is that there is a disagreement over something and to come and give your opinion. Nor is he cherry picking users that would support him, he is notifying entire projects where its likely people will both agree and disagree with him. These are completely valid notices. I really think you need to stop following him around and hounding him. By all means interact in the discussion if you have constructive things to say, but outside the direct RfC I think you two should not talk to each other. -DJSasso (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• May I suggest that both sides put down their sticks? Kumioko, for sake of argument, if the positions were reversed (Your project was being repeatedly invited to disband itself and join a broader topic one) how would you react to drive by spamming of some message that your project community has elected not to move forward on? Racepacket, if the positions were reversed how would you go about encouraging members of sub-projects to become involved in the larger scope project if no new members have been recieved from the sub-project? I think this stems from several cases of WP:OWN and NoticeSpam going on here. Perhaps if the original request to WPUS had been phrased as a "Please remove us from your notification list" instead of "Implement a policy that cuts down on your Project's SPAM" the entire event would have been better. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Due to this unending bickering and senselessness I have left the project and have disjoined myself from the conversation so the problem is solved. I restarted the project for one reason, to improve articles. But I can't do that if I have some bored editor constantly draggin me through the mudd. I personally still believe that much of what Racepacket is doing is against policy and is misleading other editors into his POV and Knowone ever asked a project to disband'...ever. But since knowone else seems to mind his canvassing, POV pushing or policy violations then who am I to argue with it. The bottom line is the project is up and running and it appears that ther are members of it who will take care of it from here so I feel like I accomplished what I came to do. --Kumioko (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hasteur. The purpose of the RFC was to work out how to live together, and if the state and federal governments have learned to get along, there is no reason why WikiProjects can't find a way as well. Again, I was proposing items for adoption by consensus, and not trying to dictate an outcome. I will try to work in a manner that does not adversly impact the morale of WPUS. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the New York Post a reliable source to cite for someone being arrested on charges of prostitution? Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

NAMES OF LIVING PEOPLE WITHELD, who were arrested on prostitution charges, turned down their plea bargains and went to trial to prove their innocence. ^[1]

It seems like a straightforward fact. Which article is this about, and why are you bringing it to ANI instead of WP:RSN?   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This would seem to be a job for the reliable sources noticeboard rather than ANI.

In general, the NY Post seems to meet our reliability standards by a wide margin. Whether that particular story does or not, in the context of a particular article, is open to discussion of course.

Which article is this about? That should be included in the RSN filing... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The New York Post is a tabloid. We, ostensibly, are not. So the question isn't one of reliability, but of whether material appropriate for the Post is necessarily appropriate for an aspiring serious, respectable reference work. I espouse no opinion on the specific content at issue here, only disappointment that a myopic focus on questions of "reliability" tends to trump more common-sense questions like "does this belong in a supposedly serious encyclopedic reference work?" MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, reliability is just one factor that needs to be addressed. But since this doesn't seem like an ANI issue it should be addressed elsewhere.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

How the heck is this notable, even if true? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not notable, and the article this was "included" in looks like it's not very notable either[5]. The strong consensus to delete it was even acknowledged by one of its main editors before being indeffed as a sock[6]. This should probably just be closed as "Resolved" for this board. Doc talk 23:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion should be marked Resolved and moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (shortcut → WP:RSN) where Wikipedians who monitor that noticeboard can participate. This discussion does not fit the criteria for the ANI noticeboard. — SpikeToronto 00:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Article has been speedied twice already and has been recreated yet again. Suggest salting. [7] Qworty (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Done and done, and the creator has been blocked as the spam-only purpose of the account is painfully obvious. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

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

After coming across a spam article (10ZiG), I spent a fair bit of time reviewing the (relatively strange pattern of) contributions from User:Jcalamity, the editor who created said promotional article. Aside from a few "good hand" early edits, almost all of their edits since have been to insert various spam or refspam into articles. It looks like 10ZiG has been their only article creation, however (unless there's something deleted that I can't see). Based on the significant breadth of the subject matter for their spamming, this seems likely to be some sort of paid editing or other "public relations" scenario. Given the lack of mop resources at WP:WPSPAM (case in point), I thought this might warrant closer scrutiny here. jæs (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with your assessment. I've removed a bunch, not sure if I've gotten them all yet. I'm on the fence about this particular link; I could imagine it being used in a good faith edit by a non-COI editor, but it's still commercial. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I'd like to ask administrators' opinion about the following situation:

On 8 December 2010 I was unblocked and granted a second chance after an indefinite block, becoming again a contributor with full rights. Since then, I've been a very active wikipedian and all my edits were made in accordance with the wiki policies. The fact that I've become a trustable user was also recognized by the admin HJ_Mitchell, who gave me reviewer rights.

Hobartimus (who was notified about this report) may have violated WP:WIKIHOUNDING, WP:AGF, WP:NOSPADE and WP:HUMAN (in my case, unblocked users are human too).

In the first place posted a message on my unblocking admin's talk page asking for details about how I was accepted back in the commnunity

He has repeteadly following and reverting me (WP:WIKIHOUNDING)

• He wanted to undo my obvious anti-vandalism edit at János Bolyai, but he immediately corrected himself: [8]
• He reverted my edits at Lajos Kossuth article (rectification of information according to the provided source and some corrections according to WP:PLACE) with no valid reason

• He undid my edits at John Hunyadi article, supporting blatant vandalism (readd of unreferenced text and removal of referenced text & valid sources). After leaving a general non-constructive note on his talk page [9] , he responded with WP:ABF attitude, quote: "if its not a problem I dont accept edits starting with "Welcoming me to Wikipedia." from people who recieved more than 13 indefinite blocks on various accounts". When I asked him to "comment on the content, not on the contributor." (WP:AGF) he responded again with a derogatory answer.

It seems that Hobartimus considers that my block history is an argument to consider me unrespectable (Wikipedia:Uncivil). He apparently thinks that unblocked users are not worth talking to.(WP:NOSPADE and WP:HUMAN). (Iaaasi (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

His request to an admin appears proper, and the addition of place names does not constitute a "reversion" of edits when he states it added place names. In other words, the content dispute about including Hungarian place names is not a thing to complain here about. Use the article talk page first. Which User:Adrian did on 20 Jan. Ditto the "Romanian" dispute. In short, have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• I did not say that his request to the admin was against the policies, just wanted to show that his actions against me are deliberate
• The inclusion of the Hungarian names was in fact a readd, because they were eliminated by me, so it really is a reversion. I deleted the alternative names according to WP:PLACE (use modern names) and the policy about the treatment of alternative names. As an experienced user, Hobartimus certainly knows this rule. In addition, he had restored this edit that altered the real information from the source (Britannica)
• Collect, you did not give any opinion regarding his attitude towards me on his talk page after his vandalism on John Hunyadi page. (Iaaasi (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Comment I've never encountered these two editors so am trying to look at the diffs. Some remarks:

• Iaaasi's unblock discussion (per Hobartimus's query) is here, as Hobartimus could have found with the search box.
• Hobartimus has been editing 3.5 years with 11000+ edits. Leaving him a vandal template[10] was a rather dumb idea for many reasons. I'd suggest Iaaasi quit using Twinkle for a while, stay away from conflicts with other users, preferably stay away (at least temporarily) from topic areas of past conflict in general, and just concentrate on making good edits.
• This edit that Iaaasi describes as a revert, restores some Hungarian placenames that Iaaasi removed here. I don't think that removal was helpful, in a biography of a Hungarian historical figure. Iaaasi should concentrate for a while on adding stuff rather than removing stuff.
• This (another random edit from Iaaasi's contribs) seems a little bit tendentious too.
• Sourcing to Encyclopedia Britannica isn't so great, though. We're supposed to use and cite secondary sources (such as books about the subjects), not other encyclopedias.
• Hobartimus too should tone down his hostility to Iaaasi. There was a long discussion (linked above) leading to consensus to unblock Iaaasi, so Hobartimus should give the unblock a chance. Remember this is supposed to be a civil and collegial environment.
• Iaaasi, I'm not trying to be hostile or seeking to get rid of you by asking this, but I don't understand why you want to edit the English Wikipedia in the first place. We have over 3 million articles, which in my opinion is way too many more than enough, while the Romanian Wikipedia (rowiki) has only about 150,000. Wikipedia is trying to be an educational resource for everyone in the world, in every language, but unfortunately we English-speaking editors (who have most of the computers) are stuck editing here because we don't have the skills to edit in other languages. If you want to help the Romanian people and culture, why not contribute to a free encyclopedia written in Romanian? That is much more directly useful than getting into battles about mentions of Hungary in enwiki. There are sure to be tons of important subjects missing from rowiki that are already in enwiki. If you prefer to edit here, that's fine, but please try to stay away from this nationalistic stuff. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your assertion *This (another random edit from Iaaasi's contribs) seems a little bit tendentious too. Austria-Hungary did not exist in 1840, so the edit is 100% correct

*Sourcing to Encyclopedia Britannica isn't so great, though. We're supposed to use and cite secondary sources (such as books about the subjects), not other encyclopedias. I know secondary sources are preferred to the tertiary ones, but according to policies: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources.. So the solution is to bring a better secondary source, not to vandalize by distorting the information from Britannica

*Hobartimus has been editing 3.5 years with 11000+ edits. Leaving him a vandal template[11] was a rather dumb idea for many reasons. I'd suggest Iaaasi quit using Twinkle for a while, stay away from conflicts with other users, preferably stay away (at least temporarily) from topic areas of past conflict in general, and just concentrate on making good edits. The vandalism is obvious (I've already proven why). I am not the one who inflames conflicts, I've totally respected the rules since my comeback. That is the reason why I filed this report, to ask for assistance from admins regarding this problem (Iaaasi (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Iaaasi, it really doesn't matter if Hobartimus's edit was vandalism or not; the template was a bad idea. 1) See WP:DTTR, if someone as experienced as Hobartimus makes a bad edit and you have to notify them, you should write a message in your own words, instead of leaving a template. 2) Because of your past conflict with Hobartimus, you should leave issues related to his editing to other users (and he should do the same about your editing). If his edit was really vandalism, someone else will fix it, so just leave it alone. If nobody fixes it, it wasn't vandalism. (In my opinion it was not vandalism). 3) You should only refer to a tertiary source like Britannica if there are already a lot of secondary sources in the article and you're trying to figure out how to balance them. In this particular situation, there's not a problem of factual accuracy, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia, not paraphrase another encyclopedia. Re inflaming conflicts: yes, your templating of Hobartimus was inflammatory, and in the other areas, you have been in conflict whether they were inflamed by you or by someone else. I am suggesting you stay away from those areas no matter who inflamed the conflict. There are plenty of other areas to edit. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• The tertiary source (Britannica) was not added by me, I was pointing at the fact that Hobartimus had denatured the text from the source
• Maybe I was wrong to choose that notifying method (a template that contains the words "Welcome to Wikipedia"), but Hobartimus should have assumed good faith. per WP:DTTR ("Recipients should still assume good faith"). I was only asking for a explanation of his revert, I think he should have addressed the edit itself instead of complaining about the form of the message and referring to my blocking history.
• I'd like to add that Hobartimus' hostile attitude is not new, it occured since my very first edits on English Wikipedia(Iaaasi (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

• OK, don't worry about Britannica. It's a pretty minor thing. Re the vandal template, you certainly didn't assume good faith when you referred to that edit as vandalism. Yes, you can expect long-term editors to get upset when you leave those templates, just so you know. That's the reason it's a bad idea to leave them. You are right, Austria-Hungary didn't start until 1867, according to the article, which says it "was a monarchic union between the crowns of the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary in Central Europe." Between those two kingdoms, as far as I can tell, Budapest was in the Kingdom of Hungary. I have asked at RDH for advice.[12]

  Moving on, I don't read Romanian but if I pretend it's garbled French, it looks to me like this is WP:SYNTH not supported by the cited source (http://www.istoriatransilvaniei.ro/vol1/v1c8.pdf presumably page 25, the cite is missing a page number). Here is another tendentious-looking change (we're talking about a Hungarian writer living in a then-Hungarian-speaking region of Transylvania, from what I can tell, so including the "official name" may be fine but removing the Hungarian one is pointy). I have made a table of your mainspace edits since your unblock here and a really disturbingly high fraction of them are of the same sort (removing references to Hungary). This is just way too big a pattern of such edits to do without consensus, so unless you can point to a prior discussion or guideline that clarifies the issue, I'll suggest you start a content RFC before going on with such edits. Alternatively, it may be time for other editors to consider imposing an editing restriction, since it really does not look to me like you are trying to edit those topics neutrally.

  I don't know what to do about Hobartimus. I may look further at his edits later. Iaaasi's editing pattern is troubling either way. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

All my edits were made according to wiki policies. I am not the subject of this report, but I am ready to have an open discussion about my edits if I am asked by the admins(Iaaasi (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Policy says to edit neutrally and I don't think you're doing that. Anyone who files dispute resolution gets their editing examined; it's part of how things work (WP:BOOMERANG). Anyway, "editing within policy" is not an appropriate goal for someone coming off a block, or anyone else for that matter. Instead, edit to be a good editor. We need more of those. We don't need more wikilawyering POV-pushers trying to operate at the outer fringes of policy to slant Wikipedia content. Anyway, geography isn't my thing, but maybe the table I made can help someone else assess your edits. I will defer to them. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This edit is made according to WP:PLACE and the policy about the treatment of alternative names. The settlement was in a region where the Romanians represented more than 50% of the population, and it was under Austrian rule. I've seen this practice in very many articles (historical official name and current name in parantheses), so I don't see what is wrong. Example :[13] (it is preferred the German name to the Hungarian or the Romanian one) (Iaaasi (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Someone wrote this There was a long discussion (linked above) leading to consensus to unblock Iaaasi This is completely false in fact the opposite is true, that discussion (in September) lead to no unblock. Check the date of the unblock it is from December it was an unilateral decision by an admin that will have to be discussed at community level. These types of questions shouldn't be decided by a single admin. I will quote just two opinions from that discussion tho for relevance:

"Oppose. Socking as recent as August? No. And I dislike the IRC canvassing. T. Canens (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)"

This will certainly need more examination. And the second opinion from todds:

"this user has exhibited some seriously racist hatemongering. Please read [42]. This should have been logged as an WP:ARBMAC block. I think unblocking would be bad for the community in general even without the sockery. 15:27, 27 September 2010 Toddst1 (talk • contribs)

In light of these opinions especially about "IRC canvassing" it is quite certain that further investigation is needed here. Hobartimus (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That discussion was here. It was also based on a false premise, that WP:OFFER applies to someone who was confirmed socking about a month from WP:OFFER being applied, as that requires at least half a year of non-socking. (which was not observed with the eventual unblock either). And then we never talked about the unconfirmed socking which is always a bigger occurance than what can be confirmed. Hobartimus (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I also would like to point out for the record that Iaaasi claimed ownership for two more indefinitely blocked sockpuppet accounts since he was unblocked. These were previously unknown to the community OR the admin who conducted the unblocking. This raises the number of indef. blocked socks that are either claimed or confirmed to 15 or so. Hobartimus (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

All my after-unblock edits were made in good faith and in accordance with wiki rules. I hope the judging admins will concentrate firstly on the subject of this report, not on IP 67.122.209.190 accusations. If the IP thinks that I've done something wrong, I'd like to ask him to make a separate report, because this thread is already difficult to read(Iaaasi (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

Justasked (talk · contribs) has stated on an AfD [14] that he is planning to solicit others to oppose the deletion of the article in question, against WP:MEAT. Believes as the author he must defend his page, which could be construed as a violation of WP:OWN. Could we please have admin and checkuser eyes on this please? Phearson (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but there's nothing for checkuser to do here at this time - Alison ^❤ 06:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Justasked appears to be a confused newbie who has created an interesting and useful article that doesn't and probably can't be made to fit Wikipedia content policies. Try to be nice (WP:BITE). I've commented at the AfD advising moving the article to Wikia. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks and yes...confused newbie here: Don't mean to cause a ruckus, just trying to be helpful to a community of people on Twitter. Sorry for any alarm/disruption to normal ops. I love the Wiki platform for asynchronous collaboration (I use it on a stand alone platform at work)...we don't have near the policy/criteria that you reasonably enforce. I will try to figure out the Wikia rules and post our information there..thanks for the tip! Justasked (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Once you've found a new home for the list and expanded it some, you might suggest at the talk page of one of Wikipedia's twitter-related articles that someone add a link from the article to the list. (It's considered inappropriate to add such a link yourself, given your relationship with the list). Good luck with it. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I may have just made another page...in either case, you can delete both, I've copied the code for the new location and will start fresh--again, apologies for the trouble! Justasked (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Just remember that we try to establish consensus in any discussion on most anything here in which there may be discussion about (deletion discussions are part of that). However, that comes from within the community as opposed to outside the community; that is because often the interests outside Wikipedia do not reflect those from within. That does not mean that Wikipedia operates inside a vacuum, but we try to implement guidelines and policies that are most consistent with a free content encyclopedia in which the most people out there are able to agree with. –MuZemike 07:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If someone could take a look at 62.172.89.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He was blocked earlier today. Multiple users have been going back and forth blanking and unblanking his talk page. Either he's allowed to blank and the editors need to back off, or (my choice) he needs to be locked off talk page access.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLANKING, they are allowed to remove those warnings, even the block notice. To me, there's a strong argument for requiring block notices to remain - but that's not how the community has defined the guideline. --- Barek (talk) - 20:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The justification is that even block notices don't serve any purpose to notify anyone but the intended recipient. Block logs and talk page histories are always publicly accessable, and admins get the full block log before they block anyone, so they already get a sense of what has gone on in the past. There's no need to maintain a badge of shame. --Jayron32 21:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is now resolved. The problem for me was not so much the blanking, but the game playing, and the taking of the bait. It appears to have been stoped which is the only resolution that really matters in my book.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

But the only action by the IP had been to blank their user-page - granted, their edit summaries could be viewed as their viewing re-blanking their page to be some sort of game - but it could also be an expression of frustration at having the content restored against their clear preference. The IP wasn't posting anything else to their page, just re-blanking it. Had the content not been continuously restored, it appears that the "game" would have ended much earlier. --- Barek (talk) - 21:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hence the dual nature of my request. Either the editors needed to be told to back off, or he needed to be prevented from editing.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've also restored User talk:62.172.90.96 back to the last "blanked" version by the user. Breawycker (talk · contribs), TheRealFennShysa (talk · contribs), and NintendoFan11 (talk · contribs), who kept restoring the warnings on both IP talk pages in violation of WP:BLANKING, should themselves be warned and blocked for edit warring if they continue to restore the warnings. —Farix (t | c) 12:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I see 109.255.122.231 (talk · contribs) as intentionally trolling and trying to cause problems. In dire need of a block.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I see the user as having a strong opinion. Suggest calmly discussing, and if he carries on then raise it again here. AGF2 warning left. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, Stifle. I'm not in any dispute with him. I picked up on him while patrolling pages and then reviewed his edits back to Dec. 16 (I didn't go further because I had seen enough). He's attempted to ignite fires...that is the net worth of his contribs. He's trolling talk pages and leaving inflammatory edit summaries. I thought it looked rather intentional.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

He was warned in October for BLP violations (having called a US politician a drug addict), to which he replied only "no." Just today he called another US politician an "insane clown" and similar insults. Clearly not here to build the encyclopedia, and has been warned plenty. Blocked for a week (IP address is stable). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Two editors on the article are engaging in disruptive and uncivil behavior. Editors User:Pseudo-Richard and user:Esoglou. Editor User:Pseudo-Richard in specific. Whom have taken a rather uncivil tone and remain consistently uncivil to my contributions and also other editors suggestions on how to proceed with contributing to Wikipedia while engaging in respectful separation- Talk:Hell_in_Christian_beliefs#Break_it_up_guys. This individual is also posting to my talkpage ALLOT. Could someone please address. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I take issue with User:Dbachmann Logs recent moves of Yaweh (now God of Israel) I normally would take it up with the user but this is the second "no consensus" move made at this article. On December 15th User:Dbachmann moved the page to Yahweh (Canaanite deity) initiating this discussion. I was disturbed by such behavior by an Admin but took it to be one off incident stupid move but not something worth making a big deal. Now I log on this morning and find once again with no consensus moved the page (using admin tools in the process) from Yahweh to God of Israel. I find this unacceptable behavior for an Admin as now we have had to initiate another move discussion again to move it back. Am I way off in thinking this inappropriate behavior for an Admin? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to say it's outright inappropriate, but I think we need an explanation here of why he thought it was a good idea. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Normally I would let border line cases go, but the article is move protected so only an Admin can move it and this is the second incident of such behavior at one article in lest than 6 weeks both times claiming consensus that did not exist. Both time we have had to have WP:RM discussion just to move back to the original name. That more what I take issue with. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Since these "issues" are related to content, in my experience it would be normal practice to raise them on article talk instead of on ANI. Otherwise I must assume this is just wikilawyering. It is never a good idea to avoid the issue and instead go straight for administrative red tape. It shows that you do not really have a case. Be that as it may, I seem no reason to repeat a content issue that belongs on article talk, and that has been discussed on article talk on ANI just for the hell of it. To call a move "disruptive" when it in fact resolves long-standing disputes and bickering related to article scope and content forking is disingenious to say the least. At least recognize that I am making an effort in best faith to resolve a hairy problem. --dab (𒁳) 19:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue belongs here as it was an admin action that was inappropriate, as TRA just explained above. The article is move protected, and you used an admin function to go against consensus. I agree that it belongs here for community discussion. Dusti^*poke* 19:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The issue here is unilateral page (Twice in 6 weeks )moves without the discussion prior discussion of a move and use of Admin privilege to do it. Both times We have WP:RM that is the proper process to move it back The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that these moves are tantamount to vandalism and an abuse of privileges. The last time that this happened, I was shocked, because an IP editor had made some sweeping edits against consensus for which I expected objection to be raised. Instead, Dbachmann (talk · contribs) followed their lead and did a page move. In the ensuing discussion about reversing the move, we didn't just acheive consensus, we acheived unanimity that it was a bad idea. Now this comes in the wake of some more discussion about the article's scope. It is unacceptable for him to force us to stop and derail ordinary discussion and consensus-building in order to undo his vandalism. Elizium23 (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x4@Dbachmann: That seems to be beyond disingenuous. This is an issue regarding an action, not about content. I have no idea which version of the title is correct, but I at least can recognize that moving an article which is the subject of an active dispute about its title, before that dispute is resolved, a second time, is definately something that should not be done. Calling it a content dispute may be true, but what we are discussing here is your actions during a content dispute, which involve moving an article which was fully move protected (an admin-only action) without clear consensus to do so. I have no horse in this race; I have never edited the article in question, and I have no idea which title is right or not. I really don't care. What I do care about is that admins don't act unilaterally in the case of contentious disputes, and more importantly refusing to stand and account for the use of one's tools, hiding behind some claim of "this is a content dispute". Yes it is, we are not being asked to rule on the content, rather this is a discussion of your actions in that dispute. --Jayron32 19:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Using admin abilities in the middle of a content dispute that the admin is involved in is a pretty big no-no. This looks seriously not good from my view of Dbachmann's actions. IMHO the page should be returned ASAP to it's previous location from before the inappropriate admin action was taken. It should not need a RM to move it back, when it should not have been moved in the first place. (And, to stress, from a content POV, I don't give a flip where it lives. My comments are purely process based.) - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that various related articles have been significantly modified by Dbachmann after the move, so a straight move-back will not resolve the issue.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm disturbed at this diff. "I realize that there is plenty of childish Kurdish nationalism, just as for practically any nation of the 'second world'. It's somehow endemic to the region, I must assume."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any experience with nationalists from that region? Do you have any idea of how much crass history-faking is going on in the Balkan states, Greece, Turkey etc.? It's a huge problem for our articles about these regions, because for many topics there is little information in neutral sources, and the supposedly scholarly sources from the region are full of bizarre phantasies which, of course, contradict each other. You can thank Dbachmann, as one of very few admins who regularly work in that area, for the fact that it is handled with something akin to the no-nonsense approach of the German Wikipedia, rather than the English Wikipedia's standard "anything goes until we have total chaos and a huge Arbcom case" approach.

