Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

I am receiving death threats + vandalism by unsigned editor[edit]

An editor is vandalising pages and attacking me personally on talk pageswith death threats .

E.g. "...you pathetic piece of s**t. I will hunt you down and f***ing kill you.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josef_Mengele&curid=21628220&diff=523986010&oldid=523985892 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/189.90.241.170 I request an immediate blocking please.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Next time please post to ANI/AIV instead. Max Semenik (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Hopefully there won't be a next time. But... a week! That seems rather short. I have had no dealings with this person at all. Just received a death threat out of nowhere. I would have thought that with the amount of contributions from thsi person and the high proportion of them being vandalism, ad hominem attacks, thea1RR violation PLUS the death threat, that we can safely assume this person isn't a serious wiki editor they should be banned for a lot longer than a week! :-o--Mystichumwipe (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an IP address that has only been used by that editor for two days. Long-term blocks of dynamic IPs don't have much value -- the person using them is likely to switch to a different address very quickly. Looie496 (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm says someone (not necessarily, but ideally, the recipient of the threat) should contact emergency@wikimedia.org -- Finlay McWalterTalk 17:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
IP reported at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation has been alerted. Thank you. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I can just imagine some 14 year old kid pissing his pants when the police come to his house to question him... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)
See 137.86.162.138's contributions to Lingle, Wyoming — I reported them to the county sheriff's office, and after they responded to me, I ended up getting a very very deeply embarrassed apology email from the person behind the IP address. Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully that's the last we hear from him. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • That is a static ip and a known proxy server. Doesn't look open proxy, but hard to tell due to using some really odd ports. Will require some more digging, but a longer block is clearly warranted since this IP doesn't rotate. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 21:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Increased block to one year. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 21:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm also states the death threat should be removed from public view. The edits are:
  1. here
  2. here (edit summary only)
  3. here (sinebot's edit summary)
Rgrds. --64.85.220.205 (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Hidden those three edits. Hut 8.5 12:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about the laws in other places, but in the state of Florida, the death threat in itself is a felony; they wouldn't just be going to talk to someone, they would be going to arrest someone, even if it's a juvenile. That said, if they're using proxies, it would be extremely difficult to trace them. Most trolling in general is a misdemeanor crime actually, but no one bothers to go after them. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 16:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP[edit]

Heavy backlog at WP:RFPP. Admins needed. Armbrust The Homonculus 08:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a need for more admins, but becoming an admin now is akin to a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Good luck. Sincerely, an IP that wishes to become an admin but has no hope of that ever happening. 209.117.47.248 (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK date request screwup will go on main page in 3 hours[edit]

Resolved

Admins have been ignoring the talk page all day. There are only 3 hours until the scheduling request is officially messed up. An admin is required to move Glenn Robinson III from the next queue into Prep Area 1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. NW (Talk) 05:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Election coordinators wanted[edit]

Hi all. Election season is underway, and the nomination period has closed. There are questions to be policed, checkusers to be bothered, and miscellaneous brickabrack that needs to be dealt with. If you're interested in helping out, please sign up to help at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Coordination--Tznkai (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User impersonating Admin[edit]

User:BJSelavkaotheus Canens has copied and pasted User:Timotheus Canens's entire userpage and is making nonsensical edits to pages. yonnie (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Let's see what, if anything, they have to say for themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
BJSelavkaotheus Canens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for reference §FreeRangeFrog 00:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe this user is vandalizing my userpage from an anonymous IP. See here. I have left a warning on their talkpage - User talk:207.224.192.66 yonnie (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, that was pretty nasty stuff, I zapped it. You should take it as a sign that you did something right when some coward attacks you like that. Whatever it is you are doing keep it up. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian incitement[edit]

Been taken to Articles for Deletion. Closing to avoid further silliness.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Somthing should be done about this article. It was created on November 18 and has a contentious history, including total blanking of the article by one experienced editor. Should it be speedily deleted as an attack page? Should it be AfDed? Should it be allowed to exist. The pro-Israeli bias despite some qualifiers is rather remarkable. I particularly like this qualifier in the lead: "According to the Israeli government (who are of course in no position to comment with any degree of credibility) ..." I have no idea who added the parenthetical, but regardless of its possible merit, it's not what I would call encyclopedic. (I'm not notifying anyone at this point.)--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I've locked the article for 3 days because of the continuing battles; most everyone is ignoring the Arab-Israeli restrictions that apply to the article, and the reversions are fast and furious.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for forgetting about 1RR, but I stand by my blanking, and later edit, per WP:IAR. The article was nothing but propaganda in support from a particularly obnoxious right-wing pro-Israeli perspective which goes out of its way to portray Palestinians as either conspiratorial schemers or gullible dupes, and utterly refuses to acknowledge their basic humanity. Garbage like this simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and if there was any real effort to enforce rules regarding this being an encyclopaedia rather than a shithouse wall, those responsible for such bigoted propaganda would have been banned years ago. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Take it to AfD and let the thing run its course. §FreeRangeFrog 23:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
...And after it is deleted, the same crowd will create another 'article' pushing the same propaganda... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)}}
At which point it could be deleted again? Or salted? I don't understand how/why/when you believed blanking the article would accomplish anything. -- tariqabjotu 23:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks to me like this article is mostly about indoctrination/propaganda in the Arab-Israeli conflict and I imagine there would be more than enough information about Israeli activities to balance out an article covering that broader subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the protection. There's basically one persistent revert-warrior and Andy's violation of the 1RR, both of which should be acknowledged -- certainly with a block for the former, and possibly with another for the latter. -- tariqabjotu 23:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you would identify who you think is the "revert-warrior"; if you mean EditorInChiefSD, they were already blocked before I locked the article based on pervasive misconduct across many P-A articles. It would also be helpful if you would express an opinion as to whether the article should be kept. I tend to disagree witih Devil's Advocate, although it's not clear if they are saying that it could be a legitimate article or it is a legitimate article, two very different things. Andy's citation to WP:IAR makes no sense. IAR arguably works when there is no existing mechanism to protect the integrity of the project. Here, it would be straightforward for Andy to tag it for speedy deletion if he thinks it qualifies.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
My position is basically that, with a lot of work, the content could be used for a quality article under a different name. I suspect that if we take this to AfD the consensus will eventually become "keep, but needs improvement to address neutrality issues" and essentially waste time. Although, one could say that putting something through AfD can have the effect of compelling improvement, but I wouldn't suggest using it that way.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Wait, so you blocked EditorInChiefSD (talk · contribs) and still thought it was necessary to protect the article? I can't understand why you thought protecting the article would accomplish anything. It doesn't matter whether I feel the article should be kept or not; protecting an article and deciding on the Administrator's noticeboard is not how it should be decided. Blanking articles is not how it's done either. You should know that, and just as in any other administrative action, you should not allow your agreement or disagreement with one party guide your actions. WP:ARBPIA restrictions are in effect here, just as in any other Israel-Palestine article, and they ought to followed and enforced. -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Totally agree with Andy the Grump, it is not encyclopedic, I'm not familiar with the term but I think it is, a term I saw above, an 'attack page' - is this phenomenon the subject of discussion in RS? do I hear it on the BBC? No - it is the equivalent of a propaganda leaflet drop - it is outright propaganda - unsubtle at that - "The article was nothing but propaganda in support from a particularly obnoxious right-wing pro-Israeli perspective which goes out of its way to portray Palestinians as either conspiratorial schemers or gullible dupes, and utterly refuses to acknowledge their basic humanity. Garbage like this simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia," - yes, thats what I want to say. How could it be used for a quality article, devils advocate?- look at the sources - this is propaganda. Sayerslle (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Which of the sources are propaganda? Associated Press, Agence France Presse, The New York Times, Jerusalem Post, BBC, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, etc.? Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Apparently, the article has received some off-wiki attention. I will be going off-wiki soon (NOT to post to the blog). If there is a consensus among administrators that the article should be unlocked for whatever reason, I have no objection.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
A note to everyone — blocks for 3RR aren't appropriate when the page in question has been fully protected, since blocks are preventative, not punitive. Nobody's going to be able to continue reverting, except for admins, and any admins who engage in revert-warring here will need an Arbcom case, not just a simple block. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I never suggested that both the protection and a block should be applied, although that's effectively what's happened here. An editor has been blocked for disruption (although not solely on this article) and protection has been applied to one of the articles he was disrupting. Without this editor, though, there's really nothing warranting protecting here. If you accept Andy's IAR claim, then there's nothing else to do but encourage him to file an AfD. If you don't, he should be blocked for violating the 1RR. Either way, protection was not the right move. -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


Proposal[edit]

