Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive407

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

Noticeboard archives


Sock of and, new user User talk:Argus-Bot. EDIT: and now[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved.

History: Two Ip addresses Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ were blocked today and yesterday for making multiple disruptive changes in articles like Video CD, DVD and CD Video. Repeated warnings were ignored. After the second IP was block User:Argus-Bot appeared making the exact same edits on the articles. They have not responded to talk page messages, and continue to disruptively edit with no edit summaries. I am also weary of reverting the edits at this point given how constantly the page is being vandalized. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Further addition: Argus-Bot has copied the entire Video CD article to Category:Video CD for some reason. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit: I edited my above post to be more concise. I'm concerned this complaint may be seen as a "content" issue, but I think the scope is larger as this person has disruptively edited these articles multiple times to the point of being temporarily blocked AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The User name should be blocked, since they aren't a bot. Corvus cornixtalk 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
User indef blocked.-Wafulz (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

He's at it again! Special:Contributions/ Could someone please block him. Same edits on same articles. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted their disruptive edits and placed a level 4 warning on the talk page. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations on Guatemalan Civil War[edit]

Unfortunately much of the material on the Guatemalan Civil War is an apparent copyright violation. The history of Guatemala article may also be in violation, although I have not yet done enough searching to arrive at a definitive conclusion. The originating website appears to be this one. [[1]], although there may be other candidates upon further investigation. I have placed notices on the talk pages, but I'm guessing that admins should be made aware of this.BernardL (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This page here [[2]]

may be another candidate for the original. The history of Guatemala is to a large extent, possibly copypasted from there.BernardL (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility is that some of the material on the Guatemalan Civil War has seemingly been lifted from the state department website [[3]]. BernardL (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That's public domain. Corvus cornixtalk 02:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
So do you think it's good wikipedia policy or good history to have masses of material (more than 1000 words) simply copied out of the state department's books?BernardL (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
So long as they're credited. We copied lots of articles from the 1911 Brittanica. Corvus cornixtalk 03:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting perspective. Would anyone else care to comment? Possibly admins?BernardL (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
See Corvus cornixtalk 03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the free encyclopedia and not the home-made encyclopedia, at least that is what it says on the home page. I see nothing wrong with copying free content if credit is given, and if the free content really is free for copying/inclusion purposes. Lots of US Govt. material falls into that category, as do those few books that have fallen out of copyright. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
For public domain material, giving credit is a courtesy rather than an obligation. When we do credit a public domain source (1911 EB, CIA fact-book, or whatever) for verbatim copying of text or images it is mostly for our own benefit, to avoid letting article content from the public domain source be mistaken for a copyvio of any other site which has also legitimately copied the same public domain source. — CharlotteWebb 13:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not a copyright violation, but there's quite a lot of difference between using the 1911 EB and using a web page from the State Department (or CIA). In an article on the Guatemalan Civil War, I don't think it's at all advisable to use text written by a major governmental department of a country that was partially party to that civil war (as the U.S. indisputably was) as though it were a reliable and relatively objective source (and certainly not without crediting the source - readers should know that some of the information in the article is from the US government). Some times State Department reports about certain countries or past events are good and sometimes they are not. It's not like we should remove it right away or anything, but ideally sources like that should be replaced by neutral scholarship. I've come across this "good, this is a governmental source so there's no copyright and we can stick it all in the article" argument before and I find it to be extremely problematic. We should be especially critical of governmental sources - from all countries - and use them very carefully (particularly when it relates to an extremely controversial and complex issue like a civil war). Obviously it's nice that there are no copyright restrictions and of course we can and should use these sources to some extent, but when we copy significant chunks of the State Department's take on a controversial past issue (assuming that's what we are doing, a cursory glance at the article suggests there are a lot of other good sources there) we are basically functioning as a mouthpiece for their view. There's nothing good or vaguely NPOV about that, lack of copyright problems notwithstanding.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC deleted[edit]

I started an RfC, located: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley 2. This page was recently deleted by Viridae as "improperly certified RfC" however within 48 hours 3 people had signed on, and a 4th later, following that Travb made his statement, surely enough people certifying the issue. I would like the page undeleted. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to have a response from Viridae before taking any action, as I'm not as up to speed on the RfC certification process as I probably should be. If there's a technical reason for the failure, I'd like to hear it. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Related thread on AN at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#William_M._Connolley_2. DuncanHill (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Whoops, looks like this came out of the main Noticeboard. The view there was that "...The two users who signed did not make a bona fide effort to resolve their dispute." A second admin concurred, and Viridae performed the deletion. The thread may be found here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
See also User_talk:Viridae#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FWilliam_M._Connolley_2 --BozMo talk 12:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure how anyone can say noone has tried, they must not be looking at the state terrorism page, considering everyone has been asking Connolley for an apology, a statement, to roll back, he just keeps ignoring everyone, which is why it was taken to the next step. I showed the section where he just continually responds that he was right, ignoring the majority of people stating he was wrong. I even expressed to William that I would withdraw if he would take some action, and he simply ignored me. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
When the person will not respond, or simply ignores your complaints, what is the next step, since this issue needs resolving and I am at the point where I think this simply need to go to Arbcom as its not a popularity contest and these abuses of blocking rules should not be ignored and swept under the rug. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The next step, after article talk pages is editor assistance and from there a third opinion. These are the two steps between article talk pages and RfC. Then theres informal and formal mediation. ArbCom is the last resort. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The RfC is regarding abuse of admin privileges, not an editing dispute. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it was about inappropriate blocks, of which said Connolley has been warned for many times (but never heeded). I do believe the deletion of the RfC was inappropriate. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't say I've got much time for IWS but I was a bit surprised by the deletion. No one told me! I've restored it for the moment. If anyone decides to re-delete it, could I move it to my user space instead? I'd like to keep it as a pet William M. Connolley (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

request semi-protection for Ellen Ochoa[edit]


Can we get semi-protection for Ellen Ochoa? For some reason, it is a favorite target of IP vandals. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 15:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is the place for these requests (even though it's very backlogged at the moment). D.M.N. (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like only one IP has been vandalizing the article today, and no other edits were made since 4/19. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP is blocked, no need for protection. Future protection requests→WP:RFPP. Got a vandalizing IP? → WP:AIV. — Scientizzle 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, guys, thanks to all of you for putting it on your watchlist. Bubba73 (talk), 16:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Indymedia on spam blacklist[edit]

Not quite sure why, but in this edit, "\bindymedia\.org\b # Beetstra # ReportBot page - poking the spammer, remove after one hour, please.", "" was blacklisted. This has the effect of blocking all edits to pages with links to "", which is linked from several hundred articles. There doesn't seem to be a ReportBot page at User:SpamReportBot/cw/ Bot bug? Manual action? Emergency? Unclear what happened, but the collateral damage is too high. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be from this here. That should probably come out, Indymedia is a widely known site, and in some cases is a reliable source for our purposes. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree on your assessment of Indymedia's reliability; it's all self-published. It's no more reliable than most blogs, and is far less reliable than newspapers such as the Washington Times and the New York Sun, which are constant targets for NPOV sniping. That said, I think blacklisting it is likely to be an issue, until all of the links are removed (or individually whitelisted, if any valid and reliable citations exist). Horologium (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, not talking about that. :) There is still no valid reason to blacklist it. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Removal requested at Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The comment makes it clear what went wrong: "I am leaving for holidays soon (hours ... ), so may not be here when this has to be removed, can I ask the other admins here to have a look when our editor has not responded yet? Thanks already! --Dirk Beetstra". Anyway, looking at the problem, the disruptive edits are mostly an anon via "", so there are better ways to deal with this. --John Nagle (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal information[edit]

I am of the opinion that this edit needs to be oversighted and the responsible IP (talk · contribs) needs another block. Input is appreciated
Thanks. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the revision from the edit history and Fvasconcellos blocked the IP address for 1 week. You can request oversight of the edit by emailing User:Oversight.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. I've reblocked the IP for a month, as Rodhullandemu blocked it for a week earlier this month despite noting a one-month block in the {{schoolblock}} message. By the way, I had no idea you could email "User:Oversight". I usually just send a message directly to the list—that'll teach me to read all the way down to the large red letters. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Peter Damian - banned user[edit]

This appears to be a banned user. Has the AC cleared him to do this? he's posting all over. Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my talk page. This is perfectly within the rules. Contesting a block. Peter Damian (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocked by Thatcher (talk · contribs) as a reincarnation of a banned user. - auburnpilot talk 17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeated extreme incivility by User:Ottava Rima[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.