No comment on the page move. Hans Adler 20:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of admin tools in a content dispute. Take it to arbcom. -Atmoz (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

... Facepalm — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you facepalming the misuse of tools, or the concept that misuse of tools should be taken to arbcom? It's a little unclear--Cube lurker (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

My guess why HTFY is facepalming is in response to the vicious reaction to Dbach. May I remind everyone in this thread -- some of whom are relative newcomers -- about Dbachmann's reputation, which Hans Adler set out above? While Dbach's input into this matter is (IMHO) short to the point of being cryptic, I urge everyone to wait until he explains himself before they declare him guilty & sanction him, then hold a trial. The worst case here is that Dbachmann finally lost his cool & over-reacted in a matter that could be calmly resolved without the loss of his useful contributions. -- llywrch (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That is a well expressed, clear opinion. Much more valuable than making people guess what 'facepalm' is refering to.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

His contributions are one thing. Using the admin tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute is something else. This is exactly what "normal" users are talking about when they say admins are above the law. Any admin should know better than to use their tools in a dispute they are involved in. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Man, as the OP I really dont see a need for De-syopsing being an effective solution here The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked him on his talk page to reverse his actions. He should also agree to self-ban from using his tools in this topic area again, as this is the second instance of unilaterally moving the article, and the second time there is a nearly unanimous consensus opposing the move. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I was actually facepalming that "abuse of tools" means "instant ArbCom case." My indentation was off a bit. If every potential abuse of admin tools went straight to ArbCom, the arbs would never get anything else done! That said, Dbach's non-response here is also facepalm-worthy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he stopped editing for the day eight minutes after the message I left on his talk. Hopefully there will be a more reasoned response from him forthcoming in the near future. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that not every sysop misaction should go to ArbCom. That being said, if there's multiple abuse of sysop tools, then either an ArbCom case or Community Consensus for desysop'ing needs to take place. Dusti^*poke* 00:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As the OP, I agree, I see two extremely stupid actions. Based on several comments here it seems He is an Admin in good standing. Whether or not there is a wider pattern that would require action more than this thread is another question entirely... I dont see any one here presenting evidence of wider pattern of "wrong doing" thus Arbcom intervention does not seem warranted at this point. I think Beeblebrox recommendations are good advice that Dbachmann should take heed of. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Reading those talk pages, I see a great deal of sophistry, lack of focus on improving the articles, and confusion over scope, with very little discussion of the best way to reflect the best scholarly sources about the several topics. I see Dbachmann engaging in a lot of the latter sort of discussion without stooping to the former. Seriously - read through Yahweh (disambiguation) and linked articles, Jehovah (disambiguation), God in Abrahamic religions ... and you will still only scratch the surface. This is a complex topic that has been discussed in various ways for hundreds of years, and Wikipedia readers deserve a fair and historically accurate presentation of each aspect. This needs an article improvement drive or project-of-the-month for a WikiProject, not ArbCom. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why Dbachman did what he did and I don't support it - the world certainly expects an encyclopedia to have an article on Yahweh. Britannica has one. Unfortunately, I don't think Wikipedia will. There's just far too much passionate commitment to various views, as the Talk page shows. For example, one editor insists that we go into great detail on the exact vowels in that word Yahweh - he'd write the entire article on that subject if he was allowed. Another feels that great slabs of Biblical quotation are the way to go. And so on. Maybe Dbachman just got too frustrated and blew a fuse. He has a pretty good record apart from this. PiCo (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Moving the Page from "Yahweh" to "God of Israel" means to claim that Israelites only worshiped Yahweh and Only Israelites worshiped Yahweh. Both claims are simply wrong and entirely based on religious doctrine. What it always comes down to is the religious views of the editors. And of course it is unacceptable when an admin forces his opinion on all the readers of this encyclopedia. This is not just a question of scope of the article but a deliberate attempt of introducing systemic religious bias into Wikipedia. Of course, that problem is ubiquitous around here. I suggest that whoever is in charge of such issues should think about removing Dbachmann's admin privileges. ≡ CUSH ≡ 18:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - This is a great example of how ANI should not be used. I agree that it was reckless for Dab to have acted without consensus in this way, but I don't think that running to ANI before trying to discuss the matter with Dab first is the right thing to do. It's just drama mongering. Maybe he made a mistake, or maybe he hasn't explained himself well enough yet, or maybe, even if he still vehemently disagrees with everyone the situation could be resolved without a report to the bully response bureau.Griswaldo (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted this move as it clearly did not have consensus, although it would have been preferable if Dbachmann had reverted himself in the face of such opposition. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I would ask why he did not move it back, this does look like abuse of admin privalidge to me.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wcfallon, in its only edit, stated on the discussion page of the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) to be from INET's strategic communications/PR firm Keating & Co and to be working with INET "to develop a more comprehensive wikipedia page". Single purpose account Keatingco created Capital Institute, which, like INET, is based solely on the subject's website and which is written like an advertisement. Thanked them for revealing the conflict of interest, pointed to the guidelines especially about Conflict of interest and sockpuppetry and would suggest to permanently block Wcfallon. Help with both articles warmly appreciated. Knopffabrik (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

PeterTiso seems to fall under the same category (single purpose to promote E. F. Schumacher Society, which is related to the Capital Institute mentioned above, e.g., by adding photos "taken by the E. F. Schumacher Society of the inside of our (sic!) library". Also edited Community Land Trust, related to the Schumacher Society.

Kateeloop may also be related to this (prepares a similar article on a related think that that is "due for launch" in its user space).

There are even more think tank related single purpose accounts: EvelynFortunate, Kpforsyth, Jerrodmo, Kadup, KlipperP (this last one is even redirecting from its user page to a fundraising platform). Knopffabrik (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion at AFD. On the SPA's, I'll open up a CU case. Dusti^*poke* 06:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

While the correct actions have been taken here, I think we are starting to see a disturbing trend emerge. While Wcfallon was naive enough to think we wouldn't mind them using us to legitimize their company, there are likely two dozen more who know full well the rules, and work to insert advocacy into articles. Note how much turnover the politician/political issues articles get edits from short-timer editors. Not saying the Illuminati is at work or anything; I think was the proper way to handle it. If discovered, they get perma-blocked, and all their contributions incinerated. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this so fast. I however would like to ask why you just deleted the article Institute for New Economic Thinking? It had several real contributors and is for sure of encyclopedic relevance. Just because there is also a PR guy with a sockpuppet doesn't mean the whole article is needless. I cannot see it now, but when I started the article I think I used media references and should I have forgotten it for reasons I cannot even imagine right now it could easily be corrected. [15] The article also has neutral references in its German version. While you deleted the article, why did you not take action against the sockpuppet? Knopffabrik (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I restored an old version of the article which preceeded the spammer's massive re-write. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. And I am sorry, I guess the checkuser is just still in the process. Knopffabrik (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This user is posting potentially libellous and defamatory information on their user talk page. They have been attempting to post this potentially libellous and false information on the Daily Mail article but were stopped from adding it. They are making some very bold but false claims about the newspaper. I was going to remove it from their talk page but they will then accuse me of 'bias'. Please read the top paragraph of their user talk page. Please remove it from the page. Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to say you're wrong on this one. While they're WP:SOAPboxing, it's only on their own Talk page, so there's no point in edit-warring to protect a newspaper. It is inappropriate to put on the article, but there's nothing against them putting this on their own Talk page. In addition, you were quite rude to the user on their own Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You should also have notified them of this discussion, as instructed by the giant eye-melting orange notice above the text field. I have notified him/her. l'aquatique[talk] 02:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Christian1985 from the very start has been unhelpful and constantly threatening me with administrators. He accuses me of bias, yet won't even allow discussion of anything the Mail have done that isn't positive. If i provide sources then he claims they're no good, if i provide the Mail's own site as the link then he says the same and so i've given up.

Looking at his talk page and the Daily Mail talk page and it's clear he has a personal interest in this article, whether as an employee of the Daily Mail or a die hard reader.

And in reference to the "libellious" information i posted, it's all from their own site so Christian is defending the Mail even from stuff you can read on their own site. Jenova20 (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have never 'threatened' you, you have been very abusive and rude to me and I simply warned you I may consult the Administrators which I have a right to do. You're at it again hurling accusations around with no proof. I am NOT 'protecting' the Mail article from negative information. What I am doing is stopping nonsense from being added to the article like the stuff you are trying to add. I am not a DM employees, stop making such ludicrous accusations against me. That information is NOT from their own site, it is YOUR biased spin on it. There is no evidence of the claims you are making against the Mail. But you can't accept that so you keep bullying me claiming I am 'claiming ownership' of the article. You are being very unhelpful by not listening to reason. You keep launching personal attacks on me and I am sick of it. I have done absolutely nothing wrong. Christian1985 (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2011

(UTC)

Also the reason I have said your 'sources' are no good is because they are not. They are biased and partisan sources which do not meet WP guidelines. That does not mean I am 'biased' I am following policy. The Mail's own site provides no evidence of the sort of stuff you are trying to claim. There is NO EVIDENCE for the ridiculous claims you are trying to make. They are simply YOUR opinions NOT facts. Why can you not accept that? Christian1985 (talk) 10:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, no you're right, i've constantly threatened you and I've constantly been unhelpful. That's sarcasm if you didn't notice.

That's why i added all this stuff to Talk page for discussion rather than just in the article, never once edited the article, and got nothing but abuse from you and personal attacks, even on my talk page.

You can't even see anything wrong with this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348384/Mac--Damages-payout-gay-couple.html so your opinion means nothing to me. That clearly doesn't show a swastika or 666 tattoo on the left guy does it? It clearly doesn't show them as neo nazis does it? It's anti semitic and homophobic, and very controversial for the paper to have drew right after the couple won their discrimination case. Jenova20 (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The user talk page at issue clearly contains personal attacks, including charges of "stalking" and more. And unless a reliable source draws an inference and publishes it, it is not up to WP editors to do so (WP:OR). Collect (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. My personal opinion on those cartoons aside, Jenova20, you need to find several mainstream sources which make that observation, i.e. this needs to be a major controversy outside of your head, before adding it to he article per WP:NOR and WP:DUE. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Jenvoa20 this is what you don't get, those articles prove NOTHING. It is just YOUR opinion on the article. Wikipedia is for facts not biased opinions. Just because YOU find the cartoon offensive doesn't mean it is, that is your opinion. I think it is perfectly inoffensive. I hhave never attacked or abused you, simply pointed out facts. You have abused and bullied me. The cartoon is NOT 'homophobic' or 'anti-semitic' only you think that. It is a perfectly legitimate cartoon. You are wrong Jenova20, you are trying to use the article with your biased spin on it, this constitutes Original Research which violates WP policy. You can't use a harmless cartoon as a reference to make the sort of claims you are trying to make. IT PROVES NOTHING. You need to accept that. Christian1985 (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I never tried to add that to the article, i was suggesting ways it could be added, which because of enough sources i haven't been able to do. The fact of the matter is that you (Christian1985) behaved in such a disgusting way that you've put off not just me, but many other contributors to that article and if they even try to build up sources or additions (even on their own talk pages) you attack them there aswell. That's not just underhand, but it's bullying aswell.

I would suggest that with how you have acted that you are biased in defending the Daily Mail, that or you work for them. I have added to quite a few automobile articles and welcome additions to them and constructive criticism. You treat this article as your personal interest and oppose any changes that do not go through you, or single out the paper from others though.

I'm not happy this dispute has got this far but at least the spotlight is now on your record of treatment towards other Wikipedians. Jenova20 (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"quite a few automobile articles"? [16] shows you with a grand total of 3 edits in article space, and 18 in article talk pace. In fact, counting every single edit you have ever made, you have a total of 10 total edits related to automobiles. Collect (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You're at it again hurling accusations around about me. I have NOT bullied anyone. I do NOT work for the Mail. Stop making such ridiculous accusations. You are the one bullying me and it has got to stop. I do NOT oppose any changes, I opposed nonsense from being added to the article. I have not put anyone off the article, don't be so ridiculous. Just grow up and leave me alone. Stop spreading these lies about me. I have done nothing wrong and I have not treated Wikipedians in any underhand way. You need to stop with these rude comments because I am getting fed up with it. Christian1985 (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

They're my speciality, but unfortunately the research is often difficult to complete because of a lack of information or proof. And i generally don't edit much unless no-one in the discussion boards has noticed an error and generally i'll suggest it for others to do other than myself as i'm still learning as i go along. There's quite a few cars needing start and end years corrected for the UK aswell though so either that or just random corrections are what i focus on. Jenova20 (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

STOP! Will you two just stop? We get it that you're both angry, but this isn't helping. Just stop, and let's see what admins have to say about this, if anything.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I see: User:Jenova20 is repeatedly posting original research in an article, which is against policy. User:Christian1985 apparently took personal offense and began harassing Jenova on his/her userpage (also against policy). You guys are both being incredibly rude to each other and I want that to stop immediately- there is no reason you two cannot discuss this like adults (aka, without personal attacks, please!). Jenova- the material as-is is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, find some reliable secondary sources that come to the same conclusion that you do and we'll talk- otherwise it's going to keep getting removed. Christian1985- you need to leave Jenova alone. You've passed on the original research problem to admins, that's the best you can do. Now it's time to back off, especially on Jenova's talk page. It is not your job to patrol other Wikipedians. You guys both need to step away for a little bit and cool down, we've got some serious angry mastodon issues going on here. l'aquatique[talk] 16:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Except for the part about adding to the article, i agree completely. And that's because i've not posted anything on the article and used only the talk page to suggest additions. I used the live chat feature yesterday and got the advice i needed pretty quick. Suggesting additions on an article shouldn't lead to personal attacks, insults on talk pages and threats. None of this should have happened when it could have ended two days ago by just saying that proper sources and not blogs are needed and giving a bit of guidance. None of this seems acceptable when a few minutes in live chat was more constructive than 3 days of arguing.

I'd like this pushed as far as possible as i don't see that any of this has been constructive or necessary and the way i've been hounded for 3 days is completely unbelievable. Jenova20 (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Jenova20 I have NOT 'hounded' you at all. I have simply pointed out how you are wrong. I am perfectly entitled to write on your talk page. Ihave done nothing wrong. I have tried to be reasonable but everytime I point out how Jenova20 is wrong they start saying I am 'biased' and a 'Daily Mail employee' and saying I am claiming 'ownership' of the article, which are all false claims. As the Admin rightly says Jenova20 you cannot publish original research. Wikipedia is for facts not opinions. That is all I have to say on the matter. Christian1985 (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Easy solution

Jenova20, stop responding to Christian1985. Christian1985, stop responding to Jenova20.

To address the actual issue: Jenova20, user pages are not for users to make allegations (of homophobia or anything else) against an organization. You should take it down and moving that to a blog or personal website.

The user page guidelines clearly says, "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." It also says, "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive)" and does not permit: "Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia. Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc. Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.)"

I'm not demanding that you take it down, but just requesting it. If you decline, it's your user page in the end, but anyone else could nominate it for deletion or start a new thread on this page to get it removed. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well i started looking for sources on it again at the moment so it's still useful at the moment. I gave up for a while but figured someone must have noticed this high up the chain and thats why i neatened it up to help me, I also had to move it to my talk page stop Christian complaining about it, You don't mind it being there for a week tops if i'm still using it do you?

Thanks for ending the dispute, hopefully permanently. Jenova20 (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You can have it there if you're actively working on it and it doesn't make any attacks or allegations against the organization. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Jenova, instead of having it on your talk page have you considered moving it to a subpage of your userpage (i.e. User:Jenova20/dm)- that way it would still be easily accessible for you but less visible for the rest of us? l'aquatique[talk] 18:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Created it, what's the easies way to get back to it without looking in my contributions each time? Thanks Jenova20 (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Pop a link to your subpage onto your userpage like what I did with my subpage for the Boxer rebellion origins section. 160.44.248.164 (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC) _{Ugh i keep forgetting to Login Blackmane (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)}

Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Abmrboltz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a recreation of a blocked user (User:Raamamdan). They are impersonating the administrator User:Admrboltz, and just being a douchebag in general. Non-contrversial blocking needed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future, vandalism-only accounts like these can be listed at WP:AIV. Nakon 19:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

My bad... I thought I was posting in the wrong forum but couldn't remember where the correct venue was if this wasn't it. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Please don't refer to people as being a 'douchebag'. For one, being such isn't a reason for being blocked so it certainly doesn't help the case for blocking the target of the personal attack. For two, it's a direct violation of WP:NPA. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It's also an insult to hard-working, honest douchebags everywhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Same guy as Chankumbah (talk · contribs) and Garrettdavid (talk · contribs) - no other socks that I can see - Alison ^❤ 06:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone find an edit that will fix the automatic taxobox? It is showing error messages on major articles such as Bird, Octopus, maybe hundreds more. The category for articles with broken automatic taxoboxes is here. I assume it was an edit made by User:Smith609 whose edit history may be found here.

The error messages are large ugly red print and/or symbols in the taxobox that overpowers the other information. I have, in the past, reverted or replaced the broken automatic taxoboxes with static ones, but there are hundreds of articles and hundreds more templates in the category, and I have limited editing skills right now. I cannot find a single edit in Smith609's edit history that can be reverted to fix this.

If someone can find an edit in Smith609's edit history that can be reverted, or if editors can replace broken automatic taxoboxes on at least the FA Bird it would be helpful for the time being until the problem can be fixed. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be a vandal edit. It has happened a number of times with the automatic taxoboxes and administrators should be aware that single vandal edits to automatic taxoboxes can lead to 1000s of articles with error messages. It is difficult to figure out where the problem is for correcting the templates in a timely fashion. This will impact FAs and the main page if automatic taxoboxes are rolled out throughout wikipedia. The incident and its implications and possible solutions is being discussed here. Solutions and insight would be welcome. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Although he acts in good faith, I have continually warned him about false info for months and can no longer keep up with his edits. All his refs consist of bible/quran quotes which he takes out of context. I waste hours chasing him around and he's no longer manageable. Not a single of his edits contains third-party refs.

In a nutshell, he gives wikipedia articles or bible verses as refs for islamic articles. He creates articles without refs. He makes massive additions without refs. He makes mass deletions without edit summaries or talk page consensus. He gives Quranic verses as refs despite the info not being in the given citation. He consistently violates WP:No original research. Major POV issues. etc.

He's tendentious, but gets away with his edits as he sounds articulate and most admins are not familiar with the topic at hand. I honestly believe he's a nuisance to the wiki project and I have already tried giving warning notices or reverting him. From this Reply on my talk page its obvious he doesnt have a clue what a reliable source is.

Imadjafar is way too keen to label someone as a revered figure in Islam, just because this person is mentioned in the bible. He forgets that Muslims reject the bible.

Desired outcome

I request a 3 month topic ban from all saint/prophet related pages or a 2 week block for WP:Disruptive editing (or both). If he continues, this ban should escalate.

I request the authority to initiate a mass clean-up of many POV original research edits from Imadjafar.

Imadjafar should be forced to provide a third party citation for every single one of his major edits from now on; and should also be forced to seek consensus before major edits.

I sent one of the articles to AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenan (son of Noah). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Examples of problematic edits

By the way, all the below issues are repeated on other articles:

• Just today he deletes text from religions he disagrees with.
• removes wikilink and again
• He uses bible verses as refs for an article about Islam. For example : Cain and Abel in Islam and Books of Moses (Islam)
• Here he falsely claims Samuel is mentioned in the Qur'an even though the words samuel is nowhere to be found in the quran. breach of Original research policy
• Creates this article yesterday Kenan (son of Noah) where Kenan is simultaneously "mentioned in the Qur'an but is unnamed". A clear oxymoron.
• Here simultaneously asserts that samuel is mentioned in the quran but is not named. Another oxymoron.
• Major deletions i.e. here
• Deletes references [17]
• Ugly and disproportionate WP:HEAD and layouts for example in this Aaron in Islam article where there's a heading for each sentence.
• Here changes the notable Abdullah Yusuf Ali Quran translations to an unknown fringe Quran translator called Ahmad Ali.
• Deletes text from Islamic sects and denominations he doesn't agree with.
• Parable of the Hamlet in Ruins - This article was created last month which has No refs. is NPOV. and does not meet WP:GNG
• Ridiculous assertions that the arabic version of Elizabeth is ilizibith. (an issue that repeats itself on similar articles)
• Undiscussed major revisions on most pages he visits. For example: This one
• Here Imadjafar gives a wikipedia article as a reference (as he has done on many other occasions).
• Another woeful addition by imadjafar here where the Quran verse he cites does not even mention Isaiah.
• Once again he gives a reference which does not mention the intended individual (Joshua).
• unsourced edits: [18]

This might be the tip of the iceberg because i have only taken a short glance at his edits.

Template problems

When it comes to templates Imadjafar has a habit of adding non-islamic biblical figures to Islamic templates.

• Creates a template called Honoured women in Islam ; but fills it with individuals who are not mentioned in Quran nor hadiths. For example Rebecca, Rachel, Jochebed, Zipporah, Saint Anne, Elizabeth (biblical figure) - all these women have absolutely nothing to do with islam, and imadjafar has not provided any reliable refs indicating otherwise.
• Creates another faulty template called people in the Quran. This template is filled with individuals not related to the Qur'an. Many individuals added to this template are not mentioned in the Quran. i.e. Kenan, Potiphar, Saul, Zuleika (legendary), Goliath etc.
• He has previously created a duplicate template called Quranic people which was since deleted by an admin.

