Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive486

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Ban requested[edit]

Resolved: Indef-blocked by an admin

I followed up a recent vandalism revert on Cricket and found that the culprit,User:Sillystring32, has already received a number of friendly warnings. Frankly, he has got off lightly. Every single edit he has made is offensive. I request an immediate and indefinite ban because he is clearly intent on causing trouble (he is one of those mature people who think that everything sucks, apparently). BlackJack | talk page 12:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I turned him in to WP:AIV as a largely vandalism-only account. It's astonishing he's been flying below the radar since April. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Quick service! Thanks very much. BlackJack | talk page 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoffmannm and 84.21.34.232[edit]

Resolved: IP now blocked as well by another admin.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoffmannm (talk · contribs), who is currently blocked for 3RR violations at Americas, is continuing his edit warring as 84.21.34.232 (talk · contribs), which is self-admittedly his IP. I don't know whether it's better to block the IP or to semiprotect the article, but I am requesting appropriate action. Deor (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Harassment[edit]

User:Anam Gumnam is going to every article I have written and putting a "fact" tag after every sentence that does not have a reference immediately following it. This includes sentence in introductions, and the first sentence in the middle of a clearly connected pair: [1], [2], [3]. As you can see, the first two articles are meticulously sourced and his behavior can only be construed as a personal attack. He has shown no prior interest in the articles or what they cover.

He is objecting (elsewhere) to my enforcing rules regarding personal interpretation of primary sources and the use of reliable sources. Mitsube (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've informed him of this thread. Do you have diffs of the earlier argument? This looks like wikistalking, but I will wait and see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The entire talk page of the new article Purity in Buddhism is one such. You can see his incivility. I asked him on his talk page to be more polite, but he removed the notice. His incivility is also on display at the talk page of Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen. Mitsube (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, it looks like a fun two-on-one game. Odd to see one person editing on the article page so much and the other's first edits are to the talk page to call your work "a hatchet job" and general opposition to you. Strange, to say the least. Either way, I asked Anam about everything, and left the argument there for another day. I'm hoping to get a response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This notice has just come to my attention. In my opinion, it is the user Mistube who is at fault. He has been following each article edited or created by user Suddha for a while now, almost to the exclusion of anything else, as his contributions list will show, and deleting or changing material that does not match his particular interpretation of the topics. This stuff was not previously his area of interest at all, so I find it puzzling that he should now be so obsessed with just these particular topics. But I am aware that these topics are controversial and liable to sectarian POVs -- this might be the explanation. As far as I can see, user Mitsube suffers from advanced MPOV -- the complaint here might be construed as one symptom of that.
As far as I can see, his so-called "enforcement" operates on double standards, as he uses rules to get his own way when it suits him, while some of his own articles are quite deficient and equally open to the same criticisms he invokes of the articles he is now obsessed with. When I first noticed this attitude quite some time ago, I asked him not to delete or change articles without prior discussion as he does not really seem to know much about the topics. It also seems extremely uncivil and provocative to delete wholesale other people's work where they have obviously devoted considerable time and effort for free to Wiki. If people put time into articles, it's obvious that they care about the topic, so a sensitive way of dealing with any perceived problems would be to discuss them first, and not to unilaterally delete material. I believe that he has also done this sort of thing before on other articles. So I think "hatchet job" describes his behaviour quite well. He also seems to invent his own Wiki rules to suit himself, such as suggesting that a summary (not interpretation) of primary sources is original research, without looking himself at the primary source to see if the summary is accurate or not.
Even after I intervened, he still persisted in making unilateral changes to these articles. He seems quite unwilling to discuss the articles constructively or to compromise, and he persists on repeating information, which I have demonstrated to him is inaccurate or one-sided, promoting his POV. It seems really very difficult to get through to this user Mitsube, which unfortunately may provoke people to respond more forcefully than they would otherwise to a civil and modest user.
I also noted and complained about the way he voiced his speculations (i.e. with no proof) on several occasions concerning the real-life identity (as well as making other allegations) of user Suddha, but nobody seemed to take this seriously. I have no idea whether user Mitsube is right or wrong in his speculations, as I do not personally know either party nor wish to. But if he believes he is right about this person's true identity, then the comments he has made about that person have been intentionally insulting and provocative -- knowing that the user Suddha will probably not be able to respond (in order to maintain his anonymity). Whoever user Suddha actually is in real life is nobody's business but his own, and his apparent wish for anonymity should be respected. Needless to say, I have not discussed this with user Suddha, and, additionally, I also don't know who he is, I have not solicited his support nor he mine. There is no "game" going on here, or if there is, then perhaps it is some weird ego game in which user Mitsube is indulging. User Suddha responds, I presume, because it is his articles that are being attacked, and I got involved because I don't like bullies, especially ill-informed ones. I just find user Mitsube's behaviour unjust and uncivil. If he thinks he is being harrassed, perhaps he should stop harrassing other people and edit something else that catches his fancy -- then he certainly will not hear from me again as I find him an utterly unpleasant editor to deal with. I hope that makes my position quite clear. -- अनाम गुमनाम 00:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, like I asked on your talk page, why did you find it necessary to first go to the talk page and complain about his "hatchet job" on an article you had never worked on? I see that you followed him around and edited other articles he worked on. If you agree with User:Suddha, fine, but it is extremely unusual to see User:Suddha editing the articles and then you coming into the talk pages whenever User:Mitsube edits in response. If you actually want something done, why aren't you editing the articles? Also, the first interaction was at Purity in Buddhism: Suddha created it, Mitsube tagged it, and you and him have gone at it since. How can Mitsube be following Suddha around when Suddha has only edited a few articles in the week Suddha has been here while Mitsube has edited as least twice as many articles (and I see multiple other users he's worked with)? If Suddha has an issue, Suddha needs to say something. You on the other hand accuse Mitsube of being a bully because he edits Suddha's work and doesn't take to your criticism of articles when you aren't even involved. I'm going to inform Suddha of this section and otherwise, suggest something else from dispute resolution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Anam Gumnam's statements regarding my prior edit history are false. Mitsube (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This notice has just come to my attention. In my opinion, it is the user Mistube who is at fault. He has been following each article edited or created by user Suddha for a while now, almost to the exclusion of anything else, as his contributions list will show, and deleting or changing material that does not match his particular interpretation of the topics. This stuff was not previously his area of interest at all, so I find it puzzling that he should now be so obsessed with just these particular topics. But I am aware that these topics are controversial and liable to sectarian POVs -- this might be the explanation. As far as I can see, user Mitsube suffers from advanced MPOV -- the complaint here might be construed as one symptom of that.
As far as I can see, his so-called "enforcement" operates on double standards, as he uses rules to get his own way when it suits him, while some of his own articles are quite deficient and equally open to the same criticisms he invokes of the articles he is now obsessed with. When I first noticed this attitude quite some time ago, I asked him not to delete or change articles without prior discussion as he does not really seem to know much about the topics. It also seems extremely uncivil and provocative to delete wholesale other people's work where they have obviously devoted considerable time and effort for free to Wiki. If people put time into articles, it's obvious that they care about the topic, so a sensitive way of dealing with any perceived problems would be to discuss them first, and not to unilaterally delete material. I believe that he has also done this sort of thing before on other articles. So I think "hatchet job" describes his behaviour quite well. He also seems to invent his own Wiki rules to suit himself, such as suggesting that a summary (not interpretation) of primary sources is original research, without looking himself at the primary source to see if the summary is accurate or not.
Even after I intervened, he still persisted in making unilateral changes to these articles. He seems quite unwilling to discuss the articles constructively or to compromise, and he persists on repeating information, which I have demonstrated to him is inaccurate or one-sided, promoting his POV. It seems really very difficult to get through to this user Mitsube, which unfortunately may provoke people to respond more forcefully than they would otherwise to a civil and modest user.
I also noted and complained about the way he voiced his speculations (i.e. with no proof) on several occasions concerning the real-life identity (as well as making other allegations) of user Suddha, but nobody seemed to take this seriously. I have no idea whether user Mitsube is right or wrong in his speculations, as I do not personally know either party nor wish to. But if he believes he is right about this person's true identity, then the comments he has made about that person have been intentionally insulting and provocative -- knowing that the user Suddha will probably not be able to respond (in order to maintain his anonymity). Whoever user Suddha actually is in real life is nobody's business but his own, and his apparent wish for anonymity should be respected. Needless to say, I have not discussed this with user Suddha, and, additionally, I also don't know who he is, I have not solicited his support nor he mine. There is no "game" going on here, or if there is, then perhaps it is some weird ego game in which user Mitsube is indulging. User Suddha responds, I presume, because it is his articles that are being attacked, and I got involved because I don't like bullies, especially ill-informed ones. I just find user Mitsube's behaviour unjust and uncivil. If he thinks he is being harrassed, perhaps he should stop harrassing other people and edit something else that catches his fancy -- then he certainly will not hear from me again as I find him an utterly unpleasant editor to deal with. I hope that makes my position quite clear. -- अनाम गुमनाम 00:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, like I asked on your talk page, why did you find it necessary to first go to the talk page and complain about his "hatchet job" on an article you had never worked on? I see that you followed him around and edited other articles he worked on. If you agree with User:Suddha, fine, but it is extremely unusual to see User:Suddha editing the articles and then you coming into the talk pages whenever User:Mitsube edits in response. If you actually want something done, why aren't you editing the articles? Also, the first interaction was at Purity in Buddhism: Suddha created it, Mitsube tagged it, and you and him have gone at it since. How can Mitsube be following Suddha around when Suddha has only edited a few articles in the week Suddha has been here while Mitsube has edited as least twice as many articles (and I see multiple other users he's worked with)? If Suddha has an issue, Suddha needs to say something. You on the other hand accuse Mitsube of being a bully because he edits Suddha's work and doesn't take to your criticism of articles when you aren't even involved. I'm going to inform Suddha of this section and otherwise, suggest something else from dispute resolution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Anam Gumnam's statements regarding my prior edit history are false. Mitsube (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Ricky, I think you are being manipulated. This user Mitsube continually behaves like a troll through his comments and manner of editing. Specifically, regarding your points:
  1. My disagreements with user Mitsube predate user Suddha's membership.
  2. I am involved in those pages because that happens to be one of my professional areas of expertise. Until a recent accident, I lectured on Buddhism and Indic Studies at a university. The core topic involved here actually happenes to be my particular area of expertise -- the History of Early Mahayana Buddhism. I have most Buddhism articles in my area on my watch-list and I have a look at any relevant new articles. I was first drawn to these, amongst other pages, because of the one-sided use of references by user Mitsube that do not wholly or accurately reflect current scholastic thinking . I have repeatedly tried to explain this -- but all I get seems to be a trolling response. Mistakenly, I originally, but quite mistakenly, thought user Mitsube would be interested in hearing about something to which he would otherwise not have access (see below). At first I thought this was because of ignorance, now I really believe that this s deliberate. For example, in a message today on the Buddha-nature talk page, he is now suggesting information / references I have supplied are "the old understanding" -- while one of his favorite quotes used over and over again dates from 1988 and mine are more recent. Every time I refute his arguments on Talk Pages, he shifts the boundaries. First he says there are no rerefences, then they are supplied, then he says that these references are unaccepatable, then when it is shown that they are, he moves onto some other objections -- the material needs to have special interpretation which only he can supply, and now his latest is that something I have supplied is out of date. I have not flaunted my academic credentials and I am reluctant to mention this, but the fact is I am a member of an research group of around a dozen world-class scholars -- the names probably won't mean anything to you, but they lecture at Tokyo, Stanford, Hamburg Universities etc -- which was formed precisely to study and pool information about the key topics involved in the pages in question here. I am therefore most definitely aware of what is "old understanding" or not, what issues are involved and what has and has not yet been published, than this user will ever be, simply because these people, including myself I hope, are at the cutting edge of current research. Unlike them, I very stupidly thought this information could be shared and appreciated through Wikipedia. I have mentioned and demonstrated my expertise in this area to user Mitsube, but in a typical troll fashion, he ignores this and comes out with provocative statements like the above. I have learnt the hard way and now know why no serious scholar ever bothers with Wikipedia.
  3. I am trying to make editorial contributions -- I have begun to add counter-balancing statements and references, but having seen this user Suddha's material trashed, I have thought it more important to get this user Mitsube to be a bit reasonable first. Having now read the MetaWiki article on recognizing and dealing with trolls, I realize I have fallen into his trap.
  4. I think you will find that wherever user Suddha has edits, so too will user Mitsube pop-up -- but I will leave that to user Suddha to discuss. I just happen to have noticed this, because I monitor most Buddhism pages. I am absolutely not his spokesperson and have no direct dealings with or interest in him.
  5. Yes, of course I looked at a couple of the articles that user Mitsube created. I am guilty of doing much less than he has. As, by his own standards, these articles are deficient, I thought that if I brought this to his attention, he would attend to those and give me, at least, some breathing-space on the other articles he is attacking. Notice that I tagged the offending parts -- I didn't just wade in an delete them as he does.
  6. The reason why I can't keep up his impatient demands for references is because I am physically disabled, due to the accident I mentioned above. His approach is delete,delete, delete, with no respect for others by way of proper discussion and consensus or allowance for other people's constraints or sensitivities. I wrongly thought the reason why Wiki has tags is to allow things to proceed at a reasonable pace and to draw editors' attention to areas that need fixing. As I have said several before, this user Mitsube is not prepared to discuss anything with a view to consensus. He just deletes. You will notice, that although I strongly disagree with some of his edits etc, I do not delete them.
  7. Finally, I don't know why I am even bothering to write this, because judging from your comments, I get the impression you have already taken this user's side from the start. You are supposed to be neutral and hear out both sides. You have not even yet had any input from the other user involved.-- अनाम गुमनाम 10:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Suddha's Response:

Thank you for this opportunity to make some comments on the above. Firstly, let me say that I do not know Anam Gumnam or have any connection with him or her. I have no idea who he is (or she!). Nor does Anam know me or anything about me. I have had no communication with Anam whatsoever (beyond what you see on the Talk Pages) - nor has Anam communicated with me. What Anam has been doing - quite legitimately and honourably, in my opinion - is devoting a lot of time, effort and energy to standing up for fairplay and accuracy and equity on Wikipedia when another editor - Mitsube - has been overzealously deleting material that is factually correct but which Mitsube seems to have a personal aversion towards. I see nothing wrong or contrary to Wikipedia rules in Anam's behaviour as regards commenting on some Talk Pages relating to articles that he/she has not actually edited but clearly has a strong interest in - and impressive knowledge of the relevant field too, it might be added. Anam's request for citations on some of Mitsube's work is (I believe - this is just my own point of view) to try to make Mitsube see that 'what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander': if it is good enough for Mitsube to be very demanding in the standards he requires of others on Wikipedia, then Mitsube should not complain if others subject him/her to the same level of verificational requirements. Anam, I believe, was trying to make Mitsube pull up hard and think about his or her own unreasonable behaviour.

And that behaviour has been unreasonable and unacceptable. Very early on, Mitsube leapt on my article about "Purity in Buddhism' and then started proclaiming to the world that I was a certain Tony Page and that this Tony Page had been 'caught' many times (as though some kind of criminal) putting up personal views about Buddhism and that Tony Page was not a scholar (I have checked back over a number of Talk Pages, and I do not see - although I may have missed it - that this Tony Page was ever officially rebuked by Wikipedia or convicted of anti-Wikipedian behaviour. Anyway, that is another matter ...). Now, I think it is outrageous that Mitsube should at all seek to ferret out (by what means, I don't know) what he or she construes to be my real-life identity (when Mitsube knows nothing about who I actually am!), and then to pretend that he knows my name and my past and feels obliged to warn Wikipedia readers against 'me' (or rather, the person Mitsube deems me to be). I have no need or wish to give my personal details on Wikipedia, so I would welcome a serious rebuke for Mitsube's outrageous (and rule-breaking) behaviour in this matter.

Next, Anam is right: Mitsube clearly has been waging some kind of vendetta against me (and, it might be added, against this Tony Page), as much that I have written on Buddha-nature or similar in these past days has been either erroneously attacked or even repeatedly deleted - despite Anam's demonstration (as well as my own) that what was written was factually correct and not 'interpretation' or original research. Simply being a reporter, as I am, and putting up information for the Wikipedia readers - information taken often almost verbatim from sources that have been mentioned on Wikipedia for some years - is perfectly rational editorial behaviour; what is not fair or rational is to wipe that information out (censorship, in other words), when it is perfectly correct and contains no factual errors. Yes, Mitsube has every right to put up information about his own preferred way of understanding Buddha-nature teachings, if he quotes (as he does) relevant articles, etc. I myself have no problem with that, if Mitsube backs up his statements with evidence (which, to be fair, he does). The sensible thing to do then, however (in view of the difference in the information which I am presenting and which Mitsube is presenting) is to mention that there are differing interpretations or understandings 'out there' on this topic and to acknowledge that fact - not to push only one viewpoint as the solely allowable and correct one, and to do so in a really intolerant and intolerable manner. If you look at my own editing on "Purity in Buddhism", you will see that I tried to present various points of view (Theravada, tathagatagarbha, Perfection of Wisdom), rather than only one. Other editors can then add more information at a later stage (after I had created that article). Also, you will see that I have never, ever, pursued Mitsube into his other articles - but Mitsube keeps attacking me whenever I speak about Buddha-nature or similar things.