Summary: Telling people to leave Wikipedia is not nice. Don't do it. This is not the place to argue about the MoS. Don't do that either. Horses die. Stop beating them. --Haemo (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

During the past two days, Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has shown repeated, extreme incivility towards multiple editors on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. In a discussion about the length of the article (which reasonable people can disagree on, but in which the consensus is against Ottava Rima), Ottava Rima has told several longtime editors that if they disagree with his interpretation of WP:SIZE as it applies to this article, they should "leave Wikipedia". Examples include this statement to Wasted Time R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), this additional statement to Wasted Time R, this statement to Tvoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and this statement to both Szyslak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Tvoz.

Bear in mind that WP:SIZE is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule, and that the Hillary Rodham Clinton article currently measures about 9,500 words and 59 kB of readable prose, both within the "6,000 to 10,000 words" and "A rule of thumb"/under 60KB guideline for acceptable length, albeit at the high end. Thus, a good case can be made that Ottava Rima is not even correct about his contentions of the article being in violation of WP:SIZE, and indeed a number of other editors have indicated they have no problem with the article size. And even if it were against WP:SIZE guidelines, telling multiple editors to "leave Wikipedia" is far from an appropriate way of dealing with it. As evidence that there are differing interpretations of WP:SIZE among different articles and circumstances, there are currently at least 10 existing FA articles longer than this one. So the point is again, this is clearly an issue about which reasonable editors can disagree. The issue for ANI is not the article size disagreement itself, but Ottava Rima's extreme incivility in dealing with the disagreement.

You can find plenty of other rude, incivil, and uncollegial Ottava Rima comments throughout Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Article length and Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Trivia in notes.

A little while ago, Onorem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) warned Ottava Rima about the "leave Wikipedia" comments on User talk:Ottava Rima, but Ottava Rima deleted the warning with the comment "Wikianarchists don't belong on Wikipedia, and if people can't follow community standards, then they should go elsewhere". An exchange followed at User talk:Onorem in which Ottava Rima told Onorem to leave Wikipedia.