His excuses for adding biblical figures to Islamic templates are that they are interchangeable abrahamic religions, but Imadjafar forgets that Muslims reject the Bible. Therefore, just because the Bible says Elizabeth is the wife of Zachariah does not mean Islam accepts Elizabeth as the wife of Zachariah. Someone65 (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User notified. GiantSnowman 13:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There has been a ongoing edit war in the past few days over at the article on Khaled Mohamed Saeed ever since the start of the Egyptian protests. The warring has been over the inclusion of this image in the article. I and a few other users have been reverting a plethora of IPs that have been removing the image. They have also expressed their dislike of the image on the talk page, mainly about how it is so graphic. Other users and myself have responded with Wikipedia's policy of WP:NOTCENSORED. The image is also highly important to the article, as the image itself is one of the main reasons why Saeed's death has received such media attention and is also one of the catalysts for the current Egyptian protests.

So, I wasn't sure if this was the sort of situation where I should just request semi-protection and I wanted to make sure that it was proper first, instead of going to Requests for Page Protection. Silverseren^C 06:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not a free image; that certainly does not help anything at all. It may need to be removed on WP:NFCC grounds alone (assuming there is a working link for the source, which is currently dead right now). –MuZemike 07:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Well, i'm sure there's a free version out there, since it is an image that has been used around the world. Not sure who to credit the original photo to though. I mean...it would be to the forensic examiner, I suppose. I'm not sure exactly how that works. Silverseren^C 07:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Was Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_January_16#File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg overturned? AniMate 07:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but I personally think there may be grounds for a deletion review here, given the discussion and the (non)application of the NFCC here. –MuZemike 08:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait. It was re-uploaded after its FFD closed as "delete"? I would contend that the image is speedy deletable per WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of deleted material that was deleted per a deletion discussion). –MuZemike 08:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. But we really need to find a free version then, because that image is vital to the subject. Silverseren^C 08:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Take Daniel Pearl, who is arguably most famous for being beheaded by terrorists. It is very possible to find videos and images of his execution. Should those be in his article? Clearly we have to treat these subjects with decency and respect, while not using shocking images to make a political point. Wikipedia is not censored, but to maintain our integrity editorial judgment should and must be used in cases like this one. Please don't start a crusade for including pictures of people's deaths. AniMate 08:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

However, the image of Daniel Pearl's death did not cause such an outcry that it would cause a nation of people to rise up against their government. Saeed's did. Silverseren^C 08:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That's looking at things a bit simply, considering this is directly related to the regime change in Tunisia and several people who have self-immolated. Frankly, as tragic and infuriating as that photo is, it fails NFCC and crosses some lines I don't think we should be crossing. AniMate 08:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it wouldn't be that difficult to find a free copy or one that would work under the NFCC. So, I guess this issue about having the image at all is one that should be more extensively discussed, since you are the only person so far who has thought otherwise. Silverseren^C 08:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? There was a valid FFD, and AniMate was evidently not the only person who thought it should be deleted. (I was another, incidentally). And if the present copy is non-free, how on earth do you suppose another copy of it could possibly be free? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's one more then. It's a difficult judgment call, and I also very strongly support WP:NOTCENSORED, but I have to agree with AniMate; in my opinion, also, this "crosses some lines we shouldn't be crossing". There should certainly be a link to the photo from the article, but I think each viewer should have the right to determine for themselves whether they want to view an image of a corpse. Since this is an exceptional case, and there are very good arguments on both sides of the issue, could all of you possibly agree to compromise on an expedient that very prominently featured a link to the pic? Something right at the top of the article, perhaps?  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

A link to the pic could of course only be a link to an external copy, not to a copy on Wikipedia (because we can't host non-free images that aren't actually used in articles), which will remain technically problematic (links going dead etc.). Of course the article must talk about the impact of the image somewhere, and that must be sourced, and the sourcing can easily be to a news source that also shows the image. I personally don't see why it would need to be any more prominent than that, but that's a simple editorial decision to be hacked out on the article talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I made the suggestion with an assumption that a free image could be found. If so, it could be incorporated into a subpage. And even if a free image can't be found, couldn't a stable link be provided to an external page that included the image via a webarchive service?  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's probably a few things that can be linked as EL's. The Facebook memorial page, for one. And there's a semi-official memorial site as well. Silverseren^C 09:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the ethical problem with this image is that it infuriates viewers through the naive, and probably false, implication that the hideous distortions visible in the photograph are actually the result of torture, rather than of the post mortem. The only possible legitimate NFC case I can imagine would be if we had well-sourced commentary that analyses and, where necessary, debunks that idea. Until such a time, this needs to be deleted again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you are one more person that disagrees. I don't really count DMSBel at this moment, considering the issues with him and censorship that was on this board not too long ago. And there is already commentary in sources that analyzes him as having a broken jaw, multiple bruises on his face, and a cracked skull. As for debunking it. Well, that's probably impossible when you have forensic examiners that don't even acknowledge there being any wounds on the body. The former chief medical examiner discusses that here. Silverseren^C 08:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I will say I'm not overly opposed to semi-protecting the article. The drive by anons are pretty suspicious and they aren't making any effort to discuss. AniMate 09:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The high number of them concerns me. I have my suspicions on whether they have any connection with the Egyptian government (or pro-Egyptian supporters). Semi-protection would be appreciated. Silverseren^C 09:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to protect the page since I've edited it and am slightly involved. You should go to WP:RFPP if this thread doesn't get the results you want in regards to protection. As for the picture, if you want it in there, you really should take it to WP:DRV. Note that three admins here have said it fails WP:NFCC, so just adding it back in again is probably a bad idea. AniMate 10:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the type to just add it in again. I'm not the type to do much of anything without consensus. But I probably will end up taking it to DRV, yeah. Silverseren^C 15:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, I have nominated the article itself for deletion. At first I thought this was someone killed recently and tied a simple redirect to the 2011 Egyptian unrest, but it is only the recent release of the image itself that has any connection to recent events. There's just nothing really there but "he died, brutality alleged, oh, people are upset about the picture 6 months later", but we'll see. Tarc (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• I responded to the AfD. Um, you have fun with that. I don't see there even being a chance of it getting deleted. Silverseren^C 16:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

More eyes need on pretty much anything regarding Egypt

Things are really starting to get out of hand over there with the protests, and I don't think it's going to go away anytime soon. To say the least, we're going to see few extra admins and other concerned neutral editors to keep watch on these articles pertaining to Egypt and the 2011 Egyptian protests articles. –MuZemike 21:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

98.234.208.200 (talk · contribs) has been editing rather tendentiously on List of people born in Ukraine. Contributions include repeated insertion of a highly unencyclopedic paragraph [19], changing spellings of names idiosyncratically in ways that break many wikilinks [20] [21], and bad faith assumptions [22] [23]. He has been warned repeatedly and rather than heeding the warnings takes any criticism as evidence that the people warning him are anti-Ukrainian. I'd block him myself, but I'm far too closely involved at this point. Will notify on his talk. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

When I had tried to mediate with this editor, I had failed to read the anti-semitic jibe "comisar-steins", which should not be tolerated in civilized society. I am sorry that I wasted time mediating, instead of immediately asking for a blocking for personal attacks --- ethnic, religious, and (unsubstantiated) political. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 48hrs for a start, and placed under standard Arbcom warning. Next offense should immediately lead to ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Being an IP editor, they can't actually be banned. Corvus cornix_talk 19:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Dhighlender (talk · contribs) and VanceTan (talk · contribs) - only editing their own and the other's user page, both bios. Take them to MfD or? Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Both users notified. GiantSnowman 14:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

They are clearly made to look like Bio artciels not user pages.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite; indeed, Vance Tan's official website has the notice "Official Wikipedia Page can be found here", followed by a link to his user page. GiantSnowman 16:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed information about a (quite young) minor from the first article. The second article is entirely about someone that is technically a minor for another six weeks or so. And is very detailed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC) (Yes I know I wrote "article" where I meant "page". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(3 times):::Definitely. Sorry I forgot to notify, rl interfered. They, if there is a they and not just one editor, don't seem likely to see it soon though. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete as they are obviously promotional and non-notable (and gaming the system) by creating user space pages that look (and are marketed) as articles.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::And don't we assume his blog is copyright and thus the article, which is virtually copied from [24], is copyvio? Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted both as WP:CSD G11 (spam). The one page was from 2007. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way the only edits either one had made was to the user pages. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Observation: we always need to work harder at helping newcomers, and one of those ways, Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, could use more people getting involved to ensure timely and high-quality responses. [Yes, I know, this is not an incident, but ANI has the most watchers, and in general helping newcomers may prevent future incidents...] Rd232 ^talk 01:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, that page is semi-protected so that new users (and IP's) can't edit it. I don't see the point of it anyway. The comments posted to it should go on the article talk pages instead. The contributors should be invited to the appropriate wikiprojects where they can meet other editors of similar interests. New editors shouldn't have to seek feedback in that fashion (few will figure it out anyway). Instead, newpage patrollers should supply actual feedback instead of those useless and patronizing pre-recorded talkpage templates. Maybe that could be organized into some kind of system where they refer new articles to wikiprojects for review and feedback/welcomes. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the individual feedback pages (Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 January 26, etc.) are not semi-protected, or it would ruin its purpose of helping new users. I agree that new page patrollers need to start taking responsibility and helping articles rather than blindly tagging them. However, not all WikiProjects are active, or would be quickest at giving feedback. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As if that's all we new page patrollers do, thank you very much. In case you haven't noticed, there are only a very few of us actually doing what we do, which leaves us without a huge amount of time to give individual feedback if we try to patrol everything (which we're having problems with; see WT:CSD). Maybe if there were more of us, we'd be able to, but the garage bands, spam, copyvios, and attacks don't stop for us. Besides, if I know something about a subject I'll stop and work on it a little bit, or I'll find a reference for an unsourced BLP. I know that sometimes we could use more communication from our end, but you could do without throwing us under the bus here; I know we're hated around here, but as that essay says our work is necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

? NPP is a very different task, and one of Wikipedia's strengths is specialisation by users. Don't confuse the issue. Rd232 ^talk 07:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying NPP is bad, I'm saying that many users on NPP completely disregard people's work and tag blindly immediately after an article's creation, without fully understanding the CSD criteria. It's not any person in particular's fault, and NPP isn't the issue, it's just that we need more new page patrollers who take time to help articles rather than tag all the time. The Blade of the Northern Lights, I've seen your work before and I appreciate your efforts; please understand I wasn't trying to blame NPP in general. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but... this thread isn't about NPP. WP:FEED fulfils a function which NPP cannot be expected to (at least, not as long as the backlog there is always so long). Both WP:FEED and NPP need more people, but involvement in WP:FEED is a quite different experience and may appeal to different people - people who'd quickly find NPP work too boring. Rd232 ^talk 16:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I once called doing NPP "drinking from the Magic Firehose of Sewage"; Jimbo (to whom I'd said it) just sort of grinned wryly. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you never know when you'll run across the next The Sound of Perseverance (band). That's why I do it. As to getting people to WP:FEED; I think making some noise at the Village Pump would help, but I think it'd also be good to poke the Welcoming Committee and see if a few of them don't want to do something. It seems like something that'd be right up their alley. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC) And Fetchomms, don't worry; I'm just trying to highlight our difficulties on NPP, so maybe we can kill 2 birds with 1 stone here.

I took a look after Sluzzelin posted on the Reference Desk talk page about this — what a depressing page that is. It's editor after editor writing about non-notable people (themselves), bands (theirs), companies (theirs), and events (theirs), posting to the feedback page in the hope they'll be able to skirt our guidelines and policies. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah; after I finally made my first article today (after about 10 1/2 months), I thought about putting in a request, but I kinda have to agree with you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please move this to the article talk page. There is nothing for admins to do here. Lets keep it that way, please!
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So I took the information here, then I inserted a category which corresponds with this information to this article. First, my edit was reverted by user Buster7, who uses this rule as an excuse to remove this particular category. I informed him about the article, in which this source's statement first appeared, and noted: that he's not assuming good faith while selectively removing this information based on the source only from the certain article, and welcomed him to do so in the other article, however he didn't do, so it only proves he wasn't deleting this category out of the wish to keep it up with the encyclopedic value but rather due to his own interests to protect Sarah Palin's page from unfavored content (also to note, another collaborator haven't even bothered to check the information, he said that source indicates no affiliation between Palin and the organization Stop Islamization of America, while it does indicate). Now about the admin, rather than trying to reach the consensus between two users (user Buster7 complained to him about me apparently) he deleted something which is debatable, in other words wasn't a neutral judge, but rather a biased collaborator who deleted something for which he has the same opinion. I did inform him about the article from where I took this information, but he did nothing about it. What is this double standard here? It can be there, but it can't be here because someone won't like it being only here? If he finds it unreliable for this statement, then he should remove it from there first, otherwise it's a selective removal of the same information from two articles. Whatever the right decision here is, it can't be deleted from one particular place and be let to stay on another. It's either should be deleted from both articles, or let it stay on these both articles. It's (information) based on the same source there and here. Userpd (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 1) This is a content dispute, and should be handled on the article talk pages. There is no action which requires the involvement of administrators here. 2) Other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. 3) Categories should only be added if they are relevent to reliably sourced information contained in the article itself. 4) WP:BLP requires scrupulous, direct inline cites for all claims which may be considered controversial 5) If you feel that something is wrong in the Wilders article, it should be removed too. That something is incorrect in the Wilders article does not mean that YOU also get to violate WP:BLP rules at the Sarah Palin article. If the information is true, find a scrupulous, external source which explicitly states so, and which requires absolutely no novel synthesis to arrive at the conclusion. --Jayron32 14:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC) The one who's against it, should have been made a comment on article talk page. It's him for whom it's a problem, not for me. Have you examined this issue? It's just that I grabbed this information from another article, but it's based on source which I provided when asked. So your wording "Other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources" is wrong, because this information was based on the source. I don't think there's a doubt that what has been said in the source is wrong, no need to play with rules to make a point. Also, on a sidenote, this rule you're quoting was implemented so that the added information is true. Do you have a strong proof that it isn't other than your own opinion? Obviously no. Citing for a category? But here we don't cite categories, only when asked, let's say, at talkpages for those who want to make sure that this category is legit. As for removing it from Wilders article, why should I do it? I informed the people who want to remove this information that they should consider deleting it from another article - what they didn't do. This is for the question: was the admin removing it because he wanted to keep it up with the encyclopedic value? If so, why don't he remove it from another article too? It's the same information here based on this source. So as you see, they're not interested in removing it from another place, it's only in Sarah Palin's page that makes them uncomfortable. tl;dr the admin wasn't assuming good faith or removed it because he wanted to keep it up with encyclopedic value, and his unwillingness to do the same in another article just proves it. Userpd (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC) No, that's actually 100% wrong. Read WP:BURDEN. If you want information in the article, it is your job to convince others and establish consensus to do so, using both reliable sources and a reasonable justification of relevence to the article. Insofar as that has not happened, other people may remove the information. Let me repeat that: It is the responsibility of the person who wishes to ADD information to an article to make the case for adding it, NOT the other way around. --Jayron32 15:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC) "Convince"? No, it's not written in such way there (because one hardly can convince a biased person no matter how that one tries), however there is written: "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them." which I did when I gave a link to the source. Now about reliability (better term here would be verifiability, however): "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." Radio of the Netherlands had appeared on many respected mainstream publications. Yes, it's not a problem for me to remove it from the Wilder's article, even though I'm not agree with removing it. But when I informed the admin Horologium while he was removing this information about another article which has this information, he did absolutely nothing. So what is this if not hypocrisy of an admin? While taking adminship he also took the responsibility of this power before the wikipedia, when he refused to remove the same information from another article he failed as admin to be neutral and make no exceptions to what he's doing e.g. he can't remove the information from certain article and keep it on in another. He also could inform me as he knew I would be objective to removing it, but no he just followed another user's side and did the same as that another user. I mean think about it: What if I didn't make this request here and just abandoned this idea, the information would stay in Wilder's article while it was removed from Palin's. What is this? "I will delete this information only from Palin's article? I don't care if this information lies in another, I will only defend Palin's article from this unfavored (which is yet to debate whether it's or not, but he obviously thinks it's unfavored) information" Userpd (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC) First, I was not informed of this discussion at all, which is a required step. Second, there is no use of admin powers at all, and in fact I cannot use my tools on that article, because I have an extensive history as an editor on that article, dating back to January 2009. Third, this is a content dispute, which the editor has failed to discuss anywhere (on the article talk page, or on any user's talk page. I recognize that he is a new editor, but that does not give him carte blanche to ignore policies and procedures. I would suggest that Userpd pay closer attention to the information sections of the various project pages, as his failure to properly follow the simple instructions is likely to get him into trouble if he continues along that path. Horologium (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Where did I ignore policies? I used a reliable source (NWL is a reliable in this case, it fits with the statement in the rule: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." And Radio of the Netherlands had appeared on many respected mainstream publications, on book, bbc, related links. Secondly, I did inform you that you've been put on notice. Userpd (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC) That's not a notification about this AN/I report -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC) I didn't say it is. But he presented in the way that I kept him intentionally totally uninformed about him being put on notice. Userpd (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC) You ignored the instructions on this page, which state that any person who is a subject of a discussion must be notified about it. You dropped a template about the probation on Sarah Palin on my page, which was not needed (since you apparently didn't read the instructions there, which state that anyone who has edited the page is auotmatically considered to be notified; I added a notification of an editor last month). That doesn't notify me about this discussion, and had I not dropped in to see what was being discussed on AN/I, I would have been totally unaware of your baseless attack. Further, you added a potentially libelous category to a BLP which is under probation, a category which has no reason to be added to the article, since there is no discussion of the topic anywhere in that article. It's unreferenced (in that article), and what RNL says is a far cry from justifying adding a category about anti-Muslim sentiment to Palin's article. Such a contentious addition needs to be very carefully cited and discussed in the article, not dropped in without discussion or citation. Horologium (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Again? Why are you saying what you just said below, I didn't ask you to do it. Well, it seems your only 'argument' which you can use against me: "didn't inform". I did inform you if you haven't noticed. Besides, I already said, no harm was done to anyone. You appeared here, so what's the issue that you're talking about? And excuse me, how is it not needed, if in the second column it's required to have a diff link where you informed the person in subject. And no, in the instruction right below the section Notification, isn't written "that anyone who has edited the page is auotmatically considered to be notified". However, it's written there: "You can use the template:uw-probation to alert anyone to article probation and post a "diff" showing the warning." Which I did. And one can have diverse opinions on what is contentious and what isn't. Because she always said he's for Christian America and values, so it shouldn't be shocking she's opposed to Islam. So again, one can't be sure what is contentious. And no, you wouldn't have been unaware, if you haven't appeared so early, someone would have told me and I would take steps for you to appear, although I knew you would appear as I informed you that you were put on notice. Userpd (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Protonk below explained well. And you're putting it that way that a harm was made to someone, to whom? To you? I see no harm, why should I repetitively inform you if I already did so just a few minutes ago? Don't play with rules, let's better think why they were implemented and what for, for another participant in subject to appear, you did appear not so long ago after I made this request. Userpd (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Hi Userpd. The point is simply that if you start a report about someone, you should notify them about that report - and you did not do that. You notified him of something entirely different, and there was no way he could be expected to deduce that there was also an AN/I report here. I'm sure it was just an oversight, and I'm sure you were acting in good faith. But please, just treat this as a bit of experience and learn from it, and take it as a reminder to be sure to notify people properly in the future. Anyway, everyone knows about it now, so I suggest everyone should just move on with the actual matter in hand. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC) A note to the involved users and ANI commentators: the notification rule is meant to ensure notice and participation, not to serve as some sort of statutory prerequisite or a subject of discussion in its own right. If a user doesn't notify all involved parties then remind them of the rule, do it yourself and MOVE ON. It serves no one to have a big back and forth about the issue on ANI once all parties ae notified. Protonk (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC) It's not "entirely" different, I notified him that he's being put on notice. That was a non-issue, since he appeared here right after I did my request (because I notified him earlier that he's been put on notice, so he checked here too) Userpd (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC) I have also notified Buster, since his actions are being discussed (he did nothing wrong, but he should be alerted to the discussion). Horologium (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Thank You, Horologium for noticing that I had not been informed, as is required in the simple instructions above. I usually do not resort to edit-warring but felt this was an obvious BLP violation. Buster Seven Talk 21:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC) No admin powers used by Horologium - in fact no powers of any sort misused, IMHO. Userpd appears to be of the opinion that "Other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources" does not apply in certain circumstances. This is simply untenable - I'm afraid you're wrong, Userpd. Furthermore, you have as much power as any other editor to remove material from the Geert Wilders page. If you choose not to, you can't berate other editors for failing to do what you will not. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC) «Userpd appears to be of the opinion that "Other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources" does not apply in certain circumstances.» And another user who blames only me, haven't bothered to examine this case to not to let himself be mistaken. I already refuted this statement made by another users, who too, didn't examine it before throwing blames around at me, it's not based on another wikipedia article, it's based on the source which I provided when asked. Oh here again, you haven't bothered to read above, have you? I will quote my comment left above, which was made earlier: "Yes, it's not a problem for me to remove it from the Wilder's article, even though I'm not agree with removing it. But when I informed the admin Horologium while he was removing this information about another article which has this information, he did absolutely nothing. So what is this if not hypocrisy of an admin? While taking adminship he also took the responsibility of this power before the wikipedia, when he refused to remove the same information from another article he failed as admin to be neutral and make no exceptions to what he's doing e.g. he can't remove the information from certain article and keep it on in another." Also, retitled to make it preciser. Userpd (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC) On the contrary, I read your case made above, Horologium's reply, both your talk and contributions pages and the talk page and history of the article in question. I have no history with either of you or the page in question. I came to my conclusion after considering all the evidence I could find; it is, to elaborate further, that Horologium and you are engaged in a simple content dispute and there is nothing to be discussed here at ANI. What admin activity are you asking for? A block? Page protection? Page deletion? Please specify and say why this is needed. Or better still, take this to the article talk page and try and work towards a consensus with other editors. PS: Constantly alluding to the fact that Horologium is an admin is a red herring, as no admin powers have been used. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC) No you didn't. And I proved it with the facts, not just by words. Because if you did, as you claim, you'd read my comment above that was made earlier here, and wouldn't say that I «appear to be of the opinion that "Other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources" does not apply in certain circumstances», which is wrong, because I: a) Don't think so, b) In my case I didn't rely on another wikipedia article but on the source, which I provided when asked. And stop making useless claims, where did I constantly allude that he's an admin? If he was a user I would say user, so that readers would understand who exactly I'm talking about. I used only three times that he's an admin in my both posts. Last one when I summarized what I said in the second post (so it's kinda repetition). As an admin he used his weight in deleting that information. Phrase how you like. Userpd (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=410616434&oldid=410615794 {undent}(Edit Conflict) Thank you, Editor:Horologium For infoming me about this AN/I. @Userpd...In the future, please be aware that it is a common courtesy to your fellow WP editors to inform them when you are discussing them in an Administrator Forum. Please see the Big Bold Yellow tag at the top of this page. you should have informed me. I did not complain to Admin:Horologium. I did not contact him in any way, shape or form. An assumption like that will lead to many altercations for you. All editors have watchlists. The Sarah Plain article has had hundreds of editors involved in its construction. Admin:Horologium and I are not the only editors to undo your questionable edit. At least 3 other editors felt it was necessary. And, to counter one of your comments re:bias, we came from both sides of the Palin Arena. You failed to use the Palin talk page as I suggested to you on your talk page. You failed to follow simple well-known rules of conduct and any escalation of edit-warring is completely "on your plate". Neither I nor any other WP editor has an assumed responsibility to edit another article based solely on your commands. I have no intention of commenting on the nature of the editorial substance of what you want to include. There is not a scintilla of proof as to its reliability. Your imitation verification is wanting. It is complete hearsay and has no place in a BLP.Buster Seven Talk 21:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC) It was mainly about the admin, I didn't attack you or something, just described pre-events which would help others to understand this case. I didn't say that you complained, I only made an assumption. Since you invited user Fcreid so that he reverts my edit. You had made comments at his talkpage previously, and some of them were made long ago, so I take it you knew him for a long time. Who knows, maybe you knew he shares similar opinions to that of yours, so you decided to invite him for 'defending Sarah Palin's article from me'. All editors have watchlists? But yet it didn't prevent you from inviting another 'buddy' (you knew him for a very long time already) in the 'battle' against me? He doesn't seem to be from another side, maybe he has an opinion on something which is slightly different to your opinion. But here with no doubt, you acted in the same way. And I think you knew that, that's why you invited him to revert my edit (this is the only thing he did after you invited him to our engagement) in the first place, eh? Not reliable? How about disproving my statements on proving its reliability above? Why didn't you read it first? It's good to dive in to the middle of discussion without bothering reading your opponent's posts, but for god's sake, read at least when I'm asking you to. Because you're claiming what I just tried to prove, or you think it's a common courtesy to make your opponent to repeat what he just said? Userpd (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC) It would have been nice to be notified if I'm being discussed on AN/I, Userpd. It facilitates collaboration. Your innuendo above is off target. Buster is an open-minded and reasonable person with whom I've collaborated for more than two years. I admire and respect him. However, had you researched, you would see we routinely disagree on article content. We had such a disagreement yesterday on the Palin "Public Image" article. Despite, because we have a mutual respect for each other, we invariably come to reasonable consensus on even contentious material. Not surprisingly, that collaboration fosters further consensus among other editors and usually results in a more comprehensive and more neutral product. To bring this back on-track, you've got a content consideration for the Palin article. It's been reverted multiple times because the source you provided is far from "extraordinary" enough to support the extraordinary claim you seem to think it makes. You've never brought the matter to the Talk page for further discussion, so dialog with you has been limited to a few characters in the edit summary. That guidance was fairly simple: find a better source for this extraordinary claim. What do you see as the problem? Fcreid (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Please, is anyone asking for anything here that requires admin powers to be used? If so, what? If not, please move to article talk pages and I'll mark this discussion closed. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Please mark it as closed. There is nothing here other than massive assumptions of bad faith and aspersions cast upon me simply because I have the admin tools. The original complainant has nothing other than "he doesn't agree with me" behind the complaint, which is not an appropriate topic for ANI. Horologium (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC) One more thing to assist userpd in his future at WP. Pay attention to time stamps before you accuse editors of collaboration. If you will note editor:Fcreid undid your edit which I noticed on my watchlist and then I left him a message just to let him know I had tried to create your presence at the talk page. You saw something sinister. Change your mind about what goes on here. There are no snakes under the rocks, no boogeymen in the closets! Buster Seven Talk 00:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems a long term vandal at Craig MacTavish has decided to imitate me while placing ridiculous warnings on random editor's talk pages. I think it is rather comical, but it occurs to me that my little friend may be using open proxies to jump IPs when blocked. As I know little about this, I figured it would be worthwhile for someone more knowledgable to check. So far they've used:

• 65.127.208.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 206.190.68.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 66.224.33.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 75.145.77.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

On that last address, they indicated they could easily hop IPs. So far we've just been blocking short term, but it might be a case where these addresses need to be removed from the pool for a longer period of time... Resolute 03:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

...between Wrestling0101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 187.15.116.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've warned both already. Could someone strategically trout them please? HalfShadow 04:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Observation: we always need to work harder at helping newcomers, and one of those ways, Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, could use more people getting involved to ensure timely and high-quality responses. [Yes, I know, this is not an incident, but ANI has the most watchers, and in general helping newcomers may prevent future incidents...] Rd232 ^talk 01:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, that page is semi-protected so that new users (and IP's) can't edit it. I don't see the point of it anyway. The comments posted to it should go on the article talk pages instead. The contributors should be invited to the appropriate wikiprojects where they can meet other editors of similar interests. New editors shouldn't have to seek feedback in that fashion (few will figure it out anyway). Instead, newpage patrollers should supply actual feedback instead of those useless and patronizing pre-recorded talkpage templates. Maybe that could be organized into some kind of system where they refer new articles to wikiprojects for review and feedback/welcomes. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the individual feedback pages (Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 January 26, etc.) are not semi-protected, or it would ruin its purpose of helping new users. I agree that new page patrollers need to start taking responsibility and helping articles rather than blindly tagging them. However, not all WikiProjects are active, or would be quickest at giving feedback. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As if that's all we new page patrollers do, thank you very much. In case you haven't noticed, there are only a very few of us actually doing what we do, which leaves us without a huge amount of time to give individual feedback if we try to patrol everything (which we're having problems with; see WT:CSD). Maybe if there were more of us, we'd be able to, but the garage bands, spam, copyvios, and attacks don't stop for us. Besides, if I know something about a subject I'll stop and work on it a little bit, or I'll find a reference for an unsourced BLP. I know that sometimes we could use more communication from our end, but you could do without throwing us under the bus here; I know we're hated around here, but as that essay says our work is necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

? NPP is a very different task, and one of Wikipedia's strengths is specialisation by users. Don't confuse the issue. Rd232 ^talk 07:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying NPP is bad, I'm saying that many users on NPP completely disregard people's work and tag blindly immediately after an article's creation, without fully understanding the CSD criteria. It's not any person in particular's fault, and NPP isn't the issue, it's just that we need more new page patrollers who take time to help articles rather than tag all the time. The Blade of the Northern Lights, I've seen your work before and I appreciate your efforts; please understand I wasn't trying to blame NPP in general. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but... this thread isn't about NPP. WP:FEED fulfils a function which NPP cannot be expected to (at least, not as long as the backlog there is always so long). Both WP:FEED and NPP need more people, but involvement in WP:FEED is a quite different experience and may appeal to different people - people who'd quickly find NPP work too boring. Rd232 ^talk 16:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I once called doing NPP "drinking from the Magic Firehose of Sewage"; Jimbo (to whom I'd said it) just sort of grinned wryly. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you never know when you'll run across the next The Sound of Perseverance (band). That's why I do it. As to getting people to WP:FEED; I think making some noise at the Village Pump would help, but I think it'd also be good to poke the Welcoming Committee and see if a few of them don't want to do something. It seems like something that'd be right up their alley. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC) And Fetchomms, don't worry; I'm just trying to highlight our difficulties on NPP, so maybe we can kill 2 birds with 1 stone here.

I took a look after Sluzzelin posted on the Reference Desk talk page about this — what a depressing page that is. It's editor after editor writing about non-notable people (themselves), bands (theirs), companies (theirs), and events (theirs), posting to the feedback page in the hope they'll be able to skirt our guidelines and policies. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah; after I finally made my first article today (after about 10 1/2 months), I thought about putting in a request, but I kinda have to agree with you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please move this to the article talk page. There is nothing for admins to do here. Lets keep it that way, please!
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So I took the information here, then I inserted a category which corresponds with this information to this article. First, my edit was reverted by user Buster7, who uses this rule as an excuse to remove this particular category. I informed him about the article, in which this source's statement first appeared, and noted: that he's not assuming good faith while selectively removing this information based on the source only from the certain article, and welcomed him to do so in the other article, however he didn't do, so it only proves he wasn't deleting this category out of the wish to keep it up with the encyclopedic value but rather due to his own interests to protect Sarah Palin's page from unfavored content (also to note, another collaborator haven't even bothered to check the information, he said that source indicates no affiliation between Palin and the organization Stop Islamization of America, while it does indicate). Now about the admin, rather than trying to reach the consensus between two users (user Buster7 complained to him about me apparently) he deleted something which is debatable, in other words wasn't a neutral judge, but rather a biased collaborator who deleted something for which he has the same opinion. I did inform him about the article from where I took this information, but he did nothing about it. What is this double standard here? It can be there, but it can't be here because someone won't like it being only here? If he finds it unreliable for this statement, then he should remove it from there first, otherwise it's a selective removal of the same information from two articles. Whatever the right decision here is, it can't be deleted from one particular place and be let to stay on another. It's either should be deleted from both articles, or let it stay on these both articles. It's (information) based on the same source there and here. Userpd (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 1) This is a content dispute, and should be handled on the article talk pages. There is no action which requires the involvement of administrators here. 2) Other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. 3) Categories should only be added if they are relevent to reliably sourced information contained in the article itself. 4) WP:BLP requires scrupulous, direct inline cites for all claims which may be considered controversial 5) If you feel that something is wrong in the Wilders article, it should be removed too. That something is incorrect in the Wilders article does not mean that YOU also get to violate WP:BLP rules at the Sarah Palin article. If the information is true, find a scrupulous, external source which explicitly states so, and which requires absolutely no novel synthesis to arrive at the conclusion. --Jayron32 14:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC) The one who's against it, should have been made a comment on article talk page. It's him for whom it's a problem, not for me. Have you examined this issue? It's just that I grabbed this information from another article, but it's based on source which I provided when asked. So your wording "Other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources" is wrong, because this information was based on the source. I don't think there's a doubt that what has been said in the source is wrong, no need to play with rules to make a point. Also, on a sidenote, this rule you're quoting was implemented so that the added information is true. Do you have a strong proof that it isn't other than your own opinion? Obviously no. Citing for a category? But here we don't cite categories, only when asked, let's say, at talkpages for those who want to make sure that this category is legit. As for removing it from Wilders article, why should I do it? I informed the people who want to remove this information that they should consider deleting it from another article - what they didn't do. This is for the question: was the admin removing it because he wanted to keep it up with the encyclopedic value? If so, why don't he remove it from another article too? It's the same information here based on this source. So as you see, they're not interested in removing it from another place, it's only in Sarah Palin's page that makes them uncomfortable. tl;dr the admin wasn't assuming good faith or removed it because he wanted to keep it up with encyclopedic value, and his unwillingness to do the same in another article just proves it. Userpd (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC) No, that's actually 100% wrong. Read WP:BURDEN. If you want information in the article, it is your job to convince others and establish consensus to do so, using both reliable sources and a reasonable justification of relevence to the article. Insofar as that has not happened, other people may remove the information. Let me repeat that: It is the responsibility of the person who wishes to ADD information to an article to make the case for adding it, NOT the other way around. --Jayron32 15:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC) "Convince"? No, it's not written in such way there (because one hardly can convince a biased person no matter how that one tries), however there is written: "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them." which I did when I gave a link to the source. Now about reliability (better term here would be verifiability, however): "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." Radio of the Netherlands had appeared on many respected mainstream publications. Yes, it's not a problem for me to remove it from the Wilder's article, even though I'm not agree with removing it. But when I informed the admin Horologium while he was removing this information about another article which has this information, he did absolutely nothing. So what is this if not hypocrisy of an admin? While taking adminship he also took the responsibility of this power before the wikipedia, when he refused to remove the same information from another article he failed as admin to be neutral and make no exceptions to what he's doing e.g. he can't remove the information from certain article and keep it on in another. He also could inform me as he knew I would be objective to removing it, but no he just followed another user's side and did the same as that another user. I mean think about it: What if I didn't make this request here and just abandoned this idea, the information would stay in Wilder's article while it was removed from Palin's. What is this? "I will delete this information only from Palin's article? I don't care if this information lies in another, I will only defend Palin's article from this unfavored (which is yet to debate whether it's or not, but he obviously thinks it's unfavored) information" Userpd (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC) First, I was not informed of this discussion at all, which is a required step. Second, there is no use of admin powers at all, and in fact I cannot use my tools on that article, because I have an extensive history as an editor on that article, dating back to January 2009. Third, this is a content dispute, which the editor has failed to discuss anywhere (on the article talk page, or on any user's talk page. I recognize that he is a new editor, but that does not give him carte blanche to ignore policies and procedures. I would suggest that Userpd pay closer attention to the information sections of the various project pages, as his failure to properly follow the simple instructions is likely to get him into trouble if he continues along that path. Horologium (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Where did I ignore policies? I used a reliable source (NWL is a reliable in this case, it fits with the statement in the rule: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." And Radio of the Netherlands had appeared on many respected mainstream publications, on book, bbc, related links. Secondly, I did inform you that you've been put on notice. Userpd (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC) That's not a notification about this AN/I report -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC) I didn't say it is. But he presented in the way that I kept him intentionally totally uninformed about him being put on notice. Userpd (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC) You ignored the instructions on this page, which state that any person who is a subject of a discussion must be notified about it. You dropped a template about the probation on Sarah Palin on my page, which was not needed (since you apparently didn't read the instructions there, which state that anyone who has edited the page is auotmatically considered to be notified; I added a notification of an editor last month). That doesn't notify me about this discussion, and had I not dropped in to see what was being discussed on AN/I, I would have been totally unaware of your baseless attack. Further, you added a potentially libelous category to a BLP which is under probation, a category which has no reason to be added to the article, since there is no discussion of the topic anywhere in that article. It's unreferenced (in that article), and what RNL says is a far cry from justifying adding a category about anti-Muslim sentiment to Palin's article. Such a contentious addition needs to be very carefully cited and discussed in the article, not dropped in without discussion or citation. Horologium (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Again? Why are you saying what you just said below, I didn't ask you to do it. Well, it seems your only 'argument' which you can use against me: "didn't inform". I did inform you if you haven't noticed. Besides, I already said, no harm was done to anyone. You appeared here, so what's the issue that you're talking about? And excuse me, how is it not needed, if in the second column it's required to have a diff link where you informed the person in subject. And no, in the instruction right below the section Notification, isn't written "that anyone who has edited the page is auotmatically considered to be notified". However, it's written there: "You can use the template:uw-probation to alert anyone to article probation and post a "diff" showing the warning." Which I did. And one can have diverse opinions on what is contentious and what isn't. Because she always said he's for Christian America and values, so it shouldn't be shocking she's opposed to Islam. So again, one can't be sure what is contentious. And no, you wouldn't have been unaware, if you haven't appeared so early, someone would have told me and I would take steps for you to appear, although I knew you would appear as I informed you that you were put on notice. Userpd (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Protonk below explained well. And you're putting it that way that a harm was made to someone, to whom? To you? I see no harm, why should I repetitively inform you if I already did so just a few minutes ago? Don't play with rules, let's better think why they were implemented and what for, for another participant in subject to appear, you did appear not so long ago after I made this request. Userpd (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Hi Userpd. The point is simply that if you start a report about someone, you should notify them about that report - and you did not do that. You notified him of something entirely different, and there was no way he could be expected to deduce that there was also an AN/I report here. I'm sure it was just an oversight, and I'm sure you were acting in good faith. But please, just treat this as a bit of experience and learn from it, and take it as a reminder to be sure to notify people properly in the future. Anyway, everyone knows about it now, so I suggest everyone should just move on with the actual matter in hand. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC) A note to the involved users and ANI commentators: the notification rule is meant to ensure notice and participation, not to serve as some sort of statutory prerequisite or a subject of discussion in its own right. If a user doesn't notify all involved parties then remind them of the rule, do it yourself and MOVE ON. It serves no one to have a big back and forth about the issue on ANI once all parties ae notified. Protonk (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC) It's not "entirely" different, I notified him that he's being put on notice. That was a non-issue, since he appeared here right after I did my request (because I notified him earlier that he's been put on notice, so he checked here too) Userpd (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC) I have also notified Buster, since his actions are being discussed (he did nothing wrong, but he should be alerted to the discussion). Horologium (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Thank You, Horologium for noticing that I had not been informed, as is required in the simple instructions above. I usually do not resort to edit-warring but felt this was an obvious BLP violation. Buster Seven Talk 21:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC) No admin powers used by Horologium - in fact no powers of any sort misused, IMHO. Userpd appears to be of the opinion that "Other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources" does not apply in certain circumstances. This is simply untenable - I'm afraid you're wrong, Userpd. Furthermore, you have as much power as any other editor to remove material from the Geert Wilders page. If you choose not to, you can't berate other editors for failing to do what you will not. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC) «Userpd appears to be of the opinion that "Other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources" does not apply in certain circumstances.» And another user who blames only me, haven't bothered to examine this case to not to let himself be mistaken. I already refuted this statement made by another users, who too, didn't examine it before throwing blames around at me, it's not based on another wikipedia article, it's based on the source which I provided when asked. Oh here again, you haven't bothered to read above, have you? I will quote my comment left above, which was made earlier: "Yes, it's not a problem for me to remove it from the Wilder's article, even though I'm not agree with removing it. But when I informed the admin Horologium while he was removing this information about another article which has this information, he did absolutely nothing. So what is this if not hypocrisy of an admin? While taking adminship he also took the responsibility of this power before the wikipedia, when he refused to remove the same information from another article he failed as admin to be neutral and make no exceptions to what he's doing e.g. he can't remove the information from certain article and keep it on in another." Also, retitled to make it preciser. Userpd (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC) On the contrary, I read your case made above, Horologium's reply, both your talk and contributions pages and the talk page and history of the article in question. I have no history with either of you or the page in question. I came to my conclusion after considering all the evidence I could find; it is, to elaborate further, that Horologium and you are engaged in a simple content dispute and there is nothing to be discussed here at ANI. What admin activity are you asking for? A block? Page protection? Page deletion? Please specify and say why this is needed. Or better still, take this to the article talk page and try and work towards a consensus with other editors. PS: Constantly alluding to the fact that Horologium is an admin is a red herring, as no admin powers have been used. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC) No you didn't. And I proved it with the facts, not just by words. Because if you did, as you claim, you'd read my comment above that was made earlier here, and wouldn't say that I «appear to be of the opinion that "Other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources" does not apply in certain circumstances», which is wrong, because I: a) Don't think so, b) In my case I didn't rely on another wikipedia article but on the source, which I provided when asked. And stop making useless claims, where did I constantly allude that he's an admin? If he was a user I would say user, so that readers would understand who exactly I'm talking about. I used only three times that he's an admin in my both posts. Last one when I summarized what I said in the second post (so it's kinda repetition). As an admin he used his weight in deleting that information. Phrase how you like. Userpd (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=410616434&oldid=410615794 {undent}(Edit Conflict) Thank you, Editor:Horologium For infoming me about this AN/I. @Userpd...In the future, please be aware that it is a common courtesy to your fellow WP editors to inform them when you are discussing them in an Administrator Forum. Please see the Big Bold Yellow tag at the top of this page. you should have informed me. I did not complain to Admin:Horologium. I did not contact him in any way, shape or form. An assumption like that will lead to many altercations for you. All editors have watchlists. The Sarah Plain article has had hundreds of editors involved in its construction. Admin:Horologium and I are not the only editors to undo your questionable edit. At least 3 other editors felt it was necessary. And, to counter one of your comments re:bias, we came from both sides of the Palin Arena. You failed to use the Palin talk page as I suggested to you on your talk page. You failed to follow simple well-known rules of conduct and any escalation of edit-warring is completely "on your plate". Neither I nor any other WP editor has an assumed responsibility to edit another article based solely on your commands. I have no intention of commenting on the nature of the editorial substance of what you want to include. There is not a scintilla of proof as to its reliability. Your imitation verification is wanting. It is complete hearsay and has no place in a BLP.Buster Seven Talk 21:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC) It was mainly about the admin, I didn't attack you or something, just described pre-events which would help others to understand this case. I didn't say that you complained, I only made an assumption. Since you invited user Fcreid so that he reverts my edit. You had made comments at his talkpage previously, and some of them were made long ago, so I take it you knew him for a long time. Who knows, maybe you knew he shares similar opinions to that of yours, so you decided to invite him for 'defending Sarah Palin's article from me'. All editors have watchlists? But yet it didn't prevent you from inviting another 'buddy' (you knew him for a very long time already) in the 'battle' against me? He doesn't seem to be from another side, maybe he has an opinion on something which is slightly different to your opinion. But here with no doubt, you acted in the same way. And I think you knew that, that's why you invited him to revert my edit (this is the only thing he did after you invited him to our engagement) in the first place, eh? Not reliable? How about disproving my statements on proving its reliability above? Why didn't you read it first? It's good to dive in to the middle of discussion without bothering reading your opponent's posts, but for god's sake, read at least when I'm asking you to. Because you're claiming what I just tried to prove, or you think it's a common courtesy to make your opponent to repeat what he just said? Userpd (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC) It would have been nice to be notified if I'm being discussed on AN/I, Userpd. It facilitates collaboration. Your innuendo above is off target. Buster is an open-minded and reasonable person with whom I've collaborated for more than two years. I admire and respect him. However, had you researched, you would see we routinely disagree on article content. We had such a disagreement yesterday on the Palin "Public Image" article. Despite, because we have a mutual respect for each other, we invariably come to reasonable consensus on even contentious material. Not surprisingly, that collaboration fosters further consensus among other editors and usually results in a more comprehensive and more neutral product. To bring this back on-track, you've got a content consideration for the Palin article. It's been reverted multiple times because the source you provided is far from "extraordinary" enough to support the extraordinary claim you seem to think it makes. You've never brought the matter to the Talk page for further discussion, so dialog with you has been limited to a few characters in the edit summary. That guidance was fairly simple: find a better source for this extraordinary claim. What do you see as the problem? Fcreid (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Please, is anyone asking for anything here that requires admin powers to be used? If so, what? If not, please move to article talk pages and I'll mark this discussion closed. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Please mark it as closed. There is nothing here other than massive assumptions of bad faith and aspersions cast upon me simply because I have the admin tools. The original complainant has nothing other than "he doesn't agree with me" behind the complaint, which is not an appropriate topic for ANI. Horologium (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC) One more thing to assist userpd in his future at WP. Pay attention to time stamps before you accuse editors of collaboration. If you will note editor:Fcreid undid your edit which I noticed on my watchlist and then I left him a message just to let him know I had tried to create your presence at the talk page. You saw something sinister. Change your mind about what goes on here. There are no snakes under the rocks, no boogeymen in the closets! Buster Seven Talk 00:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems a long term vandal at Craig MacTavish has decided to imitate me while placing ridiculous warnings on random editor's talk pages. I think it is rather comical, but it occurs to me that my little friend may be using open proxies to jump IPs when blocked. As I know little about this, I figured it would be worthwhile for someone more knowledgable to check. So far they've used:

• 65.127.208.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 206.190.68.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 66.224.33.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 75.145.77.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

On that last address, they indicated they could easily hop IPs. So far we've just been blocking short term, but it might be a case where these addresses need to be removed from the pool for a longer period of time... Resolute 03:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

...between Wrestling0101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 187.15.116.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've warned both already. Could someone strategically trout them please? HalfShadow 04:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem with a disruptive editor who continually reverts without explanation. I have explained all my edits in very great detail at the talk page but this editor merely dismissed my comments as "incoherent". As well as making threats to have the article that we have been editing put under protection, this editor has also made what I regard as an unwarranted complaint against me at the Wikiquette noticeboard. I think a warning and a short edit block might be in order.