But I did not intend to write so much about my own situation here. I want chiefly to defend Anam Gumnam, who has been (in my view) quite unfairly attacked, even maligned, but who has shown him/herelf to be equitable, fair (if at times exasperated - who wouldn't be in his/ her situation?!) , even-handed, highly knowledgeable and well-informed on the topics Anam comments upon, but whose patience has been tested to the limits (I can well imagine) by the brick-wall attitude displayed by Mitsube. Like Anam Gumnam, I just wish that Mitsube would stop censoriously and mercilessly deleting and attacking material on a subject regarding which he clearly has a very narrow knowledge base (unlike the patently erudite Anam Gumnam). Thank you for reading this. Suddha (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Anam Gumnam repeatedly justifies his actions using either A)His claim to have an extraordinary physical disability; or B)His claim to have extraordinary qualifications. Neither A nor B has been substantiated, or is in fact relevant regarding wikipedia policies. As I have consistently said, Anam Gumnam (or Suddha) should quote qualified scholars, i.e. secondary sources, instead of giving personal interpretations of primary source material. Mitsube (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Spam external links added to numerous articles[edit]

User:WiredBooks Writer has added numerous links to articles about a variety of authors. These links all seem to leave articles for Don Swaim interviews and are not used in any of these articles. Everyone from William F. Buckley to Maya Angelou seem to have been altered. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a recurring problem, see [4] Doug Weller (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Good work removing it. I've given him a warning, next time he does it he'll be banned. Doug Weller (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


I'm afraid that we haven't caught them all yet. See here of course some of those links are legit so we need to be careful but some are also spam. It would be nice if people took a look and helped out. I'm off to get started. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm this is massive spamming and it appears to have been going on for at least a year possibly longer, with multiple identities I suggest that we remove all links to that website from articles and blacklist them straight away. Warnings haven't worked yet and I don't seethem starting to work today. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wired for Books is a free site produced by Ohio University; the links are for streaming audio interviews. If the interviews are of the subjects of WP articles, it's obviously relevant and useful content to link to, or even to use as references. So what's the problem? Postdlf (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that our policies on spamming and adding external links to articles is not "hey, someone some day may find this relevent to this article." It is expected, in the normal course of editing an article, that you will find sources of information that help you expand that article. Adding external links as general references or inline cites as part of the editing process is a Good Idea. Rapidly and repeatedly adding links to a single website, accross, a wide spectrum of articles, with no apparent attempt to incorporate the information at those links into the articles, or indeed to even edit article text in any way, is the basic definition of spamming... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! I think we need to seriously discourage the adding of links to our articles by website owners. Wikipedian's should be the ones to decide which of the many useful, non profit, free websites to add. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Instead of looking at who adds a link, we should be concerned with whether the link is helpful or not. A person who "spams" genuinely helpful external links is not a problem. Everyking (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit disappointed that the only edits to the user's talk page are "final warning: no more spam" and "you're now blocked".

Has anyone who added one of these links, who may have been doing so under a conflict of interest, ever been engaged in discussion along the lines of "We don't think you should be linking this site every time it's vaguely relevant, but we wouldn't mind seeing what we can do about including the links where they're useful"? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

122.2.1xx.xx vandal user is back.[edit]

Remember the vandal user at the 122.2.176.0/20 range? He's back! This time, 122.2.189.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) vandalized the Survivor Philippines article by inserting misinformation. Looks like he wasn't hampered by the 10-day block. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The block did expire yesterday, but the possibility of collateral damage is moderately low only if you don't rangeblock for much longer than 10 days. ~ Troy (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Although there is a lot of nonsense from this range, there are also good edits and subsequently a high risk of collateral. Blocked for another 2 weeks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Barack Obama[edit]

Resolved: Wrong forum. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish to protest the speedy deletion of this article. I believe McWomble did it, since he was the only one expressing an interest. There have been two similar articles here that I know about, Criticism of George W. Bush and Criticism of Tony Blair, and both are healthy survivors of any previous attempts to delete them. Please, let's establish a community standard here. All three are about prominent politicians who have endured controversies that have produced notable criticisms on a number of subjects. Either all of them should stay, or all of them should go. 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I point to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; and if you feel the article should not have been deleted, discuss it with the deleting admin and / or go to Deletion Review. Not here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It's been deleted by two different admins, neither of them McWomble, but both because it was an unsourced attack page. Neutrality and reliable sources might help your cause (I'm not an admin, so I can't see what the article said). Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Having reviewed the content, I think it was not a valid G10 deletion. I'm not going to take it to DRV because I'd probably !vote delete if it went to AFD (i.e. I don't think the article should be there), but it was pretty thoroughly sourced and made attempts at neutrality. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This was pretty textbook G10, imho. I'm not seeing the attempts at neutrality you mention... ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 18:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 23#Criticism of Barack Obama (closed). seicer | talk | contribs 18:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Criticisms of Barack Obama" ... hmmm, let's see ... he's black, he's liberal, he's got a non-WASP name, he's a closet Muslim, and he hangs out with terrorists. That pretty much covers it, doesn't it? In fact, you don't need a separate article - just a link to Rush Limbaugh's website should suffice. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Change liberal to communist and you should just about have it. *grin* ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 19:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The right-wingers use "liberal", "socialist", and "communist" interchangeably, so any of those will work. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course, how stupid of me to have forgotten that. I've been using an English dictionary... (lol) ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 20:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Harassment from User:192.91.147.34(talk)[edit]

Question for the seasoned editors around here: I find the above-mentioned anon IP, which is registered to Lockheed Martin Corporation, wikistalking/harassing User:BillCJ twice with regards to his edits on F-22 Raptor. As noted on the discussion page of the anon IP, s/he has a long string of "problematic edits", can anyone provide an advice for this kind of scenario? ...Dave1185 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning. Please post here or let me know if it happens again. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Roger, wilco~! Cheers~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

74.10.171.34 has done nothing but vandalism for more than a month[edit]

74.10.171.34 has several changes, all of which are vandalism, and dates back to Sep 10. Recommend permanent ban with prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.32.242 (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days. WP:AIV can be used for reporting vandalism. Regards, —αἰτίας discussion 18:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

User:213.100.68.170[edit]

User:213.100.68.170 (talk · contribs) is editing articles on Ethiopia, Least Developed Countries and List of countries by Human Development Index changing figures and removing Ethiopia from the LDC list. So far as I can tell he may be making these figures up, and Ethiopia was still on the LDC list when I looked a few days ago. Can someone review this and see if I'm right? I've blocked them once but that had no effect. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

advice![edit]

User:Sarvagnya made this change to Anti-Hindi agitations. I brought this issue up in his talk page. He claims that "if it has to do with article content, you take it to the article's talk page.. not an individual editor's talk page" . I would like some input on this. Thanks. Docku:“what up?” 20:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

They're not just merely wrong but really quite completely wrong. Nevertheless, I'd take it to the article talk page and then advise them that there is a public thread about their edit that they may wish to review. Just advice. Your mileage may differ. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 20:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Docku:“what up?” 21:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Pagemove Vandalism Repair / movers using people's old usernames[edit]

Leftover vandalism from Acropolis now (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I can't move over the redirects or I would, so if someone could have at it:

Eh? Acrop. is my old account that was renamed, isn't it? What's going on? Do I need to change my password? Needless to say, I didn't do that lol Sticky Parkin 15:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
As you can see, that was my first account years ago [5]. I wouldn't think it would be possible for people to use someone's old username, or after a while are they redistributed? Sorry if I'm thick. Sticky Parkin 15:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the vandal re-created it just recently:
  • 14:17, October 7, 2008 Acropolis now (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
The old account would have ceased to exist upon rename, thus leaving it open to re-creation, per WP:CHU. Kind of freaky that they picked that name though... ArakunemTalk 15:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought the old names redirect to the new? Seems a risk for impersonation of someone after they change their name if you see what I mean. For instance, certain well known users are better known under their previous names. Sticky Parkin 15:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Look, they've got at my other old name too lol! [[6]]. Sticky Parkin 15:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I remember reading that if you usurp a name, then you should go re-register your old name. XF Law talk at me 15:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, from WP:CHU:
  • Be aware: Once you have been renamed, your old account will no longer exist and may potentially be recreated by a third party. This is true even if your old account pages have been redirected towards your new account. To guard against impersonation, you may wish to recreate the old account yourself. ArakunemTalk 16:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's really getting freaky now. I can call one name a coincidence, but this looks very WP:STALK-ish... ArakunemTalk 15:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It is slightly. I mean, no-one else would happen to pick 'merkinsmum' as name, would they? Still, they edits didn't seem to be about me personally, outing or owt, just normal vandalism by a gr* wp-style person. There are a lot of changes on ED recently which have upset/unsettled a certain well known gr* p. Anyway, I'd advise anyone to 'buy up' any old usernames they have to save stuff like this happening, unless they personally don't mind. Sticky Parkin 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This is why it's better to rename just for punctuation or diacritics - he can't register User:Jeske Couriano (my old name) because it's too similar to User:Jéské Couriano (my current). -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 19:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I renamed both times for problems with being outed under my other name to reveal my real name on other sites or by those on other sites (not WP related) or threatened with stuff like that (I used similar names on other sites, where I ran into problems). So something like adding an underscore wouldn't really have helped.:) My circumstances are such nowadays though that it doesn't really matter. I think reasons like that are a substantial part of why quite a few people change their username. Sticky Parkin 20:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I can say from experience as a CHU clerk that MediaWiki does not recognize underscores in usernames, Parkin - it reads them as spaces :| -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 01:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Pattern of possible COI edits emerging[edit]

... at Montana Meth Project and Thomas Siebel, from FirstVirtual and 64.175.135.254. (Thomas Siebel is the chairman of the First Virtual Group corporation.) Mass, ref-destroying reverts at Montana Meth Project. Nometh (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Issue on 'Assyrian People'[edit]

On the Assyrian People page there is a great deal of vandalism going on. This vandalism is committed by the same number of people who have an anti-Assyrian agenda. I am asking anyone here to look over the page and discussions. I have tried to edit many thigns in the page that are incorrect and with each edit I have provided sources and there has been a consensus over the edit, however members such as AramaeanSyriac (who has a clear anti-Assyrian) agenda keeps deleting my changes without discussing the matter or without a reason as to why. Please take a look at the page and the discussion and intervene if you must Thank-you - Malik Danno (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please post some diffs? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Some of them are still annoyed because they lost their empire. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I still new at Wikipedia so I wouldn't know how to do it. But the page is changing every 5 minutes ... just 10 minutes ago it turned into Chaldean People page. Malik Danno (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching this and some related articles since the last time the situation got similarly heated there and admin dab asked for help. As far as I can tell the problem is that we are dealing with an ethnic group, or possibly several depending on whether you want to differentiate according to religion, language, or not at all, and that the names that members of this group/these groups use for this group/these groups varies dramatically with their ideology. I think almost everything with "Syriac", "Assyrian", "Aramaic", "Chaldean" is being used by people either to describe their own group or another, very similar group. There seem to be cases where group 1 call themselves A and call group 2 B, while group 2 call themselves B (or C) and call group 1 A.

I don't know if dab's approach basically works and it's just necessary to block all nationalist POV pushers whenever things get too bad, or whether there is a fundamental flaw in the article structure and a better solution could help us to get rid of the problem once and for all. I once tried to understand the details of the conflict, but I gave up because it's too confusing. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right it is very confusing. But the issue lies in the fact that reliable sources are provided for a certain change, and there has been a consensus reached over the edit though those sources yet there are 1 or 2 members who do not want to discuss the issue and do not want to provide other sources and delete any changes made. For example in the template of the page "template: assyrian ethnicity" there is a source http://i-cias.com/e.o/assyrian_p.htm (which in my eyes is very unreliable) which states that there is 1.4 million assyrians in Middle east and another 400 000 elsewhere in the world. On the template i changed 1.4 million to 1.8 according to that source. Yet member AramaeanSyriac constantly changes it back without discussion why. I tried to start a discussion as to why he was changing it but he is changing the figures without sources or a reason as to why. Please send someone to deal with this issue. Malik Danno (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue seems largely at Template:Assyrian ethnicity (why that isn't just translucated and deleted is for another day) and Assyrian people stems from User:AramaeanSyriac reverting again and again and then replacing the entire article with a redirect. That user seems to have a history of POV-pushing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice little edit war going on over at Punk rock[edit]

Not that anyone cares. This is the fair use encyclopedia now. If there's a sane administrator left out there, have a look please. I'm not going to be involved in it anymore. I'm sick to death of the fair use pigheadedness displayed around here of late. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Both users warned, will watchlist to keep an eye out for further reversions. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 00:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Geez, editors get hit with both barrels if they even hint about using the "d--------ist" word, but "fair use pigheadedness" is A-OK? Sheesh Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I warned them both, do you believe further action should be taken? ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Clemoule[edit]

Please block Clemoule (talk · contribs) who just can't stop harassing Clem23 (talk · contribs) and me. Antique Rose (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Warned the user about restoring removed comments. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
La Belgique de Tata (talk · contribs) is the same. He has created over 400 accounts on various WP, I doubt warning him can have any interest. Clem23 (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know whether or not it's the same user; I do know, however, that the user has made an additional revert after he must have seen my warning, on a page where he had already violated the three revert rule, so the user is blocked for 24 hours. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
If you believe that someone is abusing multiple accounts, please file a report at WP:SSP, with supporting evidence, so that it can be investigated. Many thanks, Gazimoff 10:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, I doubt there is very much interest in running an IP check here. I'm a Checkuser myself on fr:WP, there has been over 100 IP checks on him these past 2 years (and quite many also on nl:WP). We know the IP adresses he is using, a CU would just merely detect a few sleeping accounts, that are probably at this time already blocked globally anyway. The only usefull thing is to block him when he attacks - as usual, he will come back soon. He doesn't really speak english, thus there shouldn't be more activity here than before (harrassing a bunch of french sysops). Clem23 (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Btw, may I ask you to semi-protect my presentation and my discussion page? I think their history is very interesting, especially when related to my low activity here. It's not specific to en:wikipedia anyway, it's the same everywhere. Thanks in advance. Clem23 (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Interesting that Clemoule says Clem32 and Antique Rose are actually socks. Clem has been asked in English (and now in French) to submit a sock report, although based on a few things, an "informal" check might be beneficial...just to clear the air a little. -t BMW c- 12:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? Can you give more details? Clem23 (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
See User talk:Clemoule for more. I should note here that during my looking into this situation, I found this [7] calling of Clemoule "crazy", which seemed pretty uncivil and in violation of WP:NPA, so I notified Clem23 of this. The response, which is even more uncivil is here [8]. -t BMW c- 10:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This diff seems incivil enough to be worth an indef, in my book, but then my French is a little rusty. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I have indef blocked him. Only contributions were harassment / personal attacks, and they were quite serious. I also indefblocked User:La Belgique de Tata for the same reason. He only made three edits here (only one in October), but was clearly importing an outside dispute here, and made some pretty grave personal remarks as well. Returning here only hours after Clemoule appears, to harass the same user, is a clear indication of meatpuppetry (if not sockpuppetry). He was not warned before the block, so if someone feels the need to follow the procedures here, feel free to unblock him or her, I'll not object, although I don't see the point of it in this case. Fram (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much. BR. Clem23 (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

SPAs edit warring on ACORN article[edit]

300wackerdrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), the WP:SPA that created the above article and brought the report, has been tag-team revert warring against consensus with its suspected puppet-master, WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) to insert poorly sourced claims about Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now fraud investigations and convictions, and occasionally, to tie the organization to Barack Obama. As noted in the closure[9] and the sockpuppet report[10] the community has run out of patience with this behavior, which has been going on for months and is quite disruptive. I see WorkerBee74 is at 5RR right now, so I'll go file a 3RR report, but we should deal with this longer-term and also the new sockpuppet/SPA. Wikidemon (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

300W is blocked for edit warring. Let's see if WB74 continues to revert. I blocked WB74 too. That's just too much reverting, in conjunction with the attempt to get a sympathetic admin to protect the page on WB74's preferred version. I realise it may look bad to have blocked both the suspected puppet and master, but to me the history of that page makes it clear that this is one (or two) editors edit warring against consensus. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 (2nd nomination). seicer | talk | contribs 19:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I consider these two to be sock-puppets. I've compiled a timeline showing the contributions records for WorkerBee74 and 300wackerdrive, from 05:54, 23 October 2008 to the point at which both editors were blocked.
editing timeline
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(I've labelled the contribs [WB74] and [300W] to identify the editor.)

  • 12:59, 23 October 2008 [WB74] Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (Undid revision 247225485 by GoodDamon (talk))
  • 12:57, 23 October 2008 [WB74] User talk:EncMstr ‎ (→Hmmm) (request for page protection)
  • 12:51, 23 October 2008 [WB74] Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (Undid revision 247224430 by Bali ultimate (talk))
  • 12:45, 23 October 2008 [WB74] Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (Undid revision 247223128 by PhGustaf (talk))
  • 12:38, 23 October 2008 [300W] (blocked)
  • 12:37, 23 October 2008 [300W] Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (Come on. This is the way it should be. FBI investigation currently under way against the national organization.)
  • 12:34, 23 October 2008 [300W] Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (Here it is. Hope you like it)
  • 12:33, 23 October 2008 [300W] Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ‎ (→Current requests for protection)
  • 12:16, 23 October 2008 [300W] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 23 ‎ (→Criticism of Barack Obama)
  • 12:15, 23 October 2008 [300W] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 23 ‎ (→Criticism of Barack Obama)
  • 12:13, 23 October 2008 [300W] Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (→Revert)
  • 12:11, 23 October 2008 [300W] Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (→Revert)
  • 10:07, 23 October 2008 [WB74] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 23 ‎ (→Criticism of Barack Obama)
  • 09:55, 23 October 2008 [300W] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 23 ‎ (→Criticism of Barack Obama)
  • 09:51, 23 October 2008 [300W] User talk:GoodDamon ‎ (→Re: Socks)
  • 09:47, 23 October 2008 [300W] User talk:McWomble ‎ (→Deletion review for PAGE_NAME)
  • 09:47, 23 October 2008 [300W] User talk:McWomble ‎
  • 09:20, 23 October 2008 [WB74] Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (GoodDamon and 300wackerdrive support this version. You do not have consensus for you removal of this well-sourcedd material. Please stop provoking an editwar)
  • 07:16, 23 October 2008 [WB74] Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (→Revert: Read WP:OWN)
  • 05:56, 23 October 2008 [WB74] Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (→Voter registration)
  • 05:54, 23 October 2008 [WB74] Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (→Voter registration: Stop your partisan whitewashing. Stop your campaign to WP:OWN the article. Declaring me "persona non grata" without community suppport proves you're trying to own it)
I realise this is inconclusive (which is also what the CU reported) but I hear quacking. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
If two accounts make the same edits, do the same things, have the same goals, use the same language, know the same things, and like each other a lot, a checkuser is not necessary to determine that they are socks, or at least meatpuppets. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Or ducks-of-a-feather. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Indef one or both accounts?[edit]

The evidence is pretty clear on the SSP page, and I support indef blocks on both accounts. seicer | talk | contribs 21:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The parent section has been marked resolved, User:WorkerBee74 and User:300wackerdrive were blocked today for edit warring. I believe we're looking for further admin review re: sockpuppetry and disruption for possible indef blocks. Should this subsection be moved to a main section for those comments? thank you, --guyzero | talk 01:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

my name was stolen :([edit]

Resolved: All sorted and a happy user ventures off to write an encyclopedia. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 21:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My name is Jay MacDonald and I'm a long term anonymous editor on Wikipedia. I've tried to register my name recently 'jaymacdonald' and it's already taken. Viewing the user talk history and logs leads me to see that it is blocked. Is there any way for me to claim this account? Thanks! 89.241.76.140 (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The account isn't blocked at this time. You'll need to settle on another username, I think. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
You can Request an account with a slightly different name here. \ / () 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I need to request an account, the account creation works fine as far as I can see. I just was wondering if there was anyway to reclaim that name, as going by the contributions, the account hasn't contributed to the project in a long time. 89.241.76.140 (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
As of the time of writing, User:Jay MacDonald (talk · contribs) is untaken. You could sign up with that name now. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 20:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It didn't let me :(. "Login error: The name "Jay MacDonald" is very similar to the existing account "Jaymacdonald" (contributions • logs • user creation entry)." 89.241.76.140 (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
(conflict edit post) Hi Jay MacDonald /89.241.76.140. The account User:jaymacdonald was compromised, but an edit summary indicates that the original editor got it back. The User:jaymacdonald first would have to be Oversighted (a form of extreme deletion) and all posts by User:jaymacdonald be oversighted. I don't think that has happen to any Wikipedia account and there is nothing in the User:jaymacdonald account to indicated that the oversight process could be used on User:jaymacdonald. Even if oversight took those extreme, theoretical steps, it is not clear that someone else could then use the user name jaymacdonald. In any event, there is no way for you to use User:jaymacdonald since someone else has used it. -- Suntag 21:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


Try WP:RQAC. They can get create usernames that are similar if required. \ / () 20:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Processed your request. You should have an email now :) \ / () 21:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Woah! You guys are fast. Thanks! Jay MacDonald (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Guys a usurp at WP:CHUU would have been possible here and in these cases always ask if they are sure they want to use their real name. RlevseTalk 22:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course, would you really want a userid with your real name?? Oh wait. Never mind. -t BMW c- 11:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Rotational conflict[edit]

See the last time I posted about this back in March here.

Hi, all. A long conflict with Rotational (talk · contribs) has taken an odd turn lately. I will lay out the background below in list form as that's easier.

  • Rotational prefers a certain style of headings (diff) that the manual of style (WP:HEAD) seems to discourage. Other editors have cautioned Rotational on this point as well.
  • Despite several warnings on his editing preferences, he continues to revert to his preferred style on his articles (diff).
  • He appears to "cherry pick" which parts of the MoS to follow to the letter, placing portrait images facing into the article (diff), but ignoring the part of MOS:IMAGES that says to "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image."

Rotational's name comes up on the User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult page when he writes an article about a botanist. I monitor the list and then check out his other contributions and clean them up according to the MoS, adding project banners to the talk pages as necessary. I suppose as an attempt at humor or some tit-for-tat response, he edited some of my recent contributions, reverting them. These edits (rather WP:POINTY) included reinstating unsourced and trivial material that an IP had introduced into an article (diff), an unnecessary reversion of a small clean up I had done after moving a page (diff), reinstating an IP-added statement that was completely unnecessary at Volvox (diff), and an message to a user that I recently spoke to about multiple accounts, misrepresenting the discussion by calling me "paranoid" (diff).

This had been brought up before and nothing had been done. The has admitted to disliking Wikipedia's aesthetic (diff) and appears to want to defend his articles against the bad advice of the MoS (in my opinion, a violation of WP:OWN).

Thoughts or opinions? Feedback? Except for the blatant reinstatement of unsourced and inane material in the diffs above, I'm putting down the edit button on his contributions for now. --Rkitko (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Block for 24 hours for disruption and numerous violations against policy. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Block for using the wrong level of sub-heading? I did not realise it was that serious an offence, I will have to be more careful in future. I would like to make two points, firstly, when this was last discussed, many people thought that Rotational's style actually looked better on a short article. Secondly, MOS, does not actually forbid missing out one or more heading levels. Using headings in the wrong heirarchical order would clearly be wrong, but Rotational is sticking to the heirarchy, just missing out a few. It seems to me that the writers of MOS:HEAD simply did not consider this possibility and it is quite unclear to me that they would have promulgated against it if they had considered it. I would have thought the best way forward, rather than throwing blocks around, would be to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to find out what the consensus is and to urge User:Rotational to take part in it. SpinningSpark 11:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The aberrant behavior isn't necessarily the wrong style of headings, it's the cherry picking of the MoS that concerns me and the recent edits that were WP:POINTY. It's hard to disagree that the editor also has ownership issues as well, even going back to articles he wrote as Paul venter (talk · contribs) (diff) (see sockpuppet case). The MoS reads, "the automatically generated top-level heading of a page is H1, which gives the article title; primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on." It clearly indicates that H1 should be followed by H2 (primary headings), not H3 or H4.
I've asked for advice on this issue before at the appropriate talk pages and have received very little feedback (see here and here). What little feedback I did receive affirmed my interpretation of the headline guideline. Rotational doesn't appear to be interested in discussing the parts of policy or guidelines that he opposes. E.g. he recently disagreed with a provision of WP:NC (flora) on monotypic genera articles (diff). On seeing that he was right that there really wasn't that much discussion on the convention, I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)#Monotypic genera and then urged him to join in the discussion (diff). He has yet to join the discussion on that topic. --Rkitko (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber[edit]

Someone might want to take a look at Joe the Plumber. I stuck my toe in quickly, but pulled it back after realizing that its turning into an edit war with the full compliment of SPA, sockpuppets and politic warriors. Dman727 (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I protection-clashed with Tanthalas39 on it :) Stifle (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was responding to an RFPP request. Glad you agreed with the protection, tho :-) Tan | 39 15:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Office[edit]

Apparently tonight's episode of The Office mentions that "there is no Wikipedia page on office robbery/theft/burglary statistics", so naturally there are lots of folks out to create such pages. I've deleted five or six so far. Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I heard that. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 02:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
You speak as though we shouldn't have such a page. Why shouldn't we? — CharlotteWebb 13:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The articles so far created have content along the lines of "there's no article on this so now there is". If somebody creates an article with references on the inherently evil nature of bears, I'm fine with that. Likewise with a proper article on crime statistics in offices. Acroterion (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

POV-pushing in Sarah Geronimo[edit]

Resolved: Geniusdream blocked by Spellcast for IUP violation.—Kww(talk) 16:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I posted at the wrong section, but it seems as though I have to deal with some fanboy named User:Geniusdream. Warned him about his violations of NPOV policy, but he still continued on adding personal commentary and irrelevant praise about the actress. He also seemed to run a sockpuppet or two, and is posting fair-use images improperly. I need some comments regarding his behaviour. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first visit to ANI for Geniusdream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): my previous report resulted only in a warning. The POV problems are a content dispute, but the image problems warrant a short block.—Kww(talk) 03:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Since multiple imagevios can result into a block, then we have no choice but to put the hammer on him. It seems as though he had some socks in his sleeve. He recently posted some messages on my talk page about his edits and my reverts. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible image licensing issues[edit]

Patesal1 (talk · contribs) appears to have uploaded 30 or so images with self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL licensing tags. The first few I've tried to locate sources for have come from Getty, and the quality on the rest would seem to suggest that they are also likely commercial images. I don't have time at the moment to look through and tag them individually. Any chance someone here feels like looking into it further? --OnoremDil 14:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to speedy and/or PUI the lot of them. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Westwind2009[edit]

I was doing a bit of patrolling on the new user log last night and I noticed our little friend User:Lyle123 was busy making a sockpuppet farm and writing hoax articles about non-existent future movies. This particular account was created at the same time, but no edits came from it and there was no response from the account to my placing a sockpuppet tag on it. That's pretty typical of Lyle123/StealBoy as is the naming convention of the account. He sometimes abandons an account which gets tagged before he can use it. I'd reported this to AIV, but the account remains open. I hate assuming the worst about new accounts, but this one raised my concern. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat?[edit]

This just popped up on my watchlist - note the same name in the username and name added. Hut 8.5 18:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:SUICIDE, all threats or implied threats should be taken seriously. A CU should be started, do you want the honors? Tan | 39 18:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
User indef blocked and talk page locked per policy. Tan | 39 18:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
CU request started here. This is all we can do for now, as far as I know. Tan | 39 18:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
As a follow-up, I emailed details about the threat to the appropriate ISP. This email can be supplied upon request. Tan | 39 03:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

OTRS ticket for Computational intelligence since the 1950s: Complexity and logic[edit]

Talk page asserts that permission has been received from the copyright holder to license this material under the GNU Free Documentation License. The original source text asserts that copyright is held by Elsevier with all rights reserved. Can somebody please verify which is correct. The article is a verbatim copy of a previously published paper. McWomble (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This check probably isn't necessary anymore. It looks like only some paragraphs were copied, but the (Wikipedia) article smacks of WP:OR (see AfD). VG 17:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Either way, it is valid. Tiptoety talk 19:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you clarify that you have a notice from Elsevier B.V.? They are the copyright holder (see pdf). VG 20:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the article is headed for deletion. It's sort of a POV fork of Computational complexity theory, which covers more mainstream thinking in that area. --John Nagle (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, the same ticket is used on Talk:Logic_and_the_mind, so I presume it covers more than one paper. VG 21:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be part of an effort to push a fringe theory. Related articles are
All were created by Romanilin (talk · contribs). --John Nagle (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:The Enchantress Of Florence attacks on other editors[edit]

I was going to wait until this user got another warning but now I see that there are many in her talk page history, she's merely removed them (which is fine, I'm just saying that they are there.) In all the 200 edits of this user, I wonder how many are attacks on other editors. She seems to have a 'thing' about User:Crusio and because he said he looked at her contribs, is reverting him everywhere calling him a 'stalker'. I often comment at AfD and because I commented on two the same as her, said "Note to closing admin: posted by dishonest stalker who has posted uncivl displays of public animosity toward me for comments elsewhere"[11] Her tone she also keeps up about WP:BLP subjects [12] She calls someone else a 'stalker' [13]. She seems to have a very low opinion of the community as a whole [14]. This is just a selection out of the last 50 edits. If it were someone with more edits, I would make a WP:RFC. It is also not WP:WQA thing IMHO as it is very repeated. Some people also aren't sure about her prod removals, or about some recent AfDs she's started which they consider WP:POINT, such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angelica_Bella_(3rd_nomination)- but I didn't mind the AfD's because I agreed with them- I didn't think she meant for anyone to think the AfD's were right though.:) Sticky Parkin 03:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I felt it necessary to blank that individual's posts from my user talk, per BLP. DurovaCharge! 03:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I actually reviewed this account a couple of days ago when I noticed the rather interesting self-declared husband and wife team attempting to tag team their way through an arbitration request. Their behaviour is a perfect example of why we have sometimes discouraged husband and wife editors from participating in the same XfDs etc. Honestly, I'm feeling rather inclined to block this editor for a few days. It's clear the warnings haven't made any impression and if anything the behaviour towards other editors is becoming worse and increasingly contemptuous. It's one thing tolerating a bit of disruption from people who actually help build and contribute to the project, but I don't see why we need to tolerate it from people contributing little in the way of encyclopedia building, and who are violating BLP, attacking other editors, and now, apparently, returning simply to revert without even attempting discussion and resorting to using edit summaries to make personal attacks and accusations without presenting any evidence, that I've been able to find at least. Sarah 10:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm in agreement here - it really does feel like the user displays classic examples of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Whether it's taking a closing admin to RFAR for closing an AfD in a way she did not agree with, or raising multiple other AfDs based purely on the outcome of that initial one, it's a constant disruption. An action that would prevent the current disruption would be helpful, although the civility questions that Sticky Parkin raises would remain. Gazimoff 12:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest a short block for disruption, with a joint RFC on the two of them if things continue. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked the editor 48 hours for disruption, too many worries here. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems a reasonable thing to do. Endorse block. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing a statement backed by 20 mainstream press references is not vandalism?[edit]

Resolved: Content dispute. Page protected. VG 16:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am involved in that dispute, but seriously, this is ridiculous. VG 15:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it ridiculous? Just because something can be cited doesn't necessarily merit its conclusion in the article. Oh and this should be on the talk page, not here. Nothing admins will do here, apart from perhaps lock the page. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec)If the editor believes that he's helping Wikipedia by adding or removing something, it's not vandalism. It may still be a bad or a harmful edit but, in order to be considered vandalism, there must be a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. See WP:VAND#NOT for examples of possibly harmful edits that are not considered vandalism. This is a content dispute, it belongs on the article's talk page. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 15:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It's been reverted. But this is not a matter for ANI; use the talk page or WP:RFPP. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not vandalism. It's clearly (to me) contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but it's a good faith misinterpretation of WP:BLP, on the part of (at least some of) the deletionists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course quite a number of people disagree with your interpretation of BLP on the talk page. But anyway clearly not vandalism. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ferrylodge, 3RR, etc[edit]

(Note:I've moved the 3RR bit to the 3RR page since there had been no response here.) Ferry inserted bizarre sub-subheadings to introduce single sentences in order to render recently-added subheadings irrelevant. After inserting these headings to make his/her point (which were very unprofessional and needed to be immediately removed, as you can see here), s/he threatened a 3RR warning for reverting them: (Response to Ferry:"these edits were not constructive and in good conscience I could not let them sit. Indeed, they were, not only a rather "cynical move" shall we say, but perhaps even close to vandalism, because there can be no justification for the inclusion of a heading reading "lowered mayor's salary" to head a single sentence reading, "she lowered her salary from x to x". The only reason to insert such a heading would be to make the point that there are too many petty headings, not to contribute in good faith to the quality of the article and to contribute to the relevance and readability of the information included.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)") If you look at the diffs there, you'll see how this incident reflects Ferry's wiki 'negotiation' style - not in word but in action. S/he forces other editors to reiterate their arguments repeatedly and tends to try to corner other editors by delegitimizing their arguments. This would be fine if s/he did so by offering valid, well-sourced opposing information, but in cases such as these, Ferry instead chose to weaken the edits of another editor (me, in this case) by exaggerating and lengthening the edits he disagreed with.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if some brave soul would like to wade through all this, then have at it. Many of the diffs provided above are redundant. I don't have time now to provide counter-diffs regarding what LLLL has been up to, but it's not been pretty.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
One more dif: [15]. Some reply other than - 'that's a contentious article' would be helpful.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50 yet again[edit]

A couple of editors are still complaining about this editor's actions (on my Talk page, presumably because at the close of the last ANI thread I suggested a block might be in order). After the first complaint, I tried to provide Ramu50 with some guidance about how we work - or how we should - but results have not been very positive. Ramu50 expressed willingness to change, but continued to make personal attacks against me, apparently without realising it. That was not a problem for me, but seems to be indicative of a problem recognising or controlling disruptive contributions. Meanwhile, another complaint has been made.

I'm not quite out of ideas, but "good cop" doesn't seem to be working out, and that just leaves one other plan... so if anyone else would like to try to help, that would be most appreciated. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked Ramu50 about choosing a mentor after you've suggested it in the previous AN/I thread. So far no reply. VG 18:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I still AGF about his intentions, but he's a bull in a china shop. He's been warned including multiple final warnings, he's acknowledged those by deleting most of them, and has continued in the same vein yesterday and today with bulk questionable template edits.
Some editors are too disruptive for the project without being hostile or having bad intent. Ramu has crossed the threshold. I recommend a 24 hr block and another attempt to get him to discuss proposed changes on template talk pages before he executes any. We should continue to try and work with him, but the carrot has failed. Time for stick. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I reluctantly agree with George's assessment. VG 20:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I know that AGF is one of the fundamental principles here, but after a few weeks of dealing with his edit wars, I now don't think he's really contributing. Raysonho (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Request immediate uninvolved admin block[edit]

There is another run of highly questionable template edits and article edits in progress. Uninvolved admin review and block requested. Ramu50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you could explain and provide diffs, George. I see the deletion at Template:Parallel computing and its talk page. Is that the issue you have in mind? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This series of edits at Template:Nvidia - serious structural and content changes after repeated requests on his talk page and template talk pages to not make such changes to templates without discussing them.
this diff at Template talk:Parallel computing in which he claims that my complaints about his editing are mental problems.
This exchange on his talk page.
This is a continuation of extensive disruptive editing and multiple warnings (many now deleted off his talk pages). See above for most recent ANI thread now archived, discussion on another admin's talk page that preceded this, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
And tell me why should I respect you at all it if your tone of talk page is constantly wanting to pose a personal attack. You are not involved in the other template, so may I ask you are you asking for trouble by making matter worse instead of making it better. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take the lead on this one. I saw some of his edits on the parallel computing template and responded there (essentially echoing George's own comments that Ramu clearly doesn't know what he's talking about) but otherwise I haven't see this guy before today. Raul654 (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we only do preventative blocks and he seems to have stopped. He's now working on User:Ramu50/Linux Distributions template in his userspace so let's see and wait. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
He does still restore to his own version of Template:Nvidia though, and he simply ignored the discussion thread in talk page. --203.218.101.103 (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Template: Nvidia when I expand it, it was evident that most people didn't seem to have a problem with the expansion, the problem didn't start until recently around October 20 when reverting and changes started. I try to include and consolidate the links (the method was try to remove brand names or coporation names). I have use that method on a lot of list articles and most people didn't seem to have a problem with it, so don't even try to pull that crap up. Because the fact Ricky81682 reverts and anyone who comes in and constantly wanting me to be block should be suspeneded, because their reverts is against consenus while my contributions isn't. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice that, nobody complained != your view represent the consensus among Wikipedians, because there are NO discussions and interactions among Wikipedians which was aiming for any consensus. Period. --218.103.245.88 (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing restriction proposal[edit]

Since most (but not all) of the grief he caused was a result of warring over templates, further disruption can perhaps be avoided by requiring Ramu50 to obtain consensus on the talk page before editing any template. Failure to do so should result in a short block (12 hrs?) by any admin. I know this is against WP:BOLD, but in this case the drain of manpower required to fix the content problems created by Ramu50 needs to weighted against his editing privileges. I've counted at least 10 users that had to intervene on various articles and templates he edited, and many of them had to put up with Ramu50's (sometimes accidental) incivility for their troubles. Ramu50 seems to be more composed when the discussion takes place before the reverts start. VG 08:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the WP:DRAMA this user has been creating, would support a restriction.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I would support a restriction of that sort but I'm not sure if his mainspace edits are much better. He just seems set on ignoring all advice on how to conduct himself. I'm really not appreciative of slapping a merge tag under "OR" removal. I'm warning him of this discussion and frankly if he continues editing in this manner without discussing it, I'm blocking. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

urgh[edit]

This guy threatened me with legal action over a tag I placed on an article in JULY. Jtrainor (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, he didn't, he said that your claim of copyright violation, without proof of such, violates the law. Sounds like a content dispute that you should take to that specific page, 3tera - and maybe address the question he raised. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You violated the law yourself of false accusation without any evidence, this can be considered a bias action on certain corporation. Accusing someone of copyright infringement with no evidence is against the law. I suppose you didn't learn from society that is the case. Maybe you should look at when MSI accuse Asus EPU was a fake and MSI got sued. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, really, it was a "business-stub" tag. Ramu50 somehow thought it was a copyvio tag. I've restored it. Jeh (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

He actually placed a placed a copyright template on there, I don't know why it is not displaying it properly. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What you removed was a business stub. Can you find a diff that shows something other than a business stub? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Blocked him for a week. After edit warring at Template:Nvidia, I've had enough when he claimed consensus even after being told even in this ANI section not to mess around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fabartus[edit]

Fabartus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who, to be best of my knowledge has a long record as nothing other than a good and productive contributor, seems to be editing-angry today. He made this rather daft attack on another editor ("I'm gonna barf... read a fucking map idiot") and my (hopefully rather sedate) attempts to persuade him that such attacks aren't acceptable seem only to have inflamed him, leading to more attacks and a rather worrying threat ("Are you looking for a fight"). So I'm clearly not helping, and I'm going to WP:DISENGAGE. Perhaps someone else can talk him down. I'm not aware, incidentally, that Fabartus and I have had any substantive prior dealings or are in any kind of dispute. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Spoiled their block log with a 24 hour enforced break. Review welcome, but previous good tenure does not mean you get a few free digs IMO. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I was trying to write up an even-handed "how to resolve this" post on their Talk, but events overtook me. Fabartus has retired in response to LHvU's block notice. I'm saying nothing more, due to my boundless politeness which I am sure you are all familiar with :-/ SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
... And another good user driven away by idiotically heavy handed admin intervention. Fuck the civility police, fuck them. Fut.Perf. 21:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
One of the rare occasions where I disagree with LHvU. The user was letting off steam a little. Just a very little. We have people issuing fucking death threats who we don't block, but one use of the word "fucking" - albeit in mainspace where it's not wanted - and an angry response to the patronising dressing-down issued because of it and we block?? Cheeses H Christ. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan
I think futperf is right here. LessHeard is a great admin, but I must take exception to this block. It seems out of proportion with the event. When a longterm contributor starts to spout off at the mouth, the best thing to do is ignore them. Its not like he was seeking out people to be incivil to, every comment he made was in response to comments by others. He didn't go on a rampage against other people, he responded on his own talk page and others kept poking and prodding him. If we just let Fabartus have the last word, I fully believe that he would not have continued the incivility. This seems like it didn't warrent a block in this case. There are clearly times when civility blocks ARE warrented, such as when a person is actively picking fights with other people, or going around to various places and actively attacking other editors. This was not that sort of case... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) If my opinion carries any weight, I also disagree with the block. A stern personalised warning would probably have resolved the whole thing. A good editor pushed away from a well-meaning charitable cause... DendodgeTalkContribs 21:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, can you show me where in WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA it says "If you're letting off steam, its okay to call other users names and insult them?" I was just reading it, but sometimes I can miss things like that.--Crossmr (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll unblock and hope Fabartus will get over it. By the way, just for the record, the damage about which Fabartus was complaining had come from this edit [16], from a troll who has in the meantime been blocked for multiple forms of disruptive behaviour. Fut.Perf. 21:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Oh, well... Two wrongs a right do not make, but I did not see why a good faith editor like Finlay McWalter - with a contrib history that starts in 2003 - should be subjected to such incivility, when they were acting in good faith. I was also heading to the page to issue a "now steady on, old chap" type warning, but I was quite shocked to read what I did. Trolls and vandals who issue death threats are born to be ignored, but when a long time contributor blasts off against a neutral third party...? Like I said, my permission is not required for the unblock. If they come back, I will apologise for my actions if needed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    I for one support the block. This garbage of "oh he's a good editor, let him abuse other editors and policies" is a joke. If I don't get my way I'll take my ball and go home. So not only is he violating policy and treating other editors badly, when he gets called on it he acts like a child and leaves rather than accepting his punishment for his behaviour and moving on like an adult. Unblocking him only enables him to feel that kind of treatment of other editors is acceptable.--Crossmr (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    We don't block to punish. In fact, we shouldn't seek to punish here at all. And of course blocking someone who is already inflamed will cause them to leave/detonate: that's one of the many reasons we don't issue cool-down blocks any more. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 22:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    If someone is told to read civil and npa and responds with uncivil behavour and insults that's not punitive, its preventative. If there is no recourse for treating other editors badly, civil and npa have no meaning and frankly that drives away more editors than keeping the people who want to be rude are worth. Not blocking those who obviously violate policies for such garbage reasons as "he's been a good editor" leads to animosity from those who have been wronged, or did you forget about those people?--Crossmr (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    You were the one to use the word "punishment". So you're now saying that such blocks are not punishment after all? ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 07:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    Don't try and ignore the real question. You're arguing semantics to duck the issue here. Are you saying that people who get insulted and abused are worth less to this project than those who do the abusing and we shouldn't block them for violating policy because it might make them leave? Because your position here can't be seen as anything less. I've seen more than one editor fed-up at the coddling of editors who can't seem to express themselves in a manner that is compatible with a community. The individual in question left a clearly inappropriate note (in article space no less, commented out or otherwise), and when asked to play nice responded with further and obvious hostility. He has been here long enough to know better. Frankly I see long term service as more an indicator that if you do something inappropriate and are called on it, you should know better and correct it right away. This editor didn't get it and was given a much stronger message to enforce it. He chose to instead to take his ball and go home. Someone else came along and unblocked him which instead reinforces the idea that there is some imaginary point system in play where you can trade x months of service and x good edits to get away with bad behaviour, or it reinforces the idea that if you don't get your way, threaten to leave and someone will back you up and screw the person, or people who were obviously attacked. If Finlay McWalter threatens to leave because he was unblocked does that mean he gets blocked again?--Crossmr (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    So you do want blocks used as punishment? ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 08:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    So you want to chase users away from the project who have done nothing wrong and hang on to users who have shone a disposition for insulting and abusing other users? See I can put words in your mouth as well. Do you have some actual point to make in defense of the block removal? I've asked you a question twice about your stance on this and you're ducking the issue which makes me believe that yes you do support chasing away potentially good users based on some imaginary bartering system for good contributions. If this was a new user you'd never jump to his defense and argue for an unblock. He continued the bad behaviour after being asked nice to cut it out and was blocked to prevent further hostility and abuse of other users. Its exactly how block is supposed to work. It also reinforces the message that this behaviour is not acceptable in a community. Undoing that block completely destroys that message.--Crossmr (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    We both seem talented at avoiding questions, don't we? Except that the question you are posing to me is effectively "have you stopped beating your wife?", whilst the question I'm asking you is a simple yes-or-no: do you want blocks to be used as punishment? ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 09:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    Its a moot question, I don't view the block as punishment in this case. Had he been blocked without the second incident of hostility, I would have viewed it as punishment. So no, I don't want blocks to be used as punishment. So I've spelled it nice and clear, yet you've tried once again to skirt the issue. You support not "chasing away" good users by blocking them for civility violations (which to me seems a contradiction) but you've made no statement as to how you will address the users who were the target of those violations and what happens when they start leaving because people are treating them like crap over and over and no one does anything.--Crossmr (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    Crossmr, Fabartus wasn't "asked nice to cut it out". He had an admin jumping at him out of nowhere with a heavy-handed, haughtily worded blocking threat. Followed up with another, even more bluntly worded one. Fabartus feeling that it looked as if Finlay was just "looking for a fight" was quite understandable; that was indeed what it came across as. Finlay was blowing up a totally trivial little thing into a blocking matter for no reason at all. And a second admin didn't even bother to talk but blocked right away, with a block message that came across as quite patronizing and sarcastic. Even if someone felt Fabartus' initial behaviour was in need of intervention (which I find doubtful, as his "insults" were directed at an unknown vandal who was long gone from the project), this is simply not how it ought to be done. This incident, just like other recent ones, just goes to show why policing civility with blocking threats simply doesn't work. Fut.Perf. 10:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    By his own admission he is not a child. By his own admission he should be old enough to know better. If someone is "getting all over him" he should be old enough to know enough to walk away and move on. This isn't his first day on wikipedia and he should be overly familiar with all the various policies that apply to conduct on this encyclopedia. I asked it above and I'll ask it again, where in civil and npa does it state that if someone is mean to you first you can retaliate? That doesn't build a community. That builds an environment where users slowly dig away at each other and build animosity. The problem has nothing to do with civility policy or blocks. It has to do with admins who unblock users who shouldn't be unblocked. It enables their behaviour and other users see it and it further enables them. Stop blaming the wording for people's behaviour. No one goes to their home and holds a gun to their head and makes them act how they act. They choose how they act and if they're not choosing how they act and are completely at the whim of their emotions and unable to control their behaviour then they probably shouldn't be here as it doesn't seem to be the kind of individual who would be a productive member of a diverse community.--Crossmr (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    Fut.Perf., from what you are saying I am concerned that you have not fully acquainted yourself with the events immediately prior to my block; I have not concerned myself with whatever incident Fabartus had with some troll, but the manner of response to a neutrally worded warning from a long established editor. As the incident itself was over a week prior to the friendly (i.e. personal message rather than template) warning/advice from Finlay McWalter it may have been expected that any response should have been considered - even if Fabartus disagreed; instead there was a stream of personal invective (and inaccurate at that, Fabartus has been editing since 2005 but Finlay McWalter since 2003) and Fabartus' attitude was both condenscending and belligerent ("looking for a fight" is only a question to be asked if you are prepared to accept any answer). I also saw no reason why someone's life experience should form any basis to enable the type of response. Finlay McWalter commented and acted reasonably, and was dismayed enough at the response to bring it here.
My consideration was that any further attempt to comment/advise/warn would have incurred the same response, and instead I used a block to demonstrate that the behaviour was inappropriate - with a comment that was in respect to the points raised by Fabartus. I concede that it was not done gently, but my view was (and still is) that there would have been a block by the end of the matter if that was the attitude. The fact the editor promptly left the project, although regrettable, is some indication that this was never going to be a situation that was going to end in a group hug.
Naturally, you were not to know of how I reached my decision (not without asking, anyhow) but I hope this sheds some light on why I acted as I did. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to respond to the first issue you raise: yes, I do believe I understand the situation. But I'm now not quite sure about how you understand it: an "incident itself [...] over a week prior" to yesterday? What incident would that have been? As far as I can see, what happened was the following: Over a month ago, a vandal-troll arbitrarily added dozens of spurious fact-tags to the article [17]. Fabartus, happening across the article only yesterday, without ever having interacted with that troll before for all I know, cleared away some of the tags, unnecessarily commenting them out with some rather sharp comments instead of just deleting them. These comments were apparently directed at nobody in particular; in fact I see no evidence Fabartus even knew or cared who had added those tags, or that anybody actually felt attacked by his remarks. Finlay reverted him, without an explanation, reinserting painfully unnecesary "fact" tags on statements such as that Alaska borders the Arctic Ocean (!) [18]. Finlay then went to Fabartus' talk page and posted what I definitely do not see as a "friendly" or "neutral" message, but as a quite unnecessarily patronising threat, essentially stirring up an issue out of nothing. Fabartus reacted with a rebuke (somewhat arrogantly worded but justified in the essence, with invectives that were directed not at Finlay but at the hit-and-run troll from last month [19]). Matters escalated from there.
No offense against you personally, but still, Finlay ought not to have created this issue (the obvious constructive thing for him to do would have been to simply remove the offending HTML commentary together with the nonsensical tags, and maybe put a lighthearted admonition in the edit summary if he felt one necessary.) And you ought not to have escalated it further with your block, given that Finlay had already done the reasonable thing and withdrawn from the situation (which could have spelled the end of it.)
By the way, I apologise for my own (admittedly quite deliberately POINT-y) use of invective yesterday. Given the climate in some discussions I'm probably lucky I wasn't immediately blocked myself. Fut.Perf. 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
You keep trying to defend him by claiming others made him do it. Someone worded it meanly first, someone used too strong language, etc. Last I checked those aren't valid reasons to lose your mind. There is no valid reason to lose your mind and insult other users around here (even though some people like to all gather round and give an identified sock/vandal/etc a good ribbing on the way out the door). Once again no one forced him to react the way he did. He's an adult and should be in control of his own behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) I think no-one is exempt from criticism here, but at the same time no-one's actions were all that unreasonable. Finlay could have been more diplomatic, but was clearly acting in the best interests of the project. I wish I'd written my comment to Talk:Fabartus faster than I did, but then I didn't want to get the wording wrong and inadvertently inflame the situation. Fabartus was rather cantankerous throughout, but felt justified in responding strongly to what he felt were misplaced tags (and misplaced criticism). LHvU could have worded the block notice in a less inflammatory way, but it needed to be said that Fabartus does not have carte blanche to be incivil whenever he feels justified - which is what his posts implied he would do going forward. With that in mind, there is a good case to be made that the block was preventative in nature, and seen in that light FP's unblock could be criticised too, although clearly it was meant to defuse tension and prevent a long-term contributor from leaving. Hopefully we can all learn something from this and hopefully no group hug will be necessary. ew.. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh my word! Look folks. I reserve the right to call a spade a spade. If some of you choose to call and consider that as uncivil, I frankly, feel sorry for your pathetic lack of experience in the real world. If some of you PC types don't like it, accept at least I spent thirty years in uniform making sure you'd have that right, and extend the same right to put the foot in my mouth as the rest of us in the US enjoy. Fut.Perf has a pretty clear read on what happened. Finlay chose to throw his weight around for no good reason... at least if you accept the idea that someone changes based on stimulus and feedback... what he thought he was going to accomplish is beyond me. Those inline comments are AND WERE intended to be read by the paperhanging SOB that didn't think, nor leave a comment to his problems therein tagged. That's a time waste to others going forward, and chasing down just who is being lazy and inconsiderate would be a further waste of time. The only thing that could come of that would be confrontational, ala Finlay McWalter. Note I'd never even been to that article before yesterday, and was merely adding one cite on related geology. MY "are you looking for a fight" was in fact an attempt at DISENGAGING... or engaging Finlay to realize he was pissing up a stick... and building a tempest in a teapot. LessHeard vanU seems to think his/her social beliefs are canon. So be it. I'd really stopped regular editing over all the nits being picked around here back in last spring. The liberals are in charge, and like all liberals think they have the holy writ and are glad to listen to your dissent so long as you agree that their contrived consensus is the way it's gonna go. Looks to be a bad time to be a self-reliant free thinker. Or a time to call spades, spades. Thanks to those supporting free speech above. // FrankB 14:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
You go on about time wasting, and yet you chose to create drama which is notorious for time wasting on wikipedia. You could have chosen to behave in an appropriate manner, reverting with a neutral edit summary and without the inline comments and all would have been said and done. You created the engagement and the situation with your behaviour, but please continue to blame others. Future perfect does have a good read on the situation, his read on the situation is that apparently finlay and others were in your home forcing you to type what you did and create the situation that was born of your behaviour. If you reserve the right to call a spade a spade, then I suppose I can do the same. You have a very obvious chip on your shoulder and frankly you should get over it. There are over 6 billion people on the planet you didn't wear a uniform for and plenty of them edit this encyclopedia. Its immaterial and doesn't give you license to piss on other users. If you feel someone acted out of turn then address that with proper discourse. Communities don't work if people carry around their baggage like that and spew it all over others when they have a disagreement.--Crossmr (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably time to let this thread die, folks. Block expired, no admin action required, feedback provided to blocker and blockee. This is turning into a typical unhelpful ANI snipe-fest; can we nip that in the bud please? Just this once? --barneca (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes you're right. Lets let the issue of blocks for civility remain unresolved yet again so administrators can continue to block and unblock people, and people who are the recipients of the offender's behaviour can continue to leave the project because its apparently more important to make sure we don't upset people who abuse other editors than those who get abused.--Crossmr (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Docsavage20 linking to copyrighted video on YouTube[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.

The consensus is that, absent reliable secondary sources, a YouTube video is not acceptable as a source for a BLP claim that's at odds with Trebek's public image (per WP:REDFLAG etc etc). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Docsavage20 (talk · contribs) is insisting that he is entitled to link to YouTube video of outtakes from Jeopardy! on Alex Trebek (obviously copyrighted). I have tried to explain that the burden of proof is on him that the video is not a copyright violation, per WP:ELNEVER. Rather than edit war, I thought I'd let an admin express an opinion and, if necessary, discuss with Docsavage20. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be copyrighted but Ward3001 implies it's "obvious" it's on YouTube inappropriately, apparently not being familiar with the concept of Fair Use. This was of course after he made the initial assertion that Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits linking to YouTube which it does not. He claims it's in violation of copyright, the burden is on him to prove it, not upon me to prove a negative. This video has been edited in the manner of a parody, and is seen on multiple sites on the 'net. I consider it a reasonable assumption that both Trebek and the company the video originated from are aware of its existence, yet have not taken action to have it removed via DMCA.Docsavage20 (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Clarify a misstatement: I did not assert that YouTube links are prohibited in general, just in this case. I'll trust an admin's judgment about Fair Use. Ward3001 (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Misstatement my foot, you most certainly did state specifically that "it doesn't matter if it's notable, you can't link to YouTube, that's policy" or words extremely close to that.Docsavage20 (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
And I said it on Talk:Alex Trebek, not on a policy talk page. But all of that is beside the point. This is not about me, Docsavage20, it's about getting an admin's opinion about the YouTube link. Ward3001 (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
First, I have to challenge your belief that youtube posting can be assumed to be copyright compliant. Youtube contains an unimaginable wealth of copyright violations. Try searching for any popular song or television show, and you will find complete copies as well as clips that are only "fair use" in a pirate's wildest fantasies. Regardless, the copyright status of this video is not nearly as relevant as the fact that it's inclusion is a gross violation of the neutral point of view. You don't get to assemble a new viewpoint from primary material and then include it on an article (see original research). And if someone else has done it, you don't get include it and then cite him for it (undue weight and