This is not the first time Ottava Rima has gotten into civility and other issues. User talk:Ottava Rima is sanitized now, but looking at Ottava Rima's block log, or at back versions of the talk page such as this from three weeks ago, shows lots of complaints, blocks, etc. along what seem to be similar lines. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say, Wasted, you sure know how to twist what is being said into something completely different. It should be noted that you have made over 1,000 edits to that page and that you are complaining because it needs to be trimmed. There is no other evidence to this case required beside this simple fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And Wasted, please show where this is appropriate, especially when that person has very little to do with any of your actions, except that you are trying to bring in an outside complaint that was not issued by the other or cared to be issued by the other, when the main topic is your article in which you edited over 1,000 times and refuse to trim down. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The instructions at the top of this page said that I was supposed to inform everybody that I mentioned in my notice, so I did. Wasted Time R (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The instructions do not say to add people who do not actually deal with the topic at hand, but are added in order to make the topic seem larger than it actually is. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The topic is you telling people to leave Wikipedia, which you did to Onorem with this edit here, in which you also called him/her a "Wiki anarchist". Wasted Time R (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you try and not misquote me or misconstrue what I have said? Ottava Rima (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if this is Arbcom-banned user Sadi Carnot? He shares the same obsession with how Wikipedia articles must be strictly limited in length. I could be wrong, though. Right now, it's just an idea. szyslak (t) 05:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an article put up for FA Review. The article would not load on two of my computers. The first because it was dialup and took over two minutes. The second because of the excessive formatting across the page. The user was unwilling to take any of that into consideration, and constantly made claims that were not true according to MoS. Instead of wanting to cut down the page to make it readable by others, he refused to and started misattributing what the policy actually stated on the issue. This is an WP:OWN problem. Furthermore, I have never been blocked for incivility. My blocks were based on RR violations and have nothing to do with this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That's probably not very helpful to suggest right now. With so many users it's very possible to have multiple groups that have similar attitudes, so unless we have some actual technical evidence, I would hold back on the sock accusations. -- Ned Scott 05:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, looking at the two's edits, I don't see any overlap in areas of interest.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ryulong, it must be noted that Szyslak is one of those who commented from the Hillary Clinton page. Such accusations seem to result only from a complaint issued against an FA candidate that did not meet the MoS guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, I merely watchlist Hillary Rodham Clinton because it's a common vandalism target, and as a close follower of U.S. politics I can check recent edits for original research and notability. I have no involvement in the current FAC discussion, nor do I have any interest in whether this article becomes featured. szyslak (t) 20:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left Ottava a note on his talk page, telling him to try not to sweat this kind of stuff on pages as active as the Clinton page. He's got a point that it is pretty long, but it's a very hot page right now, so it's not really uncommon. I don't think any admin action is needed right now, just a little context a helpful note. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether the article is really too long, but whether an editor should be telling other editors to "leave Wikipedia" and other incivilities when they don't agree with his interpretation of a guideline. Tvoz |talk 05:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Tvoz is one of the editors from the Hillary Clinton page. And yes, if people disagree with the MoS, then the best option for them is to move to another Wiki. The same thing is told to those who want to write purely in-universe. There are Wikis that cater to such people. It is not an insult. It is a plain fact that there are others that are far more accommodating to such viewpoints. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You might not see it as an insult, but it's really not something you should say to other editors. No matter how much we believe ourselves to be right, and no matter how much we actually are right, we are working with volunteers here, and it's far better to make a strong argument for your view than to tell someone off. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I understand that, which is why I told Ottava that it was best not to let this kind of thing bother him. It's very easy to get passionate about these articles, especially now with the elections and all. At the same time, that high activity makes these articles harder to manage, which adds frustration to the passion. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not passionate about it. I don't care about the page. I'm not an editor on the Hillary Clinton page. I am an FA Reviewer. It was put up for FA Review. I made the comment that was exact. People disagreed with it, made claims about the MoS which were demonstrated to be false, and claimed things about the size that was demonstrated by myself following MoS guidelines to show size as to be false. Thats the extent and if they don't want to trim it, then it wont pass into FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, then we might just have a communication problem here. Editors are seeing your comments as very aggressive, but you didn't mean it that way, perhaps. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's worth noting that Wasted Time R and the other editors who actually maintain the Hillary Clinton article weren't trying to get it to FA, and the FA nominator hasn't even edited the article. It's also worth noting that the "demonstrated to be false" is a matter of interpretation. The objection here isn't to the fact that you made a complaint about the article's length, it's about the vitriol with which you attacked those who interpreted the size guideline differently from the way you do.
Ottava, you've only been editing here on a regular basis a few months. Wasted Time R has been working on Wikipedia since 2005. While "seniority" doesn't give anyone any rights here, it might be worth your while to consider whether it's appropriate to take this sort of my-way-or-the-highway attitude against such a prolific contributor, who's been featured in the media as the very model of a modern Wikipedian. Or, to put it another way: some humility might not go amiss. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 05:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No. I have only been edited as a registered user since last Fall. There is a difference. Furthermore, seniority is no excuse for excessive page length. Not even Bill Clinton is as long as Hillary's page, and Bill has more historic notability than his wife, seeing as how he was President for 2 terms and governor for 2 terms. And Vitriol? That is a lovely way to associate to my words which is obviously lacking. My words are empty, cold, and to the point. If an editor is unwilling to trim down an excessively large article, then there is a problem. WP:OWN clearly covers such situations. And "demonstrated to be false" is completely correct, seeing as how using the MoS guidelines to find prose size was put into effect, "edited" in, reverted back, and shows 64k for all who wish to see. Readability guidelines on Size clearly state "50k" for being the appropriate top for readers. This isn't splitting hairs. This is a large difference. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And Josiah, do strike your comments. We all know of those featured in the media as "good Wikipedians" who turned out to be nothing but deceivers. Being in the media for editing Wikipedia means nothing and pointing out such goes against the spirit of Wikipedia itself. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I find that offensive, as someone who has also been interviewed about Wikipedia editing. Josiah's comment about Wasted Time R's integrity is on point. And I find it odd at best to attack someone for having made 1000 edits to an article; to me it is an indication of conscientious care taht should be praised. And the accusation of ownership is invalid, if one takes a look at the history. Tvoz |talk 06:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You can find someone offensive as much as possible, but being interviewed is not a determiner of "quality" as an editor, nor does it give you special privileges. 1,000 edits is a strong indicator to willingness of WP:OWN. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've said more than once that you should follow your conscience in your recommendation for the FAC - if you don't think it's ready for FA, then oppose it. That is not what the objection is to your behavior, as has been said repeatedly by several editors on the page. Tvoz |talk 05:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You can say all you want about my behavior, but there is nothing there except that you disagree with my comments and have no grounds to issue a response against them than to trump up a charge that does not actually exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Policy, especially the manual of style, is not a suicide pact. Telling users "obey it or leave" is not at all constructive. We do whatever is in the best interest of the project. Mr.Z-man 06:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Unwilling to edit a document to make it legible by a significant amount of people is important to Wikipedia. It doesn't need to be a suicide pact, but that is a primary basis of respect. By refusing to trim down the article appropriately, the article mocks Wikipedia, and there are violations of WP:OWN, WP:FRINGE, What Wikipedia is not and many other rules. The article did not meet the standards of a Wikipedia article. There are other communities for different standards. It is appropriate that, if they strongly believe in not following the MoS guidelines, that they move to those communities because they will be more comfortable there. However, if you don't believe in the MoS like you claim, please make a complaint against the MoS there. However, it reflects community consensus and should be respected as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, this is getting way off topic. The issue here is incivility by Ottava Rima, not the content dispute. The details of the argument on the article page should have nothing to do with the amount of civility involved. Ottava Rima telling experienced editors they should leave wikipedia if they don't agree with your views on something is uncivil and unproductive, and doesn't help to gain consensus on your views. Please understand that was the concern behind this ANI post, regardless of the circumstances involving the article. Redrocket (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the two cannot be separated, because I told them that if they didn't like the MoS, that they are better suited to a different Wikipedia. That was construed to be incivil, even though it meets none of the incivility requirements nor is anything approaching incivility. An experienced editor would be willing to cut down an extremely larger article to fit in with MoS, not constantly misquote the rule, misstate the size of an article, and show severe WP:OWN problems. I suggest you redact your words until you acknowledge the fact that there was unwillingness to edit an article coming from an editor who made over 1,000 edits to said article. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, you could have made your point about the length of the article without suggesting that everyone who disagrees with you must redact their comments or leave Wikipedia. I'm not a huge fan of WP:IAR, but this seems to me to be exactly the sort of inflexible rule-mongering that justifies its existence. See also Wikipedia:Use common sense. Your demands that every editor must share your particular interpretation of a guideline or leave Wikipedia are unproductive and disproportionate. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you please refrain from misrepresenting me again? I did not ask everyone to "redact", but only the comments that were outright wrong or did not belong. Secondly, if someone strongly believes in having a very larger article, then yes, they should find another Wikipedia. The article lengths top out for a reason, and that reason is that there are physical limitations to what length people can read articles. This is not stylistic. This is basic principle. I have not demanded anything from other users. You have placed that upon me in an additional misrepresentation of my position. I would suggest that you follow WP:CIVIL and stop adding words to my position that have never appeared there. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
All right, "everyone" is an exaggeration. But there does seem to be a pattern of pedantic inflexibility here. (And I know from pedantry!) —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
A pattern developed from one page that results from a FA Review? My concern was a legitimate concern. People brought up issues such as "MoS really says this" or "my tool says this", which were explained via the guideline. I don't really see where you can develop a pattern of behavior. My computer actually did freeze twice from trying to load the page. That is a legitimate concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And Josiah, I know you, and you might actually remember me. Its complicated to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note from an uninvolved editor. For the record, Ottava, your previous blocks mostly had to do with legal threats, not 3RR violations. Also, you should realize that nobody, not you, not Jimbo, nobody on Wikipedia can order an editor to make changes to an article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1. That is wrong. My previous blocks had only one "legal threat" that was a block that was withdrawn, but mostly about 3RR, which can be proven by a clear copy and paste. 2. I never "ordered" anyone. I brought up the issue in a comment, and the editor in question said that the MoS said something completely different than what it did, and kept trying to add claims about the size that were demonstrated to be false. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Your extensive block log shows two or three separate blocks for edit warring (hard to count because of resets.) And at least two (plus resets) for a legal threat that was apparently made, withdrawn and then restated. I'm getting this from looking at the block log, not digging through your edits to find the threats themselves. So I may have been wrong about the word "mostly". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is completely wrong. There were two total blocks. Please follow the timing of the blocks in order to see which is which. The rest are extensions. Furthermore, the one extension was withdrawn. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note This topic is misplaced. The appropriate place for "civility" issues is Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Furthermore, the use of "extreme" in the title heading is unproven POV on an issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ironically, if it were only a civility issue, that might be true. However, you insist on saying it's not civility but rather a content and policy dispute, so this seems to be a good place for it.
As far as I see, the two are separate issues. Even if it were a violation (which other editors disagree with), it does not entitle you to be uncivil. In all honesty, you defending your position by telling more experienced editors to go edit some other wiki just makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about. You may be correct in saying it is not technically uncivil, however, it does seem rude and a really foolish way of attempting to get other people to agree with your interpretation of things.
Honestly, after reading you telling everyone else to redact their comments, then and you defending your position by defining the responsibilities of other editors, I don't think you care at all about being civil or gaining consensus. Good luck with all that. Redrocket (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Content and policy disputes go to the Village Pump or RfC. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And Redrocket, you are really not WP:AGF. And "telling everyone"? I didn't tell "everyone". Please stop making claims to things that do not exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In terms of assuming good faith, you are certainly not doing that. Your comment, whether it was intentional or not, came across as rude and uncivil. Rather than acknowledge that you might have misspoken or your comments might have been taken in a different way than you intended, you refuse to listen to the other editors explain how your words came across.
Honestly, if you would just look at your actions and see that the way you tell other editors (all of whom are also volunteers here) that they should go somewhere else isn't really a friendly way to treat them, this would all be over. Clinging to your belief that since there was a content/policy dispute justifies being rude to people isn't going to help. Redrocket (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If your claims are true, please provide evidence in which I didn't attempt to work with the editors and prove beyond a doubt where in the policy my claims are coming from and show, especially on the page, how the size format is different from the programs that they are running. I don't think you have any grounds to claim that I haven't assumed good faith, as I have not made any claims about anyone until far after it has been demonstrated an unwillingness to cut down the article length. If you think my comments are rude, then you think they are rude. But it is obvious that you are unwilling to WP:AGF from your own words, and that is a reason why you think my comments are rude. Furthermore, "volunteering" isn't an excuse to ignore a legitimate concern about page length size. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I must also question the legitimacy of your claiming my actions were rude when you, yourself, have stated: "Seriously, just leave already. Redrocket (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)" on your own talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Ah, thanks for stalking me. You are now bringing up out-of-context comments I made to a banned user who was trolling my page looking for an argument.