Please see my full explanation here. Hauskalainen (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

First, you should notify Intermittentgardener that you have opened this thread. Secondly, much of this is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Hauskalainen. I'm not certain we need dueling reports. AniMate 10:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Correction. The Wikiquette piece is a distraction and IS NOT HE SAME ISSUE. The editing behaviour of User:Intermittentgardwner is a much more serious issue and should still be addressed.Hauskalainen (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The editor was notified that I was raising the matter here just before I actually did so. Now he has turned up the heat and deleted my edits AGAIN! This is intolerable. He knows that I have made this complaint and he knows full well that he has answered none of the substantial issues I raised with the edits that he is seeking to insert back into the article. I very rarely have made complaints about other editors and I think this may be the first time ever at AN/I. I do find this behaviour exceptionally discourteous and far from the standard we expect of each other. I do not particularly want to edit war with this editor but his pure stubborness and bloodymindedness in not even discussing the matter at the TALK page ought not to be tolerated. Hauskalainen (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have notified both editors of WP:3RR, as it appears it may be violated to have been violated. Dusti^*poke* 18:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

WTF? I have not breached 3RR and have had no such warning. People with Admin ambitions ought to be a little more careful what they say and where they say it. If I have breached 3RR (3 reverts in 24hrs) then I want to see the diffs!Hauskalainen (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Breaching 3RR is more than 3 reverts in 24 hours.--Atlan (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll retract the "It appears to have been violated" for this specific instance, however notifications or reminders are allowed to be placed on user talk pages if it appears they may violate the Three Revert Rule, and in this instance both Hauskalainen and Intermittentgardener were at two reverts each. This looks like edit warring across multiple articles. For full logs in this matter, please see the history page. Hauskalainen, The warning was placed on Intermittentgardener's talk page. I do suggest that the discussion remain centralized in this discussion. Dusti^*poke* 20:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This intervention by User:Dusti (who I suspect is a SOCK of some sort, even though he aspires to Adminhood), is a pure distraction. This case is not about revert counts but about non use of the TALK page by User:Intermittentgardener. User:Dusti should make a second retraction. I do believe that Intermittentgardener is currently at three reverts and not two.Hauskalainen (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You really should not accuse people of being sockpuppets if you don't have a good amount of evidence. --Bsadowski1 07:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The evidence is building daily. I will pull it all together when i get the time and present it when I get the time. Hauskalainen (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

<unindent>If further input is needed from me, please request it on my talk page. I'm going to step back and let the conversation take it's course, I feel that's the best thing for me to do right now. Btw, Checkusers are free to do a check on my account at anytime. Dusti^*poke* 08:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Its your editing behaviour that gives you away. Checkuser cannot detect every possible form of puppetry. Your actions say much more and are enough.Hauskalainen (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless you are going to present evidence at this time as to your belief that User:Dusti and others are sockpuppets, please stop throwing around unsubstantiated allegations. If you don't have time to make a case, then don't say anything. It can get you blocked. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is attempting to disrupt the dispute resolution started at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lihaas by canvassing editors sympathetic to him. See [25], [26] (both diffs refer to it as "vengeance mongering"), [27], [28], [29]. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The words "Canvassing" and "disruption" are tendentious. I only saw the RFA following up on David Eppstein's comment, and being surprised to see the name "Lihaas". Apart from the cited "vengeance monitoring", the others are just "heads-up" requests for comments, with no biased introduction. Please remember that non-administrators like myself don't monitor this page, and at times even administrators with a gift for behavioral mentoring can benefit from the input of editors who focus on editing articles. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If he is only posting to people he believes will support him, it is clearly canvassing to a partisan audience in order to disrupt the procedure. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Canvassing. O Fenian (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I never asked for anything of the sort from them

And Considering he already said as such in a previous discussion about him that he was collating data to report me. (Lihaas (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).

O Fenian, he openly requested that (on a limited scale) a handful of people look at the complaint with neutral language (apart from the two cases you noted of "vengeance monitoring"), as endorsed as appropriate by the policy on canvassing. Your allegation that Lihaas is canvassing only people that should support him remains unsubstantiated and so seems like a personal attack alleging bad faith. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Blatant and obvious canvassing, and clearly disruptive.--Domer48_'fenian' 12:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note the accusation of canvassing against me vs. his own [30] demand to "Sign on the dotted line" --> WP:BOOMERANG anyone?

When then you think that is Domer, care to comment on the hypocrisy thereof?Lihaas (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked him if he would certify the RFC prior to creating it, he said "Just point me where to go", I did. No canvassing there. O Fenian (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yours, note, was a request to do so and to sign it. Yours was not, however, a request to comment/see.

Lets also note that while he didnt partake in canvassing he is party to the same thing he accuses me of [31]Lihaas (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Given O Fenian's accusation that Lihaas has committed widespread widespread misbehavior, I believe that neutral-language notices at Talk:2010–2011 Tunisian uprising and Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Politics would be appropriate. Would that be acceptable? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't find much open-minded moderation in the whole dispute, WP:AGF or not, I think a neutral non-specific targeted reminder might be prudent, though it needs to remind most directly. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you please post it? (I picked the article, because it is the one on which Lihaas has the most edits. It is part of the Politics WikiProject.) My neutrality may be questioned.

(I have worked with Lihaas on the Swedish election article, sometimes disagreeing but always working out something, and I defended him against repeated allegations of being a neo-Nazi or of bad-faith editing on behalf of Swedish Democrats, an anti-immigration party with former ties to neo-Nazis.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is the result of blatant and obvious [32], [33] [34], [35], [36] canvassing and is being side tracked. This is the norm with this editor. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Dont have a clue what Domer is going on about restating what has already been said, (and hence disruptive editing that doesnt enhance anything) he hasnt even bothered yet to reply to BOOMERANG canvassing ive shown

SGGH, ive had conversations with you (and even come abck to query things with you), so i know youre level-headed. I and other editors have tried time and time again to talk to OFenian both on talk pages and his page only to have the comments reverted because he wants to ignore it. there were 2 ARBCOM and wikiquette requests on him following which he decided to slap on these 2 cases (RFC which followed his call to call me up "soon" on data he is collating) and this that i think youd find had clearly BOOMERANGED with him doing exactly the same (and in a bad faith way to "sign the bottom line" (an allegation he has not responded to)). Is this not his pound of flesh being sought?(Lihaas (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).

Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing! This comment here ludicrously described by you as canvassing, followed on from this post here, and this one here followed by this reply by RJ in this post. Behaving here in the exact same way as highlighted in this RFC here and the supporting links here fully supports my post above. I have no intention of being drawn into your tendentious discussions here, other than to support the complaint and the RFC. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that, as with many things on Wikipedia, users gravitate towards users who have shared outlooks on certain topics. This is always natural and not necessarily sinister: people work on the same articles and Wikiprojects and have the same interests. Many users one would choose to notify in a dispute or discussion will by result be users who often share your interests. This is just a fact of life here, and to purposefully over-neutralise your request by going to user you have relative beefs with and posting messages would be a step too far for most editors I would think. Lihaas' comments about vengfulness are poorly worded, yes, and he (or she, apologies I don't recall) needs to be aware that the Wikipedia:Canvassing are open to broad interpretation. And rightly so, because it is easy to canvass under the guise of notification. I don't see anything biased about his other messages similar to "would you please comment" though I obviously don't know the debate well enough to comment on the idea that he is messaging only his strongest supports (but see my comment earlier in this post).

As for O Fenian's linked comments, no they are not an obviously biased message, but he too could use a reminder that Wikipedia:Canvassing is broadly interpreted, and the "come on over" style message can give the impression that a user thinks nothing of a debate's agenda by making light of the argument and/or situation. I may be being a bit too sensitive, however I don't - with the greatest respect - think that O Fenian particularly hides his colours from his sleeves either. Both he and RepublicanJacobite, who I saw being notified, are very passionate editors about their topics.

Put simply, I think everyone involved needs to remember that the eyes are on you when you message people about discussions. Try just dropping neutral messages on relevant Wikiprojects without singling out specific users if you want to avoid scrutiny.

Or maybe I'm too soft and we should ban-hammer them all. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please beat some sense into Thor Dockweiler at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constellation Family? He's spamming the AFD with tl;dr that required three collapse boxes just to rein in, and he clearly seems to be disrupting just to make fallacious arguments against everyone involved in the AFD, including me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see a need for administrator intervention in this case. Just allow the AfD to run its course, and the article in question will probably be deleted. Verbosity does not require a block. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Indeed, no need. I went in last night to fix the headings because they were putting the daily AfD log out of whack, and I didn't even bother to read through it. There's no need to do more than wait and let it get delete as it looks like it will be. Nate • (chatter) 06:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is refreshing-new user Boribob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pushing POV, and then accusing those who revert him of vandalism. Just when I thought I'd have a boring Saturday.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

See contributions and page history of "Wage_slavery". This user is not malicious or anything—just disrespectful in the level of reverting RVV, in a way that's not "edit warring" so much as just "screw you, good-faith RVVers." All I would ask is to block him/her for about a month, just to educate him/her on what happens if you keep repeatedly pursuing vandalism in this particular way. I honestly think s/he's probably just testing us to see what happens if someone engages in this obnoxious but not particularly harmful behavior. So no big deal; just need to show that we are not oblivious to repeated vandalism. Thanks. — ¾-10 15:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads-up - a couple of editors have started adding "Answers in Genesis" as a source at Burning Mountain, quoting it as the "true story". User:JinxtheSphinx first, here, then after I reverted that, User:JoshGreenengl1101f added it again, here. I've reverted twice now, and I don't want to get in a revert war, so some other eyes would be welcome. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You might have to separate two questions that are being lumped together with each edit and revert. Removing/adding the statement, and removing/adding the source. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The statement is actually just a straight paraphrase from the source, so I think they're pretty much inextricably linked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Curious to what the subject was I went and had a look at the article. It seems to me the editors were adding (with source) that two Europeans identified it as burning coal and not volcanic in origin. Though the answersingenesis.org article seems to working from a creationist viewpoint it does itself source the statement about the two to "Valiance, T.G., 1975. Presidential address: Origins of Australian geology. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, vol. 100(1) pp. 13–43". GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Apologies if butting in while not an admin, nor involved is "not the done thing". GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like theres plenty of undeniably reliable sources available on the topic [37] - there is no need to resort to any questionable sites. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. We shouldn't be using secondhand sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole "Answer in Genesis" source is aimed at trying to show that the gentlemen in question supported an explanation that is in keeping with a 6,000 year old Earth and a literal interpretation of Genesis. That is the only purpose of the site, and so nothing it claims about what people actually discovered can be trusted. If those two really did simply discover the coal fire nature of the phenomenon, we need a better source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Answers In Genesis is not a reliable source unless using it as a reference for articles such as it's own one on Wikipedia - and even then we'd have to be very cautious as it would be a primary source. AiG make it abundantly clear that their content is Christian apologetic and thus self evidently biased to their belief system. Of the few bit of science AiG do (selectively) link or refer to in their articles we should also use those sources and not AiG itself. Pedro :  Chat  23:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The ideology of "Answer in Genesis" is a red herring. While many are tempted to say "OMG Creationist must be lies", if we leave our biases aside and think straight, the point is many sources have agendas, that doesn't make them unreliable in facts, just not neutral in description. In this case the problem has nothing to do with the ideology of the source, it has to do with the fact that the information is second-hand. But then, many sources we use are in fact reporting facts second, third or fourth hand, they just are not acknowledging it. The advantage here is that AiG is giving a source - and unless you think that AiG might be misreporting the source (and there's no reason to think that, any more than journalists misreport sources) that's fine. Ideally someone can access the original source, but failing that there's no reason not to include the informaiton with a food note saying "Valiance, T.G., 1975. Presidential address: Origins of Australian geology. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, vol. 100(1) pp. 13–43. (as cited by Answers in Genesis)". Of course, if anyone challenges the accuracy of the AiG citation, it must stay out until/unless someone can verify it.--Scott Mac 23:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with most a bit of that Scott (indeed I said so above that we should look to their sources) I take some issue with your "....unless you think that AiG might be misreporting the source (and there's no reason to think that..." comment. Have you actually read any of their stuff? I have - a lot - and I mean a lot. They misrepresent sources frequently. A thorough reading of any linked source on AiG is vital - the sources are often good I might add, if one actually goes to read them. Pedro :  Chat  23:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bullshit. We can never trust second-hand reporting from a partisan source. AiG can be used as a source for AiG's own views. But if we're going to quote a scientific paper we should go to the source. The tired old postmodernist "everybody has agendas, so we can trust a highly partisan source just as much as the National Academy of Sciences, it's all the same" nonsense has got to stop. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, well, that's largely my opinion too, but Scott Mac hates my guts and has been gunning for me for a while, so I thought I'd be a bit more gentle in tone than "Bullshit" - even if you are correct in essence. Pedro :  Chat  23:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, AIG isn't a reliable source simply because it's written from a creationist viewpoint. They're also prone to clearly and willfully misrepresenting facts. Their article covers some cases of this, and I'm fairly sure they've been discussed before on RSN... though I can't be bothered to look it up, since everybody here seems to be in agreement. They're unreliable, worldview considered or not. Jess_talk|_edits 00:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read a lot of AiG stuff too, and while I really do like to keep as open a mind as I can regarding people's honesty, I'm afraid I just manage it with them - a lot of their stuff is such blatant misrepresentation, I find it impossible to believe it is just honest differences in interpretation. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Folks, there is no requirement for reliability, objectivity or knowledge on the subject in the WP:ver "Reliable Source" criteria,or even weight given by it to those factors. And that definition is used by wp:npov / wp:undue regarding material inclusion. Being a scientific atheist myself what I just said is quite opposite what my own POV would be on this. North8000 (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The thought occurs that a "reliable source" would be.... well.... reliable. Do we honestly need to spell it out that clearly on policy pages? You're seriously stating that we have "no requirement for reliability" from reliable sources? Eh? Pedro :  Chat  00:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" is pretty equivilent to "reliable" Active Banana (^bananaphone 00:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Pedro. Second-hand citation is generally a bad idea (possible exceptions where it is impossible, not just difficult, to check the original source), and AiG in particular have often been accused of misrepresenting other sources. See e.g. "Both Both Gish and the AIG continue to misrepresent Boule 1937 by claiming that Boule's conclusion was that Peking Man was an apelike creature, and that the O'Connell/Gish misquote fairly represents Boule's thinking." (The linked page is worth reading in entirety, not just as it pertains to AiG's reliability in particular, but as a demonstration of why second-hand sourcing is dangerous. I would not trust AiG to accurately understand the meaning or context of the material they cite, and I would not trust them to represent it accurately if they did. --GenericBob (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Point of order: What is there for admins to do here? Why is this discussion NOT happening at WP:RS/N?!? --Jayron32 00:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted some admin attention in case these two editors carried on with what I feared might be the start of a POV edit war - I don't think I need to go to WP:RS/N, as there's no real doubt it's an unreliable source. Fortunately it hasn't turned out the way I feared, and there are more people watching the article now - so I'm happy for this to be considered resolved. Thanks to all who have helped and are watching. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" is pretty equivilent to "reliable"

How's Australian Heritage Magazine as a source? This does seem to agree with the content added. I suspect this may also agree but it's behind a paywall. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Answering Pedro's question: "You're seriously stating that we have "no requirement for reliability" from reliable sources?" Yes, that's more or less what I'm saying. Well there are some criteria in wp:RS that help, but you are not allowed to give any weight to a source based on objectivity or knowledge of the topic. If some guy say that the fire is from a beast underground exhaling, and a bunch of newspapers covered what he said, then those newspapers are wp:RS's, and, per WP:undue, if there are a lot's of those papers, then the "beast exhaling" description must be given lots of space in the article. Of course, I'm saying we should change that. We probably need an example with a politically incorrect source and insertion (e.g. christian religious) like this one to even realize / question what wp:ver defines as an "RS" and what wp:undue dictates can be put into an article. North8000 (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you'd better take that to my talk page, as this discussion is closed. You're very wrong - obviously - and I'd suggest you actualy try to understand as opposed to just reading polcy. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Pedro, I know that you are talking about the spirit, intent and good application of the policy, and I'm with you on that. My point was that there are some problems with the letter of the policy not aligning with that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There is currently a rather harsh argument going on at User talk:98.87.57.179. While I have not been actively following the argument (nor have I read the whole thing), it seems to basically be a back-and-forth argument between one editor who states that their son committed suicide due to events that occurred on Conservapedia, and another editor (who is supposedly a Conservapedia admin) who challenges the claim and asks for proof. It's only relevance to Wikipedia is that the initial poster wanted to add the information to the Conservapedia article. It has since escalated to being unrelated to Wikipedia, and it has gotten to the point where one of the anonymous editors, who at the time was editing as 74.240.253.10, has made a legal threat, stating that they have reported the opposing user to state and local authorities (see this edit). A short block may be all that's needed - However, it may be ineffective due to dynamic IP addresses - instead, I think protecting the page would be the best solution to prevent further legal threats, in addition to uncivil discussion unrelated to Wikipedia. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, if the anonymous editor who claims to be Karajou from Conservapedia is indeed who he says he is, then he is evading the indefinite block that was placed on his Wikipedia account, Karajou, back in 2008. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I for one don't believe for a second that "Karajou" has informed anyone of anything. I'm not even sure what he would tell the local police or why they would care. Assuming he doesn't live in the same area as the other editor, what's he going to do... call the police and say "someone made an edit on Wikipedia saying their son died?" I just don't see how that's realistic. It seems the Karajou editor should be blocked 1) for making the legal threat and 2) for evading a previous block. Not sure if the other IP should be blocked or not. — Timneu22 · talk 22:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-Admin Comment: I've been closely following the debate on this IP's talk page. I feel the IP is trying to make a WP:POINT because here, because he has sucked several editors into the debate. He still hasn't provided evidence for his claims, which is inherently dubious. I feel we should probably block the IPs and remove the page, because the entire thing is one huge shouting match. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 23:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree about WP:POINT - the IP had also brought up the same thing on the talk page of the Conservapedia article, but I removed it for not helping the article in any constructive way and for its libelous claims (such as calling Conservapedia admins murderers). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

And, he tried to get Jimbo's attention, too (diff). ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 00:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's Karajou, not the IP who claims that their son committed suicide. Or were you referring to Karajou all along? I guess one could say that both are being pointy. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear with my earlier comment. Yes, I feel they're both being pointy. Karajou is the admin who made comments that were believed to cause the suicide (again, we haven't seen any proof from "sean"). Sean seems to be fighting/attacking the admins of Conserapedia and then Wikipedia. Both of these actions seems beyond WP:CIVIL, as well as both are trying to make a point in their favor. I think this has gone on far enough. Heck, Wikipedia is NOT Conserapedia. I don't even know what this debate is doing here... ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 00:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a clear legal threat by the IP - I've blocked that single address 31 hours. No comment on the wider issues at hand. Talk page access not revoked for the IP but any other admin, of course, is free to change or reverse my actions. Pedro :  Chat  00:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'd suggest extending your actions a little. To use Wikipedia to hold a debate over actions at Conservapedia seems a little absurd, especially since they include various threats and imputations against living people, and their attempts to defend themselves. There is no way this information contributes to Wikipedia, and the user talk p. mentioned should be deleted, protected, and possibly oversighted. (if the material has expanded to elsewhere, I'd suggest revision deletion). There is really no point in discussing the underlying question, as it has nothing to do with us or our content. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but alas time for bed. DGG - you are most welcome to alter / extend the block and take any other action I did not. Pedro :  Chat  00:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

They were blocked the same day under another IP - 74.92.159.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'm going to blank the "new page" discussed here. Whatever this all is on about is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. May be worthy of oversight but will delete / blank for now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the deletion criterion (G10) is applicable. G10 applies to "Pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose", and I don't see how the discussion was detrimental to a particular IP address. --rpeh •T•C•E• 02:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The talk page isn't detrimental to "a particular IP address", but it is to "some other entity", and that entity consists of living people. The talk page did include at least one disparaging attack. It also contained a legal threat, which is also covered by G10 criteria: "These 'attack pages' may include libel, legal threats, or biographical material about a living person ...". Combine that with the fact that the page is completely irrelevant to and inappropriate for Wikipedia, and I'd say that's reason enough for deletion, and as other users suggested, oversight. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what is/was being threated here? I'm obviously not going to repeat what was said on that page, but I didn't see anything that contained a threat against a specific entity. There was no reason to invoke G10 here. --rpeh •T•C•E• 03:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

One anonymous editor stated that they had reported the other editor to state and local authorities. That qualifies as a legal threat. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but a threat against whom? The worst Karajou could do here is march into a library and tell them that somebody had posted a nasty comment on a website using one of their computers. It's an entirely baseless threat and didn't justify the deletion of the whole page. --rpeh •T•C•E• 03:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the threat is 'baseless', it was made. It's the act of making the threat, not the probability of it being carried out, that is banned. -- Donald Albury 14:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole thing is strange, but I'm not sure how either person was making a WP:POINT. I just don't know why they didn't communicate over email. — Timneu22 · talk 22:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky seems past its closeby date. Dougweller (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be a good basis for an RFC/U involving Chuck Hamilton, if anyone is so inclined.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I would decline closure, as step 3 of the nomination wasn't completed until 24 January 2011. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that one of the main contributors, an IP, is blocked, and discussion has all but died down, I don't expect much more fire, but I personally don't mind letting it run a bit longer. Chuck H is a bit bitey and disruptive, like his predecessor (Natty4Bumpo), true. Much of the fighting on that AfD and the talk pages started over a hoax tag they placed on the article and kept reinstating. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Predecessor? Chuck H. is Natty4bumpo, check the editing history. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the bit about Step 3. Possibly a Twinkle problem, it happened to me this week. Obviously closing would be premature. Dougweller (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Bradley Richards (talk · contribs · logs)

The above made this edit at the WP:LE talk page. I've left a message informing him that Wikipedia is not for this and he would be better taking this issue elsewhere. Am I okay in removing it? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely; it violates Wikipedia:Libel. GiantSnowman 18:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it and left a note for the editor. Acroterion _(talk) 18:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, The AfD for Khaled Mohamed Saeed seems to be a SNOW keep and in all seriousness I'm worried about inflaming someone in that part of the world by Wikipedia saying "he's not important". I think the analogy to some white guys standing up and saying "Emmett Till, he's not important" during race riots is perhaps on target. Is it likely? No, but it's clearly getting kept and there is a (slim) chance of real world impact of the AfD. I've asked the nom to withdraw and he's chosen not to. Again, I'm not at all certain this is needed, but given the snow nature of the AfD it also seems harmless. I'll notify the nom of this thread. Thanks. (oh, AfD here Hobit (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• This is paranoia at its worst. We don't shut up a discussion here just because some folk could be annoyed elsewhere: if so, we should shut down all talk pages of controversial pages. What you ask for is preventive self-censorship, the worst possible kind of censorship, no matter if it is made with good intentions. --Cyclopia^talk 18:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I thought about that. And with content I'd generally agree. But with process when the outcome is clear? I see no harm in an early close here. In the same way we'd snow keep an article on (say) the president of Egypt, I think this is a case where SNOW is appropriate. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    • SNOW is probably appropriate, but the very idea of shutting down community discussions because of absolutely hypothetical and far-fetched repercussions has to be nuked from orbit, killed with fire and covered in salt. It would be one of the most dangerous precedents. If anything, this AN/I post makes me oppose a SNOW closure -if only to make it clear that we didn't self-censor a discussion. --Cyclopia^talk 20:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Close as SNOW keep, just a bad nomination, nothing to go crazy over.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Wow, Cyclopia actually makes the most sense out of the lot. :) The concerns over "real-world impact" of this was just plain ridiculous. We don't cave in to actual nutjobs who have threatened to riot because of stuff found on here (i.e. images of Muhammad in that article), and Hobit is worried about imaginary ones? Please... Tarc (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Donny Pearson

Handing out false vandalism messages.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So what is there connection to User:Nathanww, who hasn't edited in more than two years? Corvus cornix_talk 07:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly the present editor was abusing the tool found at User:Nathanww/pager to generate these messages. I don't know why they did that, but I doubt the retired editor Nathanww has anything to do with the present disruption. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I just blocked Bexmail (talk · contribs), but would appreciate a review of the block. If another admin feels an indefinite block was excessive, or has other concerns, please take whatever action you feel is appropriate.