Looks like about everyone is objecting to the current state of things. Could we move it to a non-mainspace title, such as Talk:Peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Palestinian incitement? This might be able to resolve both the "bad but saveable" and the "horribly POV" objections, letting people fix it without presenting readers with badly biassed material. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you agree with D-A that it's fixable? Just curious what your views are. There is already an article Peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and there may be others similar to that - I'm not an expert in this area (thank goodness), and I'd have to hunt them down. BTW, your typo/unintentional play on words is amusing ("biassed").--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
No opinion on that; I figured that we could move it as an immediate fix to the biggest problem of problematic content, since that would give us more time to decide what to do with it since it's away from public view. I'm willing to take the large-scale dispute (both in the page history and at this page) as evidence that many many people strongly object to the current contents of the page. I've looked at nothing except for the intro. Meanwhile, "biassed" wasn't a typo; see OED, which gives it as an alternate spelling. Hadn't thought of "bi-assed", though :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Confound those Brits.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the more closely-related article would be Public diplomacy (Israel), a less slanted and less developed article on the Israeli media campaign. There is a tangentially-related article called Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict, but that one is more about the external view and is in a much worse state in terms of quality writing than the aforementioned article or the one we are discussing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean merging/redirecting this article there, or moving it to Talk:Public diplomacy (Israel)/Palestinian incitement? Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
As the original creator of the page I'd appreciate being involved in the discussions. This subject clearly merits its own page, given the copious references that address the issue directly - and I have barely scratched the surface. I implore admins and others not to give into WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please judge the article on its own merits. It is very well-sourced to only reliable sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Can we also address this off-wiki canvassing by User:Bali ultimate on Twitter [1]?
Saying, "Hey! Look at this article!" is not canvassing, dude.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
DA, I have to say I find your comments attribute to you here a bit troubling and un-neutral: [2]. User:Bali ultimate isn't too kind either: "'Plot Spoiler' is in fact one of Wikipedia's longterm propagandists for maximalist, far-right Israeli positions. He's probably one of the five most active in that coordinated little propaganda effort." Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Upset because he's only ranked you fifth? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Talk about a fishing expedition. Anyway, the correct forum for this is AfD. I've removed the protection from the article, allowing anyone to add an AfD tag if desired. As I stated above, there was no reason for protection as the primary edit-warrior was already blocked, by Bbb23 no less. If someone wants this deleted, file an AfD request. I don't know why this is a matter for WP:AN or why this requires emergency administrator assistance. -- tariqabjotu 04:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
So much for consensus. Don't forget to hand out blocks if anyone violates WP:1RR. Good night, all.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I must have missed the place where there was consensus for your protection. And where there's consensus for blocking an edit warrior and protecting the article he was reverting on. I also must have missed the part where you said you were only looking for comments from people who agreed with you. Note that the removal of protection still doesn't stop extrajudicial deletion, if that's what you're hoping for. -- tariqabjotu 05:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm actually flattered I'm ranked anywhere in his delusional fantasy-land. Sorry about your grumpiness. Maybe this article I created recently will cheer you up: Alcohol enema. You don't have to try it yourself... Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't really suggesting any specific action. My point was just to note that with this article we have a rather slanted take on Palestinian propaganda efforts, while the article I mentioned is a more balanced take on Israeli propaganda efforts. Certainly, I could see putting these two articles together as a single article on propaganda in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Per reliable sources, incitement is a key Israeli concern in the peace process. It is not an equivalent concern on both sides. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Per reliable sources, there have been concerted efforts by pro-Israeli activists to subvert Wikipedia policy by inserting propaganda into articles... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have now nominated the 'article' for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


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

history restore request[edit]

Can someone do a history restore at Template talk:2010-2019VSFashion Show.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, done because harmless, but there is nothing useful there... CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought I had properly created this talk previously so I just wanted to see the history. If I had known it was only the deletable page, I wouldn't have made the request.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice?[edit]

Thanks for the advice everybody. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I left the following message for user:Plot Spoiler on their talk page under the heading, "Tendentious editing".[3]

Hello.

I have some concerns with your editing. You mostly edit content about Jews, Judaism and Israel, and Muslims, Islam and Palestine, almost always slanting content in favour of the former and against the latter (such as Palestinian incitement). On your rare excursions outside that area, you have created or expanded six articles about commercial products or organisations, five of which were biased. (I have no problem with Kiehl's). In all but one of the latter you created promotional puff-pieces or puffed-up existing articles. The exception was the Warwick New York Hotel, where you inserted a lengthy section (longer than all of the remainder of the article) blaming them for renting a room to the Iranian prime minister; that is, pillorying them for not taking the political stand you would have preferred.

If you are not already, you should make yourself familiar with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander.

This kind of behaviour brings the encyclopedia into disrepute and creates a lot of work for others. Would you please acknowledge that you have been editing tendentiously, undo the damage (starting with the Warwick) and agree to be more balanced in future?

Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

His response was to Archive my post.[7]

Is this editor's behaviour problematical? If so, what to do? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This really feels like stalking honestly, or wikihounding or what have you. Anthony and I have a disagreement at ALCAT test and now he appears to be digging through my user history to establish his own tendentious conclusions (made clear by the fact that he only emphasized purported negatives and not anything positive - see all my DYKs, etc). I'm sure I could establish a similar conclusion if I felt like digging through Anthony's user history -- but that wouldn't be the best use of my time and would be a form of harassment. Is this even the proper forum for such a discussion (if such a discussion should even exist?)? Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Archiving a post may be taken as proof of receipt. You've issued a note of concern. If the problematic behaviour continues, then escalate either to an RFC (if it looks like he may be an otherwise good editor we need to correct) or request a community ban (if he's self-evidently an unreforable POV pusher). Caveate, I've not looked closely.--Scott Mac 16:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Anthony put the wrong diff: This was my response to his message on my talk page [8]: "this is starting to feel like 'stalking'". I don't believe it was worth discussing with Anthony because I don't believe his behavior is done in good faith. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I was unfamiliar with this editor until the Palestinian incitement brouhaha. Other than looking at his block log, I have not researched his past edits. Focusing on the bias issue (you've raised two issues the bias and the puffery), which to me is more serious, do you have other examples of his bias besides the recent article (the Warwick Hotel article is somewhat tangential although relevant)? If so, that would assist in deciding whether a topic ban is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I only had time today to make the apparent paid editing case. I'm on a dodgy connection and can go for long periods without internet access. I looked at enough of the other to satisfy myself there is a problem with pro-Israeli anti-Muslim bias but making that case properly will take time. Five more on the scale of Warwick New York Hotel and Palestinian incitement should make the case, I think. The Warwick Hotel effort is not tangential to a pro-Israeli-anti-Muslim bias. --16:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I request you strike the marks on "anti-Muslim bias". I consider that a personal attack and unwarranted. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
And to be clear, I don't make "rare excursions" outside the listed topic areas as claimed by Anthony (and I take umbrage at the claim) if he even bothered looking at my DYKs:
Nasrin Sotoudeh - imprisoned Iranian human rights lawyer
Walid Husayin - imprisoned Palestinian blogger
Zahra Bahrami - executed Iranian dissident
Zenga Zenga - viral auto-tuned song embraced by the Libyan opposition
Mexican pointy boots - awesomeness
Baltimore Rock Opera Society - awesomeness
Yossele the Holy Miser - fabulous folk tale
Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies - important institution
Gholhak Garden - beautiful British diplomatic compound in Tehran
Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil - al-Qaeda operative based in Iran sanctioned by the U.S. government
Sim Bhullar - could become the first prominent NBA basketball player of Indian descent
Saeed Malekpour - Iranian-Canadian computer programmer on death row in Iran
Alcohol enema - awesomeness
Keep in mind that those are Anthony's interpretations of my edits. If you'll look at the condition of any of those pages cited by Anthony before I began working, you'll see I added significant value in a manner that I deemed consistent with Wikipedia rules.
I'm also quite concerned this is quickly going to turn into a witch-hunt -- seeking to establish tendentious conclusions based on cherry-picked information. Let's see all the POV warriors show up here... just wait. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Plot Spoiler. You are not helping yourself here. I've not looked (yet) at your edits and so have reached no conclusion. However, the point of this board is that neutral and uninvolved admins examine issues and find solutions (if warranted). Trying to poison the well with preemptive accusations of witchhunt and POV warriors doesn't help. Now, if neutral people look at your edits, will they see a problem? If you are sure they won't, then you've nothing to fear and no need to be defensive. If you think they will, then better to indicate you're aware that you may have occasionally edited less than neutrally, and give some undertakings that you "get it" going forward. That's generally all it takes.--Scott Mac 16:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, do your thang. Happy to work with you and others to address any potential issues. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I became aware of the editor due to the last AN post here. The editor clearly believes wikipedia is a battleground, as amply demonstrated by his comments in this very thread. The edits are clearly slanted, such as putting this into article space: [9]. The editor removes opinions and criticism from notable organizations that criticize Israel and Jewish groups: [10][11], while adding content critical of Muslims and Arabs elsewhere: [12]. Here he adds lots of content to calls for a boycott etc [[13]][14] which trimming away standard material describing the hotel: [15], such that the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad section is bigger than the rest of the article: Warwick_New_York_Hotel#Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad, all the while he was edit warring with another editor to remove any non-controversial content: [16]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought the board was for "neutral and uninvolved admins"? Again, this is an example of tendentious editing - cherry-picking information to establish a certain conclusion. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
This is the extent of our interaction: [17]. I've only edited one article the same as you, and that was 3 days apart. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Your edits are focussed on removing criticism of Israel and it's allies, or that does not portray them in a positive light such as [18][19][20]. Large edits about campaigns against Iran, even though mostly based on primary and self published sources: [21] (while removing content elsewhere as being self published: [22][23]. And adding criticism about companies that support Iran: [24]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Should I apologize for my concern about human rights in the Middle East and highlighting the plight of dissidents like Sattar Beheshti - believed to have been tortured to death by Iranian authorities in Evin prison? Please WP:AGF and stop making wild accusations based on cherry-picked information. Otherwise I'll have to call the Elders of Zion on you. I hope admins will remove your remarks since you are not a neutral and uninvolved admin or a neutral and uninvolved editor. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I have not yet made a case for serious tendentious editing in the Israel-Islam area. I strongly suspect it, I've seen instances of it, but we need to wait until I or someone else have done a thorough survey of those edits to determine how serious the problem is. I know there's a serious problem with your puffing of commercial articles; I'm pretty sure you've been being paid by a PR company to puff for them since last July. But the other is less certain, for now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Wow. If your interactions on this page are examples of your interactions overall, I see an WP:RFC/U in order. An issue with your behaviour overall was raised with you separately. Rather than respond, you deleted it. So, it was raised here where admins and other editors may review your edits and behaviour and comment. Your responses to requests to change your behaviour are not only not positive, but they're proof of poor behaviour overall. Although at first glance I don't see anything immediately requiring admin attention, but I certainly see that the community as a whole certainly might wish to get involved - you just act nasty towards everyone and anyone, including neutral parties who actually know the community nature of this project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to add to what BWilkins has said. You're not taking Scott's advice to heart. You're making things worse with just about every comment you make. As a procedural matter, there is absolutely nothing wrong with non-admins posting here with their views. IRWolfie has as much right as anyone else to post comments as to your conduct. In addition, your sentence about the Elders of Zion is odd, at best. It's apparently a threat, but I don't even understand what you mean; was it intended as sarcasm, something else?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Again, I apologize. Editors are making some very serious charges and I felt the need to respond to statements which I felt were unfair and unsubstantiated. I have struck some of my remarks and I will let the process take over. Please let me know how I can be at your disposal. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Unsubstantiated? I presented 15 diffs showing your behaviour, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm off to bed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
LOL. I tried that last night in the topic above. Little good it did me. I woke up this morning to what I perceived as offensive remarks by another admin. On the positive side, I slept well. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I haven't yet read any of the underlying diffs, but based upon the interaction on this page, I guessed Plot Spoiler was a newish editor. I was stunned to see almost 7 thousand edits, yet complete lack of understanding of how this place works. On a positive note, I hope that's because Plot Spoiler's edits haven't been the subject of the admin boards. However, for Plot Spoiler's benefit:

  • Yes, this is a place where someone can bring items of concerns in the hope that uninvolved and neutral admins can take a look, but that does not mean only neutral admins can comment, it doesn't even mean only admins can comment.
  • Others have pointed out that your accusations aren't helping your cause; I hope you most recent edits mean you now understand that.
  • If an editor sees potentially concerning edits by another editor, such as bias or puffery, it is not stalking to look at the other contributions of the editor. It is standard practice. There have been real cases of stalking, this isn't in the ballpark. SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Plot has been a regular on AE concerning the ARBPIA topic area.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what constitutes being a "regular". Important to point out I haven't been blocked from Wikipedia or the ARBPIA topic area for more than 24 hours - as opposed to other ARBPIA editors that have faced indefinite blocks or blocks extending months of weeks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure I'd use that as a defense, but in any event you were blocked for 31 hours in February of this year.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
If there are any problem with certain editor in the WP:ARBPIA area you may raise in WP:AE.Actually there are bunch of editors hat want to promote their POV from both sides of the conflict.Should all of them be banned?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Depends on the severity and persistence of the POV-pushing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Well many were topic banned and still returned to editing I think I could present diffs on many editors in the area and show they promote certain POV along their editing history.I don't see anything damning in the diffs presented by editors here but if anyone here have a case I invite him to go to WP:AE so the matter will be solved.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't recall an AE case where someone presented evidence of long term systemic bias and the editor was topic banned on that basis, although I may have missed a few. I'm not sure AE can handle that or at least I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that it can. People are banned for technical violations/edit warring or when they make egregiously disruptive edits. AE doesn't seem to be good at dealing with complexity or large amounts of evidence. Editors aren't good at preparing large amounts of evidence either, it's tedious. Banning all editors who promote a POV they favor via ARBPIA3 or whatever probably wouldn't work because new editors arrive everyday to advocate, many far worse than existing editors, many of them sockpuppets of course and some active right now as usual. I would choose an honest but biased nationalist editor over a dishonest biased nationalist disposable sockpuppet account that can break rules with impunity, any day of the week. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the solution is to delete all the articles in topic area or maybe freeze it in current state.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Brilliant. Either of those options works for me. Or build a security barrier around the articles and have a rigorous entry policy, just pick a random attribute to build the granfalloon of suitable editors with the right qualities, favorite cheese for example, must be Chinese on their father's side, or whatever, exclude everyone else and have drones flying over head to zap intruders. The problems in the topic area really do seem completely intractable to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Unless you've been living under a rock, you'd have realized that there are about two dozen other editors who act very similarly to Plot Spoiler. And they've been doing it for years. Some have received temporary bans at AE, but some have never been sanctioned. Biased editing in the IP area is not a sanctionable offense per se. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I have looked at a couple of the disputes related to the WP:ARBPIA area, and they induce despair. Eventually a draconian solution will be needed (some LOL suggestions: have one set of articles that only P editors are permitted to edit, and another that only I editors are permitted to edit; or, have a rule enforcing no more than 10 edits per week in the topic area or its talk pages or noticeboards for all P and I editors). The combativeness in Plot Spoiler's comments here shows the general pattern that applies throughout the PI area—those involved are fighting a noble cause and will not be dissuaded by reason. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still browsing through his contributions. I've found a few problems but my connection keeps dropping out. Let's close this for now, and when I'm back in civilisation I'll have a forensic look. If I conclude there's a problem in the Jew/Judaism/Israel/Muslim/Islam/Palistine area I'll make a proper case. If it comes to that, where should I take the case for a topic ban? Here?