This is crossing over into wikilawyering in the extreme, so let's just boil it down. Ottava Rima, several other editors found your comments to be rude and uncivil. Regardless of the content/policy dispute, can you see where telling them to go to some other wiki could have been taken in a manner that would make them think you were being rude or uncivil? Redrocket (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Those who live in glass houses. You set up a standard that you, yourself does not follow. So what will it be? Still accuse me of being rude, while you, yourself, have made such equal comments? Or are there now two standards, one for yourself and one for those who are part of the opposite side of a dispute from what you believe in? Ottava Rima (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
My comments were to a trolling vandal who would be banned within a few hours. Yours were to editors who are far more experienced than you, and clearly not vandals or trolls.
And thanks for refusing to answer the question. I'm going to assume that was a "yeah, I know I was being uncivil, but I still think I can talk my way out of it." Again, have fun with all that. Redrocket (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I forgot, you believe that there is a different standard of approaching people. I, however, only recommended based on their own feelings about the policy. I didn't say that they weren't welcome. I suggested other suitable ways to deal with their desire not to be under the influence of MoS. It would seem that your intention would be quite different from mine. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that WP:DNFT is probably applicable here. The question then arises, if not feeding, what action should be taken? Loren.wilton (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the use of "troll" in any kind of context of this thread would be derogatory and thus contradicting WP:CIVIL. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with LW, call it what you would like, but I'm about done here. The user refuses to discuss his actions without tying it into some crusade of being uncivil in the name of wikipolicy, so I doubt there's anything we can do at this point. He's been blocked before, so let's just leave him be with a fresh length of rope and see what he does with it. Redrocket (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Red, do you honestly not see the incivility of your tone, especially there, and the hypocrisy that it demonstrates? You have already stated that you were unwilling to WP:AGF. If you think that bringing up a legitimate concern is a "crusade", then you better take your concern to the appropriate forum, like Village Pump Policy. I do not believe that consensus will side with you. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Is this topic even necessary at this point? I believe that the above user has aired his concern quite a lot. If he really felt that my suggestions were uncivil, then he could have brought them to Wikiquette alerts. However, he believed they were "extreme incivility", which has no real meaning. What does he want? An apology for my recommending him to go to another Wiki if he disagrees with the MoS? If so, that could have been handled by a simple message on my talk page from the user. This, however, is not an "incident". There is no damage to the encyclopedia, and it obviously hasn't stopped his editing or affected his editing in any kind of way. For the most part, he has ignored my comments and concerns, and has moved on to important matters like arguing over the true eye color of Hillary Clinton and if that belongs in the article. There seems to be no point to this but to draw attention to other admin, use his background and history, and act in a way that isn't really suitable to helping the encyclopedia. I have not insulted. I have not bullied. I have brought up a legitimate concern, and I have stated the obvious: if you are unhappy with Wikipedia's policies, the easy way to deal with it is to go to another Wiki. Is that is rude? Then I guess the truth is rude. But it is not incivil to state the truth, especially in such a cold manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you're upset at the way wikipedia handles these civility concerns, you probably should just go edit some other wik...
Nah, never mind. I can't bring myself to do it. Just forget it, and let's close the topic. Redrocket (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ouch. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, if you're having trouble seeing what you're doing wrong try looking at this diff or this one where you order another editor to change an article according to your instructions, something I have never seen done by an editor on Wikipedia. Then you might take a look at this in which you claim that other users "will be forced to trim down their articles" if you decide they're too long. Forced? Really? By whom? And how? Since when are editors "forced" to do things on Wikipedia? Own much? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Order? I don't think you can apply "order" at all. I'm quite confused how you can even begin to construe any of those words as an "order" of any kind. "If then" clauses are definitely not orders, and saying "you can" do something is not an order. Please, you have already misrepresented by blocking record. Could you stop misrepresenting the rest now? Ottava Rima (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And that "forced" comment is conditioned on "FA review", with the implied "if you want to pass this will be required". But that was obvious from the context. So I ask again, please stop misconstruing my words to say what they do not. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Its a simple fix. Do it.—I've seen such orders from an admin enforcing policy, but surely someone reviewing for FA should make recommendations or suggestions? Saying The MoS is rather certain. If you don't like it, you can leave Wikipedia implies that one understands neither the distinction between guidelines and policy, nor the wiki process. I can only imagine the chilling effect this thread will have on any other editor considering an FA submission. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you really know how to twist words to prove a point that is clearly non-existent. An order, as everyone knows, requires the power of enforcement. By definition, without such it can only be claimed as a suggestion. However, you sure have isolated words, trumped them up far beyond what they even say, and for what reason? And guidelines are policy when it comes to an FA Review, because if it doesn't meet the MoS, guess what? It shouldn't be an FA. A chilling effect on FAs for those who don't meet MoS guidelines? Thats exactly what the rules of the FA state! Wow. I am extremely amazed by the twisting of words to promote something that is completely not represented on Wikipedia. "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Thats from the FA guideline. According to MoS, appropriate length is not over 50k. That is how we should proceed. If you don't like that? Well, go complain somewhere else, because your problem is obviously not with me, but with the process that you disagree with. That is POV pushing. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
To show where Sheffield is extremely mistaken: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria says the following - "# It follows the style guidelines" and "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." It doesn't say "it should be whatever size the person feels". It clearly says that to be FA, it has to follow those rules. Its that simple. This is not a democracy. This is not an anarchy. If you want your article to be a Featured Article, it has to be trimmed. Mentioning this is not "chilling" anything. This is an elite process. Not everyone will make it. Other Wikis have lower standards and would allow such things. This Wikipedia has a strong standard of upholding the MoS in Feature Article reviews. Its that simple. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This obviously isn't nearly as absolute as you say it is, since there are currently at least 10 existing FA articles longer than this one. It would seem some editors and some reviewers and some FAC approvers have a different viewpoint than you do. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
They should be recalled. Its that simple. Justifying a violation of MoS by saying others violate MoS is not appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have quoted the entire diff, and merely emphasised the most incivil and bossy parts. Never mind. Clearly we're going to have to agree to disagree about the distinction between guidelines and policy. I don't think anyone is going to convince Ottava Rima of anything in this thread. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You can claim they are uncivil or bossy, but that does not make them true. Your constant misquoting and adding adjectives that are inappropriate prove not a point, but only demonstrate a bias and are, in fact, one of those stated to be incivil. This isn't about "convincing" me anything. This is about an editor whose article when up for FA and complained that FA requires MoS to be followed. Its that simple. If you do not like that FA review requires MoS guidelines, you cannot complain to me about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the point[edit]

Whilst Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) keeps trying to argue about the prior issue of whether the relevant bit of MoS is an unshakeable, set-in-stone rule that all must obey or leave wikipedia, that sidesteps the real issue that has been brought here. In the context of the complaint that has been brought to ANI, it is not particularly relevant whether Ottava is right or wrong.

The issue is simple. Ottava has repeatedly failed to stick to WP:CIVIL, to the extent of telling several editors that if they don't accept his understanding of the guidelines, they should leave. Even if Ottava is right about the MoS issue, this is a completely unacceptable way of interacting with fellow editors.

Ottava's edit history seems to show a good deal of tenditious editing, WP:OWNership of articles, and wikilawyering over 3RR (and over whether this report is proper to WQA or here!). He seems to adopt a debating tactic that involves obstinacy to the extent that others lose the will to go on with the debate. This is clearly disruptive, and damaging to the encyclopedia.

Now, there are two ways to go here... Ottava can accept that there is a clear consensus that his behaviour has fallen short of the standards required, and move on, or he can continue to assure people that he is right and everybody else is wrong, in which case this is clearly going to end up at RFC.

Mayalld (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Clear consensus? No. Most of those speaking are involved in the issue and are biased to their side. Furthermore, this is in regards to an FA review. The FA standards are quite clear and will most likely not change. The fact that you ignored this is troubling to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, Mayalld, most of your claims are outright wrong, and I would suggest that you retract what you have said above about my edits until you are willing to back them up. You are in violation of WP:CIVIL, which is unacceptable. Furthermore, it is absolutely hypocritical that you are acting in an incivil way while demanding that I move on. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I am really having to consider the possibility that you are either argumentative to the point of vexatiousness, or that you are incredibly stupid. You avoid the point, which is central to this matter, in that you have conducted yourself inappropriately in the manner of your communications with other editors. It is not for you to say that editors should find other encyclopedias or websites to edit if you do not approve of their good faith edits. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. While we have style guidelines, and rules and policies, what we have that makes Wikipedia what it is is a sense of community; all are welcome to contribute. Your actions contravene that principle. I very seriously suggest that you stop acting in this arrogant manner, which is causing concern amongst other contributors, or you will find that the encyclopedia may very likely be leaving you for a short while. I strongly recommend that you do not respond to this comment as you have the previous ones - that would be very stupid indeed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that you do the civil thing and strike your insinuations as to my intelligence. They are inappropriate for Wikipedia and inappropriate for this section. If you are unwilling to put forth a comment without attacking the personal character of another individual, please do not do such. Your comments are extremely rude and inflammatory, and serve no purpose. If you are unwilling to treat me with respect, please make it known now. If not, please do the right thing and strike your inflammatory comments that are not part of any kind of reasonable nor civil discussion. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, you fail to note the difference between an article for FA review and a standard article. If you are unwilling to see that FA Review require a closer attention to MoS and have two guidelines dealing with size, then you shouldn't respond at all to this issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Following this comment to my talkpage I issued a Level 4im civility warning to Ottava Rima, together with an explanation why WP:CIVIL and WP:Consensus violations outweigh concerns regarding non-compliance with Featured Article Review guidelines. Seeing their response(s) here and below I do not believe that the editor has sufficient clue and attempts at persuading them to act according to the principles of Wikipedia may need strengthening by the use of a short enforced break. Since I am now "involved" I leave it to the judgement of another sysop whether such a block is needed, should the warning be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