Reasons for block: repeated posting of copyvio images, linkspam and promotional wording, ownership issues, posting text that was initially unsource then with a source that didn't state what was claimed. The user simply blanks warnings from their talk page, and blanked and editor review page of a user who had warned him/her Wikipedia:Editor review/Dusti2. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems a bit over the top to me, honestly, given that it's all only half a day's worth of editing by a n00b. Okay, the first edit was rather openly advertising, but he did tone that down in later revisions, didn't he? And the copyvio images were only a single group of a few images (on Commons), i.e. a first and potentially still good-faith attempt at image stuff. I'd do an image copyvio block only for clear persistence after warnings. I'd certainly not classify this as a "vandalism-only" account, it's still in the "n00b who hasn't grasped a few basic principles" field, to my mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to reduce the block or eliminate it entirely (if you feel it's "over the top" as you labelled it). I won't undo any changes to the block. I agree that no single action justified indef - but it was a persistent pattern of multiple issues; however, I brought it here as I wasn't 100% comfortable with the situation, and wanted to get other input on the block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate your decision to come here and volunteer for review. Always a good thing if one isn't so certain. Let's wait for a third opinion and decide then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI: I'm not going to take action myself because of the ongoing discussion here - but IP 128.187.0.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to have started quacking at John Wayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, he's not really helping his case in this way, is he. :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fut.Perf. on both accounts: that it doesn't seem to be a vandalism only account, but well meant but ill-advised editor, and that logging out to circumvent the block isn't helping. Still, a bit odd that the IP hasn't been caught in autoblock. Anyhow, I (still) support an unblock. (or maybe stick with 24 hours or something). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• All of you make good points re: the original situation. With the additional complication of block evasion I would recommend waiting on an unblock request. If they choose to communicate, it may present an opportunity to explain to them the error of their ways. It's possible the user is a newbie, but they are definitely not following an optimum path. Tiderolls 21:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• A bit of background information: This editor has been warned numerous times about the addition of information to John Wayne. In one of their recent contributions, they added a picture they claim to have taken of John Wayne and a bull. In each of the warnings that they received, they replied to the editor posting the comment in a rather rash way... and even claimed I was playing God. While a nice thought, I wouldn't want his job. Dusti^*poke* 23:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• I think indefinite is fine, since the block can last for just as long as it is needed. When the editor is able to contribute appropriately the block can be lifted as soon as an admin is convinced. Finite blocks may either be punative or insufficient. (I realise that I am in a minority in regard to indefinite blocks, since practice indicates that indefinite usually means "permanent", but there you are...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Editor note: For review, I have restored the warnings in a collapse box above the block notice for Admins. Dusti^*poke* 00:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There were additional blanked warning messages that I also added to the collapsed box. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Bexmail mailed the unblock list with an unblock request, claiming she can't edit her talkpage. I have asked her to try again, because it isn't blocked, and she might have been trying to edit here. Though the unblock list is a perfectly valid place to make a request, to keep discussion from fragmenting too much, I asked to try again, and post an unblock request. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The user also emailed me with a request that I just received. In it, the users makes several admissions and accusations. If I should forward it to the unblock list or other Wikipedia group, please let me know. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of making emails public that may have been sent as private which is why I haven't made the emails to the unblock list public. (others might disagree with that) I think the best thing to do is wait for her unblock request on talk, or her reply to the unblock list. If we fragment the discussion over ANI, a mailinglist, a private email conversation, and a talkpage, things can get confusing very fast. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with your comment on the emails - which is why I will only forward it (upon request) to an appropriate Wikipedia mail address, not to any individual editor; nor do I intend to repost the details of the email here.

I did reply to the user's email to me, encouraging them to make an unblock request to their own talk page - as well as providing links to some policies and guidelines that addressed statements made in their email to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Reporting myself here. I closed Talk:Thorold#Requested move as Move but halfway through the close, I realised I had participated in the discussion a full week earlier. Given that I was halfway through, I chose to continue with the move rather than try and reverse everything I had done to date.

Two things: Firstly, I need to take more care when closing discussions - you can tell I don't do it very often. Secondly, I would like someone to review my actions and if you feel I was out of line, feel free to take whatever action you see fit. Many thanks, Mattinbgn (talk)

The discussion was open for over 7 days and was unopposed, so the close looks completely uncontroversial to me. Jafeluv (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Five Hail Marys, two Our Fathers, and forty lashes with a wet noodle. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Obvious close - I'd have quite happily closed this one as a non-admin. Will put on a note on the discussion pointing at this thread. Dpmuk (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thinking that I know what this page is for, I have now tried to use it a couple of times (only) regarding the behavior of 1-2 other users which I found difficult, non-constructive.

My impression is that sometimes administrators pitch in and try to help, sometimes none of them do, and you get quite a debate, mostly with non-admimistrators, quite a bit of admonishment yourself (by them), the subject changed to content disputes (which I am well aware belong on article talk pages and not here) or other issues you did not compian about, and little or no administrator help with the actual behavioral issue you tried to raise.

Some non-administrators seem to have or assume a position which is intended to diffuse the issue, often by finding more-or-less well founded faults with the plaintiffs, so that administrators will be spared having to deal with difficult people.

I make mistakes like we all do, and I truly appreciate constructive criticism, some of which has been very helpful, but mainly I'd like to know if I have completely misundertood what this page is for.

Sorry if I'm perceived as difficult now (again?), especially if this turns into another massive bout of criticism of me, with little or nothing on what I'm asking.

Is this page mainly for us to argue with other users, mostly for the sake of argument, whether or not we stick to the issues (as per original questions) brought up by users needing the assistance of administrators to solve problems they feel are serious enough to bring up here?

If so, and given all the "edit conflicts" that make it almost impossible to use this forum at times, I wonder why we bother.

I would like to be shown, preferably by a non-argumentative administrator or two, that I have the wrong impression about this.

What do I (we?) need to grasp and learn here? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we have a link to the 2 times you used it so we can see examples please? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Forget that. I have found all the previous threads you have been involved in. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The first second time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Poor_English.Slatersteven (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Then, you were asking a general question: "What happens to users who write English poorly?" The answer, which you got, was 'a variety of things, depending on how poor their English is and how useful their contributions are.' Today, you are also asking a general question: "Do administrators help solve problems?" The answer to that question is also, 'sometimes.' If there's a specific problem you want help solving, it helps to explain clearly who the problem editor is, with diffs of exactly what they're doing, and with a clear statement of what you'd like admins to do. I looked at a few of the diffs you gave, and I didn't see what the problem was. You said that another user was writing incomprehensible English, but the three diffs you gave were of you doing helpful minor grammar cleanups, which are appreciated, but which didn't tell me who the user is who is writing the incomprehensible English. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! So far I've learned about clearer formatting. That's helpful. Let's hope I won't need to use it. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Danielhill1990 has taken it upon himself (and presumably his IP sock prior to his logging in} to edit The Protocols of the Elders of Zion so that the article no longer claims that it's fraudulent and anti-Semitic. I see no point in furthering my reversions of his unsourced edits, and I don't think we need to have an edit war on this subject. Anybody who wants to make claims that the subject of the article is not fraudulent, and is not anti-Semitic needs to discuss the matter with reliable sources on the article's Talk page, and not just willy-nilly remove decades of research and scholarship on the subject with their own personal opinion. Corvus cornix_talk 08:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you're just posting other peoples personal opinions. I'm just saying don't post opinions on Wikipedia, only facts. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielhill1990 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Danielhill1990 should be blocked as a VOA account. Almost all of their edits to articles have been the subject of warnings on their talk page. They don't really seem to be here to help build an encyclopedia, but to disrupt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok Danielhill, let me explain a few things to you real quick:

• If you are going to blank out large sections of an article you better have a very good reason
• Wikipedia has an extremely low tolerance for anything that smacks of racism
• The Protocols have in fact been widely discredited by academics as a forgery/hoax/fabrication perpetrated by anti-semites, as is evidenced at the article itself
• Continuing to edit war on this subject can and will lead to your account being blocked. If you honestly believe you have a valid point discuss it on the talk page as you have already been reverted, meaning your changes are disputed.

You may consider yourself warned about all of these factors, how you choose to proceed is entirely up to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. He now appears to have logged out to continue the edit war. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User(s) blocked., and I added level 1 PC protection to the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This editor has been disruptive for a long time and i dont know what else to do with him. He was blocked as a newbie for trolling and personal attacks, but was unblocked and given a second chance. Since then he has got himself blocked again for edit warring. He then claimed he was going away from wikipedia because he was not ready to debate with dumb cry babies like me. But he hasn't and has stayed to cause more disruption. When someone reverts his poorly thought out edits, he immediately retaliates by reverting their edits with dubious rationale.

Example 1 - he follows me around and reverts my revert of an unsourced addition and inserts content with the edit summary no source

Example 2 - when administrator Kinu removed a fair use image from his userpage, he followed Kinu and reverted a content rewording in retaliation with edit summary as "no source"

Since then, he has been edit warring in multiple articles, attacking other editors (including me) in Afd pages. Now he is back to edit warring to add the same content which resulted in a 3rr block for him. When another editor advised him not to edit war against consensus, he claims he doesn't care whoever opposes and says he will continue to add the content.

The latest retaliatory edit was today for reverting him. He undid my addition of a geotag and advised me to "stop crying everywhere".

I have given up trying to reason with this editor. Can someone do something? Previous blocks and warnings [38] [39] have done nothing to change his behaviour--Sodabottle (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And the response for the ANI notice was "blah blah blah , i don't care"--Sodabottle (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We've got an issue of WP:COMPETENCE at multiple levels; when presented with academic sources/books, he says "no point arguing with some ####, no books , come up with multiple reliable links", removes maintenance tags and page protection tags from pages without any comment, removes sourced content he doesn't like etc etc. —SpacemanSpiff 17:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you think there is enough for an indef-block? I am sitting on the fence here. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't bring this to ANI earlier (and Sodabottle beat me to it) was that I was hoping that something would change, but it appears to be highly unlikely at this point. (Oh, and I'm also WP:INVOLVED in this case) —SpacemanSpiff 18:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the "nothing against wikipedia rules , added clear sources , i don't care whoever opposes" which he put on a message about Tendulkar earlier on his talk page. Has any formal mentoring been offered? Is this the first time the user has been advised that he could face editing sanctions for his attitude? I think both these avenues need to be fully explored before we do anything like block him. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

SyberGod also proudly declares on his userpage that "I believe copyright is shit, copying is never a crime." That kind of attitude won't work on Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 18:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

He's been blocked twice before, and has had plenty of warnings - he's blanked archived them all from his Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

See this version. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Since he blanks his talk page, it's difficult to see the communication history, but his unblock note from Floquenbeam was pretty elaborate. —SpacemanSpiff 18:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Good eye, SpacemanSpiff. I am not happy when people forge admin signatures Sorry, I misread what happened --Diannaa ^(Talk)

Just a minor point: saying that he blanks his talk page sounds a bit negative given that he actually archives it. --rpeh •T•C•E• 18:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And in response to Diana's appeal to respond more seriously we get sarcasm "so how do i respond this guy sodabottle , "sorry sodabottle i didn't meant to hurt you , i know you kind of like reverting , but i believe reverts are not good contributions , please don't follow me everywhere i go on wikipedia and revert as much as you like" is this how i should reply @ Diannaa ?--Sodabottle (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

multiple(edit conflict)s: Dianaa -- I didn't see any forgery going on, am I missing something? Sorry for the blanking note, that was an error on my part -- struck now. —SpacemanSpiff 18:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I was wrong about that, so sorry. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about my blanking note too - I hadn't spotted the archive. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

on 1st block who on wikipedia would support a page about a site supporting and selling hidden cam contents ?

i was blocked for opposing criminal sites Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exbii and called vandalism only account !

great start !

on 2nd block

reverted by people opposing sachin's fan following content

people here are more involved in reverting,deleting and blocking than good contributions

and is archiving called blanking here ?

SyberGod (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think an indef is called for because the user in question doesn't really seem to understand why he or she was blocked previously or what the real problem is now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You may be right unfortunately. There seems to be competence and behavioural issues; someone who tells people to STFU within days of their arrival might not be one of the people who gets it. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

when wikipedia admins too wanted the criminal content to stay ! how do i react ? SyberGod (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This event happened in November; perhaps the more recent behavior should be examined instead --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say that the events in November and the most recent events are related. They show a complete lack of knowledge of how Wikipedia works, or the slightest interest in learning how. Assuming good faith, perhaps there is some kind of language barrier. Or maybe it's on purpose. In any case, there should be either an understanding by the editor before editing again(instructed by a member who wants to take the time), or a block until he does 'get it'. Otherwise these issues will continue over and over. Dave Dial (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

now or early , not commenting on that means wikipedia supports such activities and doesn't see the harm in it , my recent behavior is not bad as this !!! SyberGod (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

He still doesnt get the difference between wikipedia having an article on an site allegedly containing illegal material and wikipedia endorsing that site. He has shown multiple times he is unwilling to learn and will retaliate at anyone trying to correct him. Every time he is warned or advised, he goes straight to the other editors recent contributions and reverts something in retaliation. How much more do we have to put up with this guy. For every good contribution he makes, he compensates with 7 or 8 personal attacks/disruption and trolling. If we let him off now, i bet he will be back to his old habits in no time. Block this guy before he wastes more of our time--Sodabottle (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

who is the one bringing friends to escape multiple reverts of content and claiming revert rules to get me blocked ! there are many instances i spotted this guy doing such things ! kind of ruling a page with a team ! SyberGod (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Definite WP:COMPETENCE issue, multiple warnings, a couple blocks, violations to WP:NPA, trolling, among other things....time for an indef block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• This banter is a waste of time. Blocked indefinitely. I will not contest a reasonable unblock with restrictions if any admin wishes to go that route, but I think it'll lead only to more time wasted. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Given this after the block notice, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Now it's just continued trolling and blanket WP:NPA, so I've amended the block to prevent him from editing his talk page. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sounds like someone does give "a f##k". I mean, if ya didn't, ya wouldn't bother commenting, would ya? freshacconci talktalk 20:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin take a look at AIV, it has been in backlog for a few. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Brewcrewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• V7-sport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both of these users have been edit warring at Richard A. Falk (a page under ARBPIA sanctions among other things), trying to insert a claim (in Wikipedia's narrative voice) that Falk is a 9/11 truther.[40][41] The added a heap of citations (wp:CITECLUTTER) that support various levels of truther sympathy on Falk's part, but none of which actually call him a truther. The situation seems to be that Falk is taking heat for saying the official 9/11 report has gaps and expressing admiration for some truther publications (he wrote a foreword for one of them), but he explicitly rejected the truther narrative; see the talk page[42] for more info.

V7-sport's editing does not look very neutral in general, and s/he has a habit of incivility in edit summaries.[43][44][45]

Brewcrewer's edits (per usertalk discussion) also have been problematic.

Falk is in the news lately, which may be drawing the soapboxers out of the woodwork.

Can someone have a chat with these editors? I'm not up for it at the moment. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"9-11 truther" was originally placed in the article by another editor. I once added sources that--unlike IP's claim-- discussed his statement regarding being a "9-11 truther." Perhaps under our BLP polices it would make more sense to simply elaborate on his statement regarding 9-11 instead of simply categorizing him as a "9-11 truther." Regardless, the better forum for this discussion would be the article talk page.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There was already a thread open on the talk page when you re-inserted the label. Since you ignored it, I came here. (Sorry, I got the timestamps confused.) "Perhaps under our BLP polices it would make more sense..." is quite the understatement. That WP:SYNTH categorization (given how contentious it is, and that he disputes it, and that the sources cited don't actually label him as a truther), in the article lede even, is completely unacceptable under just about every content policy this place has. Obviously the 9/11 stuff should be discussed in the article, but without undue weight in the context of the subject's entire life, without synthesis, and with all viewpoints properly attributed rather than given in the narrative voice. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there was a thread that addressed the specific issue of the truther label in the lead on the talk page at the time Brewcrewer restored the label with additional sources. He offered to start a thread and so did I. Neither of us got around to it. You have started the thread now so I think this issue will be resolved on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I now see what happened. I didn't realize that your edit linked in the talk page thread was from before the talk thread started rather than after, and that made it very confusing who did what when. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Great to hear I was in an "edit war", I had no idea. My last edit was simply adding citations. A better place to discuss this would be the articles talk page. V7-sport (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Per this practically incomprehensible post to my talk page, would someone please block the self-admitted sock User:A pluton sock? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Dies Orbis Terrarum Scamnum Etiam is a blatant sock of User:Vir In Scaena and User:Refragatio Est Vacuus, both blocked earlier today - PRODing "List of shopping mall" articles, many of which have survived AfD. I don't think an SPI is needed, as it is so blatant. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. I think I know who it is but I'm not sure. I also do not want to spill the beans. --Bsadowski1 13:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and understood. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I have my suspicions too, but "mum" for now. I've also now watchlisted all "List of shopping malls" articles, and I'll revert any PRODs - unless I'm beaten to it :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And the next one - User:Nequam Impleo Ero Pessum Ire -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

 Blocked. I didn't realize that he was a sock until I saw him posting on ANI, I just was drawn to this by a recent changes feed. Had I known, I would have just blocked right away. —Soap— 15:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks - ironic, really, that the sock drew your attention to himself by editing here :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

All these accounts are from banned user Editor XXV (talk · contribs), who has been abusing open proxies. –MuZemike 20:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's who I suspected - I remember him as User:Divebomb. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Same person I was thinking of. Thanks MuZemike for confirming. --Bsadowski1 03:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

121.72.205.214 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsubayashi-ryū regularly removes verified and referenced information and refused to enter the discussion board to resolve his issues. What more needs to be said, except what can be done about this? you can't go into dispute resolution, because he refused to discuss.

at a minimum he should have to enter the discussion board or refrain from making changes.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.177.210 (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Mario!... But our Princess is in another castle! —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 23:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection, but it was declined - I've asked for reconsideration. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the decision is absolutely not unjustified. To throw out from the pages of Wikipedia's English edition someone whose works were published or re-published in 7 languages and 28 countries is a nonsense. Let us take first of all the claim that the Tausch work has been reflected not sufficiently enough in the peer-reviewed journals of the world. Here is the list of the major peer reviewed journals of the world, which refer to the works he authored or to which he contributed:

see User:Hichem Khaldoun/Tausch list

So, the decision to delete is simply unjustified. Hichem Khaldoun (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)User Hichem Khaldoun

WP:DRV is where you need to move this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the long list to User:Hichem Khaldoun/Tausch list to keep things manageable. As suggested, you may wish to consider whether Wikipedia:Deletion review is a more appropriate way to raise this issue. Adambro (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is in the middle of an RFC discussing the role of WPUS and its relationship to other WikiProjects. It is the subject of an ANI last week.

We are getting closer to resolution, and have agreed to seek mediation. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-26/WT:WikiProject United States. However, a few hours ago, one editor unilaterally changed the mission paragraph on the project page diff, which I have reverted diff. It would be helpful to put the project page under full protection until the discussion is concluded. I would hope that we could talk things out in the RFC instead of engage in an edit war. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Not true. Nobody has agreed to seek mediation. Racepacket, apparently without notifying anybody else discussing the issues, made a unilateral request.

As far as the allegation that the article was "unilaterally changed", there was a clear consensus for the change. Seven people spoke in favor of the language and only Racepacket opposed it. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#A More Modest Proposal

I notified the discussion that I felt consensus was reached and nobody disagreed. Racepacket in this edit [46] acknowledges the situation and asked for an extension of time for others to participate until 11:00 pm last night. The change was made after Racepacket's requested deadline.

