Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive551

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

Noticeboard archives



Over the past several days, (talk · contribs) has made several contentious edits to a large number of BLP articles, not citing a single source. Due to the fact that some of their edits are obviously vandalism (claiming that Dakota Fanning is the sister of Evanna Lynch, and that Michelle Monaghan is the sister of Dominic Monaghan), I have reverted every one of their edits (those that have not previously been reverted). I request that others keep an eye on this editor. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

All true, but at this point its 6 hours stale; we should certainly keep an eye on this IP to see if it starts up again, but I am not sure what good blocking would do right this minute, since we have no proof that this person will use the same IP again, and they do not appear currently active. 00:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Vandal has started up again from same IP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And the vandalism continues. Why would there be anything wrong with blocking an IP that has been used by the same person for four or five days in a row, even if they are not currently vandalizing? Which, of course, they are, right now. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just issued a level 4 warning. It doesn't appear as if English is this editor's first language, though. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no, the IP is editing from Poland. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 23#File:Neda.jpg[edit]

Resolved: Closed by Black Kite

Could someone please close this discussion? It's been open for two weeks. Shouldn't be a difficult close, but most of the regular closers have taken part in the discussion. J Milburn (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do need to point out that the image that was being voted on is no longer the image that they were voting on. Rgoodermote  18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Scratch that, forgot to purge. Rgoodermote  18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

PoliticianTexas sock[edit]

Per previous instructions (here and here), I'm requesting that User:ABQStyle be blocked for being a sock puppet of community-banned puppeteer User:PoliticianTexas.

Evidence: in this edit, ABQStyle changed the infobox on Albuquerque, New Mexico to use a copyright-violating image. That same image was previously added to Albuquerque, New Mexico by User:Burns37 on 11 September 2008, and by User:LamyQ on 18 September 2008 and again on 24 September 2008. Burns37 and LamyQ have already been blocked as PoliticianTexas sockpuppets. Given that the image in question has been deleted each time as a copyright violation (off en.wikipedia twice and commons once), it's clear that its return can't just be coincidental.

Thanks in advance... — Dori ❦ (TalkContribsReview) ❦ 03:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a CheckUser here. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, why? The reason for the "(here and here)" that starts off my request above is that's when we were previously told to bring the report here to skip that process. Not second-guessing; just trying to find out if something's changed. Dori ❦ (TalkContribsReview) ❦ 04:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I did not look at those two links. That said, the reasons I have filed an SPI case are that 1) it helps to keep a nice paper trail of things, as well as document prior socks for comparison (especially for technical purposes) and 2) to check for sleeper accounts or the use of open proxies or tor nodes. Hope that answers your question. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Evidence that ABQStyle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs) (PolTx for short)

--Uncia (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that some IP editors are PolTx, and are also ABQStyle

Interleaved with ABQStyle's edits of Albuquerque, New Mexico are some IP edits that match earlier PolTx edits. This provides evidence that PolTx is active again, and may provide evidence that he is ABQStyle.

--Uncia (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Wrong venue. For requesting deletion, use WP:XfD; for assessing community consensus about this matter, use WP:RfC or fora such as WP:VP. This board is for requesting urgent administrator intervention, which does not seem to be sought here.  Sandstein  21:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

you thought that infoboxes were a problem, when getting out of hand and evolving into a counter-article-within-the-article? That was yesterday. Enter The_Transhumanist (talk · contribs) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge. A "project" aiming at creating an "outline" article to every bona fide article on Wikipedia. An "outline" is apparently a sort of glorified infobox or category listing given the status of standalone encyclopedia article. Thus, for Kosovo, we get outline of Kosovo, which doesn't have any scope other than simply Kosovo but it repeats the pertaining links in a "hierarchical list". The mind boggles at the implications. The damage this is capable of doing especially in difficult-to-maintain topics like Kosovo is immense. The natural course would be to treat this as an indexing effort, like the "outlines" main page, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge. Yet for some reason best known to themselves, the editors working on these "outlines" adamantly resist such a solution, apparently heading for all-out confrontation. I am very close to nominating the entire thing at WP:AfD, since "articles" they insist these are, and as "articles" they would need to satisfy WP:NOTE criteria as enyclopedic topics in their own right. --dab (𒁳) 18:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What administrative action do you request with respect to this?  Sandstein  19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Probably a mass deletion of the "article"s. I'm not necessarily in favor of that, but it's a plausible administrative action. (Cavaet. I've interacted with him before. I don't know if these outlines are as bad as the ones he generated previously, but I'm an involved admin.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm with dbachmann on this. Despite asking several times, the people wasting their time with these outlines have failed to explain how they're actually useful to any reader, especially given the highly non-intuitive titles. E.g., if I want to read about Canada, I'll type Canada into the search box. Not Outline of Canada. And should I find other links I want to follow... why, those just happen to be in the actual article! As well as nice and conveniently organised in navboxes at the bottom of the article! The people doing this are wasting their time and ours on what is essentially a fork that replicates a cross-section of articles, navboxes, and portals. And yes, I say they are wasting our time. The sheer volume of (useless) work that is going into these could have been spent on something that would actually improve the encyclopedia. → ROUX  19:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I object to the unilateral "closure" of this thread. I am posting this here for a reason, I am requesting the attention and contribution of my fellow admins in tackling this. Last time I checked, this was what this noticeboard was for. This is a serious issue that is rapidly growing out of proportion, not some random content dispute. What this user is doing is well within the fraudulent. They are reverting my bona fide move out of main namespace claiming that[1]

Dbachmann is ignoring the consensus established in many discussions over the years concerning this set of lists

with reference to WP:STAND, where, it turns out, they have recently snuck in reference to their own new-fangled type of "stand-alone list".[2]

This adds serious issues of user conduct to the already grievous namespace mess. Now would people please refrain from hushing this up telling me to "yawn, go open an rfc" but instead try to help doing something about it. --dab (𒁳) 20:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, you're trying to get rid of these articles? ANI is entirely the wrong venue for this. File an RFC or the "mass AFD" to which you alluded. –xenotalk 20:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Right venue or wrong venue someone needs to do something about this. The last thing we need is more box clutter on a page. What we have is a box on almost every talk page telling readers that the 'outline' for the 'topic' associated with that page is incomplete. Do we really need a shadow wiki that is crummier than the original? Grumbling, I return to my hole. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. This is nothing more than a content fork, as all of the links contained in these 'outlines' are already in the main article. Further, the sheer amount of time required to keep these up to date (as opposed to e.g. writing articles) is mindboggling, not to mention that the whole thing is a lovely little walled garden in which criticism is... unheard, to use a polite word. → ROUX  20:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Whether you love, like, dislike, hate, or are indifferent to these outlines, do you really think you're going to come up with a coherent and actionable conclusion at ANI? –xenotalk 20:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me that an RfC needs to be started before a mass AfD. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Shall we close this here as misplaced once the RfC or MfD on the portal is opened? It could still be done within the normal parameters, and doesn't require immediate admin action. However, a move out of the main namespace seems appropriate to me.
On second thought, outlines of countries in the Balkans are probably in violation of the RfAr there, and outlines of other articles subject to special restrictions are, by their nature, subject to those special restrictions, but are not monitored. The outline creation in mainspace must stop immediately, and those where the article is subject to special restrictions must be moved out of mainspace. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I already tried to close this but the initiator re-opened it. This most definitely requires a rational and focused community discussion (ANI is anything but). I would suggest RFC rather than AFD. –xenotalk 20:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Outlines have been around under various names since 2001. See also Wikipedia talk:Outlines#move this out of main namespace please. The Transhumanist 21:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone replacing flag images: possible vandalism[edit]

Special:Contributions/ is replacing images of countries' flags: check their contribution log. It looks fishy but I'm not sure. Please undo his changes if necessary. Chutznik (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, when you tell them about this thread, you could ask them to explain the motivation behind these changes. –xenotalk 20:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


An immediate block please, the user is uploading a vast number of inappropriate images of copyright violations to all the Madonna (entertainer) related articles and is undertaking user page vandalisms. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you try WP:AIV? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Stuart D. James[edit]