  1. Clear consensus? Yes, I'd call an overwhelming majority of people commenting, including several who were not previously involved, a clear consensus! Or is this a new definition of consensus that says that people who disagree with your POV don't count?
  2. No, this is NOTHING to do with a FA review. It is everything to do with the attitude that you adopted, and the manner in which you interacted with others
  3. My claims are not wrong. If you would care to specify which claims you believe to be wrong, I will gladly supply diffs to demonstrate them (Though I rather suspect that most readers here have no need of such proof, and would be bored stiff by the whole thing)
  4. You repeatedly wave WP:CIVIL the instant anybody dares to suggest that your actions are wrong. Civility does not demand that I remain silent on such matters, merely that I express myself in a civil manner, which I have done.

Mayalld (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your tone is "extreme incivil". I ask for you to please follow such guidelines. Furthermore, how can you say this has nothing to do with an FA review, when the context of saying that the page must be cut is in regards to meeting FA review guidelines? Also, a clear consensus is on the MoS size guidelines. You cannot mistake that. Also, you are the one putting forth claims without evidence, which is an addition breach of civil. If you are unwilling to respect my character, please, do not post. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that I will leave it to others to determine if my tone is "extreme uncivil". Your view on the matter is hardly dispassionate.
As to how I can say it has nothing to do with FA review, I can say that because it is true. The key point here is that several editors have complained about your incivility. It doesn't matter what the circumstances were, or whether the other editors were right or wrong in their take on MoS. The question is merely whether you have been habitually incivil (As an editor who was previously uninvolved, my take is that you have been habitually uncivil, but that is just my view. Should a consensus develop to the contrary, I will accept it)
I have invited you to specify which of my claims are untrue, and have offered to put forward evidence to support those claims.
Your behaviour has been called into question. It is a patent nonsense to demand that anybody who dares make an adverse comment about your behaviour stop posting.
Mayalld (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Dispassionate? I have been nothing but cold and scientific about this whole process. I really don't see how you can even claim that I have any passion about it, especially when I have not even made a claim about what content should be, nor do I have any actual horse in this race. And if you think that circumstances don't matter, well, I don't know how to help you. But circumstances do matter. Its called contextualizing, and the only way to make a proper decision is to see the context. Sure, you can take things out of context and make claims to what they say, but it does not make them true. There are two "Ottava Rima"s here: the real one, and the false one that you have put before everyone. You are making a mountain out of a molehill, and the discussion is completely done. This is not an "admin intervention" matter, and it is barely a wikiettiquette. Have I cussed? No. Have I personally attacked? No. Could my comments be considered brisk? Well, if they are, then the proper way is to first address the person making them and informing how one feels. What is your purpose in continuing this? Is there one? And it is not my place to defend myself against blank claims, it is your place to put forth diffs and back up your claims. But no matter what, they don't really matter here. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I despair! Now you want to argue over every blessed word!!
OK, let me be blunt. Given your continual failure to see your own incivility, even when many editors have pointed it out, and your continual perception of incivility in others towards you that nobody else seems to notice, I don't find your opinion on the subject of civility particularly compelling.
As to your repeated attempts to make this into a MoS discussion, I will say again that the circumstances are not material. WP:CIVIL contains no "get-out" clauses that excude incivility if you believe the other person to be wrong.
You were incivil in the extreme on several occasions, and have repeatedly sought to deflect the discussion of your incivility into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of the issue that you were discussing when you became incivil.
Dress it up as you will. The fact remains that your behaviour falls well short both of what WP:CIVIL calls for, and of plain, simple courtesy to other people.
I joined this discussion, having reviewed a huge number of relevant edits, in order to add an outside perspective, in the (clearly fanciful) hope that an outside opinion might convince you that there really is an issue. You obviously have no time for any opinion which does not match your own. That is unfortunate, but I really do have better things to do than to continue to trying to get you to understand where the problem lies. If anybody chooses to file a WP:RFC about your conduct, I will gladly certify it, but beyond that, I don't propose to waste any more time on you
Mayalld (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

While this may not be directly relevant, I wanted to document that I did previously try to explain to Ottava Rima that his tone could easily be interpreted as combative. He blamed other editors in the disagreement without acknowledging his own tone issues.[4]. I see the exact same issue here (and in several other FAC's in which he has participated). I strongly encourage Ottava Rima to be more aware of his tone and be proactive in changing his approach. There are enough other editors concerned with his manner of communicating that it appears to warrant some self-introspection at the very least. Karanacs (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Troubling comments by LessHeard vanU[edit]

This is extremely troubling, because, as he claims, the issue at hand is over images, saying - "Upon a review of Wikipedia:Featured article advice I note that the section (c.) comments only that images should comply with the various licenses and terms of use; there is nothing regarding size."
However, anyone who reads the actual dispute would see that it is an non-compliance with number 2 and number 4 of the FA guidelines that deal with page size, not image size. The fact that the above admin has misstated the issue while warning mean about my behavior shows that he has not actually read anything written in the above discussion, and chooses to make rulings not based on the actual facts at hand. This is an abuse of the privileges of being an admin and is very disrespectful. How can we trust anything that this admin says when he is unwilling to actually look at the argument? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I fail to see what more ANI can do here. People... this is what we have dispute resolution for. -- Naerii 20:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
A "warning" and a claim of a blockable offense without actually having the correct information on the situation, even though it has already been laid out, is not handled under dispute resolutions, but handled by the intervention of admin to ask him to recognize the actual content before making his decisions. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
LHvU seems mainly to have messaged you about civility issues, and to have done so clearly and with appropriate references to policy. If he has made a mistake about a specific point in the dispute in question (on which I make no comment), in my experience LHvU is much more willing than most admins to discuss and apologize for any mistakes he might make. DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, sure, and if he does then that will be accepted and the above struck. However, his comments, to the point of "warning" me, while showing that he didn't actually read the case, is troubling to say the least. It is hard to confuse images with text, especially when there is a listing of the rules on his talk page that deal primarily with text size. If he wouldn't have quoted the rule primarily dealing with images, then you might have a point. But his direct quote and using that to show that I was "wrong" is troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Image size/page size - whatever! It has been noted that in pursuing your insistence upon application of Featured Article standards you have suggested on several occasions that those not complying should leave Wikipedia. This is a violation of WP:Civil and WP:Harassment, and is a blockable offense, and you have been so warned. That concludes my involvement in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As an outside observer, I'll note that:
(a) We now know, if we didn't before, not to tell people to go edit elsewhere. It's rude. Everyone who has commented on this thread is in agreement, Ottava, so whether you agree or not, you should be aware that this is the consensus and respect it, even if you disagree, and refrain from saying it anymore.
(b) I can't help but note that if someone tells you to edit elsewhere, you can safely ignore them. Even if it annoys you that Ottava hasn't apologized, there's no need to turn this into a multi-part mult-kB thread until we get a pound of flesh.
(c) This is not the place for the FA/MoS discussion. It is completely unproductive to discuss that here.
(d) The horse has been dead for a long time, and IMHO continued discussion is not improving things. Suggest archiving, taking others' comments to heart, and moving on with our lives. --barneca (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2008 (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]

Resolved: Spamming spammer's spam site no longer spammable. All is well in the world.