This request is frivolous and an attempt to game the system. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

However, before 11 p.m. I left this and this and then he retracted it with this so there was no agreement and no attempt to incoporate the changes listed when he edited the main page. I think that full protection would be helpful. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The sole dissenting voice continuing to express his dissent does not represent a change in the clear consensus. The issue of the "Scope" material was never part of the proposal adopted by consensus and I made that clear. We can certainly continue to discuss this additional issue, but that is no reason why language agreed to by consensus should not be added now.

Racepacket TODAY made a request (see [47] that says, "I know that you are trying to be helpful, but please let's keep the discussion on the talk page until we get consensus, and let's give everyone at least 24 hours to comment before we assume that any draft is acceptable to the group." Seems like this is a clear indication that absent any new parties joining the discussion (or current participators changing their support) in the section "A More Modest Proposal" at this time tomorrow the consensus language should be restored. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two "camps" of editors who have invested a lot of time in discussing this. At least one editor in the "narrow scope" camp has been chased off with incivility. Another has made helpful suggestions that I incorporated into proposals that were made after North Shoreman's. It is clear that North Shoreman's proposal is confusing as to what it is intended to replace, and at least two other proposals have been advanced since his. Since his proposal has been overtaken by events, it is disruptive to claim that he has more "votes" on his and therefore it is the "consensus." The concerns being raised by the "narrow scope" camp are not trivial, and it is better to reach a clear understanding now than to wikilawyer the contradictory language for years to come. If the page is fully protected, we can avoid future misunderstandings about "consensus" because an uninvolved administrator, and not North Shoreman, would be making the call. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You're trying to make this over complicated. A proposal was made -- seven people support it -- one person opposes it. The two subsequent proposals (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#A further revised proposal and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Consolidating the two above proposals) received no support and very little interest, hardly a sign that the consensus proposal "has been overtaken by events." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Since knowone has actually said that it should not be done and since there was consensus with the project members (Racepacket just didn't like it) I reverted Racepackets reversion of Toms change. Its still in the history though so if need be it can be recalled again later. I personally feel that this is pointless and represents forumshopping by Racepacket as a means of continuing to Fillibuster the discussion on the talk page. The bottom line that needs to be addressed here is:

Does a project have the right for its members to set their own scope or should Wikipedia allow a minority of editors out side that project to force a scope upon them restricting what they will do?

--Kumioko (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Response Kumioko's question was answered in the prior ANI where several admins explained to him that there is no rigid WikiProject membership. Here is he is defending the participation rights of someone who agrees with him even though he joined this month, while attacking me (who has been leaving comments since November) as a "non-member." Racepacket (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that Racepacket with this edit [[48]] of the discussion page deliberately changed the language of my proposal to alter the record of both the discussion of the proposal and to make it appear as if the consensus had been achieved for different language than it actually was. Seems like a clear indication of bad faith. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

As a fellow member of the WikiProject, I believe Racepacket to have behaved abominably. He has not only challenged consensus several times and attempted to force a proposal very few, if any at all, have supported. In addition, he has filled the project talk page with so much banter as to render it unnavigable. I think that it's perfectly acceptable for Tom to have reverted the edit in question, and also for another admin to close the discussion in favor of North Shoreman's proposal, which has 7-1 consensus. With regard to Racepacket, editing restrictions may be in order Purplebackpack89 16:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Response As I noted on the talk page, this was an inadvertent deletion which was quickly caught and fixed and not a bad faith edit. WP:AGF Racepacket (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Another reason why full page protection is needed is that there are a lot of games being played. As noted above, I asked North Shoreman if problem language under the "Scope" heading would be deleted. He said yes, and I responded that we were close. He then said that I was misquoting him and that the deletion was not a part of his proposal. Since starting this ANI, and after breaking up the near consensus by insisting the language must be kept, they deleted it. If someone "votes" over the next 24 hours, is it on the basis of it being in or out? Full protection is needed until we can pin down an agreement. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Still not true. That language was in a separate section of the main page of the project and was NEVER subject of my proposal. After all, my proposal was a counter to both your original and first revised proposals -- all we had ever discussed was the modification of a single paragraph and it was NEVER part of your proposals until the very last minute to include this other section. In any event, the entire issue is moot since this separate section has been deleted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you were not following the discussion. For example, see this diff where I took your proposal, combined it with the later suggestions from other users and asked for responses. The question is whether we will all agree to the deletion on the talk page, or whether someone will quickly change his mind about this next week, as has been the case repeatedly in this WikiProject. Racepacket (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is that nobody accepted your proposal, did they? And your proposal was made AFTER there was a clear consensus for my proposal. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Your response doesn't hold up under the facts Racepacket fro reasons explained by Tom on the projects talk page. Also, why are you know talking about full page protection? Where did that come from. There is no reason for full page protection. It is already semi protected so that only established editors can edit it and that is sufficient. Most of the editors in this discussion who disagree with you are not admins and wouldn't even be able to edit the page (Me, Tom and Purple in particular). This suggestion IMO is just another way for you to control these discussions in an attempt to push your POV and it needs to stop. Quite trying to game the system! Also per a reply at one of the other forums you left comments on here answers the question about who owns the articles, who can tag what and what say projects have over what articles can be tagged by other articles. Here is a direct quote copy and pasted from that guide for clarification "A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner." This statement pretty much sums up the discussion that has drug out for months in endless debate. Racepacket, if you want to change policy then do so but stop this nonsense so we can get back to editing articles! YOUR ACTIONS are hurting the 'pedia. --Kumioko (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This Wikiproject has been around for four years. On October 12, 2010, User Kumioko, without prior discussion adds "The project generally considers any article related to the United States of America to be within its direct scope. People who actively work on such articles have a right to a civil discussion about his unilateral decision to dramatically expand the scope of the project and to contact 2400 user talk pages and 211 other WikiProject talk pages. We need to talk about the scope in an organized way and reach an understanding without resorting to a protracted edit war. Full page protection will help by having admins review consensus, because consensus does not equate to WikiBullying. Racepacket (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The language that you are so upset about is gone. I told you that above but you continue to harp on it. Here [[49]] is the diff. Its removal was possible after we added the consensus language that made this other language unnecessary

We talked about the scope in an organized way. You made four proposals that received little support. I made one proposal that received consensus support with only you dissenting. Time to move on. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Go back and see all the changes that were proposed by a number of users in response to your proposal. That is why Kumioko and I each posted another proposal in response. An hour ago, I have also posted a detail response to each of your questions on the WT:WPUS page. The question here is whether someone can protect the Project page or whether we are going to shift from discussion on the talk page to resolving this by a series or hard-to-follow edits on the Project page. I do appreciate the deletion of the problematic language, and do appreciate calling my attention to passages in the WikiProject Guide (which is not a guideline or policy). However, I still believe the best solution is to work this out to agreement on the talk page and then take the final result to the Project page, rather than shift from discussion to a long editing process on the Project page. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Not true. The WikiProject Guide is clearly labelled as a guideline. Perhaps now that you understand this, you will stop making claims that are contradicted by these guidelines.

The reference to "a long editing process on the Project page" has no relevance to this discussion. In fact, since January 23 there have been a total of four edits and only 11 in the entire month of January. People have been very good about discussing issues before editing the main page.

The edit that I made (which initiated this complaint) was based on consensus. Your revert of this was disruptive and was properly reverted by Kumioka. Kumioka then made the non-controversial deletion of the language that you found so objectionable.

There is nothing in this pattern of relative inactivity that warrants page protection -- all pages should run so smoothly. Time to move on. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I just want to reiterate that to protect the main page would allow Racepacket (who is an admin) to control what changes are made because none of the main responders that disagree with him (Myself, North Shoreman and Purplebackpack) are not. I believe his suggestion is just another way for him to try and control a change he does not agree with and is innapropriate IMO. I also want to clarify that the reason WikiProject got along as he put it was because it was dormant with no activity. There was no action to object too. --Kumioko (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Is anything going to be done about this?

This has gone on long enough. I was willing to disconnect from the project but this just encouraged Racepacket to step up his barrage if meaningless arguments and complaints. Can some admin please step forward and do something about this. Racepacket has been told by the members of the project to stop but continues to harass the project, forumshop, campaign and employ any other tactic he can think of to fillibuster and block discussions on the talk page of WikiProject United States and it needs to stop. --Kumioko (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the reason for inaction here is that to the outsider it is not immediately clear what the dispute is about. Seriously, the first few posts in the thread above don't really explain it at all, and then it drifted off into "tl;dr". Why do people quarrel about the scope of wikiprojects? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly see that and have been contending with that myself for the past few months now. The very short background is (this discussion has been raging for three months and about 500K of words in multiple forums) that some editors including Racepacket disagreed with the scope of WPUS. The scope was rewritten and consensus was garnered and the scope implemented. Racepacket didn't like it and has added more and more discussions (many of which had nothing to do with the original complaint), has forumshopped, Campaigned, Votestacked, reverted and nearly anything else he can think of with his experience with WP policies to block or confuse discussions. I am asking for someone to ask him to move on. I am fine if he wants to participate in the project to improve content or participate in discussions but it appears that his intent is just to drag them out until any opposition gives up in frustration.

My suggestion would be a temporary topic ban but I will leave that to someone else to decide. --Kumioko (talk)

The problem Racepacket is presenting is described at Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building pitfalls and errors, specifically the part that links to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Whatever may have gone on in the months before, the issues have been talked to death. We received a consensus on one issue but Racepacket has refused to accept it. Instead he tries to inject his agenda into every issue. If he were to stop editing today, all of the controversy would disappear. Rather than building consensus for his positions, he has simply created a battleground that must be intimidating to anyone else wishing to participate. Nobody else is supporting him. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User Racepacket just reported me at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. How much of this do I have to take? --Kumioko (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise. This ANI thread is getting too long. The issue here is quite simple, should the Wikipedia:WikiProject United States page be fully protected to ensure that we will iron out our differences on the talk page instead of edit warring on the project page. North Shoreman has posted a proposal, and people have responded by commenting with changes. Both Kumioko and I have posted revised alternative proposals to his proposal incorporated changes. Although North Shoreman has proposed text, he gives inconsistent answers as to what the text is supposed to replace. His position is "I have the most support so I am going to declare consensus and edit the Project page, and shut down discussion." My request was based on the hope that we could fully protect the project page and get an impartial administrator to determine consensus. Although many people have concerns with the WikiProject since October, this RFC has been only widely noticed since January 23 and I left my first comment on this subject on January 22. So, I don't see it having been "talked to death."

A completely separate question is whether Kumioko has violated WP:NPA which properly belongs at WP:WQA Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

As shown above, there is no edit warring on the project page which Racepacket wants to protect. There have been a dozen edits all month, despite the overly active discussion page.

Nobody other than Racepacket, the sole dissenting voice opposing the change, disputes that consensus was achieved. When 7 are for and 1 is against it is not even a close call. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The point here is on your conduct. The section above is for the protection level of the page which IMO is just another way for you to control the situation since you are the only one that is an admin so we (myself, tom and Purple) would be powerless to stop you. That Sir is an abuse of your admin rights.

My revised proposal included many of the points you and others had and it was implemented. It just did not include the overly restrictive language that knowone else but you supports.

In regards to the WikiAlert submitted on me by Racepacket it should be noted that Racepacket has explored nearly every other venue with no success so IMO this is just a desperate attempt to silence my opposition to his bullying and constent harrassment. --Kumioko (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Who is this admin that you say is abusing their rights exactly? --Onorem♠Dil 20:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket. At least I think hes an admin.--Kumioko (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it... --Onorem♠Dil 21:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh my fault I sincerely apologize I honestly thought he was. Any chance I can talk you into reviewing this issue for a temporary topic ban for a couple weeks? --Kumioko (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, but I am a WPUS member who agrees that a topic ban is perhaps appropriate for Racepacket Purplebackpack89 21:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Could we perhaps, as a start, simply agree that everybody should just stop talking about the scope of wikiprojects? I mean, come on, seriously. What does it even matter? Who would ever care about what blurb a project page has in its header? Editors will edit whatever they like, and editors who frequent wikiproject pages will use them for discussing whatever they like, wherever they like. Who cares about any definition of a "scope"? It's all a great big piece of WP:LAME, if you ask me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that but unfortunately there are a lot of editors who do care. --Kumioko (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been three days since I requested full page protection to allow us to resolve our issues on the talk page before editing on the project page. I gather that will not happen, so I am withdrawing my request for page protection and understand that we will shift to BRD where editors make changes on the project page, subject to further edits or reversions and then we go back to the talk page for discussion. I think had we stuck to the talk page, we would have been finished in a few more hours, but we are now embarking on a path that will probably take weeks or months instead. I say this from experience because it is very difficult to follow edit summaries and people editing over each other. Look at the users who have expressed concerns on the talk page not addressed by the current claim to consensus: Mudwater, Casliber, JonRidinger, Jason Quinn, Markvs88, among others. Consensus is not a matter of counting noses. Racepacket (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved and uninterested (also not an admin) so forgive me for jumping in, but I don't think this is going to be solved here. It seems both "sides" have ended up in entrenched positions and all that's happening now is sniping. My reason for watching this page is to learn about dispute resolution, and right now this isn't teaching me anything. Might I suggest both sides take 24 hours off and concentrate their efforts elsewhere? Clearer heads might lead to a solution. --rpeh •T•C•E• 05:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-Administrator's Note As a editor who attempted to wade in and pull the 2 combatants apart during last weeks ANI thread, I reiterate my request for both editors to Drop It. Your dancing across many different pages and expressing various concerns is bordering on the line of forum shopping and beyond the point of editing collegially on a shared encyclopedia. It's obvious that this issue (and it's many underlying clauses) are so much a part of the interaction that neither side is willing to let go. I would suggest that both editors enter into a voluntary non-interaction agreement. Hasteur (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Page: Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Roger Scruton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jprw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both these articles and their talk pages have been semi-protected due to socks of a dynamic IP, However, Jprw has been posting comments by the dynamic IP to the discussion pages despite being told that he should not do so. There is an open SPI case.[50] Furthermore the comments posted by the IP are uncivil.

After an administrator removed the IP's comments and protected a talk page, Jprw restored the comments, saying he is "Reverting utterly unjustified censorship"[51] and removed the semi-protection template, writing "This now not needed".[52]

Jprw had restored the IP's comments earlier:

• "Stop censoring people who do not agree with you or who have thought more deeply about this issue than you have"[53]
• "(Undoing blanking by The Four Deuces. It may not be convenient for your methods to be exposed on this talk page but it is important for other editors to be aware of them and hear both sides"[54]

After Talk:Roger Scruton was semi-protected, Jprw posted the IP's remarks to the talk page.[55] When they were removed he restored them, writing, "reinstating unjustly censored entry".[56]

Furthermore the IP's comments that were posted by Jprw are offensive.

• "What a truly nasty woman." (referring to another editor)
• "This may make you uncomfortable, and you would prefer that it was not the case, but if the aim is truth rather than deception, ignorance is no defence."

Jprw also retains comments by the IP on his talk page and enters into discussion with him.

Jprw should be blocked until he agrees not to help the IP with block evasion.

TFD (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Forum shopping -- reported at SPI with obvious negative results. Posting here is not warranted. "Meat puppetry" is a specific allegation, and where no evidence was educed before to make the specific alegation, I doubt that this report avails a lot. Collect (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Proxying for users who were prevented from posting on a talk page for fairly good reasons is not a good idea, whether it's actually meatpuppetry or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been a problem for some time, and I've considered opening a thread about it too. Jprw is repeatedly proxying for someone who posts from dynamic IPs that geolocate to the ISP Tiscali in the north of England—including Yorkshire, Leeds, Scunthorpe, and Nottingham. There is a list of the known IPs here, if you open up the extended content.

There is a suspicion that it's banned Yorkshirian (talk · contribs), but I'm not familiar with Yorkshirian so I don't know how justified that suspicion is. The IP (I call him the "right-wing politics IP") focuses on Right-wing politics and Roger Scruton. He has caused problems by adding plagiarism, and by liberally insulting anyone who disagrees with him, calling other editors liars, stupid, bigots, and so on. The plagiarism on one article was so extensive that it had to be deleted and rewritten; see discussion here. Several articles and talk pages have had to be semi-protected because of him, and at least one range block put in place.

Jprw invariably defends him, attacks editors using the same language, and restores the IP's personal attacks. Jprw has edited logged out, and the IP he edited from resolved to a different country, so there's no technical evidence suggesting they're one person. But Jprw is without question proxying for the IP, and the restoration of the personal attacks has been quite disruptive. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The article English Defence League could do with a bit more admin attention. Actually, the real problem is that both WP:3RR/N and CAT:PER appear to be understaffed at the moment.

First we had an edit war on the article that was won (yes, won, not just "won") by a user who has since been blocked indefinitely. The user made about a dozen reverts on the article in 24 hours, not even stopping after the 3RR report was open for a while and there had been no less than three 3RR warnings on his talk page. Around that time the user created a new account which he used for another revert right before the page was protected.

There is a consensus that the section which the blocked user had added and was defending does not belong in the article at all, per WP:NOTNEWS. (It is a non-notable news story reporting unproven allegations by the leader of a xenophobic organisation that some Asians threw stones at his house.) Yet no admin reacted to the "edit protected" template. I just discovered that after it had been on the talk page for 29 hours, the blocked editor (now editing anonymously) simply removed the template with nobody noticing. Hans Adler 11:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hans, I didn't notice that the sock's edit had slipped through literally as I was protecting it. And to add to that, somehow the article dropped off my watchlist. It's removed now. And the article is back on my watch list. Next time it would be faster to contact the Admin who protected the article, me in this case. I had blocked the puppetmaster at 3RR at the same time. Do you want to report the IP to SPI?Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP now and will add it to the current SPI. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. With all that pushing of the "admins are not allowed to use their brains" ideology recently I thought you were just overly cautious (for which I wouldn't have blamed you), so I thought it was better to look for a different admin, which normally should not have been a problem. But thanks for the explanation. Hans Adler 12:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Admins should use their brains/judgement and we should trust and expect them to do so until such time as they clearly don't deserve our trust. This was a no-brainer though, a sock puppet edit. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be some issues with MAPs created by User:PANONIAN, more and more people notice the maps being questionable. It seems, PANONIAN has a unique view in NPOV as far as maps go.

By the Wikimedia Commons policy, POV disputes like this one are solved in the way that each of the sides upload its own file with preferred descriptions, but original file usually remains in accordance with point of view of original uploader, which would be me in this case. So, I heard your point of view, I do not agree with it, and I do not agree with any change in original files. So, please, do not disturb me with this any more - just draw and upload your own map and use it where ever you want or pick another one from category in Wikimedia Commons. Ok? PANONIAN 21:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

According to this he is free to make any extremely POV maps, and by commons policy, it doesn't matter how POV it is, because the "POV of the original uploader is what usually" matters? Is there any truth to this? I thought all material was GDFL and freely editable by anyone and there is no such thing as special rights retained over material that is already contributed under GDFL. This is crucial because this can lead to major POV pushing campaigns on Wikipeda.

A long discussion on POV pushing issues in PANONIAN's maps is here.

Another issue is canvassing by PANONIAN. He proposed a request for move and contacted several people after in an effort to slant the result. He contacted fourteen people total, you can check the full list here [57]. Is this allowed? Hobartimus (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hobartimus, it is fair to inform an editor when you file a report against him. The policies say it clearly: "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion." (Iaaasi (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

PANONIAN was notified. Would you mind telling the admins how did YOU find this post a few minutes after it was written and formatted? Hobartimus (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You notified PANONIAN only after I've reminded you that informing the accused party is a must. You did not at least say "thanks" for my help

And to answer your question: I have this noticeboard on my watchlist(Iaaasi (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

Answer: First of all, maps that we speak about are located in Wikimedia Commons and English Wikipedia is not right place where accuracy of such maps should be discussed. Second, info in these maps is sourced and the only POV problem with these maps is personal opinion of one Wikipedia user that different terminology should be used there. However, as I already pointed out, these maps are located in Wikimedia Commons and issues related to them should be discussed there (as for my comment about policy in Wikimedia Commons related to POV disputes, I was informed by administrators in Wikimedia Commons that the proper way of solving disputes of two parties about one file is that each of the parties upload its own file. It is exactly how Wikimedia Commons administrators solved my dispute with user Mladifilozof where I had to upload my file version under different name and version created by user Mladifilozof remained in original file since he was original uploader). I am not aware that there is recent change in this Wikimedia Commons policy, and, as I said, my maps are sourced and objections raised against them are related to personal POV opinion of one Wikipedia user, not to general problems with their accuracy. Third, user Hobartimus trying to post all kinds of accusations against me for years attempting to discredit me. The true issue that should be examined by English Wikipedia administrators is behaviour of user Hobartimus who is involved in constant revert warring with multiple users, trying to push Greater Hungarian nationalistic POV. I was not very active in English Wikipedia for long time and I do not see that my recent behavior is violation of Wikipedia rules. I do not think that informing other users about ongoing voting is violation of Wikipedia rules. If it is, I sincerely apologize for that and I will not do it in the future. PANONIAN 12:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that Iaaasi was in fact one of the people canvassed by PANONIAN evidence here Few more examples [58][59] I wonder why he was specificly targeted by PANONIAN to comment on that specific RFM? Hobartimus (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Content disputes aren't part of ANI, but of other boards like WP:ECCN. The messages of PANONIAN may be a violation of WP:CANVASS, because while they were neutral and open, they also include mass posting and the audience may be considered partly partisan. I would probably support the renaming of the article too, but he shouldn't notify about the move discussion only users, which he might consider supportive.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if that is a problem, I will notify all ethnic Hungarian users about this voting too. PANONIAN 12:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the disruptive actions of PANONIAN. He should be following policy by himself and because he is constantly forced to do so. He is editing here for how many years now? It's not like he is unaware of NPA and the other policies. "Putting on a show for the admins" to avoid the block after being disruptive when they are not looking is a cheap way of trying to avoid blocks. Agreeing to follow policy ONLY after being caught is not good enough. Now he is saying he "will notify all ethnic Hungarian users". Who was notified in the first round then if the supposed solution to the canvassing is this? Who was the first 14 users notified if it will make it all better by this action? Who exactly was the target of the first round of canvassing???? I hope he doesn't have a database with the family trees of all wikipedia users. You would think the most someone would be able to tell if someone speaks a certain language or not. How can he discern whether someone's ethnicity is mixed between German and Romanian, or Jewish or any other ethnicity? This mentality in my view is exactly what WP:BATTLE is about. We don't need all this drama just because a user is unhappy with an article title. Hobartimus (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is very good proof that user Hobartimus harassing me with false accusations against me. If there is any evidence for such accusations I would like to see them presented here. PANONIAN 14:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I just notified several active Hungarian users for whom I know about this voting (except user Hobartimus, who is obviously already aware of it). If there are some other active Hungarian users for whom I do not know, user Hobartimus is free to notify them about this voting. PANONIAN 13:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I still feel that the POV pushing in the MAPS is a very serious issue. Short of going to Arbcom, is there any way to completely root out all these POV maps, from Wikipedia? We clearly heard that they are extremely POV PANONIAN himself even admitted it. He thinks he can just get away with whatever POV he wants by saying original file usually remains in accordance with point of view of original uploader, which would be me in this case. I heard your point of view, I do not agree with it, and I do not agree with any change in original files. He clearly thinks that is the end of it, and it does not matter how POV the maps are. Hobartimus (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