Resolved: User indefinitely blocked with talk page editing disabled, and talk page fully protected to prevent further abuse. MuZemike 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This user is running around to IP talk pages trolling and claiming to be an admin. No constructive edits whatsoever. contribs --LP talk 19:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is sufficient to get an indef block. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Nice. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Blocked. I wonder if he noticed that all his edits are public? - Jredmond (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Art Sampson looks like a SPA with some kinda' grudge against whoever Edie Money is, and I've blocked the account indef to prevent abuse. lifebaka++ 19:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thatcher's a Checkuser, I think she was being subtle while telling us the accounts are linked. Seems odd to bring them up if that wasn't the intent. --Mask? 20:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect very strongly that this is not Stuart D. James, but someone making racist and vandal edits to besmirch the reputation of someone with that name. I've deleted the talkpage, and would appreciate if someone else would delete whatever else may be appropriate to delete. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


This user has written some very very abusive and obscene remarks on my user page. Thankfully another editor reverted them but I was very offended and disgusted by the remarks. Could you please block the user in question. Here is a link if you wish to investigate Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That was 5 days ago. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
To explain the point a bit, it looks like that IP editor was only using that address for one day, so a block would probably have no effect. Looie496 (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Breaking news[edit]

Patrick Tracy Burris bears watching, Patrick tracy burris has already been deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've RD'd both for now to Gaffney,_South_Carolina#Serial_Killings_of_2009. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding persistent deletions and false accusation of Top on ice[edit]

Recently I started making contribution on the page of Kim Yu-Na, mostly making grammatical corrections. I also added contents a few external links to her fan forums and her Twitter page.

There is a user called Top On Ice, and he or she has been keeping removing those links without any reasonable explanations. The person has removed multiple contributions for no persuasive reason including the removal of an undisputed fact such as that Michelle Kwan was the nine-time U.S. champion. I have been reverting this person's removals. This person just had a warning mail sent to me for vandalism. This person is in fact censoring contributions on Kim Yu-Na's page, and I believe this person's conduct constitutes vandalism, and thus he or she should be considered to be blocked. This person mentioned me at the end of this link, but I do not know its purpose. It seems that this person is making a false accusation against me, claiming that I am the person of the blocked user. Please check out my talk. - Chunwook —Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

This is best addressed by following the instructions found at the dispute resolution page. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

trouble brewing at July 2009 Ürümqi riots[edit]

There are an increasing number of inexperienced users, single purpose accounts, IP trolls etc getting close to edit warring and being otherwise disruptive in July 2009 Ürümqi riots and its associated talk page. Particularly troublesome is User: Admin eyeballs are requested. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm starting to worry that there may be a need for some sort of protection (although, for what it's worth, there's as much POV-pushing on both sides coming from autoconfirmed accounts). When this article started it was put together by the work of intelligent people who were willing to discuss things and work out issues, but now it's quickly reaching a point where it's getting flooded by netizens who are interested in nothing but trying to push the one thing they believe; the talk page is suffering from trolling and the article itself is suffering from rampant selective quoting of sources to make it look as if all the wrongdoing was committed by one side or the other. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Sebas1955 copyrighted image problem[edit]

Sebas1955 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading images which they claim they have permission to use, citing OTRS tickets. But there are a number of other images they have uploaded which they claim to be the copyright holder of. Can an OTRS person verify the claims they're making concerning the copyrights they're claiming to be providing to OTRS, and could an admin give them a lesson in copyright? In addition, they seem to be working in tandem with an anon to insert the images into articles. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Avi is on it, at least the OTRS bit. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing war[edit]

These IP addresses and keeps making disruptive edits after being warned many times. This person has even had the nerve to call my edits vandalism. Is there anyway we can get a lock on the Kelley School of Business article so that this person will stop with their repeated edit warring? Dumaka (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've warned the editor appropriately. It appears that those two editors are actually one editor, just using a dynamic IP address. If he continues, WP:RFPP is thataway. (X! · talk)  · @269  ·  05:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Dumaka (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Novi Plamen[edit]

Vandalism by several IP address, in what appears to be several PoV pushers in Croatian academic institutions. In this particular article, they're insisting on the "Croatian language" and "Croatian magazine" designations for a left-wing magazine whose contributors are all proud anti-nationalist Yugoslavs, and also from ex-SFRJ states other than Croatia (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, and diaspora). All of those contributors write unedited in their own literary idiom of Serbo-Croatian. Almost all of them would probably call their language srpskohrvatski, as it was officially called before 1991.

Now, in English language, the term Serbo-Croatian is still abundantly used - in fact all the prominent Slavist still use it very much, for the identical dialectal base of all the SC varieties (all of them have 99% identical grammar are completely mutually intelligible). The only convenient term to use to describe the language of the magazine NP would be hence Serbo-Croatian, and not these ridiculous nationalist fabrications such as "Croatian language", "Serbian language" or "Bosnian language" (and soon-coming in the fall 2009 "Montenegrin language").

I ask that this article be semi-protected until the issue is resolved on the talkpage. (also I'm not sure that this is the appropriate place to report, so feel free to relocate this report elsewhere) --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 13:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There's already discussion happening at the talk page, and so far only a single set of reverts today. So, yes, it's an edit war, but no, I don't believe that multiple days of semi-protection are necessary. I'll check back to see if the war heats up, but right now I don't believe protection is needed. lifebaka++ 14:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User has made a threat, and is displaying ownership of articles[edit]

I am making this report because of the actions of User:Jerzeykydd, and his personal feelings of ownership and inappropriate behavior arising because of ("I made every presidential election article that way I am planning on keeping it that way" part of message left on my talk page) related to a number of election articles. The user has also engaged in threatening behavior on my talk page User talk:Highground79 ("don't push it or I'll get pissed off") (comment came as part of message left on my talk page on 00:14, 1 July 2009). Since I have been on wikipedia only briefly the last few days I hadn't paid attention to it till now. While I am in now way frightened by the user there threat is not appropriate for wikipedia and I believe someone other then myself needs to make the user aware of this.

(Rough history of underlining problem: included for background) The underling issue which started all of this is the user in question and I have a disagreement over how to label parts of a section. The user has had it suggested to them by the User:Timmeh to start a discussion on the matter but has chosen instead to continue to edit war. the user insists via claims of ownership on labeling the results of presidential election article by state in a manner in which it appears as though equal weight is given to the "by county" results and "by congressional district" results as is given to the "statewide" while in some cases the user seem to accept Result (instead of "statewide", but will not accept election result)

My edits to the labels are attempting to distinguish the fact that only the statewide total is the election result (that which electoral votes are awarded for) The county and the congressional district results are a subset of the electorate and are less important (labels I attempted to include (results by congressional districts and results by county) because it doesn't matter who wins the most counties or congressional districts in most states (I'm trying to clarify this) the electoral votes are a all or nothing deal. While this may seem obvious to you wikipedia is used by people all over the world, and the our electoral college system is completely foreign to these users (it is important for the understanding of these users to distinguish the difference between the numbers that matter and the ones that do not). I would be happy to discuss this on the talk pages but the User:Jerzeykydd insists on edit waring and inadvertently is making it harder for users in other countries to understand what is the important (determining #'s) and what is essentially just an interesting fact. I know this is long winded but I wanted to explain what is going on and how it started. Highground79 (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs showing the issues you mention. Several would be good. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
He's right. Go to, pick those diffs (which are "differences between one edit and another"), and post the URLs of those "diffs" here. There we might be able to get a better understanding of what is going on. Thank you, MuZemike 07:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I gave an edit-warring warning on the user, going into detail of what can happen if the user's reversions do not stop. MuZemike 08:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
An offending diff is here. Manning (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
That is nothing like what you've said. He's clearly said he does not want to edit war, and says that he works hard on the articles you two have a dispute on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Seek true consensus: Open a topic on the related talk-pages and seek other opinions of the election labels, to see if there is other support for your label-style. The U.S. has enormous voter-fraud problems (2000 Presidential Election), such as votes in precinct exceed the total residents, and in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ("Supreme crooks") denied the state of Florida a statewide recount, due to lack of time to "debate counting methods": however, all disputed ballots were database-encoded (not hand-recounted every time), so recounts were by computer which could recount all votes by all conceivable counting methods (within 2 days), and George Bush would have been "mathematically eliminated" as the loser of the election, regardless of any future debate. However, the Court justices were mainly Republican appointees, and hence 5-4 held the pro-Bush bias to stop the recount while Bush led. The fraud was so off-balance, Al Gore (who actually won Florida by thousands) referred to himself as the man who "was the next president of the U.S." (quote). I mention this real-world case because district-totals & county-totals help to detect the extent of voter fraud, so people in Iran, perhaps, might be interested to see real evidence of how judicial/voter-fraud won the U.S. 2000 election. Consider how other people might prioritize the election-numbers. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This incident really should not have been brought up here. As noted above, it looks like Jerzeykydd is attempting to help gain consensus rather than edit war. The "threat" is a very vague one, and arguably not much of a threat at all. I've advised Highground on the correct steps to take to resolve the dispute. Timmeh 16:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Corrected the spelling", "fixed the bad grammar", and "corrected or fixed the bad English"[edit]