Guy (Help!) 21:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)}}

Dear administrators! The site is blocked as spammer. But the site theme is illustrations of works of art and can be useful to the Wikipedia. Please, help to understand the reason of entering of a site in the spam list. I am the beginner. Please, explain if I make incorrect actions and help me to unblock Thank you in advance. (Art Images) 17:58, 24 April 2008

Strange. No such username. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
But it looks like Art Images (talk · contribs) does - The user's sig is missing a space, but the piped text that is displayed is correct. I'll have a look, but I would mention that external links fall under the External Link policy, which would be worth a look before re-adding any links. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the merits of the request, but could you point out where you are trying to add this link? What articles, in what context, would the link add to the article? I see you have only added it once, on 2 April, and have no further edits until today. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to give the reference to to page "Feodor Alekseev". But the system does not allow to make it, referring to a site finding in the spam list. Art Images18:16, 24 April 2008

Feodor Alekseev does not exist. Also, if your site is being blocked by the software, that means it has been placed on the spam blacklist because it was repeatedly used in the past for advertising. If you could, please write a sample article on your user page (User:Art Images) and indicate where you plan to put the link as a reference. Unless we can see that the site isn't going to be used for promotion, it's not likely to be removed from the blacklist. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe it is just conceivable that "art Images" is associated with the site Which was spammed. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my error. I mean :Fedor Alekseev, Russian painter. has several most interesting pictures of the artist. It could be useful for his poor Wiki page. I take a great interest in art. I do not see anything illegal that this site is interesting to me by the set of illustrations. Art Images 20:54, 24 April 2008

Actually, Guy brings up abother important point. Our username policy specifically prohibits promotional usernames - "Art Images" would appear to have a relation to "", which doesn't say much for your intention to use this as a source. If you would, please, indicate to us where you intend to add this link, as you've been asked to twice previously, and also please seriously consider a change in username. Again, please note that your site will not be removed from the blacklist unless we can be absolutely assured that it's not being added for promotional purposes. Please see our policies on external links, advertising, and the business' FAQ for more information. Hersfold non-admin (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine Art Images (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Art Images (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Cross Wiki Accounts
  1. (en_wikipedia) 2008-03-26 12:10:51 -- -- Fine Art Images -- diff
  2. (en_wikipedia) 2008-03-26 12:20:16 -- -- Fine Art Images -- diff
  3. (en_wikipedia) 2008-03-26 12:40:04 -- -- Fine Art Images -- diff
  4. (ru_wikipedia) 2008-03-27 09:07:28 -- -- Fine Art Images -- diff
  5. (de_wikipedia) 2008-03-28 08:45:27 -- -- Fine Art Images -- diff
  6. (en_wikipedia) 2008-04-02 05:39:30 -- -- Art Images -- diff
  7. (en_wikipedia) 2008-04-02 05:41:02 -- -- Art Images -- diff
  8. (de_wikipedia) 2008-04-02 05:48:49 -- -- Fine Art Images -- diff
  9. (ru_wikipedia) 2008-04-02 06:01:43 -- -- Fine Art Images -- diff
  10. (ru_wikipedia) 2008-04-02 06:02:50 -- -- Fine Art Images -- diff
--Hu12 (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

More at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed[edit]

While the various issues on this page are being slowly batted back and forth, the current crisis is over whether there should be an NPOV banner. This has been added by several editors, but is consistently being removed. I don't like these types of banners, but the issue that pushed it over the top for me was several editors insisting that one of the headers read "Portrayal of science as atheistic," even though no source states this, all the sources provided state something very different, and in fact this would be just about the opposite of what the film argues. There are a number of other problems, but ultimately I can't think of another article where this banner would more appropriately be placed. My understanding is if a number of editors support the banner, and they have specifically laid out the problems with the article,[5] and these issues are being slowly discussed, then other editors who support the status quo should not insist on removing it. I'm tired of the edit warring over it, and I think it's more of an administrative issue than a content issue, so I'm raising it here. Mackan79 (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

editwarring over banners is where things get really lame. I'm not sure I agree with your opinion about the POV of the article, but if it's being disputed in good faith, my opinion would be that the banner should remain. However, is it worth the argument over it, instead of trying to get an agreed wording for the actual article? DGG (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's lame, I agree, and I'd prefer to avoid any banner. Unfortunately I'm trying about anything to get editors to concede simply that the movie doesn't say "science" is atheistic,[6] but when editors keep ignoring this and reverting, you reach a wall. The article could benefit from some type of dispute resolution, but of course that would be a great deal more time wasted. All in all, the fact that the article's NPOV is under dispute seems self-explanatory. Mackan79 (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you forum shopping, Mackan79? You added the banner, then stated you added it because of a statement about science = atheism. Numerous people responded to you, at least two with the sources you said you couldn't find:

  • "Expelled claims that an atheistic, amoral scientific elite is barring the door to the consideration of ideas like intelligent design that include a religious component." - (Posted by Raul)
  • Fundamentally, what Expelled wants to do is it wants to present the notion that there is this clash of world views, most specifically, a clash between, sort of, Darwinian biology and intelligent design, but more broadly one between big monolithic science, which is materialist and atheist, and then religion, which is presented as being open to all sorts of possibilities. from John Rennie, editor of Scientific American while in a podcast, for which a transcript is provided: [7] (Posted by Fill)

and now you're here, with a content dispute, no less. NPOV banners are not for use when "I didn't get my desired edit" and ANI is not for content disputes, which this is. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My question is whether an NPOV banner should be removed where there's an obvious NPOV dispute on the page that is under discussion by multiple editors. This isn't a content dispute, and I see no valid reason why it is being removed despite the constant changes to the page and the extraordinary disagreement on the talk page. Since people want to know whether it's a real dispute, I mention that one major issue is a disagreement over whether these sources indicate an argument that "science is atheistic." In fact, the sources are unambiguous that the film does not portray science as atheistic, but portrays its long shit-list of scientists as atheistic. As we quote Stein, "There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch a higher power, and it can’t possibly touch God." To call this an argument that "science" is atheistic isn't just incorrect, but literally to assign them the view that they're trying to attack. I say give them their own argument. The header is absurd, but the question here is whether we have a legitimate dispute over whether these sources show an argument that "science is atheistic," as well as other issues on the page, and whether the banner is a fair way to represent this until reasonable disagreements are resolved. Mackan79 (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We've argued over whether the article is NPOV a million times. Isn't that proof that there IS A DISPUTE? Saksjn (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No. If this were the case, many of our best articles would have permanent NPOV tags. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If there's an ongoing dispute about a specific aspect, the tag should stay on. I believe that's in the guideline somewhere. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The "one puppy's opinion" comment was quite condencending, and is a personal attack. Please refrain from this. Saksjn (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua expressed his opinion, said it was "One puppy's opinion", which is a similar to saying "One man's opinion", and given that his account name is KillerChihuahua, is referring to himself, not you. I don't see a personal attack there, unless you're complaining about KillerChihuahua attacking himself. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with arglebargle's interpretation there, and caution Saksjn to avoid escalating before reading carefully. Looks like there are enough sources to support 'expelled says science = atheism'. ThuranX (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
See my comment above to KC; I'm not asking people to resolve that here, but rather how to proceed where several editors believe there should be a NPOV banner due to an obvious ongoing dispute, but others keep removing it. I suppose the view may be that if a majority doesn't like the banner then they can keep it off, but my impression was that the banner should be there as long as there is a legitimate ongoing dispute over NPOV on the page. Mackan79 (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe you want the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I was mostly annoyed that people kept changing the header back, which put me into the pro-banner group. But it's probably not a big help at this point, I agree. Mackan79 (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Udall and his opponent Bob Schaffer (Senate 2008)[edit]

Rossputin (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) sole purpose on wikipedia, it seems is to write negative material without WP:RS on Mark Udall and downplay criticism on Bob Schaffer. I told this user to use WP:RS, but he has not replied. I came across this a few days ago when I notice some of the claim his user inserted was from editorials or partisan websites. I feel I was generous to leave in some of the material on Schaffer's article, such asWorld (magazine), but this user has repeatedly reinserted the claims. Paper45tee (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You may get a better response at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard rather than here, as this seems to be more appropriate for there. 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict[edit]

Someone has been trying to distort facts and reverted my good faith, NPOV edits. See [8]. Tx --AI009 (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's called a content dispute. Seek dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Meet the Associated Press; I'm not kidding[edit]