To which maps you refer to? The question was only about 3 maps of WW2 Yugoslavia and since these maps are located in Wikimedia Commons, you are free to say your comments or opinions about them on their talk pages there. And now I want that you apologize to me for accusing me for creating "extremely POV maps" and that "I admitted it". I never admitted such thing, so this is clear example of your personal insult addressed towards me. PANONIAN 14:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes you admitted it. You admitted it very clearly. I qoute: "but original file usually remains in accordance with point of view of original uploader, which would be me in this case. So, I heard your point of view, I do not agree with it, and I do not agree with any change in original files." You said this to a user, who very clearly explained to you that your maps are POV, containing unacceptable fringe views. The user explained this to you using sources and you said the above to him. That since you are the uploader your POV wins, even though there were numerous sources brought against your maps. Hobartimus (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The full discussion was here I encourage everyone to read it fully. I only quote the stuff about POV maps because you admitted it that they are POV, but you can win or game the system by being the original uploader. Hobartimus (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I also explained that such maps are made in accordance with point of view of Yugoslav and one part of western scholars and that Wikipedia policy does not forbid the existence of work that is based on academic views (even if there are other opposite academic views). Neither myself or user with whom I had dispute used words "unacceptable fringe views" (that came from your mouth only). Also, if you read the whole discussion, you will see that I proposed to this user that he can use what ever other map in what ever article he wants and that I did not insisted that my maps are used in articles in English Wikipedia. The only thing that I am insisting at is that my own work is not based on POV that is not accepted by historians in my own country. Whether my work should be used in articles in English Wikipedia is another question. PANONIAN 15:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I just made a search on that discussion and " These are advancing a minority fringe-view." was definitely in that discussion. (just search the discussion for "fringe"). So I did not make it up. I think representing fringe views is unacceptable as it gives them undue weight in Wikipedia. I am however more concerned about the original uploader winning by default on wikipedia commons. If that's true that's a huge problem by itself, a lot bigger than any map you ever created. Hobartimus (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, no matter if that word came from you or from other user, you fail to see that I also presented academic sources for my claims and I will present them here too: Hungarian fascists (Barry M. Lituchy, Jasenovac and the Holocaust in Yugoslavia: analyses and survivor testimonies), Bulgarian fascists (Matjaž Klemenčič, Mitja Žagar - The former Yugoslavia's diverse peoples) - clear evidence that term "fascist" is used for WW2 Hungarian and Bulgarian state. PANONIAN 15:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether Panonian is POV pushing or not is a content dispute and can't be dealt with on ANI, so please use WP:ECCN or WP:NPOVN.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that's true on one hand but there is a larger issue here if this is true? That someone can upload any fringe POV map so long as he/she is the original uploader? That would be a real problem for wikipedia in my opinion. Hobartimus (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Maps of WW2 occupied Yugoslavia cannot be ever completely NPOV because various scholars are supporting various points of view about that issue. The only possible solution for that problem would be creation of multiple files based on each POV or inclusions of all POVs into one file (which is exactly what I proposed as compromise solution in the end of discussion to which you refer too). For you, opinion of Yugoslav historians is an "fringe POV", but for people in some other countries opinion of historians for your country is an real example of "fringe POV". PANONIAN 15:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:PANONIAN

I'd like to ask for administrators to review the following edit by user:PANONIAN [60]. In my view it was a clear personal attack, violating WP:NPA. It didn't even make an attempt to provide any evidence or supporting diffs for hugely offensive attacks, as such it is not possible to AGF here it was a clear case of bad faith on the part of PANONIAN. Hobartimus (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I opened a new thread because it is a new issue and in my view demands immediate action. Hobartimus (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I would kindly ask administrators to protect me from this person. Both his posts against me are clear examples of personal harassment. PANONIAN 12:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Writing about another user the following "who is involved in constant revert warring with multiple users, trying to push Greater Hungarian nationalistic POV." is clearly a personal attack.Hobartimus (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it is, then I kindly apologize to you. PANONIAN 12:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

How nice, a conditional non-apology "If it is...", while the original personal attack remains in place above. Hobartimus (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Now you insulted me with accusations for "extreme POV": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=411166743&oldid=411161757 Would you be so kind to apologize? PANONIAN 14:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes you admitted it. You admitted it very clearly. I qoute: "but original file usually remains in accordance with point of view of original uploader, which would be me in this case. So, I heard your point of view, I do not agree with it, and I do not agree with any change in original files." You said this to a user, who very clearly explained to you that your maps are POV, containing unacceptable fringe views. The user explained this to you using sources and you said the above to him. That since you are the uploader your POV wins, even though there were numerous sources brought against your maps. Hobartimus (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You said in other words : You make POV maps, but they will remain anyway, because the POV of the original uploader is winner by default. And from this stance you rejected the arguments of another user which were based on sources. You spoke like you were some sort of admin or superior to the other user I heard your point of view, I do not agree with it, and I do not agree with any change in original files. You heard his silly arguments but they are rejected and the debate is now over. Hobartimus (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I already gave you answer to all that in previous section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&action=historysubmit&diff=411175725&oldid=411174548 Why you repeating same posts twice? PANONIAN 15:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally unless someone publicly declares his goals, we shouldn't attribute motives to him.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is AN so dead silent lately? I've tried to inform admins of a huge backlog at MFD but no one's said a word. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 13:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The "huge backlog" being, what, two days of nominations of material that won't exactly cause problems if it hangs around for another few days? It's hardly worth reporting at WP:AN, let alone here. Bencherlite^Talk 14:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

To you and me, maybe. But it drives deletionists crazy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No need to comment on editors in this thread, please. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall naming any names. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You folks are complaining about the lack of drama lately? AN has not only been rather dead, but so is ANI. But I thought that would be A Good Thing. –MuZemike 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed its so dull the only thing left is to accuse Jimbo of running a Good Hand, Bad Hand account with the Larry Sanger Persona... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for a laugh, David Gerard was blocked in November on Citizendium for "Extremely offensive insults or personal attacks; direct and harsh attacks on the moral character, or personal or professional credibility of a project member", despite not having edited there since 2007. Gotta love 'em. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Which is better? vi or Emacs?

• Is Linux better than Windows?
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Catherine Huebscher has been making unacceptable personal attacks, again, on the talk page of Paul Robeson. I raised her behaviour here before, in December. [61]. Since then, I have tried extremely hard to engage her in proper discussion. I've been working through the Paul Robeson article carefully to improve the referencing, but Catherine is impervious to information about sourcing policy, and has reverted many well-intentioned edits.

On the talk page: [62] and [63] are vicious personal attacks on User: Radh. She retracted the worst of them, but what she says about Radh is still outrageous, and she went on to add this addressed to me.

You can see from the article history and talk page the very many attempts to engage this user civilly. Some firm action is needed now, please. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering the number of NPA warnings on her talkpage, a block seemed appropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Endorse block. And the editor's response, "User:Itsmejudith is a conniving racist," doesn't make it any better. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious, are "well-intentioned" but unsourced edits subject to deletion? Is it possible that such constant "well-intentioned" editing may in fact drive someone to become abusive with the intention of provoking just such a blocking proposal as a blocking strategy Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, block her, Radh is a straight up victim who always treats others with respect... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#User:_Catherine_Huebscher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Radh#Talk:Paul_Robeson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peekskill_Riots#Recent_Revisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Radh#Paul_Robeson_2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.57.212.56 (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, 31 hours was excessive given I've had six years with no blocks. I feel Radh is over due for a block. I have Radh slandering me and accusing me of being a "Stalinist" on many places on wikipedia while he follows me from article to article, looks me up offline and outs me. I hate Stalin. He has some vested interest in "exposing Blacks and Communism" and we are all supposed agree with his povs and hate speech like "niggers" and "Uncle Tom". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Robeson/Archive_3#The_recent_edits Judith ignored his nasty "Neo-Stalinist bully" comment(s) (as the admins predictably did) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Robeson#Neutrality and defended him again. As one can clearly see, Radh has done nothing for the article apart from leave a few small sometimes snarky edits and complain and display his hatred of Robeson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#User:_Catherine_Huebscher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Radh#Talk:Paul_Robeson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peekskill_Riots#Recent_Revisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Radh#Paul_Robeson_2 Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Without even looking at Radh's edits, this is simply unacceptable. You should be pleased that 31 hours is all it was--now it's time to walk away and not make matters worse for yourself, which is the only thing you can hope to accomplish with this battlefield mentality. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks. Do you think that the accusations about me being a racist should be refactored so they don't appear on Catherine's talk page? All I did, you know, was advise her that it was probably not worth challenging a statement by Radh after the event, after I volunteered have a look at what he said. By the way, is there previous discussion in WP of the use of the phrase "uncle Tom"? Is it unequivocally racist to use it about a third party? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd say "unequivocally", but there are a lot more racist ways to use it than there are safe ways. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not unequivocally racist (depends almost entirely on the circumstances), but it is definitely pejorative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there any standards, rules or guidelines, or even ideas, as to what we can do with contributors from non-English-language countries who think (even assert) that their English is good, yet continue to contribute article text which is incomprehensible, in spite of being asked cordially to be more careful? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE might help as a link. A tricky situation but not likely blockable unless very disruptive. What admin action are you after Serge? Pedro :  Chat  00:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

As a side note - we have had users whose contributions were such bad quality english that it was disruptive, for a long period of time, and more than one has been blocked for it eventually.

That said - it's much preferable to explain the situation to them and get them to focus on their language skills, on editing their native language Wikipedia, and / or work via talk page discussions rather than edits to articles which then need significant repair work. Blocking is the absolute last ditch resort.

If you can provide specific examples and get other admins / long term users involved, that's a good thing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

A cautionary tale. I not that long ago began a response to an editor whose contributions were at times very mangulated English, by politely saying something like "It seems that English is not your first language...." We were both posting on a very Australian topic. He responded very aggressively, condemning me for suggesting that he was a "foreigner", and pointing out that he was born and bred in Australia, and English was his native tongue. (We do speak English here. ;-) ) He later alleged that I hated him. Turns out he was a 15 year old kid whose efforts since have led to a permanent ban. But do be careful with what you assume. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm an Australian who edits a lot of Indonesia related articles. I'm often cleaning up English in otherwise good contributions. It doesn't bother me that much if there's some good amongst appalling grammar. It's a different story when the additions are incomprehensible then I revert immediately as there are normally other problems such as no references. However, it's rare that edits are completely unusable because of language problems. But then again, my native speaker grammar and speling are not always prefect being niether. --Merbabu (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please handle this all carefully. There are lots of possible explanations, and putting someone off or insulting them accidentally are strong risks here.

Don't ignore the issue, but be sensitive when you talk to people about it. Calling an experienced editor or admin for help in communicating may be a good course. This noticeboard is fine for asking for an admin to talk to someone who is in need of gentle counseling and not a huge hammer. We'd all be better off if problems were brought here earlier before people are angry...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

From my experience, there have been cases where poor English has led to administrative sanctions in the past, but usually they were cases where the lack of English was not the only problem but an aggravating factor in an already problematic situation. Pumpie (talk · contribs), Rjecina (talk · contribs), Masonfamily (talk · contribs) or Opp2 (talk · contribs) come to mind. The important issue is that poor English can be tolerated if the edits are so good, content-wise, that it is reasonable to expect somebody else will be willing to correct them. Where this is not the case (for instance because the edits are all unsourced, or tendentious, or particularly trivial), poor English edits may become a net damage to the project. Another problem can occur when people with very limited English skills persistently engage in POV disputes, but lack the competence to uphold a meaningful debate, or their edits degrade article quality in an article that is already prone to edit-wars for POV reasons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Dyslexia?Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not what I meant to bring up; dyslexia is another matter.

What I have seen for years now, in a couple of cases, is Swedish editors (2 in particular) who do not want to hear about any problems with their English, continue to contribute Swenglish which you have to know Swedish (how many of us do?) to comprehend or even to be able to correct, and who intend to go on doing so no matter how diplomatically we ask them to be more careful. One is extremely demonstrative about h. right do do that and has "near-native level" about h. English on h. Swedish user page, which is way off base.

Thank you all very mich for this balanced and valuable input! SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

PS This is particularly helpful.

And here is one concrete example. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

One of those reversals of h.'s was in response to my edit summary here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be me but I prefer any to several. As to unkowable, it is an english wrod. I am not sure there is anything here to look at. Can you give an example of actualy bad English.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Any" is correct if there were none; "several" if there was at least one, I believe. Yes "unknowable" exists but it is inappropriate here as also POV-related, whereas "unknown" is neutral and accurate.

Latest examples: here and here and "If there were any Swedish monarchs named Eric before Eric the Victorious is unknown" here. Have corrected h. many many times but feel less and less motivated to keep that up because of unconstructive attitude bordering om disruptive. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Any V's several then is a content dispute (based on whether or not there was at least one Eric before Eric), so I susgest that that is taken to the talk page. As to your otehr example, yes that is bad English, but yours seems a bit iff too in places ((unless you are accusing them of being spiratualy disruptive?). I would (for example) point out that several means more then one, but you are claiming that there was at least one (not several). So the passage as you have writen it is incorrect as well.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You asked about "any" on that article's talk page - thank you! - and I have replied there. H. has claimed that "any" "several" is incorrect English, that's the problem addressed here, not the content.

What is "spiratualy disruptive" (I'm not being facetious, I don't know the term)?SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I will admit that I was taking the piss a little, I was pointing out an error in one of your posts here where you write "om disruptive", in order to illustrate why we should not go about reporting users for bad English. Which is H your differances seem to refer to user:Andejons and he seems to be saying that any is the correct English not that its not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Om! Thanx for that - a sense of humor will save our lives!

Sorry! You're right - I meant "several" as the word he labeled incorrect where he wantes "any".

Are you an administrator? (I'm not being facetious there either, but I had hoped to involve at least one adiministrator here - that's the only reason I posted this). SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

NO, but as you are at 3RR and this seems more content dispute then disruption I think that one showing up might not be that good.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What is "3RR"? SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the three revert rule I honestly don't see how that applies here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Administrators please note: I have not accused anyone of disruptive editing, and that was not the reason I started this discussion. I do feel that 1-2 known editors' attitudes about correct English and their text contributions according to that attitude, are beginning to border on disruptive. This is not a debate about article content but about the claims of some editors with limited English that their English is near perfect; their faulty edits along those lines; their linguistically incompetent complaints about the correct English of others; and the problem in general as identified above at the start. If that is not still clear, I may be at fault for wandering into side matters that do not stick explicitly to the more exact section subject. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Woodzing is a bit of a besserwisser (aren't we all?) - this was a funny comment on this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of blatant Swenglish is definitely a concern; I encounter it fairly frequently as well. There are two issues involved: first, that many Swedes (not all, but many) have an inflated sense of their own ability to speak or write perfect English, because most Swedes have sufficient English to communicate with English-speakers - which obviously doesn't imply a perfect grasp of the language. Second, Swedish and English are sufficiently closely related to fool speakers of one language into thinking that the other language is pretty much the same, only with different words. That is not at all the case, because there are many important differences in sentence structure and other grammatical features, as well as a lot of false friends in the vocabularies of the two languages. (Btw, the reason I feel reasonably competent to comment on this is that I am a native speaker of Swedish, and I teach English grammar at university level in Sweden. I don't claim native competence in English, but I do consider my English to be sufficient for most purposes in Wikipedia.) Competence in English is a sore point with many Swedes, though, so there is unfortunately real potential for making people upset. While I'm not particularly good at handling conflicts (and am not an administrator), I could try helping out, because I do have some experience in explaining English grammar to Swedes. No guarantees that it will work, mind. --bonadea contributions talk 14:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Along those lines, I can say it's true, non-native speakers of any language can easily misunderstand their successes with informal conversation or writing as meaning they can write that language at a native level, or even speak it at levels needed in, say, meaningful business or technical settings. Syntax, cognates, even idiom often don't quite make the jump between two given languages, so even if one has thousands of vocabulary words at their beck and call, along with knowing how to conjugate lots of verbs, the outcome can still be fraught with glitches, gaps and wrong meanings which thoroughly thwart understanding and flow. Even native speakers must at least be aware of their audience and may need or want to shift their usage to get whatever outcome they hope for from other native speakers. Long tale put too short, understanding is easier than rendering and there are reasons why skilled translators into a given language are almost always native speakers of that language. Vladimir Nabokov was very Russian, but he could write such slick English because he grew up speaking it at home, from babyhood, along with Russian and French. Our brains are hard-wired, so to speak, for language, but a language has to be soaked up at an early age. There's a cut-off age for by far most folks, I've forgotten what it is, say seven or eight at the latest, after which, if one isn't already fluently speaking a language, one will more or less never speak that language at what most would take as a native level. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Bonadea and Gwen! I have never been anywhere near as pleased, with any response to anything I have been involved in at Wikipedia in all the years I've been contributing, as I am with your two replies. Thank you so very much for every word you wrote! So well written, intelligently understood and accurately described.

This matter is extremely important to me, for readable text, and it's nice to know two people now who understand. I feel today like I have a couple of allies in this matter at last, and I truly cherish the thought, after such a long time of feeling very lonely about it.

For Bonadea and me (who know Swedish) it is valuable to know somebody who can assess text at times (if we then may impose on Gwen), where it may be necessary to run something by a reader who does not know Swedish to determine whether or not it is comprehensible at all to non-Swedes. Thus we may be able to get a few contributors to take the problem more seriously and be more careful. That, of course, is my objective with this.

Both of you are probably better at wording things like this that I am, for example in my attempt to explain my attitude and worries about some of the problem on my own talk page in a section called What is phonetic empathy?.

Do you think Wikipedia's good essay on competence covers this matter - Poor English - fully enough to be really helpful?

Thank you again! Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

When you can write like this: [64], [65], you'll be awarded the "excellence in proper English writing" barnstar by Jimbo. Count Iblis (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

??? Sorry, I don't get it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Some non native English speaking Europeans are known to use (or very much misuse) way too much slang, contractions and idiom (which they've picked up in English language Internet pop culture and movies, which swarm the continent) when they try to write English, such as in those links. I think that's what Iblis may have been getting at. Don't even get me started on non native English speakers trying to use the word fuck. Ouch. It's as bad as an Aussie trying to cuss like she does in Oz, but in French, in Paris. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am a Brit living in the US, don't get me started on language issues... – ukexpat (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oy! Mind the gap! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Brits and Americans and others unite! We need to be on the same side of the issue i raised here. In Sweden, the most popular slang word today among all females aged 10-55 is "shit" (in English). When the most well educated, well dressed and (otherwise) well behaved ladies among them often forget not to use it in English at business meetings in Britain, the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc etc etc - you can imagine the impact (I hope). SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen and heard such botches. They know not what they do. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously: Personally, I do not find the examples provided by SergeWoodzing very horrifying. (It is self-evidently somewhat irritating to be "corrected" by someone who has misunderstood the issue, possibly partly by an exaggerated opinion about its own linguistic accomplishments; but as Serge probably has noted, the logic was complicated enough to make the reason for several instead of any oblique also to commenters on this page. Specifically, if you make Serge's assumptions, as given in an edit summary, explicit, you get approximately

There unquestionably was at least one Swedish monarch named Eric before Eric the Victorious, but whether or not there were several is unknown.

Put like that, I think all of us will agree that here several should not be replaced by any. However, the issue never was stated as explicitly as that.)

However, I do agree with bonadea. Many of us Swedes do have an exaggerated opinion of our ability to write in idiomatically correct English. In particular, those of us who are practised writers. e.g., in one scientific field, may have a partly justified idea of actually being better than the average native English speaker, who does not know the technical jargong, but this would be true only for that field. Even so, I have noticed that e.g. many younger Swedes writing texts in mathematics (my own field) make stupid linguistic mistakes, simply since they do not care about such details as distinguishing the singular and the plural verb forms (in 3'rd p., present tese indicative), and therefore believe that also their readers don't care. Now the same young people would never take a sentence like the following for proper Swedish, even if they would understand it perfectly:

Den var en liten hus, men med det långa skorstenet.

(I'm afraid I cannot explain easily what's wrong here, if you do not know any language with inter alia clearly distinguishable grammatical genders. The point is that we have some features that are hard to learn and may appear pointless for a foreigner, since there is no possibility for a misunderstanding anyhow - in this particular example.)

Now, what we could do, is to encourage people to get help, if they know that their English is bad. I usually act analogously this myself on some other wikipedias, where I intermittently do some editing, although i do not really write in the language in question. E.g., I've contributed a few articles on nowp; and in such cases I've put on a template, no:Mal:Uoversatt (stating that the text only partly or not at all is translated to Norwegian). That template is fairly neutral in its text, which is important, if we are to get people to contribute them voluntarily.

In other words, we need some template, which a user could employ (without too much humiliation), in order to ask for a proofreading. (The Template:Proofreader needed assumes that a text primarily was written in another language, and is not suitable.) There might exist such templates on enwp, but I do not know where to find them.

This, of course, is intended for those other Swedes; I'm naturally under the illusion that my own mistakes in English are unimportant and essentially ignorable; after all, I'm a Swede:-) (Well, at least, I do not declare more that an en-3 user box, whence hopefully Serge will have some patience with me...) JoergenB (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I never used the word "horrifying" or any such language here or on Swedish WP when I wrote to Andejons there, before posting this.

Such a need help template would be great for the very few who come to realise, suspect or know their English is bad.

A much more difficult and comprehensive question to attack, comprehensive that is to the quality of language on English WP in particular, with our many international contributors here, is how do we convince the many who do not realise, suspect or know that their English is bad, and those who do not want to know it, that they need help and that it is necessary for the quality and reputation of the project that they get it? I strongly believe it is.SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

PS there are also a few (a cooperating group?) of editors who do things like this here on English WP, in the interest, it seems, of saturating articles with a long dead language that is only of interest to specialists. This is quite distressing, as it does a lot of damage to those articles, in my opinion as given here. In these cases, too, frequency of use seems never to be an issue in naming and renaming articles. Hard to understand what looks like a blanket exception in favor of that particular movement. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)