Plot Spoiler, I am very confident you're a paid advocate for a PR firm. If you come anywhere near another medical article with that shit, I'll move heaven and earth to have you run off this site. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, please stop posting inflammatory personal attacks of this kind. Please refactor your post. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
@Anthony, as per normal practice, I see this as the best forum for proposing a topic ban, particularly if you're going to argue that the editor should have more than one topic ban depending on your research. I'd like to add that I started to do a review of the editor's edits from the very beginning of their tenure here, but I found it difficult to collect evidence in support of a ban. I was looking mainly at the editor's edits to Arab-Israeli articles, not the medical stuff, although I did note the user name change early on. In any event, I saw a pattern emerging that went kind of like this: (1) Plot Spoiler (PS) makes changes to controversial articles; (2) PS edit-wars without breaching 3RR; (3) another editor templates PS's talk page about 3RR; (4) PS doesn't edit again, thereby avoiding a technical breach; and (5) PS removes the 3RR notice from their talk page. That kind of pattern is inherently disruptive, but, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily indicate bias or rise to the level of warranting a topic ban. To analyze that aspect, I'd have to look at the actual content changes. Unless they are glaringly biased on their face (like the Palestinian incitement article), I'd have to (a) know more about the subject and (b) know more about the reliability/objectivity of the sources. So, partly because of that and partly because it was so tiring, I stopped - and I hadn't gotten even close to the present day.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
If he is proposing a topic ban broader than a ban from articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict then this is indeed the place. However, if his concerns are most pertinent to the Arab-Israeli conflict then I believe AE would be the appropriate place to take it. Personally, I would have to see something more convincing regarding Anthony's "paid editor" allegations before I would take that seriously.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I see no basis for saying that AE is the only forum for proposing a P-I topic ban. Indeed any involved admin may impose a topic ban without even coming here. "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." (WP:ARBPIA) Per WP:AC/DS: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; imposition of mandated external review; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project."--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
You right but that's the usual practice to get input of more then one admin--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what the "usual practice" is, Shrike, without looking at statistics, but if the objective is to get input from other admins, it seems to me that WP:AN is a good place to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
AE is not the "only" place for proposing such restrictions, but we wouldn't want people bringing things that can be handled at AE to other noticeboards. Obviously, if there are issues not pertaining to ARBPIA then AN or an RfC/U would be the more appropriate methods.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
But there isn't any evidence that complicated issues in ARBPIA territory like persistently biased editing, things that potentially involve large amounts of evidence, can be handled at AE as far as I'm aware. Setting aside the Palestinian incitement article, if you want to see Plot Spoiler in action, in microcosm, I suggest you look at the history of the Camp Ashraf raid article. It's not long. It provides insight into the editor and will give you some idea of the volume of evidence likely to be involved in cases that address these kind of issues. It's just one article.
  • The article is about a raid on a People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) camp, an organization ironically not very unlike some Palestinian organizations. If you have been following the covert/proxy war between Israel and Iran in the news (e.g. [25][26]), you'll understand why this article might be of interest to Plot Spoiler.
  • His initial version is here. Note that it was orginally titled Camp Ashraf massacre and he added the categories 'Massacres in Iraq' and 'Mass murder in 2011'. Why ? Plot Spoiler explains that in an edit summary, "was a massacre even if not named as such. killing of 34 more or less defenseless individuals". He explained it again at List of massacres in Iraq with the edit summary "Murder of 34 defenseless individuals is a massacre" after someone removed it for equally unsound reasons because a "raid on terrorist base is not a massacre" and "there were many more counter-insurgency operations with higher civilian casualties". See the revision history for the short edit war. Imagine if someone used Plot Spoiler's approach to naming an article and categorizing something as a massacre in an article about an IDF raid on the Gaza Strip or any of the many conflicts that have taken place there. There have been hundreds of raids. Thousands of people have been killed in the Gaza Strip in the last 12 years, a large proportion of which were, like in most conflicts, "defenseless individuals". Would Plot Spoiler let that kind of policy violation stand, unsourced labelling of IDF actions as a massacre, a mass killing, using Wikipedia's unattributed neutral narrative voice ? Not a chance, and rightly so. The double standards are comically transparent. He nominated the article for DYK, obviously.
  • Now, I'm sure Plot Spoiler could come up with some explanation for his interest in this raid on the MEK camp and anything he does. They have already said "Should I apologize for my concern about human rights in the Middle East", but that statement is inconsistent with the evidence from their editing history which shows a highly selective concern for the human rights of certain subsets of humanity in the Middle East. Israel, like many countries (and MEK), has a less than stellar record on human rights. But human rights in Israel and the occupied territories is evidently not something that interests Plot Spoiler according to this contributors list.
  • Camp Ashraf raid is just one article but it shows a disregard for content policy, presumably because it is less important than other issues of concern to the editor. I'm sure that if anyone could be bothered to go through Plot Spoiler's contributions, systematically documenting cases like this, there would be many because the editor is a text book example of a biased advocate, one of many.
  • Someone might ask "Why single out Plot Spoiler, there are lots of biased editors?" "Why not ?" would be my answer to that. Baby steps. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, perhaps you should start with yourself, since you are a highly biased anti-Israel activist/propagandist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.78.107.108 (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, if someone wanted to go through every single edit I have made in the topic area and compile evidence to support that statement, report me at the appropriate place, I would have no objection at all. I would encourage someone to try to do that, I might even help them because the process of addressing biased editors needs to be optimized/tested, but it would be a waste of their time. I am highly biased about several issues, but not about the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I just don't edit articles where my bias could trash my editing. I'm not anti-Israel, I'm pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, what's the difference, people are people. I'm not an activist in any way, shape or form and I'm a propagandist only in the sense that I look at and read a lot about propaganda in SEAsia as a hobby. But carry on believing what you want and I'll carry on editing in the topic area until it is fixed. Then I will stop and have time to edit things that interest me. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. That's given me the options of where to take this further, if that seems necessary or useful. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


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

Why is Race (human classification) so biased? (Mikemikev)[edit]

(moved to talkpage) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • A trolling post by Mikemikev was moved from here to an article talk page.[27] [28] As pointed out on WP:ANI, where CU Deskana commented about this community banned user, for the last month or two Mikemikev has been editing from South Korea, where he is currently working. Per the R&I motion about banned users, although his posts may be removed, please do not add them elsewhere. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Move by Seb az86556 obviously done in good faith; has been reverted by Ryulong. WP:SPI filed by myself. NE Ent 14:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
    In the future, you should really not just post to the old SPI case page and use the proper template that someone coded up.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Too hard. I don't really care. It's a waste of time -- as long as anonymous (IP) editing is a fundamental Wikipedia precept we're gonna have trolls. Was mostly doing as a courtesy to Mathsci (we having a standing disagreement over troll response which I really didn't want to get into here.). Was planning to dump the troll comments off the race page once the SPI signed off on it being a mikemikev; wouldn't have bothered had I known Ryulong was gonna revert the edit. So telling me "really" in the future stuff is a waste of bits. The day I log in at the not WP:BURO pillar is gone I'll just leave. If someone wants to do something useful vis-a-vis SPI filings, I'd suggest add edit notices to the page(s) -- I did look for instructions there but there weren't any. Had there been some template / instructions visible I would've been happy to cut and paste. NE Ent 14:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
It is easy enough to file SPI reports. There are instructions at the top of the page, The second rubric says, "Submitting an SPI case". Click on there and substitute "Mikemikev" for SOCKMASTER at the next prompt. Then click to open an investigation. At the moment, there are so many Mikemikev ipsocks from Korea, that it is more trouble than it is worth submitting reports. Best just to tag the user pages for future reference as CU Deskana recommended. Mathsci (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mikemikev has no instructions present. NE Ent 23:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
That was the wrong place to look. Unresolved SPI reports are all listed on a central page and that requires a common template for the reports. Please click on WP:SPI next time. Wikipedia software is not at fault here. Mathsci (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement regarding recent leaks from arbcom-l[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has recently been made aware that information posted to its arbcom-l mailing list was inappropriately shared outside of the Committee this month. The disclosures involved posts made to the mailing list by arbitrator Jclemens on November 6 and 7 (UTC), and pertained to some of his positions in the coming Arbitration Committee election. These posts were themselves considered by several arbitrators to be inappropriate and contentious, with some viewing them as attempts to intimidate sitting arbitrators from seeking re-election. The unauthorized disclosures were reported to the Committee separately by two non-arbitrator candidates in the current Arbitration Committee elections, and our understanding is that other candidates and other editors have also received correspondence repeating some or all of the information.

Arbitrator Elen of the Roads has confirmed that she shared information, including direct quotes from the mailing list, with two non-arbitrators within 24 hours of Jclemens' original posts. This information was subsequently shared with other parties, including at least some of the current candidates. The Committee was made aware of this on November 13. On polling the arbitrators, Elen of the Roads disclosed that she had released a portion of one email to non-arbitrators, and denied sharing any further emails. She subsequently clarified on 25 November that she had released information from two separate emails, including the full text of one.

In addition, an email written by Jclemens was copied and sent to at least some current candidates on November 19 from a Gmail account. There were certain modifications made to the email that do not match the original or the information shared by Elen of the Roads. All arbitrators have been polled, and all have denied sharing that post with anyone outside of the Committee.

Arbitrators supporting this statement: Casliber, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, SirFozzie
Arbitrators recused from voting on this statement: All current candidates (Elen of the Roads, JClemens, Newyorkbrad)
Arbitrators inactive on voting on this statement: Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this statement

User:Chutznik asking for an unban (basically)[edit]

Chutznik has withdrawn his request and claims to have left Wikipedia. Max Semenik (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Although he had large number of socks in the past he says he has been clean in the mean time, and claims that he complied with WP:OFFER. His unblock request has been pending for a while. I think it's best that this is dealt with by the community. Thoughts? Tijfo098 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  • A good read of his talk page and the self admitted obsession with creating multiple accounts should be taken into account before reaching any conclusions here. 'Clean' is only becuse he appears to have respected his block, but his arguments for unblock, to me at least, are unconvincing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It's worth waiting to see the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shaz0t, as that has an obvious bearing here. Uncle G (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • A check user found them unrelated. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Also the editor's triumphant tone in declaring his panoply of socks on Wikipedia Review (see the SPI for links), as well as his less celebratory but virtually unrepentant comment about them on his talk page does not lead me to believe that he is trustworthy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Lacking any evidence he has not followed the terms of the standard offer, unblock. NE Ent 03:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • That's not how it works, the standard offer calls for some positive evidence of value and trustworthiness, such as editing on another project, to show that the editor will contribute productively in the future if he is unbanned. If it worked the way you seemed think it does, all any banned editor would have to do is take a 6 month vacation from editing and *bam* they'd be allowed back in automatically. That trvializes the community's difficult decision to ban someone and turns every ban into a de facto 6-month block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The standard offer

It's simple:

  1. Wait six months without sockpuppetry.
  2. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
  3. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.
  • The requirement/suggestion to work on another project was removed a long time ago. NE Ent 12:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Then the essay is next to useless, as the only "evidence" we have to go by is the word of the editor involved, who is (obviously) an interested party. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that WP:OFFER is an essay, and one that not all editors agree with (and probably even less do in its watered down version). Fram (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, Chutznik is under the mistaken impression that the offer automatically grants them a review at the end of 6 months, in a sort of "I did my part, now you do yours" type of bargain and the fact that they're fighting tooth and nail for his interpretation to be the interpretation isn't exactly the sort of attitutde that would encourage me to say "sure, let him back in". Blackmane (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Anyone who wants to comment on this unblock might take a look at User talk:Chutznik#Standard offer unblock request. If he would take a break from the legalisms of the unblock process and explain what he intends to do differently in the future, things might be more promising for him. This editor did a lot of good work but also some strange things. A sincere moment of reflection on his past problems would be very welcome. His belief that he should be allowed back until the exact moment that he starts to mess up again is unconvincing. He should explain what he'll do differently so he doesn't mess up again. If he has plans for any content work he should mention that. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unban - Bans are pointless. - Who is John Galt? 19:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    Are you ever going to explain why they are pointless? And for the record, I don't believe this user is technically banned. AutomaticStrikeout 01:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
    Regardless of how this discussion ends, we'll have a clear ban situation when this concludes: either we'll end up with an unblock decision, or the community's refusal to permit an unblock will be interpreted as a community ban, per WP:CBAN. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Nope We don't need to start all this nonsense all over again. Jtrainor (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the section that EdJohnston linked. These comments indicate that he's not doing this in complete good faith and that an unblock will likely be succeeded by more problems very quickly. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this user has very problematic past and his recent unblock indicates that there is a considerable chance that he will return to his old ways if unblocked. Max Semenik (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, sure we might say we can always re-ban/block if old behavior resumes, but I'm not sure it's that easy. AutomaticStrikeout 01:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on the behavior I'm seeing on his talk page. Apologies and prostration are not necessary, but recognizing that it's possible to be wrong and it's useful to listen to other people when they try to help you are. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm reading the unblock request right now and I couldn't stomach half of all those blocky messages he's making. One thing's for sure, he's crying "It's so unfair!" in most of them and the fact that there was a big-wall unblock request a month ago and his rebuttals to Boing!'s rejecting of it doesn't look good for his case. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Archiving my talk page[edit]

Fixed by Nyttend and explained by Writ Keeper. --Nouniquenames 04:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to create archives #6-10 (so that I can archive, and so I would not have to come back here to bother you again. My current archive is full. When I do it, it says I need administrative privileges. Please assist. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen () 16:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. I'm rather confused why this is an issue; perhaps it thinks that you have too many non-alphanumeric characters in these archive names? Nyttend (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Yep, it's this line in the global title blacklist, I think:
#URI like page titles
.*[?&]+[^=]+=[^&]+.*
Writ Keeper 22:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

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

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is open[edit]

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is now open. Users may review the election page to learn more about the election and determine if they are eligible to vote. The election will run from November 27 until December 10.

Voters are encouraged to review the candidate statements prior to voting. Voter are also encouraged to review the candidate guide. Voters can review questions asked of each candidate, which are linked at the bottom of their statement, and participate in discussion regarding the candidates.

Voters can cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259.

Voters can ask questions regarding the election at this page.

For the Electoral Commission. MBisanz talk 00:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Operation Pillar of Defense[edit]

no adminstrative action requested or required. Article is semi-protected but reporting user is autocomfirmed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, Israel casualties and injuries are different in some part of article Operation Pillar of Defense, please correct and match them to each other. I put this request on talk page of this article but nothing happen. --H.b.sh (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No answer? --H.b.sh (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
See WP:SOFIXIT. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Unblock request from User:Mythdon[edit]

Unblocked. King of ♠ 09:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indefinitely blocked user Mythdon (talk · contribs) is requesting unblock - see User talk:Mythdon#Block/ban appeal. The history is that Mythdon was banned for six months in September 2009 after Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong, and was indefinitely blocked in March 2010, shortly after that ban expired, for reasons discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#concerns_about_too_much_of_user:Mythdon_on_AN.2FI. I have not read this up and express no opinion. JohnCD (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The guy was entirely clueless and a huge time sink 2-3 years back and managed to get indefinitely blocked on Simple Wikipedia as well. But it WAS 2 years ago, and there was no socking in the mean time that I'm aware of. They also seem to be well aware of what got them banned. I guess WP:OFFER applies.--Atlan (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Unblock - Offer appears to have been fulfilled and we should be more welcoming and less bitey. - Who is John Galt? 17:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment As he was advised that WP:BASC was their sole means to an unblock, I'd love to know what they said ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I am following up on that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • According to my notes Mythdon's appeal was never denied or granted; I'm not sure if I'm missing any correspondence. Since he's posted an appeal here and we held him up last time I don't see why the community couldn't hear the appeal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • From what I can see here, I was the one who originally referred him to BASC, but as a possible avenue to unblock, not an exclusive one. For whatever reason Mythdon's replies indicate he did not (or thought he somehow could not) go that route. Maybe I am missing something but at the moment I don't see any reason a discussion here would not be an appropriate forum for making a decision as to whether to unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Original quote of FayssalF: "It is time for this account to have an indefinite break from Wikipedia affairs. The last ArbCom issue which involved you dates back to this ban. I see no sign of an improvement. If you want to appeal against this block, please use the appropriate steps that you are aware of. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)" - ergo, he could have gone community route (although, I guess, he wasn't getting through for a community review so he thought BASC was the only way?). Ergo, I think AN/ANI can hear it. (I think this is better as ANI material, though...?) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Unblock- that would have to be the most insightful and in-depth unblock request I have ever seen. I do not think Mythdon will cause any trouble in the future. Reyk YO! 05:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Unblock - I agree that the request shows great awareness of why Mythdon was blocked, and gives a positive report of the editor's future intentions. I believe this is a case where "they can always be blocked again" applies, but would advise that the probationary period applied by ArbCom here remain in force for the proscribed 6 months. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Unblock per the concerns by Beyond My Ken. This request is very insightful and in depth. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I've just received an auto notification via e-mail (thanks to the message by JohnCD at my talkpage). I've been away myself for a long time. But since the notification concerns a case I worked on I decided to log in and participate here. After reading the ban appeal, I say unblock as per Beyond My Ken. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Unblock per a very comprehensive and convincing unblcok request. I do, however, still support the continuation of an interaction ban with Ryulong and a topic ban on Tokusatsu-realted pages for a six month probationary period. Yunshui  09:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Biased posting of Fram in my COI request concerning my own article talk page Frederic Bourdin[edit]

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

Hello. I know now that it is discouraged to edit an article which is about yourself, but before I knew this, along with many other things I edited the article about me Frederic Bourdin. And I did that honestly, always with the true. Until that day that I got in conflict concerning an edit of my article with the user Bbb23 . At the time because I was mad and it was unfair in my opinion, I got myself blocked for making legal threats and then socking. I, then, asked help to Jimmy Wales, Jimbo talk page as to how to get out of this mess, he showed me the path and now I'm not blocked anymore. He also advised me (Jimbo) to make a COI request to edit my article and that's what I did. But there is a problem, this user Fram who is not neutral because of his involvement with Bbb23 concerning me ( Bbb23 ) asked him his help concerning the problem he had with me), is trying to make my COI request fail with biased speech on my article talk page. I have asked him to refrain from discussing my COI request since he is personally involved but he refuse to do so. He claims that all my reliable sources supporting my COI request should be ignored because, basically, I'm me ((Frederic Bourdin]] Can someone help me with this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francparler (talkcontribs) 13:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Closing this as you've also posted at ANI. GiantSnowman 13:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit]

I saw an ad for this on my Facebook page a couple of minutes ago: http://www.wikiexperts.us/

The ad reads, "We write, improve, translate, monitor, update and protect Wikipedia profiles." -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 20:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

One of many companies out there - and unfortunately there's no policy against paid editing. GiantSnowman 20:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
However, their logo incorporates the "wiki-globe" logo, which is in fact copyrighted. I'm going to find someone from the legal team and let them know about that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I let them know a couple of weeks ago - they're pretty overworked right now. Ironholds (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Legal is well aware of these guys. It's being worked. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I take it the old "send the, a letter from a lawyer and that should be the end of it" trick didn't work? It usually does in cases like this, but maybe these guys are more the stubborn type. (consider this a rhetorical question, I realize it is unlikely you would post the intimate details of a legal proceeding here) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestine-Israeli sanctions and 1RR parole "rule"[edit]

Per unanimous consensus and no objection, the restriction requiring that any reversion be discussed has been removed from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Golan Heights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ANEW report

I need some help from those more knowledgeable about these sanctions and what discretion admins have to impose extra restrictions on articles (not editors). Apparently, in 2010, User:WGFinley, whom I've contacted but who hasn't been around for a couple of months due to more exciting things in his personal life, imposed an extra restriction on the Golan Heights article that not only limits editors to 1RR (typical) but also requires every content reversion to be explained on the article talk page. Guy added a separate notice to that effect on the talk page and changed the edit notice so editors are also warned when they edit the article.

My first question is can Guy do that? If the answer is yes, how is such a restriction removed? I'm struggling to see what authority an admin has to impose a restriction on an article that doesn't appear to have been supported by the ArbCom decision itself. Imposing it on editors, which has been done, makes sense to me, but much less so on articles. It's a fairly onerous restriction on all editors who edit that article. I seriously doubt it's being followed or that editors are being even-handedly sanctioned for not heeding it, but I haven't researched that. Even assuming we (admins) have the discretion to do such a thing, there must be some guidelines as to when it's appropriate and when it's not. After all, here, it's been in place for over 3 years. Ironically, the editor who's been accused of violating it was at one time under such a restriction as an editor, but that restriction expired (or was lifted).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No, he can't. That's not the intent of discretionary sanctions -- I'd fix the editnotice if I could but I ain't got the bits for it. NE Ent 02:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll investigate the specifics, but those sorts of restrictions can sometimes be implemented as a result of AE threads; we did it some months ago at Nagorno-Karabakh. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
It was done as arbitration enforcement in this thread. It can be removed via a thread at WP:AE. MBisanz talk 04:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Such restrictions have been allowed for some time. Mass killings under Communist regimes was actually placed under article-specific restrictions through AE. The success rate and practicality of these more nuanced restrictions would be another matter for discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, ArbCom has been asked several times about such restrictions, and they have, without exception, been seen as valid uses of the discretionary sanctions system. Whether this one would be upheld if appealed to AE or the Committee I do not know, but the idea of article-level sanctions is pretty much been settled. Courcelles 06:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I've notified Guy both on his talk page and by email. He still participates in MedCom mailing list discussions, so I wouldn't be too surprised if he drops by to leave a message. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing that; I should have at least notified him on his talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • So, let's see if I can crystallize this a bit based on the above comments:
  1. Any admin can impose an article-level sanction like the one Guy did.
  2. Such a sanction can be appealed to ArbCom.
  3. Can an admin remove such a sanction without going to ArbCom, or would that be viewed in the same way as unblocking a user who was sanctioned?
  4. Are there any guidelines for imposing such a sanction or for the duration of the sanction?

--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The standard rules governing appeals of AE sanctions apply; you can either go to ArbCom or try to get "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" to lift the sanction.

There is no special guideline for article-level sanctions that I'm aware of. T. Canens (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Timotheus, particularly for the link. The lack of a guideline is disturbing because I don't even know how to justify a request to terminate the additional restriction if there's no guideline for its imposition in the first instance. Perhaps a trip to AE will clarify some of these problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The discretionary sanction authorization states "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working" (emphasis mine). It does not say an uninvolved administrator can make up new rules for a page.
  • The procedures say "Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case;" -- is there any evidence this was done?
  • A cursory review of article history and talk history shows the "must use talk page" restriction is clearly not being followed. Drawing a line in the sand and then not enforcing breeds contempt, not respect. And Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Reversal_of_enforcement_actions clearly states it can be overturned by consensus here (WP:AN).
  • Given the widespread ignoring of the restriction, how can an editor reasonably file a AE request for enforcement without running afoul of the "unclean hands" warning at AE? NE Ent 20:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @Ent, I tend to agree with everything you've said, although I confess that I haven't macheted my way through the thicket of policy, practice, arbitration decisions, etc. What enforcement action would we be overturning if we had a consensus here? Guy's? If so, Timotheus already made that point. Perhaps seeking clarification would be a better way to go. I'm musing as much as anything because connecting the dots in these things gives me a headache.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I will say that one of the biggest problems with this sanction has been editors pushing for enforcement without clearly notifying the party violating the restriction. Nowhere do I see that Gilabrand was ever made aware of this article-specific restriction. However, Gilabrand does appear to have violated the standard ARBPIA 1RR on another article ([29] [30]).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • In theory, one doesn't have to be specifically warned. That said, it is on the article talk page, just as the other restrictions are, and it pops up in an edit notice box when you edit the article, meaning there is as much warning as there is for the 1RR restriction itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The edit notice isn't markedly different from the standard 1RR edit notice. Editors who are already aware of the 1RR are likely to ignore the notice, thinking it is just the standard one. Personally, I find that quite a lot of editors tend to not pay attention to edit notices. My view is that such notices should not be taken the same as a user talk page notification, which is much less likely to be ignored.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Gilabrand personally received a notice with the rules:[31]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I did not see that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Supreme Deliciousness is a walking historical reference for this stuff. It's impressive and almost scary. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • In any event, based on your allegations that Gilabrand violated 1RR elsewhere, I have notified them of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Having read some twenty line truth table edit notices on user talk pages -- If it's Tuesday and it's about an image, I'll reply on your page, but on Wednesday ... -- I pretty much ignore them. NE Ent 22:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, looking further, it seems Gilabrand has been previously sanctioned in a very similar fashion and has been notified of the specific restriction on the Golan Heights article, in addition to recently violating 1RR on another article. I think maybe this should have been taken to AE given that the article-specific restriction is not a simple 1RR, but there does appear to be sufficient cause for action against Gilabrand. Any administrator reviewing this discussion could take action per the discretionary sanctions.-The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • There is a fairly technical reading of the discretionary sanctions provisions that allows such sanctions, as explained in Kirill's comment in this old request for clarification.

    Sanctions like this are usually lifted either when they are no longer necessary or if they have proven unworkable.

    I'd prefer any complaint against Gilabrand to be filed at AE so that we have a more orderly presentation than this mess of a thread. T. Canens (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  • However in the same thread Risker notes "Exercise of article-based 1-RR sanctions need to be monitored closely" and Carcharoth noted "articles with discretionary sanctions on them should be periodically reviewed to see if the sanctions have served their purpose and how to move forward, as the intention was never to have discretionary sanction in place indefinitely," As the restriction is two years old it's reasonable to address whether the sanction should remain in place. NE Ent 02:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It might be worth noting that the current wording of the standard discretionary sanctions does allow "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" which does not require as much of a technical stretch of the older wording. That said, Risker's caveat that it is wise to periodically review article-level sanctions for continued relevance is also appropriate. — Coren (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Are there any admins that wish to monitor the discussion requirement at Talk:Golan Heights? At present the complete edit notice says:

In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours and MUST explain the revert on the talk page. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks.

Though I see no problem with this being a valid restriction which an admin could impose under discretionary sanctions, I'm not sure it is doing any good. People keep forgetting that this restriction exists. Why not abolish it for now. A consensus here (of uninvolved editors) could lift the restriction. Any admin could reimpose it in the future if they are persuaded there is a need. AE retains plenty of authority to deal with edit-warring at Golan Heights if it is found to be a problem. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't find the ArbCom clarification decision on the Armenian article to be very satisfying. Although the arbitrators discuss the 1RR restriction imposed by the admin (back in 2008 - the decision was in 2010), it was not just a 1RR restriction but also a requirement, as in the Golan Heights article, that any reverter explain their revert on the talk page. Yet the arbitrators don't mention that. In addition, although there is a "warning" on the article talk page, the edit notice on the Armenian article doesn't include a warning about the explanation requirement. And those restrictions have now been in place for 4 years - has anyone even checked whether the talk page explanation requirement is being enforced?
I agree with Ed. We should remove the explanation restriction imposed at Golan Heights. There seems to be no current justification for it, and enforcement appears to be completely uneven. I do a lot of closures at ANEW, and I'm not at all happy with the inherent unfairness of blocking one editor for failing to explain, yet allowing so many other editors to do the same thing but not be sanctioned. It's already hard enough looking through the edit history of these articles, which is often heavy, because I don't look just at the conduct of the person reported but at the conduct of other editors as well (that's typical in any ANEW report).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with Ed that we should remove the explanation restriction as no longer being necessary or reasonable to maintain the article's integrity. MBisanz talk 15:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to lift Golan Heights restriction[edit]

The restriction on the Golan Heights article requiring that editors explain reverts on the talk page is lifted. General 1RR restriction on article imposed by the ARBPIA case is unaffected.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support There are no edit wars there so its not necessary.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as above. Note that User:EdJohnston and User:Mbisanz appear to support removal of the restriction.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per my previous comments above.NE Ent 22:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support MBisanz talk 17:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In this thread, nobody has spoken up in favor of retaining the restriction, so it looks like it will be lifted. Unless some hitherto uninvolved admin wants to come by and declare the sense of this thread I will enact a closure in a few hours. The wording of the restriction is given in the box above, and it applies only to the Golan Heights article. Currently the restriction forces all reverts to be discussed on the Talk page. That discussion requirement is to be lifted but the 1RR remains in effect, since it applies to all of the ARBPIA articles. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I did what Ed said he planned to do. For clarity and in case I forgot something, this is what I did: (1) I removed the discussion restriction on the talk page of the article; (2) I changed the editnotice to remove the discussion requirement; and (3) I logged what I did at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. I will now close this.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Question[edit]

Hello. I'm not sure this is the right and proper place for this question but I don't know where else to go. I have been editing Wikipedia since January 2005 under my username. I have never had an unmanageable problem with anyone. I find myself in a tough spot with User:Yankees76. I had questioned his intentions on deleting some Further Reading references in the Invicta Watch Group article. I admit to being a bit miffed by the unilateral deletes of the material he labeled as "link spam" which it wasn't. I left a message on Yankees76 talk page. Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yankees76&oldid=525153902#IWG. I also asked for guidance from a longtime Wikipedia admin I've asked before, User:SchuminWeb on his talk page. He said the links in this case were probably not okay and I then thanked him (Schumin) and left a message on Yankees76 talk page, saying that I took his point and thanks. That's where I expected it to end. Instead, it feels like User:Yankees76 is following me around on Wikipedia and also interjecting what seems to be vitriolic comments in my discussion with Schumin on his talk page.