If you've got a couple of hours free right now, head over to Not the Wikipedia Weekly and join us. We've got Brian Bergstein of the Associated Press confirmed as our guest for a roundtable discussion about Wikipedia and the media. Somehow very few people know about this (I've just gotten back from a conference) so the door's wide open. If you've never tried Skype before, download it now and e-mail me for assistance. :) DurovaCharge! 17:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how is this appropriate for ANI, and is there any administrator intervention required? Perhaps I'm missing something. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if anyone has any trouble installing Skype, perhaps a sharp young admin would intervene... --Relata refero (disp.) 18:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Clearly we need to ban Brian Bergstein before he asks too many questions about the cabal.-Wafulz (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps he needs to read this? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Verboten on all equipment owned or managed by my company. Not that I'd probably be there anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the same boat - but the recording will give me some good stuff to listen to on the commute. Looking forward to that recording, as it sounds like it would be an interesting discussion. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User: keeps removing warnings from talk page.[edit]


As seen here, this user has consistently blanked his talk page to remove all previous warnings about vandalism. - InvisibleSun (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Registered and anon IPs are allowed to blank warnings on their talk page per WP:TALK. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
With regard to IPs, they might be dynamic and represent another user where the warnings do not apply..besides, it is an acknowledgment that they have read them. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Talk page blanking is a topic that is often brought up. Most of the discussions have drawn to the conclusions that blanking of content means the person has received the message (as Wisdom89 mentioned). Although archiving is preferred, it is ultimately not set in stone. If the user replaces the content with personal attacks however, that's a different story. It usually results in the page being protected for a short duration. Even if the vandal is still continuing their campaign while blanking, all vandal fighters or admins need to do is to check the history for the relevant warnings.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Bingo, Persian has it. It's a matter of circumstance and context. I should have clarified this. If there is current ongoing abuse and the IP is vandalizing the warning user's talk page, or they are replacing the talk page with vulgar comments or slights at other users, that's when it warrants some sort of admin intervention, usually protection. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me about this point of Wikipedia policy. I'm a sysop over at Wikiquote, where our policy is quite different. We regard the removal of vandalism warnings as another act of vandalism. - InvisibleSun (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So do many of us over here, but consensus has shifted on that, apparently. Corvus cornixtalk 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably from the view of the individual who originally placed the warnings on the user's talk page to begin with. If they are soon removed, it's believed that the act is being done for ill purposes (shielding what they've done before they strike again), and that it's being done by the same user behind the anonymous mask who committed the vandalism. But, we have to WP:AGF. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I used to get very frustrated with sending out vandalism warnings, only to have them deleted within a minute or so from an account that I was certain wasn't here to add to the project. Now I make sure when I issue a warning, I tag the edit summary Vandalism Warning. That's at least something future admins can spot easily when they check the page, and if the user turns into a productive editor, it soon vanishes off the bottom of the page anyway. Redrocket (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


I generally refuse all requests for self-imposed blocks, but received an interesting request today ... the individual basically reported him/herself for some infractions of WP:CIVIL and possibly WP:NPA (depending on your definition of a personal attack), including diffs, and asking for a 72 hr to 1 week block. Now, had I seen a couple of the edits in question, I certainly would have warned this individual. Do I say "Ok, here's your block", or "I wouldn't block unless you had done a few things beyond those infractions?" (The request can be seen in the last two sections of my talk page). Any thoughts? Pastordavid (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Curious, was it an IP or registered user? Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see it. Ill let an admin field this one. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Registered. Pastordavid (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No, i definitely wouldn't block him. Actually he seems to be now on good terms with the user he 'warned' and the DRV stuff isn't worth a sweat. I'd advise him once more about wikibreaks (Hey, I'm on one ;-), and propose some wikifying, categorizing or cleaning up of dab pages for his perceived 'sins' while staying away from deletion stuff. (How about 'social' work as community sanction, anyways?) I think he actually is a pleasant individual with some rather high expectation on himself. And if you block him wait till I or others 'confess'. So pass greetings from my side.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't block, there's not much hint doing so would keep the project from harm, which is the only reason blocks are given. I like the "community service" suggestion though :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Review of the block of User:Jsn9333[edit]

I am asking for the wider administrator community to comment on and review the block of User:Jsn9333. I came accross his unblock request at CAT:UNBLOCK and contacted the blocking administrator. At the request of the blocking administrator, I am opening this thread to seek a wider opinion on how this is to be handled. Let me give the basic background of the situation, as my investigation has revealed it to me. Anyone else with their own viewpoint, please weigh in with how you see it.

  • On April 23rd, with some support, a limited topic ban against User:Jsn9333 was instituted proscribing him from editing articles relating to Fox News Channel and enjoining him to edit other Wikipedia articles for 4 weeks. The main crux of the problem was some low-grade edit warring between Jsn9333 and User:Blaxthos.
  • As part of the debate of the topic ban, Jsn9333 attempted to defend his position, as well as point out what he perceived as problematic behavior on the part of Blaxthos. Such edits were removed as personal attacks against Blaxthos. Jsn9333 disagreed with the comments removal, and wished to see them reinstated, as he felt that removing the comments left his position out of the discussion, while those removing the comments felt that, as personal attacks against Blaxthos, they should be removed.
  • When Jsn9333 moved the redacted comments to his talk page, and asked for clarification as to why they were removed, he was blocked. The blocking admin specifically cited these two difs: [9] and [10].

Now, I believe the block should be lifted. I don't really see how the comments left by Jsn9333 could be construed as "personal attacks" any more than 99% of the stuff that gets left here at ANI all the time. Also, given that he did not violate his topic ban, and that his only offense seems to be to request clarification as to why his comments were removed. I say we should unblock him, unless someone can produce difs more incriminating than the ones provided by the blocking admin. I don't really see this as a blockable offense... 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jsn9333 did edit ANI earlier today, and their edits appeared to remove comments from other users, as seen here. I ended up restoring much of the deleted material, and then re-deleting some threads archived by miszabot in the interim, as the diffs following this one indicate. Not sure where this falls in the scheme of things, but I thought I'd mention it to get it out of the way, as it was related to the earlier discussion on the user's conduct. In any event, the page was restored with no damage done, so it's nothing to worry about from that standpoint. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, but I don't see where the user's behavior since that has merited a block. They certainly have made some mistakes, but I have not seen where such mistakes have been so eggregious and repetitive that it was necessary to block them to stop damage to Wikipedia. 19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Can't really disagree, but I figured that the issue would come up and wanted it out of the way - especially since I'll be away from my desk for a bit and wouldn't be able to discuss it. I'm so important that my absence would otherwise grind the discussion to a halt. Just by $.02. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