Is anyone else having problems with these types of edits on the site? I keep running into these types of edits where they summaraize the edits with things like "corrected the spelling", "fixed the bad grammar", and "corrected the bad English" and stuff like that. If you go back and check the edits though the pages had proper English and grammar and the edits simply took out a whole bunch of things from the pages. Then you will sometimes see further edits to the same page by the same users going back to what is left on the page and putting spelling and grammar errors in it after the fact. This seems to be a fairly big problem right now. I first tried reporting users individually here that were doing this to which I got nowhere and it was decided that these were perfectly legit edits. Well then I think we need to have a discussion and look at this new style of "editing". It is obviously either some sort of new bot or some sort of new trolling and/or vandalism/abuse tactic that is being employed on Wikipedia. Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There are always edit summaries like that here and there (I've long found that words like bad, better and grammar in an edit summary are often a hint that more's afoot). Undo the edits, leave a note for the editor. Without diffs, there's not much for an admin to do here. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
That's what I've been trying to do but the edits get immediately reverted and endless times as well. Also the user talk pages never respond to you and just delete the messages you leave. I am pretty sure now that these are some sort of new bots that are vandalizing. Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Diffs? Without diffs there's nothing to do. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The diffs would still be there in the article history. I know the kind of thing you're referring to, but without a diff or even a specific article, there's nothing that can be done here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
That kind of edit is indeed pretty common, often as a (very poor) cloaking device for blatant vandalism (for instance an edit summary reading "corrected spelling" when the actual edit was to replace the whole page with "Pooppooppooppoop" or similar). I suppose the rationale (if one may call it such) is that changes patrollers are all complete dimbulbs who will take the edit summary as legitimate without investigating why, for example, a spelling correction has changed the page size from 26,000 bytes to 17.
However I'm confused. Editors above are asking for diffs or at least some specific pages. I've looked through your edits in the hope that I could at least see an article where you've reverted this style of vandalism and I can't see one. So I'll join the clamour - please could you supply specific diffs to illustrate what you're saying? Tonywalton Talk 12:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This isn't exactly new is it? "Sneaky vandalism" is something that happens quite a lot, and the best we can do is hope the vandal fighters or the anti-vandal bots get them before it stays too long. The normal steps against vandalism should be followed, unless it's a bot or the same user(s) as Wiki Greek Basketball suggests. Chamal talk 13:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
But isn't it almost always "bad grammer"? Even when it's genuine? It's funny how often I see that. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I always check those out, always. Half will be vandalism and the other half, mostly "fixes" that are worse than what was already there. Put another way, an edit summary saying bad grammar will wontedly be spot on :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
We've heard of blocks for vandalism and trolling. Is there a block type that's directed at writers who appear to have only learned English within the last week or two? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It does seem more than a little ironic that Wiki Greek Basketball has come here complaining about others' edit summaries, when Wiki Greek Basketball never leaves edit summaries, instead spamming the histories of pages with swathes of unexplained microedits. Isn't leaving the same (i.e none) edit summary for large changes and small, for uncontroversial ones or contentious ones, just as misleading as leaving wilfully misleading ones? (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I raised this just a few days ago: correcting the spelling - new troll approach. 'bot or just paranoia Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ring of related accounts[edit]

In handling some unblock requests today, I came across a bunch of accounts that are obviously linked. In order of account creation: Magnarot (talk · contribs), Floptchy (talk · contribs), Randomer789 (talk · contribs), Camponhoyle (talk · contribs), Idiot997 (talk · contribs), Chatter333 (talk · contribs). Camponhoyle was indef-blocked for vandalism, and Chatter333 and Randomer789 got caught in the autoblock. Randomer, Camponhoyle, Magnarot, and Floptchy were all involved in pushing for inclusion of Easiteach; Randomer and Magnarot both claimed to have no connection to Floptchy. Magnarot, Chatter333, and Idiot997 all started a "chat session" on User talk:Camponhoyle, and in Chatter333's unblock-auto request, Chatter333 claimed to not be Camponhoyle. Randomer789 and Camponholye also both got involved over Kim Sears and both made comments at User talk:Skitzouk, who nominated that page for deletion. I'm posting this for review because some of the edits seem to be valuable; plus, Jpgordon (who's very experienced) declined Chatter333's unblock-auto request but took no further action. Do people think there might be one account we can leave unblocked or block temporarily? I welcome any input. Mangojuicetalk 17:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I ran across this when Idiot997 was auto-reported to UAA (and blocked). I would suggest leaving a note about what Wikipedia is not (specifically, not Myspace/Facebook) for the unblocked users and see where it goes from there. I would bet that they've had their laughs and won't edit any longer. TNXMan 17:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
All the accounts are blocked now. Mangojuicetalk 18:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Should an admin take a controversial decision right before going AWOL?[edit]


The answer should be no, of course, but on the other hand there is no clear rule on this. I had requested the semi-protection of an article on a controversial subject of which i am the main author and whose content had never been disputed by established editors until an IP came along and tried to impose his POV ([3]). The admin Nja247 (talk · contribs) overstepped the mark and made a full protection instead, asking for a debate and subsequent agreement on the talk page ([4]). I made my point there ([5]) while telling the admin that he had gone OTT ([6]). The - previsible - result is that nobody ever bothered to answer on the talk page, the matter being clear as cristal water, but what was definitely not previsible is that Nja247 has gone lost IRL or wherever right after taking a decision he should have discussed with the author of the request. This is how the worst kind of status quo is imposed upon others! --RCS (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection is not supposed to be used to lock good faith IPs out of content disputes, so I would endorse this in general. Of course, I leave open the possibility that the IP is not acting in good faith; I haven't looked into it beyond your report.
As for the issue of the admin going AWOL (keeping in mind that we're volunteers, we don't need to request leave ;>) you can petition another admin (eg. at WP:RFUP) to review the talk page discussion to determine if consensus has emerged and the protection can be lowered. –xenotalk 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Since the IPs did not come to the table to respond to your section, I've lowered the protection. If IPs refuse to discuss content disputes at the talk page, I would endorse semi. –xenotalk 18:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Xeno. I think your action is spot on and I would say this is resolved. I do wish to note to RCS however that it's odd that he found it OTT for me to protect the page (even though he requested it at WP:RFP, and as Xeno said, at the time it appeared to be a dispute and it would have been wrong to lock out the IP), but oddly RCS didn't think taking this minor issue to ANI to be OTT. There's a section at WP:RFP to request unprotection. Anyhow water under the bridge. Cheers, Nja247 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: article reverted.

Not sure quite what to make of this, but probably merits admin intervention.  Skomorokh  19:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, it's reverted. Unless it happens again from the same IP, the guy's probably moved on and there's nothing we can do. lifebaka++ 19:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Not only is it a scam, it's a lazy one, too. "Set it all up and send me the money! It's that easy!" Nothing less than 250k accepted, either. TNXMan 20:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
i believe the we should notify an administrator who can decide to send this off to local authorites such as the Fbi or the internset sesrivce proivder (ISP) so that the scammer can be jailed Smith Jones (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-logged-in user editing suspicious pages.[edit]

Sebas1955 (talk · contribs) appears to be editing disruptively without logging in as (talk · contribs). The IP has been removing deletion templates from files uploaded by the User, as well as related vandalism and other strange practices. The IP has been blocked after a final warning, but should this go to WP:SPI? -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The account should be blocked for repeated copyvio uploads and all his uploads should be deleted. The IP is obviously the same person trying to circumvent the system. At least one of the copyvio uploads was already deleted from commons after which he uploaded it here with bogus OTRS Permission tags even. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: Both of you go to bed without dinner...

...accused me here quite blatantly of lying. He was given the chance to retract the statement, and has unsurprisingly refused to. This, especially given his history of attacks and harassment, requires attention and probably a block.

And yes, I'm sure someone is going to complain that I haven't been Miss Perfect throughout that discussion, but it's worth noting that the people who have done so have complained about me by making multiple personal attacks against me--while complaining, wrongly, that I had done so. → ROUX  00:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Response - It is clear that the statement was: "The above proves that you are 100% ignorant about what you are talking about. The statement placed about my discussing your claims about what Godwin said with a WMF member places your other claims into question. So far, you have provided nothing correct but you have laid on the insults to people in a very unbecoming manner. Thus, you have proven to talk about what you don't know, possibly make stuff up, and just insult people without cause." The phrase "possibly make stuff up" is far different than "lying". As proven by the quote from Godwin, his summary of what Godwin said was quite different than what Godwin said, so, regardless, he was incorrect. Now, he has attacked several people in that area, misquoted multiple policies, shown an inability to understand what policies state, and has constantly been rude and incivil (especially with his constant cussing). It seems that all he has contributed to that page was disruption. It is clear that Roux will not stop attacking people or causing disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, come now, let's try for some statements that accurately reflect reality, okay? Insults.. where exactly? There are none. Attacks? Nope. Misquoting multiple policies? Again, no. The only thing that would come close would be me saying that RFC has a specific menaing on Wikipedia, which it does. Cussing? Twice. Sue me for using colourful language to get my meaning across. So... well it's all the usual from you, Ottava. A simple apology for claiming I was lying would be a good start, but I won't get my hopes up. Nor do I honestly have much hope that anyone will do anything about your accusation, as you seem to get away with whatever you like. But I do know if I accused another editor, baselessly, of lying.. well, I wouldn't be able to type this right now. → ROUX  00:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • What a distasteful little thread that is. Why would anyone continue to participate in it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • ANI is not the complaints department. Start a user conduct WP:RFC or a WP:WQA alert...take this somewhere else. General complaining about what people did or did not say or imply or whatever is going on here is not appropriate. I am closing this before it gets even nastier than it has. 00:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Resolved: User is engaging in what appears to be "stealth vandalism". User warned and to be immediately blocked if persists. Manning (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Guto2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Am I missing something, or is this user going around randomly deleting dates/years and sometimes refs? I've been reverting since he started on June 4 since I can't see a reason for the removals. Could someone else take a look? --aktsu (t / c) 21:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems odd. Left a note asking the user for a response of some sort -- seems the best thing to do in the meantime. Hopefully this can be resolved amicably for all involved. If the behavior continues with no reply, some escalation may become necessary. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just as confused as you - that does look like random removal of dates, sources, little factoids and not a single explanation to be found. Unless this editor decides to start communicating now (they don't appear to have done so in the past) I'd say that an indef block is in order. Shell babelfish 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Well spotted aktsu. Indeed, user seems to be a "stealth vandal" - I can't see any other rational explanation. We'll watch and impose an immediate block in the event of further edits of this nature. I'll add a note to the user talk page to that effect. Manning (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Problematic user page[edit]

Resolved: BLP-problematic information replaced with Blocked Notice (user indef blocked Nov 2008) Manning (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This user page: Srkhan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) in its current version claims to be that of a famous person, which is BLP-problematic. Previous versions apparently show this to be somebody else altogether. Contributions not always constructive; blocked indef in November 2008, but userpage still remains. Not sure if this calls for oversight, but certainly deletion (at least of the few last BLP-violating revisions). (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange vandalism[edit]

Resolved: IP warned. Manning (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably nothing, but still a bit disturbing: [7] IP Geolocates to California. Plastikspork (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been a day for weird stuff like this. I note you've reverted the user page already which is good. I'll add an IP warning but there's little else we can do. The IP is probably someone known to the user. Manning (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Brad Polard (talk · contribs) and Bacon Man 832 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: All related accounts indef blocked by Nishkid64. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 13:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Thatcher made this comment yesterday after Stuart D. James (talk · contribs) was indef blocked for vandalism, personal attacks and impersonating an administrator. In Thatcher's comment, it was suggested that Brad Polard (talk · contribs), Bacon Man 832 (talk · contribs) and Art Sampson (talk · contribs) are the same person as Stuart D. James.

I think there may have initially been some confusion over Thatcher's initial comment where some people, myself included, thought the comment was meant merely as an observation of suspicious behaviour rather than confirmation that these accounts are related but Thatcher confirmed that they are indeed the same person. For that reason, even after Stuart D. James (talk · contribs) was indef-blocked, Brad Polard (talk · contribs) and Bacon Man 832 (talk · contribs) were allowed to keep editing and are still editing simultaneously and receiving multiple warnings for personal attacks against other users. Bacon Man 832 did receive an indef block which was overturned after he placed an unblock request but I believe the unblock request would have been denied had the unblocking admin been aware of the sockpuppetry. Art Sampson (talk · contribs) was indeffed for other reasons. I think an indef block on one of the two remaining accounts is in order (clear violation of WP:SOCK) and the other account, if we allow it to keep editing any further, should also be indeffed on sight should he create another sockpuppet. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 12:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked all accounts. No sign this user is going to reform his/her ways. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Awnnil Kiwi[edit]

Resolved: User blocked.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A chap with an anagrammatic username who appears to be wikistalking and harassing one particular admin (who's probly asleep right now). Please review and consider whether to block.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User was blocked by Gogo Dodo. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User intentionally introducing unreferenced material into Generation Z[edit]

Resolved: user warned and recommend immediate block if re-offends, given prior history. Manning (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see this diff, as well as their "work" at Generation Y, which I haven't reviewed yet. The material trying to be introduced is unreferenced, and -- from the looks of the user's talkpage -- this isn't the first time they've done this type of thing. I went there to discuss with him, but when I saw all the warnings and such, I thought it best to bring this issue here for immediate admin attention. Unitanode 14:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... my suspicion is that it's the user's birthdate or something similar. Anyway, warning will be issued and block to follow if needed. Manning (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps I should have just done that, but with all the warnings littered on the page, it appeared to me that this user might not be dissuaded by warnings. Thanks for your attention to the matter, though. Unitanode 14:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Late Show with David Letterman[edit]

The comic made poor jokes about Sarah Palin's daughter - no not the 14-year-old but Palin's 18-year-old who was an unwed mother; the talk-radio folks apparently can't milk this enough. Palin herself made appearances to make much of it, Letterman apolgized and she accepted. Really, I'm overselling this. Some very determined folks just need to inject this first on David Letterman which we've been able to halt but keep on plopping it in Late Show with David Letterman. Palin since has announced her stepping down as US Alaskan governor. The Letterman joke is seemingly on her public image article and that seems, IMHO, an acceptable place for now. Could others have a look at this? There seems no concensus to include this as yet and now I'm avoiding edit-warring with possible socks. I'm stepping back for the moment could others uninvolved have a look? Thank you! -- Banjeboi 05:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What administrative action do you seek with regards to this issue? Hobartimus (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I think a semi-protect might be appropriate as my gut tells me we may be dealing with a sock issue. Anons and new accounts wishing to re-insert this would then need to discuss on the talkpage. I'm not terribly interested in sorting out which of the accounts actually may be socking and frankly those that are good at it know how to evade being detected. So absent some outside opinions I think semi-protect would help on this situation. -- Banjeboi 06:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The same thing is happening now at David Letterman, as User:Arzel is trying to reinsert it. Unitanode 07:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Semi-protection of the appropriate articles would seem to be in order. This is basically POV-pushing and trying to make a big deal out of a little blip. Plenty of folks have commented on Palin. Letterman is just one guy. If you had every comment made by or about those folks, you'd have a large book. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • David Letterman is getting some good edits by IPs, which would be collateral of a semi. If we're dealing with serious socks, problem would reoccur as soon as unprotected, so we permanently lose beneficial edits. The Late Show page issue involves established editors as well as anon and newbies (semi wouldn't block them). Are we expecting useful material to be contributed by *any* editors who aren't serious enough to bother filing an editprotected on the talk page? I'd support protection but only as a stop-gap while burning down the sock-store. DMacks (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Does it make sense to let it play out more, keep reverting and see if we have sock evidence? -- Banjeboi 09:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

and it continues[edit]

[8] really, I'm not interested in edit-warring with some anon. -- Banjeboi 14:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked into the content, and this appears to be a BLP issue for Letterman's page, so I'd support temp "whatever prot necessary" on him if it happens again there. I see there is discussion on several talk pages with pretty clear consensus against it on his page also, so that would also user-blockable edit-war against consensus (and viable evidence of socking). There is good ongoing discussion (where I see you've participated) on the talk-page of the show regarding inclusion there. Of the editors involved in that discussion, I don't see obivous socking right now...the recent/active participants are not WP:SPA and have varying edit histories, seem to drown out possible socking by a few IP/newbie accts. I'd support "whatever prot necessary" to stamp out this war while the discussion is ongoing (bad-faith to discuss while edit-warring). DMacks (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the uncommented reversions by two different SPA IPs with matching article in their contributions (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are suspicious. Mfield (Oi!) 16:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't stopped and the suspicious IPs have not made any comment on talk. I have protected it fully and posted a message on article talk[9], Mfield (Oi!) 17:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats on talk page of Taleb[edit]

Please see the following edit: [10] with edit comment "unlawful webstalking on the part of Ulner".

I would also like the following (old) edit deleted from Wikipedia: "The harassment situation is far more serious than you think, which is why we worry about such obsessive users as Ulner . Taleb and the Taleb family has been getting threats by unemployed finance people who have been stalking them both PHYSICALLY and on the WEB. These threats have been reported in the WSJ journal. <ref.</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by IbnAmioun (talk • contribs) 08:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)", see [[11]]. I have sent a message to IbnAmioun asking him to delete that sentence, but he has not given any reply, see [[12]]. Ulner (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat is not explicit. Triplestop x3 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is not an explicit threat - you can also interpret this as incivil communication. I do not know how to end this dispute with IbnAmioun in a good way. Instead of discussing the part of the article in question (now whether to write "polyglot", "who is multilingual" or nothing) he accuses me of webstalking, harassment etc. Ulner (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I've given the user a final warning. If he keeps it up, he'll be blocked. lifebaka++ 19:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This point has been taken to office. Surely wikipedia does not ENCOURAGE someone to engage in defamatory action against a living person; every person has the right to protection from character assassination from an editor with an overt axe . IbnAmioun (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Then the office will handle it. Now would you mind stopping using the legal terms? It makes it seem like you're gonna' pursue legal action, which I assume is not the case (please do let me know if I'm mistaken). lifebaka++ 19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Lifebaka, so far the issue is still too minor for Jimbo Wales and Nassim to get involved --they may or may not discuss it as they are in contact on something else. But it is a matter of principle: Wikipedia is not about personal vendettas. Incidentally these alleged "legal threats" quoted above are from the last episode. My main point is that someone got to keep a vigilant eye on User:Ulner because you cannot invoke "neutrality" while going after the character of the person.IbnAmioun (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You're involved in a content dispute, nothing more, as I see it. Additionally, the first diff Ulner provided is from today. So, please stop assuming bad faith on the part of other users. lifebaka++ 19:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Lifebaka, please read the Talk page. And to answer your earlier point we believe that Wikipedia is good enough to correct things, when pointed out to the persons in charge. IbnAmioun (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Trouble is, there isn't really anyone in charge. Everyone's got equal say, and consensus is what rules the day (rhyme semi-intentional). I suggest starting an request for comment regarding your dispute, since the two of you can't work it out on your own, and the talk page hasn't come up with anything. A third opinion (or more) would probably help. Or just drop it, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me. lifebaka++ 20:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Ulner is systematically nitpicking for every single word he finds positive and nobody can start arguing for words.
Neutrality does not mean that someone can systematically take control on a page by taking out evey positive word, and waiting for people to prove its references with lengthy discussions.
This time it was too obvious. Ulner admits for not knowing the disputed word in English use. A reference was brought to show its simple meaning to be relevant. Now Ulner came up that there is another alternative word he deems to be less positive.
The issue is hardly this single word. It is about a strategy to nitpick for every positive word meticulously. (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the ONLY solution would be to ban User:Ullner from wikipedia or to ban him from editing the Taleb page. The idea of "dispute" makes no sense as he seems to dispute EVERY single word on the page. The entire concept of wikipedia is not to be hijacked by the most obsessive user or the user with a vendetta. IbnAmioun (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • IbnAmioun - You have continued to violate our policy to assume good faith of others on Wikipedia. This does not appear to uninvolved administrators to be Ulner trying to abuse the Taleb article - Ulner is involved in editing many articles and not being found to be a problem on the other ones. This appears to be you and Taleb's family getting upset at Ulner, i.e. a content dispute between you and he.

    Please stop this. If there are specific edits you can point to where Ulner is doing something against policy please provide diffs for them here. If you can't do that - consider that you yourself may have created this conflict and be the source of the problem, and that administrators stepping in may have a very different result than you have asked for.

    Introspective caution is recommended at this point. Please assume good faith and attempt to work cooperatively.

    Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

    • Hello; I disagree. I see no violation in policy as you are dealing with BLP and the situation is much more delicate. I can see the difference between good faith edits and systematically negative edits as those by User:Ulner. There have been many editors on the page who disagreed with each other; in this case it is extremely different. So the problem here is activism and editor's bias: 90% of his edits are about the page. BLP is very, very delicate and risks of defamation are high under such harassment. IbnAmioun (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, looking at Talk:Nassim Nicholas Taleb#polyglot I see two editors, YechezkelZilber and Ulner, having a rational disagreement and civil discussion over this edit, and IbnAmioun stepping into the middle of that discussion with this, which doesn't even address the matter under dispute. It does appears that IbnAmioun is not party to the actual content dispute at all. Uncle G (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
IbnAmioun - your statement that "90% of his edits are about the page" is completely inaccurate. A scan of his user contributions indicated roughly 30 edits in a total of over 1000. This is actually closer to 3% and not 90%. Providing misleading claims is frowned upon in these parts. You are also claiming defamation and harassment, whereas all I could see was a complaint over the term "polyglot" (which, although legitimate in context, is a rarely used term), and an attempt to make the article slightly more NPOV. Unless you can provide clear evidence of bad faith conduct, you will not win support here. Manning (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Not correct. If you look at his user contributions [13] you would see that almost all his recent edits (since he started his thing against Taleb in the beginning of June ) are about Taleb, and related Empirica Capital, Black Swan Theory,etc.

You can assume good faith but up to a point. IbnAmioun (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to ~100% of your edits? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not an editor but a representative, so 100% of my edits are for the page as per BLP rules I can only correct, not add info.IbnAmioun (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
IbnAmioun - it is unwise to tell an administrator that he/she is incorrect unless you can support it. Your statement that "90% of his edits are about the page" remains a wildly inaccurate distortion. I will agree that in the past month the majority of his edits have been on this article, but that is nothing unusual. I regularly have periods of time where most of my effort is focused on a single article. It also remains that there is no evidence of bad faith editing and until you provide it, you will only increase the irritation level of uninvolved admins. Your statement "You can assume good faith but up to a point." is quite appropriate here, but not perhaps in the manner which you intended.Manning (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
IbnAmioun - If Ulner were editing BLP issue comments in to the article there would be a point in invoking it. Or if he were in every instance attempting to make the article clearly more negative about Taleb.
I have been following this incident for some weeks now, and I have yet to see any edit by Ulner which is in fact in violation of BLP policy or is clearly not reasonably an attempt at a better written, neutral point of view article.
I do not exclude the possibility that I am simply missing some of what he's done - which is why I asked for specific diffs.
I am not sure that you fundamentally understand what BLP is about. BLP does not mean that we have to have only positive, cheerful articles about living persons. It means that we write reasonable encyclopedia articles, and exercise some editing discretion to avoid causing them real life harm. BLP does not give article subjects or their relatives veto power. It does not exclude articles from covering critical or negative issues, though coverage of them must be balanced, neutral point of view, and properly sourced to reliable sources.
The policies against any one person claiming ownership over an article and against editing with a conflict of interest apply in this situation. We allow BLP article subjects and their representatives some leeway, in order to encourage more accurate biographical articles and avoid the types of negative comment we've specifically prohibited. But that is not a blanket waiver from other Wikipedia policy. You, IbnAmioun, have been at the least pushing up against those policies in your behavior for some weeks now.
If we were to formally and forcefully begin enforcing all our policies right now, you'd be seriously warned and possibly blocked for those violations, and at worst Ulner would receive a slight warning.
I do not think that that's appropriate or necessary. We have discretion and have been using it in the hope that you'd work it out with Ulner. As that is not happening, however, we need to make you aware of that policy. If this continues to escalate those policies will of necessity be enforced.
Again - assume good faith will get you through more problems than just about anything else. If you reapply yourself to working constructively with Ulner this is likely to be resolved positively. Hopefully you can review your own conduct, and attempt to move past the previous problems.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I need to go on a trip but I will rapidly provide the instances of bad faith editing he saw here, with the onesided discussions on the talk page, starting with the one-sided Myron Scholes quote and the complaint about the additions of context by other editors, then the discussions then the systematic changes in every word like "essayist", the track records of Taleb as a trader (just putting the negative of his career), to the latest bickering (not really of any substance) about the polyglot, to the latest assertions of "NPOV" as anything non-negative. Any single comment on his part is meant to downgrade the character of the BLP.

All I do is watch edits. Usually the positive and negative cancel each other. But with the User:Ulner a systematically negative bias is introduced that downgrades the character of the subject of the bio. IbnAmioun (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's nice. Care to give some specifics? Such as diffs? lifebaka++ 04:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
IbnAmioun writes that "all I do is watch edits" - but he has made some edits in the Taleb article. Regarding my own edits my most substantial edit was adding criticism from Scholes [[14]]. These sentences has been re-written and now includes a reply from Taleb in that matter. I recently suggested that these sentences describing personal attacks between Taleb and Scholes should be removed because they are not so interesting because Scholes' comments does not discuss the merits of Taleb's ideas. Ulner (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I support GWH's thinking on this, and am very uncomfortable with the postings of IbnAmioun about this article. He seems to be making scary appeals to BLP issues when nothing of the sort is at stake. In a previous ANI posting the question was whether Taleb could be validly described as a "literary essayist." I don't believe that Taleb's personal safety is at stake when such issues are discussed. In a posting made at ANI by IbnAmioun on June 8, one of his headings was "Stalking and Harrassment of Nassim Taleb by Ulner." Such language, when it is unsupported by any evidence, is close to disruption. Though I haven't closely studied all of Ulner's work on this, he looks like a normal editor trying to improve articles. I'm unaware of any substantive objection to his work by anyone besides IbnAmioun. I support giving block warnings to IbnAmioun if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted article recreation issue[edit]


The editor Varun21 (talk · contribs) has had a lingering problem over the past month or so surrounding the article ColorfulTabs, an application for Firefox. The article was deleted twice as a speedy A7, then went through this deletion discussion and was deleted yet again. Subsequently, it's been deleted as a G4 twice. I finally protected the page, because it's become quite obvious that the editor doesn't intend to give up. Today, I received a notice of a deletion review, which has yet to materialize. What *has* materialized is ColorfulTabs for Firefox, which is a precise recreation of the article that was deleted through the AFD and twice as G4. This despite a warning I left regarding recreating the article at another name and suggesting a DRV. Can I please ask that another admin look at this, make sure that I've read it right, and handle further discussions, please? Tony Fox (arf!) 01:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Deleted per WP:CSD#G4. In future you could use a {{db-g4}} tag to request deletions for this reason. I'm not sure it's quite reached the point of warranting a block, but it's close. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I wanted to get a fully independent opinion, as I had done one of the deletions and salted the original page. Thanks for looking in; I see he's been blocked, so problem solved. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Did no-one suggest that the editor work on improving User:Varun21/ColorfulTabs instead of simply copying and pasting it repeatedly into article space? Uncle G (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Had I noticed it, I might have. As it was, the repeated warnings about recreating seemed to blow straight over the editor's head. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it a copyright violation even when it doesn't fit the definition?[edit]

Resolved: Dubious passage removed from article. Manning (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Three Hours of fascinated clicking on Wikipedia somehow drew me to Perfect Strangers (TV series), and I noticed this little blurb in Syndication

All 150 episodes of the series are also viewable via YouTube, with a few of the episodes being the original ABC broadcasts (these particular episodes feature announcements for ABC shows airing at the time over the end credits, as well as the "Closed Captioning" and "In Stereo" IDs during the title sequence).

Is this technically a violation of Wikipedia:Copyrights, even thought it is not explicitly linking to said episodes on Youtube? (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a copyright violation on our part because we aren't presenting the copyrighted material. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I did remove the passage, though, because we really shouldn't be encouraging readers to go view the copyvio on youtube. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I like the XKCD reference, by the way. — Knowledge Seeker 06:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

YouTube does apparently have rights to show a large number of movies and old TV shows. See and, but Perfect Strangers does not appear to be one of those shows. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Logged in vandal[edit]

The page June 2009 was turned into an add for some restaurant with this edit by the user 'Annyd' who did this as his/her first edit. I already undid that edit and hope some more action can be taken by the admins here. - Robotje (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A warning and welcome would've been helpful to the user. I left both. There haven't been any more edits from that account, but I'll try to keep an eye on it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of File:NLW-LAD-Logo.png violating WP:NFCC[edit]


Over the past 24 hours, I've thrice removed File:NLW-LAD-Logo.png from Arizona League Dodgers. In each case, User:Spanneraol has reverted me, once calling me a knucklehead [15], once saying I'm not using my head [16], and once claiming that WP:NFCC #10c non-compliance is not a valid reason to remove [17]. I've attempted to explain to him the policy and what is required [18]. He responded that I didn't mention the specific part of policy it wasn't compliant with (I did, 10c), again asserted I'm not using my head, and insisting that I fix the image rather than remove it. Admin assistance requested please. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with his insistence that image violates 10c. I asked him to explain how it violates it but he refused and just again cited the policy. Spanneraol (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Spanneraol, you need to have a fair use template on there for each use. I notice it doesn't even have a single fair use template. Just slap a {{Non-free use rationale}} on it and you'll be fine. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 15:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought the logo rationale on there was sufficient.. I've added that template you suggested. Does this work better? Spanneraol (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, 10c is satisfied now. Just watch the language in the future, m'kay? lifebaka++ 16:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
As with all facts in wikipedia, knuckleheadedness of a given editor requires independent, reliable verification. Otherwise it's just original research. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


During a long debate about moving the alpine town of Merano to Meran, the final decision was to move it. Already during the debate, the user relied heavily on non-factual arguments, often making assumptions about other users nationalities instead [19]. As a French-Swede who has never lived in Germany, I find it strage to be called a "German nationalist". Such irrelevant comments border on insults, andother users than myself objected to it [20]. The decision to move was based on the fact that both Merano and Meran are used in English, and the principle is to use local majority names; this was already the case in 115 of 116 municipalities in the province before, and the move brought Meran into line. Rather than accepting the decission, or at least continuing to challenge it on the talk page, the use took to edit warring to support "his" name of the aticle. [21], [22], [23], [24]. While technically avoding a violation of 3RR, the user is clearly edit warring over the name issue. Once again insulting [25] the motives of those of us who wanted the move to bring the 116th article on Alto Adige in line with the 115 others. He even tried to report the user who restored the page for edit warring [26], showing that he is well aware of the policy. The user's disruptive and insulting behaviour does nothing to improve the situation.JdeJ (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The English version of the official homepage of this town [27] uses Merano. (There's only a link to the german page in the article.) So do the Baedeker guide, the Blue Guide to Italy, the AA Guide to Italy [28], the English Michelin Guide [29], etc. Aren't these guide books the place to look for English-speaking usage? Perhaps it needs a few more people to comment. Mathsci (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As was shown during long discussions lasting two weeks, both Merano and Meran are used in English rather often. For communities in Alto Adige, we follow the local majority language and that is the case for all of the 116 communes in the province. However, my report here is directed at PManderson's behaviour, not his views. He may argue against Meran as much as he wants, I even welcome him to do that but I object to his manner of repeatedly insulting editors who do not agree with him and I find his latest trick of resorting to disruptive edit warring when decisions don't go his way to be immature and unconstructive.JdeJ (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have had a number of disagreements with PMAnderson. His arguing style is always assertive, sometimes aggressive; but I have never found him to employ deception or "non-factual arguments", nor to edit in bad faith. On the contrary, PMAnderson's arguments are usually far more rigorous than those of his opponents. The diffs presented are, arguably, evidence that PMAnderson has uncharacteristically fallen foul of the ad hominem fallacy; but that's about all I see here. Hesperian 12:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian, I take your word for it that that has been the case in your disagreements with PManderson but I do not agree in this case. Other users, including myself, repeatedly tried to get him to present factual arguments but with little success. I even asked three sraight questions to sort it out [30], but they remained unanswered. The other user supporting the same view as PManderson, Ian Spackman, has remained civil and factual througout the discussion. And yes, I do object to being called a "German nationalist" time and time again. Given the history of German nationalism, I consider it a serious insult. I have pointed out to PManderson that it is both insulting, irrelevant and wrong (I'm French, not German) but he continues to use it. I fail to see how repeatedly using a label that he knows is both incorrect and considered insulting isn't "non-factual".JdeJ (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just tried Google (English). When I typed in meran without clicking "Search", Google's AJAX lookup of popular terms gave "merano" and "merano italy". AFAIK "Merano" is normal in English and I only know "Meran" as the name of a chess opening variation.
I've checked the relevant discussions at the [31]. Support for "Meran" was entirely based on a WP guideline which says that normal English usage takes precedence in English WP, and ignored all evidence about what English usage actually is - both there and in this discussion. IMO PMAnderson's use of "disputed" tags was quite justified.
By pushing for hard for anything other than "Merano" on English WP, the supporters of "Meran" are guilty of peristent POV-pushing and edit-warring. for any of them to complain of edit-warring by PMAnderson is outrageous. --Philcha (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Philcha you are off topic - the issue is not whether he is right in his views but the manner in which he pursued those views. If the consensus was to move to Merano then Pmanderson should have accepted that or followed the proper venue for rediscussing the topic not by singlehandedly impose his view on the article. This is editwarring. It is not editwarring that a group of editors propose a discussion, establish a consensus and act accordingly. furthermore it is of course incivil and a red herring to accuse opposing discussants of being "german nationalists" - german nationalism has nothing to do with it and it is incivil and against the assumption good faith to asume that an editor has his opinion because of his policitcal views and not for the reasons he himself gives. Reviewing the evidence I think Jdej is correct in his assesment of incivil and disruptive behaviour frm Pmanderson. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Maunus above, Philca is completely off topic. Philcha, I have no problem with you or PManderson thinking the page should be named Merano. I do not agree with your argument for it and you do not have to agree with mine, but that is beside the point. The point here is conduct, not views. What you are saying is that you think people who agree with your views may behave as they want, because they are right. People who do not share your views are by default guilty of "outrageous" condunct. Not because of they way we behave but because you have decided our views are wrong. While this tells us volumes about Philcha's views on freedom of expression, it has nothing to do with the report on PManderson. He is reported for repeated insults, not for being right or wrong.JdeJ (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
JdeJ, your "What you are saying is that you think people who agree with your views may behave as they want, because they are right. People who do not share your views are by default guilty of "outrageous" condunt. Not because of they way we behave but because you have decided our views are wrong. While this tells us volumes about Philcha's views on freedom of expression, ..." is very close to a breach of WP:NPA, since it appears to imply that I think people with different views from my own are to be shouted down and that I employ a double standard in matters of conduct. If you make any similar comments in future, you will find yourself on a charge of violating WP:NPA.
My comments are not at all off-topic. The current version of Talk:Merano shows that the name of the town's article has been contentious at least since Sept 2005. I do not have any emotional connection to either form of the name - I'm a Brit and have never visited the place. I have simply tried to summarise over 30 screenfuls and 4 years' worth of debate and evidence. You are quite free to point out any errors in my summary - but not to state that I am attempting to suppress freedom of speech nor that "People who do not share [my] views are by default guilty of "outrageous" conduct".
As Pmanderson pointed out, the "local linguistic majority" guideline at WP:NCGNis explicitly a stop-gap to cover cases where there is no established English usage. Pmanderson then presented evidence that the predominant English usage is "Merano", including a link to a thorough survey by another editor. No attempt was made to present evidence to the contrary, which could only have taken the form of another survey. Applying WP:NCGN to these facts results in giving "Merano" top billing, by a small but clear margin.
WP:CONSENSUS says, "In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that polls (if held) are often more likely to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one. Editors decide outcomes during discussion." No effective argument or evidence has been brought against the proposition that majority English usage is "Merano". Hence "Merano" is the consensus, per WP:CONSENSUS, irrespective of how many editors support "Meran". That could be changed, if someone showed that majority English usage is now "Meran" - but that has not been done. Hence repeated insistence on "Meran" without producing evidence about English usage looks like edit warring and POV-pushing.
Back to the subject of this ANI, Pmanderson. In June 2007 he tried to produce a compromise by which the article title would be "Merano" and both "Merano" and "Meran" would be bolded in the first sentence - this discussion petered out. In July 2009 yet another poll was held on the name and at 22:32, 5 July 2009 (yes, the time matters) the closing admin renamed the article "Meran" based on the number of "votes". Since that time Pmanderson has not edited the article. Hardly the actions of a determined edit-warrior. The supporters of "Meran" have been less magnanimous, and have tried to erase "Merano" from the article.
Hesperian (below) has already demolished the accusations that Pmanderson described individuals as "German nationalists".
IMO Pmanderson has behaved significantly better than his accusers. -Philcha (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

--Philcha (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this complaint seems to have been whittled down to "how dare he call me a German nationalist!". And judging by sentences like "Yes, I do object to being called a 'German nationalist' time and time again", there also seem to be an implication that he has done so numerous times. Time, I think, to inject some reality into this discussion:

PMAnderson never actually used the phrase "German nationalist". Initially he said "Very strongly oppose. This is the German national faction on the loose; there is also an Italian national faction (have they been notified of this?)."

Then follows a whole lot of "how dare you!" rhetoric in which he is twice misquoted as having used the term "German nationalist". This is a gross distortion of what he actually said. Characterising a group as a "German national faction" is miles away from calling an individual a "German nationalist", especially when he refers evenhandedly to an "Italian national faction".

Further down, PMAnderson says "This disruptive nationalism has gained no voices; this should be closed."

Then follows a whole lot more "how dare you!" rhetoric in which he is again twice misquoted as having called someone a "disruptive nationalist". Another gross distortion of what he said: it is the difference between calling a political/national position disruptive, and calling an editor disruptive.

Then, right down the bottom, PMAnderson finally uses the word "nationalist", but again in reference not to an editor but to /both/ factions: "There is no consensus to change here; there never has been. There is an uneasy stasis between two factions of nationalists, both of whom will say and do almost anything for their National Truths."

These repeated accusations that PMAnderson called you a "German nationalist" are not sustainable. Go away, figure out what he actually said, and come back when you can post a complaint that isn't full of falsified quotes. Then, and only then, it might be conceivable that we would see PMAnderson as the problem here, rather than you. Hesperian 14:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The comment about "disruptive nationalism" was a direct answer to a comment I made, so I don't think my complaint misrepresent the situation. A bit surprised to see that Hesperian seems to want to pick a fight, or why should he choose to always go for small insults if he can ("go away" "come back when you can post a complain" etc.) rather than saying the same thing in a polite and civil way?JdeJ (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
JdeJ had the courtesy to mention this filing to me; I thank Hesperian for his answer, which I should probably have put worse.
JdeJ has repeatedly stated his nationality to be French-Swedish, and I believe him; his problem is that he believes Wikipedia guidance is (or should be) that we should always name settlements in accordance with the linguistic plurality, even when this is contrary to English usage (like Cologne) and when the majority is 51.5% (as the last Italian census showed for Merano). His actual concern would appear to be the Swedish-majority settlements in Finland, for which English usage would appear normally to be the Swedish form; and he has invented a novel and superfluous "rule" to defend this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I thank PManderson for his response, it seems our views are not as far from each other as the last weeks debate could make one believe. While I don't believe the local language majority should always dictate our naming policy, it is probably true that I place higher emphasis on it than PManderson. Needless to say, I have neither the authority nor the intention of inventing any "rules" about it. I will be more than happy to discuss this issue further with PManderson in the future, and I hope such discussions can focus on facts and that edit warring is avoided.JdeJ (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not place less weight on the principle he has invented; I place no weight on it at all; neither does anybody else. It is, per the discussion linked to, a temporary expedient, for places for which we have no other evidence whatever what they should be called. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, so much for the recent imposition by ArbCom of restrictions on Mr Anderson for unacceptable behaviour; the remedy was supposed to have the opposite effect. I note there have also been a number of flurries here concerning his habit of edit-warring to get his way, often on matters that might seem trivial to the broader community, but which upset other editors on the article talk page. Tony (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Er, to Septentrionalis: (1) I think you wanted to link here (note the nonstandard form of the section header); & (2) I just reviewed the ArbCom ruling & I was surprised to find that his restrictions omit any mention of participating in the talk pages relating to WP:MOS. Since a number of people sanctioned by the ArbCom in that case are also explicitly banned from "any related discussions", I can only surmise that this silence means he is allowed to participate in these discussions. If that is an oversight, maybe the Arbitrators can correct themselves -- or the ruling be amended. -- llywrch (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed he is; were he not, I know where Arbitration Enforcement is. That does not make the discussion less trivial, which was my point; this is the pot calling the kettle black.
So are the comments on abusiveness, as the evidence for the Arbitration will show, for those with a strong stomach. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check requested[edit]

I just deleted The Commune which I had salted previously (which was very cleverly evaded by a move request) as the article in no way asserts notability. There seems to be a series of related articles including other questionably notable socialist/anti imperalist groups. Anyway, I could use a sanity check on my action here, but it will have to be other admins since everything is all deleted.--Tznkai (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A second opinion:
  • The Commune - A group formed in November 2008 with a total membership of 12. No reliable references. Founded by two people whose claim to fame is also founding another non-notable activist groups. An appropriate A7 deletion, as notability wasn't even asserted.
  • Alliance for Workers' Liberty - asserts notability and might have some valid references, though it needs a copyedit.
  • Hands Off the People of Iran - asserts notability but should certainly be stubbed to reduce the screenloads of polemic and personal opinion. Let's see how the AfD goes. Euryalus (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
AWL and HOPI are pretty well known on the British left. Not sure why you'd want to delete them. Fences&Windows 20:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Not being immersed in British politics, I can tell you as a neutral reader that the HOPI article looks like non notable amateurish teenage pseduocommunism. Its incoherent, and there is no way to let me know if it is, or is not significant? I mean for that matter, how significant is the Brittish left, and is it so significant that an entity within that larger group that is well known to said larger group, is encyclopedic?
I have no freaking clue - but the article as written suggests that its vanity and bias.--Tznkai (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The article as you nominated it was appallingly written, but Craftyminion tidied it up to rid it of that writing style and then I added some references, so it's not the same anymore. I'm not sure why you posted at AN/I about AWL and HOPI, what incident has occurred that needs admin attention? Fences&Windows 00:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You didn't bring up AWL or HOPI here, Euryalus did. But what relation do they have to The Commune, the deleted article? All I see are unrelated UK far-left groups. Fences&Windows 00:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I found what is probably the same The Commune, who have a Wordpress blog and publish a pamphlet. They seem to have nothing formally to do with any other left-wing groups. Looks like some of them like Dave Spencer have been bouncing around between various groups for years. In what sense is there a "series of related articles"? Fences&Windows 00:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. Spencer split from the AWL. He split from the Socialist Labour Party a decade ago too.[32] Someone creating a non-notable splinter group doesn't make the parent group non-notable. Fences&Windows 00:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
My concern was shared possible authorship and similar writing problems, and at least the surface of notability problems. Thus the request for help/afd. Cause you know, totally outside of my expertise, but it looked suspicious, so I threw it to consensus generating processes and it seems things have been dealt with well. --Tznkai (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I brought up the other two groups because Tznkai referred to a "series of related articles", and these were the related groups named in the original The Commune page. So I assumed they were the related articles referred to. As I said above, AWI and HOPI assert notability but both need (or needed) a major copyedit. No one seems to be advocating AWI's deletion, and HOPI is at AfD with an alternative suggestion of stubbing. The only article unambiguously meeting deletion crtieria was "The Commune" itself, and it's the only one that has been deleted. The merits of the AfD and any recent improvements to the HOPI page should really be debated there rather than here. Euryalus (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Admin overrides MoS protection without discussion[edit]

It's a small matter in one way, but needs to be addressed. Will someone make it clear to User:Hyacinth, only recently promoted to adminship, that launching in and overriding the protect on the Manual of Style to insert a comma—particularly since it degrades the text—is not the way to do things, to put it mildly? Tony (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page mention.

As an aside, I'm unsure why the MoS is still protected, although it doesn't affect the need for the admin to understand his role WRT to protected pages and talk-page consensus. Tony (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As you say, small matter, but unacceptable. Consensus on the talkpage at the moment seems to be that the change was unwanted. Ironholds (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh noes, a comma! No really, couldn't this be worked out with a friendly note on the talk page of the admin who made the mistake? As you said, they're rather new and might appreciate the pointer. Unless there's some serial comma-ism or spree of editing protected pages? Shell babelfish 09:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Side note: Looks like it was protected during the great quotation mark wars - if that dispute's been settled I think it could be unprotected (someone else jump in here if there's something I'm missing please). Shell babelfish 09:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Shell, thanks for your response. It's the kind of detail that MoS sometimes deals in, and would affect the ease of reading when repeated thousands of times in our text. How about I post now at MoS talk to ask whether everyone is OK about the lifting of the protection; i.e., that all are going to respect the need for stability? Let's see what comes up in the next day. Tony (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I don't doubt the importance of keeping Wikipedia legible, its the edit warring instead of hashing it out that always confuses me. Sounds like you have a good plan there - you're welcome to drop me a note if everyone seems to agree that further edit wars aren't immediately foreseeable - not certain I'll be any faster than WP:RFPP though :) Shell babelfish 10:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
This is no small matter. With respect, the edit was a patent absurdity. The readiness of editors to barge in with this sort of thing is one reason for guideline specialists like myself to stay away from MOS. Some of us prefer not to wallow in futility. Meanwhile, the page has been locked for weeks, over a quibble that could easily be overcome, with goodwill and a little creativity.
I hope that admins will be sensitive to the special status of WP:MOS, and thoughtful in their interventions there. MOS is hugely important for WP, especially in the development of our flagship featured articles.
¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 10:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Shell, I've posted at MoS talk on the stability issue WRT unprotection; let's hope editors there agree to toe the line, especially as ArbCom is due to conduct an audit of MoS stability in just over two months' time. I'll let you know on your talk page. Thanks. Tony (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
In real life, I write articles. Someone else (the editor) fixes them, and those fixes stay ... unless the Publisher says otherwise. I guess the lesson is that nobody here is the publisher, so don't over-ride unless you're 1,000,000% sure. (talk→ BWilkins