And Yankee76's original comment on his talk page to me after I said I took his point and thanks.

Go away. I don't appreciate the tone of your comments here, nor do I appreciate having my edits questioned on an administrators talk page without even the opportunity to defend or discuss them first on the articles talk page. Much the same way I didn't report you to WP:ANI for posting link spam (where at least you would have been notified that you were the subject of discussion - something you failed to afford me); you should not be running to administrators every time someone undoes an edit you make. I would suggest you read WP:AGF before interacting with other editors on Wikipedia in the future.

With regards to the edits themselves, the edit comments were not directed at any one editor - they're an explanation of why the material was removed for future editors so they're not added back. There was no "tone". If I wanted to communicate with YOU specifically about your edits and warn you about posting WP:LINKSPAM, I'd have left a note on your talk page.

The first two links that I removed are links to a forum discussion which does not pass WP:ELNO (see Links normally to be avoided #10). Also forums without editorial oversight are not considered reliable sources, so there is no reason for them to be included in the article. The third link is a press release/media kit that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. Note that there's already an external link to the official Invicta website, which features much of, if not all of the same information. While "Further Reading" may have a place in articles to direct readers to additional published literature on the subject, a "Further Reading" headline should not be used as an tool to circumvent Wikipedia guidelines on posting link spam.

I'll give you a day to read this before I remove this pointless conversation. If you have any further issues with the article or edits made to it, please start a discussion on that article's talk page. Don't post here again. --Yankees76 Talk 14:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Consider this later comment interjected by Yankees76 on Schumin's talk page after I considered the matter closed.

  • "Oh sorry, the full response is actually this link.[1] Wikiklrsc if you're going to continue this and fabricate to your administrative handler how I made "threats" to you, you should probably link the full response. Either way I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this (your links are not going back on the article, and I'm not going to get blocked for my response to you on my talk page), so posting here and continuing this little show that you've got going on, even after I called you out for doing so (my "bad reaction"), does not show alot of integrity on your part. --Yankees76 Talk 18:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)"

He said Ben Schumin is my "administrative handler"? And that he (Yankees76) "called me out"? A bit too much. I hadn't done anything wrong to be "called out" whatever that idiom actually means in this context.

Can this be made to stop? I just want to get back to my quiet editing on Wikipedia. But I feel threatened by this editor. Maybe I've just never been exposed to this kind of serious pointed assaults in my seven years on Wikipedia and so I'm unduly caught by surprise by an everyday event.

Might you please advise me on how to get this person off my back for unjust reasons? It's feeling a lot like harassment to me.

If I'm wrong in this matter, I'll take it as a lesson.

Thanks in advance. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll make this short since I'm not really into wasting administrator time over pointless squabbles.
1) I removed a number of spam links to a web forum that were posted on the Invicta Watch Group article.[32]
2) I receive a number of notes on my talk page from another editor (Wikiklrsc) with whom I've never interacted with chastising me for the "tone" (whatever that means) of my edits, stating (incorrectly) that the links were not spam all while attempting to intimidate me by touting their own long editing history and how my "presumptions and unilateral removals were a bit off-kilter". A quick look through their editing history finds that this user has subsequently complained to an administrator that he/she has dealt with in the past, is on a first name basis with, and who is also under investigation for acting unilaterally without consensus and misapplying policy[33] (I sense a theme here). They post on User talk:SchuminWeb questioning my actions without 1) starting a discussion on the article's talk page or 2) affording me an opportunity to discuss my edits or address any of the inflammatory statements on my own talk page. The post on the administrators page was more about the contributor and not the content. Clearly this is not an assumption of good faith, as I never accused this particular user of even posting the links in the first place, nor did I post any sort of warning or comment on his or any other editors or administrators talk page about him/her posting the removed links.
3) I explain this to Wikiklrsc responding on my talk page (see above), and note my displeasure at his/her accusatory tone on my talk page - commenting on contributors and not content, and without even offering one reason why the edit was wrong - and I called him/her out for their subversive behavior by involving Wikipedia adminstration without even attempting to work towards a consensus on the article's talk page, which is standard protocol that any long-standing editor would be aware of. I also ask Wikiklrsc to take further issues up on the article's talk page, and not mine. After 24 hours to allow the user to view the comments and understand them, I then remove both his and my comments from my talk page assuming the issue is closed. In the meantime, the administrator, User:SchuminWeb, confirms that the links did not belong on the article. (As it turns out the spam links were added by Wikiklrsc)
4) Anyways, after removing the discussion and assuming the issue has been dropped, I notice that Wikiklrsc continues to press the issue and posts what I'm now considering personal attacks on SchuminWeb's talk page [34] claiming I made threats toward him/her - which is a total fabrication (and a WP:NPA). Wikiklrsc even went so far as to post an outdated link to my reply on my talk page - , not to the final comment I posted [35] no, but instead to an earlier version that was incomplete.[36], unfairly representing my situation - all while continuing to focus on the editor, and not the edits. Why he did this, other than to further draw my ire is unknown. If they considered the matter closed as was stated above, why even bother with that post in the first place? In retrospect, it appears to me he was just looking to escalate the issue, and I should have simply not "fed the troll". My error.
5) And now this - accusing me of stalking them? Stalking him would mean I'm following him around numerous articles and being disruptive. This accusation is ridiculous. Take a look at this editors contributions over the last few days - they have been mostly confined to this subject/"dispute", while I've contributed to numerous other articles and moved on. This is not stalking. In fact, I should be asking Wikipedia administrators to ask this editor to "stop", and to stop harassing me on other users talk pages; and perhaps even warn or further educate them about adding spam links, for not assuming good faith or working towards a consensus, and for continued harassment of another editor.
In conclusion, I don't wish the deal with this particular editor, I especially don't want them spamming my talk page with ludicrous statements about my "tone" when removing obvious spam (or posting there even after I ask them to not post there in the future). Simple as that. I removed 2 spam links to web forums that were posted in an article, and another link that was redundant. I explained why. These types of reactions from over-zealous editors who's content is removed or edited are one reason why numerous contributors to Wikipedia simply don't bother removing sub-par material or material that doesn't meet Wikiedpia guidelines. It's not worth the hassle. This is my last comment on the situation. Wikiklrsc, leave me alone. --Yankees76 Talk 04:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I dispute some of the above but if user Yankees76 will just go away and leave me alone to do editing, so be it. I never thought I'd ever have to say something like this, but in this case, it's justified. I stand by my editing record since January 2005. And my percentage of editing talk pages is very low indeed. I'm interested in adding knowledge and keeping Wikipedia spot on, in articles, not chatting about it.

I would appreciate some unbiased comment on this matter or where the appropriate place to have put this request if not here -- which I don't consider pointless unless otherwise advised by a third party. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You apparently misunderstand the purpose of article talkpages: they are never to chat about the subject - they are there to discuss changes to the article, and obtain WP:CONSENSUS for the possible changes. As per WP:BRD, if you add something and someone removes it, you need to go to the talkpage to discuss the addition/removal. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Music group more important than protocol, satellite, cpu feature etc..?[edit]

Howcome the pop group SMAP takes precedence over all other articles with the same acronym? we had the same problem a few years ago when the fanboys of Canadian football league refused to let go of the "CFL" namespace. Is there any rule that entertainment is more important than anything else? Electron9 (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Because it's the most notable item by that name, considering its length is longer than the other two actual articles (the third thing is a redirect) combined, it predates all three other pages' creations, and its subject is the only one that solely goes by the name "SMAP". One has to question why you brought it up on AN rather than raising the issue on the article's talk page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually and more importantly, you were WP:BOLD and made a move. It was reverted, and in the edit summary for the move is said "use WP:RM". That's how WP:CONSENSUS works - it's now up to you to argue your point on the article talkpage to create consensus for the move (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I did not notice that. But yes, consensus currently states that the page located at "SMAP" should be about the music group so if you wish to change that you need to do as Bwilkins states.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

unnecessary protection[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates is protected contrary to policy; see prior discussion Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates#protection.3F and Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive#24_November_2012. Could somebody unprotect, or, actually give a policy based rationale for its protection? NE Ent 00:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there a thread about this on another talk page already? (Which I think you linked to.) Why the need for another venue? - jc37 00:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Discussion died there. NE Ent 01:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
It didn't really die. It served its purpose and concluded. It would seem you just don't like the outcome. The page will likely be unprotected after the election. Until then, it can stay. Has been done this way a while. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
High-visibility page. Important to an ongoing, time-limited, wikipolitically-sensitive process. No good reason for non-admins (or, really, admins, except under very limited circumstances) to make any modifications. Not an article or talk page. The lack of previous vandalism doesn't negate the value of preventive protection; even one instance of serious vandalism could affect the (perceived) integrity of the election process. I own a fire extinguisher, even though I don't plan to need it.
Beats me if some or all or any of those are explicitly within the word of the policy, but they're all in the spirit. Do you have a good common sense reason to unprotect, or are you just stirring the pot? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I would say that is beyond the explicit scope of the protection policy. For reference, last year, afaik, the only page we protected was the official questions page, and that was because we wanted to make sure that the same version was transcluded for each candidate, also not strictly speaking within the scope of the policy. Monty845 16:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Just an observation here, but I'd suggest that drawing attention to the page here, and asking for protection to be removed, is a sure-fire way to ensure that the page will be vandalised if it is unprotected... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I think protection is appropriate here. There are 3 necessary questions which need to be asked in determining this for any page:
  1. Would Wikipedia gain anything from non-admins editing the page? In this case, clearly not. No one should be eiting it.
  2. Would limiting who can edit the page scare away potential users? No way; anyone who knows enough to find this page, unless sent there for disruptive purposes, is probably familiar enough with Wikipedia to understand that this page's integrety needs to be kept.
  3. Would there be any harm to Wikipedia, its articles or its community if the page is edited disruptively? Here, the answer is yes; the integrety of te election depends on it.
Since questions 1 and 2 show no reason for not protecting the page, and question 3 gives a reason for protection, the page should definitely be protected. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The 1 necessary question which should be asked is -- is the protection consistent with policy? Obviously not. With regards to Od Mishehu's strawman questions:
  1. Review of past year's pages show sporadic maintenance edits, e.g. category changes. No reason why that should require an editor with a sysop bit.
  2. The issue is the continued spread of protection-itis -- we've see it with talk pages of blocked users, templates with lots of transclusions, templates with few transclusions -- where does it stop? Is the written policy a quaint anachronism, and the real policy -- if we can't up with a reason a peon editor should edit it, no harm done?
  3. Integrity of the election? Absurd, voters cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259. -- does editing the candidate page change the contents of the voting page?
When I inquired at the talk page, the justification given was a. there wouldn't be any need to protect it, and b. it was standard operating procedure. Review of past year's pages shows both reasons to be untrue. I was just wondering if anyone could come up with a reasonable explanation consistent with written policy and the anyone can edit meme of Wikipedia. I'm disappointed but unfortunately not surprised no one has thus far. NE Ent 00:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
So no specific reason why it should be unprotected then, beyond the usual 'slippery slope' fallacy... As for your suggestion that editing the page couldn't affect the integrity of the election, supposing someone vandalised it by adding negative material to a candidate's statement? In any case, 'anyone can edit' may be a meme, but it sure as hell isn't policy - we restrict editing all the time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Supposing someone vandalism the candidate's question page? e.g. There aren't protected. Does that affect the integrity of the election? NE Ent 22:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
No NE Ent, that's not the "1 necessary question", and I'm disappointed to see you framing the situation that way. If you need a policy, please refer to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY: "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies." Or, for that matter, WP:POLICY: "Use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; there will be occasional exceptions to these rules. Conversely, those who violate the spirit of a rule may be reprimanded even if no rule has technically been broken." I'll ask again—do you have a good common sense reason to unprotect, or are you just stirring the pot? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal E-mails as sources[edit]

Not sure why AN is being used to carry on a discussion in parallel with Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Personal E-mails as sources, but the message should have got across by now. BencherliteTalk 00:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's a bit of an ongoing dispute on the verifiability of using e-mails as sources. I've put my post on WP:IRS below. Any info would be great! Thanks!

I'm running into a dilemma on an edit and I need guidance. There's an update I'm working on and the data is a little nebulous; sort of a "everyone knows it but no one can confirm it" situation. So I e-mail one of the people involved, and they give me confirmation that the data is in fact true.

However, I'm getting alot of people saying "You could be lying about the e-mail". Okay, I'm reluctant to share personal messages but I paste the text into the talk page. Now people are saying "You could have made that text up". So here I have an e-mail from the person who the edit is actually about, confirming the edit as true, yet I have no certifiable way of proving it. What's the best way to translate this into a Wiki-quality source? Does WP:AGF come into play here? Thanks! --SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  • It's already well-known and held that e-mails are not a WP:RS ... no need to reconfirm it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No, emails cannot be used as sources. If the information in question is not covered by a publicly-available reliable source, it cannot go in the article. Part of the problem, as the people on the talk page have apparently pointed out, is that there is no way to verify that what you say is true. And though I'm sure you're acting in good faith and are indeed telling the truth, there's no way we can just accept people's word for factual claims - we'd have to believe the liars as well as the honest folk. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Link to discussion. As far as your "best way" question — the best way is probably to ask Dubuk to mention this fact on her blog. Something like this is one of the rather few exceptions to the prohibition on using self-published sources, since an artist saying "I made fictional character ___ to look like ___" can be trusted to tell the truth. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Think about yourself in relation to the world. If someone whom you knew solely as "Uncle G" on a WWW site told you that xe had personal private correspondence proving some point or other, but that you'd have to take xem solely at xyr word on what the correspondence said, would you accept that as reliable, published, documentation? Wikipedia is about what can be proved accurate through reference to knowledge that identifiable people attempting to document things accurately and truthfully have properly researched, nailed down, and published. You're nothing more than an unknown person with a pseudonym on a WWW site. Readers don't trust you. You need to go back to the very basics of our verifiability and no original research policies. If you want a hitherto unpublished and unknown fact to be in the encyclopaedia, you need to make it known through the proper route of getting it documented, by identifiable people with known and good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, and published outwith the encyclopaedia beforehand. Or, as a pseudonymous and untrustable encyclopaedist, you need to show where that has already been done somewhere. Uncle G (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • In addition to the sound advice Uncle G has just given above, I'm sure you made your edits with the best of intentions, and you're trying to improve the encyclopaedia, but this argument stems from you adding a half-sentence ancillary fact. It probably isn't as important as you might think it is. We can still read about Cave Johnson and find out about him from what is already reliably sourced in the article. Might as well let it go, don't you think? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
You are quite right. I think my mistake was assuming my edit would be as easy at the one I made earlier about Bill Fletcher being Cave Johnson. That one seemed easy and was accepted quickly, but when this one was contested so vigorously I started feeling put-upon, like there was a WP:CABAL at work. But in this case there's no real published work attesting to Caroline being based on Laura Dubuk. I'm taking Nyttend's advice and ask her to place a small mention of it on her blog to act as official published Valve verification. Until then I'll just chill. :) Thanks for the insight guys. --SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Whoa there ... it appearing on a blog will also not neccessarily be considered to be a reliable source - even if it's their own blog! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay now I'm confused. The reference to Bill Fletcher being Cave Johnson was also from a blog. This could turn into a slippery slope. Guidance on this guys? Can you hash this out with Nyttend? SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
If the artist Phil Foglio says on his own blog that he based the physical appearance of his character Buck Godot on his friend John Buckley, the blog is a reliable source. If I post on my blog that the character Comic Book Guy was based on Matt Groening seeing me in an airport one time, that is not a reliable source (and also not true; but John Buckley really did look sorta like that when I knew him and Foglio: yet since I'm not Phil, I'm not a reliable source for that assertion). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Orangemike and I are thinking precisely the same thing. I based what I said on WP:SELFPUB, which permits limited use of self-published sources to talk about those sources' authors. Almost any source, no matter how silly and trifling, can be used as a source about itself and its author, as long as we can confirm that it's written by who it says it is. Back to UncleG's point: we won't believe a random person on the Internet who says "I got told this in an email", but when we say "The author says that she based Caroline on Laura Dubuk" and reference that to something the author has said, we're going to believe it, since nobody's more authoritative about the author's opinions than the author herself. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I was going by. I'll add a ref once she makes her post. SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Move from Wikipedia:Lady Gabriella Windsor to Lady Gabriella Windsor[edit]

Can someone please fix this? A user moved it from the main namespace to Wikipedia:The Lady Gabriella Windsor in order to avoid having to request a move to The Lady Gabriella Windsor, and I then moved it to the present tile without realising it was still not in the main namespace. (I'm not sure if I am at the right place and I apologise if I am not.) Surtsicna (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 DoneHex (❝?!❞) 00:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
And tidied up by me. I have move-protected the article for a month - everyone should go away and discuss it properly at WP:RM to get in more people, who might hopefully know what the Wikipedia naming convention is for such people (which may or may not be the same as what the Royal Family web