All I have asked from the beginning is that Jsn to drop this dispute and gain some experience editing in other -less controversial- areas of wikipedia (for only a month). S/He has demonstrated with every edit to date that he is unable to do that, choosing instead to argue the topic ban and attack Blaxthos. Even when done on their own user talk page, these types of edits are disruptive, contribute to perpetuating the dispute (which involved multiple users, not just Blaxthos --including at least 1 admin) and most of all do not contribute in any productive way to the encyclopedia. I stand by the block unless Jsn can move on, not arguing or blaming, just contributing. R. Baley (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is kinda tough to "move on" and "contribute" if s/he is blocked. This is exactly why blocks are preventative and not punative. If you wish to see them contribute, it makes no sense to stop them from contributing via a block. I don't see anywhere in your explanation of the block where the block is anything BUT punishment for not following your orders. I agree, this user should go on to contribute to other parts of the encyclopedia. It would be nice if you lifted the block so that they could do so... 20:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The block is completely preventative, I was not getting through to him, for whatever reason. I think if you look at my edits, I tried very hard to avoid blocking, even as a preventative measure. If the consensus is that I'm being dictatorial, I would would gratefully allow another uninvolved admin (admins?) to read up on the approximately 600K background material and take over. R. Baley (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Based on your reasoning for the block, R. Baley, would you agree to lift the block if the user agrees, publicly on their talk page, to let the matter drop? That seems like a reasonable compromise, and if they agree to that, then why not lift the block? 20:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the problem is that Jsn has clearly stated he intends to continue disputing the topic ban, and thus far has failed to demonstrate a willingness to move forward. I was involved in the initial dispute, and my judgment may be skewed, but I would not support unblocking unless Jsn indicates he will drop the FNC issue and move on. - auburnpilot talk 20:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That is certainly fair enough. Can I then assume the converse to be true? If he agrees to "cease and desist" and drop the issue entirely, can we unblock him? I mean, if he starts again, we can always reblock him, right? 20:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I will unblock, under the condition that s/he is willing to completely, and without reservation, abide by the remedy as per the previous ANI. But, I have to also ask that you help in the future, should that not turn out to be the case (esp. as I will be around, for the most part, over the next 10 hours, but will have limited internet access in the 48 hours after that). R. Baley (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'd support an unblock per R. Baley's statement directly above (20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)). Jsn needs to understand he must unequivocally move forward, and not address any FNC issue, as outlined by R. Baley in the previous remedy. - auburnpilot's sock 22:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope I am not too late to the discussion and apologize if I am. I think the best way to end the feud (which is what Baley has attempted to do-- with a lot of research and hard work, I may add) would be to enforce this 24 hour block. Since Jsn clearly is not interested in taking a wiki break and stepping back from the issues, perhaps a forced wiki-break is in order. He claims he wants clarifications. But said clarifications have been given numerous times. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not an administrator, and I'm obviously involved in the situation. I've avoided taking any shots or otherwise exacerbating the situation since the remedy at ANI was proposed by R.Baley. That being said, I would not support unblocking Jsn9333, as he has made it quite clear that he refuses to acknowledge his disruptive behavior and intends to make a point. He has been afforded many opportunities to avoid being blocked, and has showed his unwillingness to let this go. I find his continued slander and harassment offensive, and the only thing I've asked is that he stop attacking me in every post that he makes. I believe he counts on your good faith to continue this pattern of behavior, and I posit that most respondants here will not take the time to read the megabyte of evidence that supports R.Baley's resolution. I strongly encourage those reviewing this action to pay close attention to the statements of multiple administrators and editors with edit counts approaching 10k or more (mine included). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC) official records edit war[edit]

There is a long running edit war over the status of two football competitions with regards official records. This has spilled across many articles, and is being aggravated by the fact that the participants have a loose grasp of English, and wikipedia (i.e. calling content reverts vandalism, thinking CAPITAL letter edit summaries is how to get admins attention etc). The users are primarily Ultracanalla (talk · contribs) and Fadiga09 (talk · contribs), but there are others. Various warnings and bans have been issued, and some talk has started, but it isn't very concilliatory or compromising, and after a 3 day hiatus, the reverts have started again. It's been brought to 3RR about 3 times, with various responses, with issues being dealt with piecemeal wise. Due to this, I have the feeling the current status is that anyone who is interested in talking bar these two has left long ago. So, can some admins please review in depth and put in some strong views, or advise if mediation is the stage it has reached, (if possible between such obstinate editors). MickMacNee (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, my impression is that the opportunity for a reasonable progression of DR of what is a content dispute has passed, as the two editors are so full on and have ignored advice to talk it out, and anyone else has long gone, so an assessment on that basis. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If we're talking about the Valencia CF article, then User:Ultracanalla is clearly in the right, although his edit summaries are slightly hysterical. User:Fadiga09 is counting Inter-Cities Fairs Cup victories as UEFA Cup victories, which they obviously aren't - the Fairs Cup might've been the precedent to the UEFA Cup, but it was a completely different competition (and not even officially sanctioned). I have warned Fadiga09 over this, hopefully this will be an end to it. Black Kite 23:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether you count the Fairs cup in collated records is the crux of the issue as far as I can see, so taking one side might fix it, then again it might not, as I actually think both opinions have merit, or at least both have some supporting sources, the trouble is the manner of the debate has degenerated. MickMacNee (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Counting or not counting the Fairs wins is one thing (because of their status), but Fadiga09 is counting Fairs Cup victories as UEFA Cup victories, which is plainly wrong. Black Kite 23:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit: looks like the "three UEFA victories" was already there, looking more closely; hang on, need to look more closely here (I've removed Fadiga09's warning). Black Kite 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Similarly Ultracanella has started warring in the same manner [11], but over a different argument it seems, at Argentina national football team. I have no clue of the background of that one, something about the olympic status of the national team?. MickMacNee (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the Valencia one, but this is a content dispute really, so probably should migrate back onto the talkpages. Black Kite 23:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
He's reverted your ban removal at Fadiga's page MickMacNee (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I assume my mistake of revertin once the Fadiga´s page. I accept. But if you see, Mick, Black Kite has warned Fadiga again [12]... So, please, don´t try to demonizate me... --Ultracanalla (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Range block request[edit]

Resolved: Anon-only rangeblock set for one week.

I have no idea how to set a range block correctly and this user is hopping around. Can someone do this? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Thanks. --B (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The proper place to ask is Wikipedia:RFCU#Requests for IP check. KnightLago (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't need to know the IP. I know the IP. I just don't know the range to use to block the IP. might annoy someone. --B (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That is why you ask over there. KnightLago (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, that is for checking to find the IP of a vandal, here is where rangeblocks are requested. -- Avi (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To cover them all in one block would suffice, but that is still 16,384 IP's. Let me see if I can whittle it down a bit. -- Avi (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The user has a history of abusive disruptive edits and is under investigation Wikipedia:Abuse reports/217.87.x.x at the moment. I hope this information helps you set a good range block? Fnagaton 01:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are all part of one contiguous range, which is 1,048,576 IP's. We do set anons up to a /16, and since it would take a /19, a /20 a /21, and a /22 to cover the range above (starting from 217.87.64, to start from 217.87.75 would require something like 10 separate ranges), which itself is 15,360 IP's, there is not much collateral damage savings by not using the /18 range. I'll apply a 1 week anonblock on that range now. -- Avi (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --B (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure. -- Avi (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, many thanks are in order. :) Fnagaton 01:55, 25 April 2008 (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.

Discussion closed as There is no cabal. The editors being questioned have been empowered by ArbCom to handle the issues with these articles. This is not the venue to report abuse, it should be taken to ArbCom for review. LaraLove 18:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A group of admins including

seems to be:

  1. unilaterally deciding on content issues systematically overriding the consensus and the ongoing discussions
  2. implementing these decisions by means of topic bans on the people they disagree with about the content issues in very specific edits
  3. also not respecting the arbcom sentence who clearly states that any "discretionary sanction" should be preceded by a warning.

These are facts:

  • Thomas Basboll (talk · contribs):
    • He civilly discussed a proposed edit in a Talk page and made a straw poll evidencing unanimous consensus between several editors usually having different point of views and receiving no opposition at all
    • He implemented his proposal specifying that anyone disagreeing had to feel free to revert
    • Thomas immediately banned without any previous warning because: the admins above unilaterally decided that his edit was "POV pushing" (despite the consensus on the talk page displayed completely different opinions).

Worth noting that these 4 editors were all described by the person asking for these bans to be "POV pushers" promoting "fringe views" and making "tendentious pro-Truther soapboxing". "The time for nonsense on these articles has come and gone" he concluded. So this seems to be a sort of an "ideological" war where people respecting consensus and freely expressing and discussing their opinion are banned because admins disagree with their opinions about very specific content issues, even when these opinions reflect the consensus(!!)

I think this is an incredible series of abuses with exagerately severe sanctions for having done absolutely nothing, a series which will probably continue unless some kind of authority is going to stop or control these admins. I think wikipedia shouldn't toletate this kind of abuses.

Any comment by completely uninvolved admins and users will be appreciated.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(*) See for istance Okiefromokla, Ice Cold Beer, Rx StrangeLove, Okiefromokla 2, Rx StrangeLove 2, Haemo 1, Haemo 2

Just to let you know, Lawrence Cohen and Raymond Arritt aren't admins. Equazcion /C 15:12, 24 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Raymond must be an admin since he banned me.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Your block log says otherwise. Mayalld (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No he didn't.-Wafulz (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)User:East718 blocked you, not Raymon. He says in his block summary that you were being blocked for violation of your topic ban [13] -- not for messing with an article that was on probation for BLP concerns. Equazcion /C 15:18, 24 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he blocked me because of the violation of the ban of Raymond.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::What ban of Raymond's? Raymond is not an admin and cannot enforce a ban. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Whoops, so he is. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

He did, see here.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Actually I was wrong about that -- Raymond is an admin Raymond arritt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights ·