Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive575

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Request WP:KEEP[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaakov Teitel: conclusion Speedy Keep is reached. Request closing by an admin. Editor is notified-DePiep (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not yet, no; only two people have asked for a speedy closure, one of whom was yourself. When and if it reaches that point, an admin or experienced editor will close it. Notices here aren't necessary. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The debate is no longer unanimous, either - one editor has recommended Deletion. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The AfD has been closed as speedy delete. NW (Talk) 20:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
That was equally wrong: the person is a confessed serial terrorist & multiple murderer, with excellent news sources. and the deletes were based on the fact that he had not yet been convicted. BLP is important, but this was not an urgent case of do no harm, and time should have been allowed for debate. I've removed the resolved tag here. Over-reaction. I've notified the closer. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree with DGG. The whole point of BLP is that Wikipedia should never originate such material. Anything that's carried in multiple appropriately reliable sources is fair game. This is yet another example of why BLP remedies allow overreaction without providing appropriate protection to unexamined issues that no one catches. Jclemens (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to re-open it if there is consensus to do so, but an article on someone who hasn't even been charged, let alone convicted, seems very shaky to me. Surely better suited to WikiNews at the moment? Black Kite 22:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the reason you first gave on your talk p. when asked was NOT NEWS-- where is that given as a reason for Speedy??? As for BLP, he has confessed, remember, a/c multiple irreproachable sources. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
While Wikipedia is not the place to argue with the statements of what we consider reliable sources, irreproachable or otherwise, I would consider a confession extracted under police custody shady basis on which to support anything. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and moreover as this is not only a WP:BLP situation, but one dealing with allegations of terrorism, we should tread very lightly. One is reminded of Taner Akçam and similar situations. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
With the page being deleted, it is hard to tell what it actually said. However, I do not like the sources being based solely on notability that comes pre-trial. "terrorist" and "multiple murderer" would be sensationalistic to talk about, so it would be hard to separate what is actual news and what was written just to sell papers. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, however given concerns, I have undeleted the page and re-opened the AfD. Will monitor. Black Kite 23:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is there any discussion of an AfD here? —Finell (Talk) 23:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think everyone knows about 'deletion review'. Now that I can see the article, I see why it was speedy-deleted. But before seeing it, I guess I can see why people would've been concerned. 72.88.55.196 (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Akuvar & Cold Stone Creamery discussion page[edit]

Could some one please interject themselves in the discussion at the Talk:Cold Stone Creamery page. A contributor, Akuvar (talk · contribs), is being obtuse, he has launched into a tirade of personal attacks and will not stop accusing me of vandalizing and adding false information to the article. I have repeatedly tried to explain to him what I did, why I did it, what has previously been to the article by other contributors and what he is doing is wrong and he simply will not stop. He is still a new user with less than 100 edits to his credit, and while I have left notes on his page, including a welcome template, my attempt at explaining my points has come to no avail.

At this point, I am done with him and his refusal to listen to reason; someone else needs to try to get through to him and explain what the proper way to go about doing things is. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 20:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You both behave impatiently, but I would hardly say that the level of animosity warrants admin intervention. You have to explain your edits point by point, in separate paragraphs, rather than in a long speech, so that you both see each other's logic. It is next to impossible to negotiate minor details by mising all them into a single paragraph. Item by item, please. Nevertheless, the issue doesn't look like the admin's action. I would suggest you to follow the rules of wikipedia:dispute resolution and concentrate on article content. If you are offended by particular phrasing of the other wikipedian, please say it plainly and briefly to him, what exactly you consider an offense and why. It is quite possible you will receive an apology. - Altenmann >t 21:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I did, the first response was snappy but I explained why I he was mistaken in his assumptions. The second response was a six paragraph breakdown responding to each of his points of contention, telling why I did each thing and describing the reasons behind my edits and their relations to the various policies. I spent a good deal of time on the response, trying to keep the tone more level and giving clear answers that put forth the information as succinctly as possible and my points were still disregarded.

He responded with the same accusations while ignoring my examples and policy links. He is basically stating I rewrote the whole article, filling it with untruths and factually incorrect information. I have even removed said factual errors that were there before my edits and he still accuses me of vandalizing the article. I may have been brusque with him in my first response, but how do you respond to someone who keeps repeating the same false information and ignoring my counter arguments? --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 21:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've given an opinion on the talk page. There are no conduct problems from either side of the dispute except for calling each other uncivil, which isn't necessary. It's a content dispute, that's all. -- Atama 02:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I want to thank the editors who looked in on this dispute. I have been involved in several content disputes, although I am a "new" editor, and find that healthy debate inside the discussion page doesn't warrant people taking things personally. I am not sure what happened here, but editor Jeremy escalated past that "healthy discussion" very quickly to a tone that I felt intimidated by, one of threats of administrative action if I didn't back-down. That, to me, doesn't create a good atmosphere on wiki, especially from a veteran and well decorated editor like himself. I still feel pretty beat up over this issue because of how this was escalated. I don't mean to continue or prolong this, but every editor should have the right to call out another editor when they post something that is incorrect and not backed up by citations. I don't think anyone, in any job they do in this world, should ever feel so veteran, so secure, that they can no longer take criticisms, even from the most novice in a field. I think that is what happened here. Akuvar (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Whatiswrongwithwiki problematic edits[edit]

Resolved: Heh. Blocked. Brandon (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Somebody needs to take a look at the edits by Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk · contribs). Already warned about vandalism, they've added to their User page that they originally intended to use the account for vandalism, but changed their mind, but the edits they've made since them are pretty problematic. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The edits i made were to erase vandalism. I clearly stated that in my edit reports, and my user page was a joke. I consider this a personal attack, an very much against wiki love. Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The edits you made were to erase your own vandalism, which was made after the edit to your User page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. But still, i erased the vandalism, an if i was serious, the vandalisms not only would have stayed, but went un-noticed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatiswrongwithwiki (talkcontribs) 01:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

QED. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I dont think a block is deserving yet, however I would advise Whatiswrongwithwiki to change they'r username per WP:USERNAME. And remember WP:AGF Lets see it the pattern of vandalism continues.--Coldplay Expert 01:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not asking for a block, yet, but what good faith am I supposed to assume when they explicity say they came here to vandalism, and then proceed to vandalize? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what does QED mean? Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Q.E.D.. BencherliteTalk 01:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for defending me, coldplay expert. I have already filed for a name change. Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Its Coldplay Expert not that it really matters but... Well anyway I hope that you will live up to your promise and I must warn you that some editors will watch you for a while.--Coldplay Expert 01:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I will. I will stick to my areas of expertise, and i have sent Who then was a gentleman? a peace pipe. I will send a Cheezburgr to you too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatiswrongwithwiki (talkcontribs) 01:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You said "if i was serious, the vandalisms not only would have stayed"; so the vandalism was a joke, was it? Please make sure that there will be no more "jokes" of that type. You can't expect people to assume good faith with you when you edit like that, whatever your intentions are. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

understood. Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hernando de Soto[edit]

Could we get a semi-protect for this page? Not sure whats going on, maybe he's in someones school project or something, but there has been a pretty fair amount of ip vandalism lately, just look at the history. Thanks in advance. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Doug Hoffman promo photo.JPG[edit]

Resolved

The image File:Doug Hoffman promo photo.JPG is under a disputed fair use claim, but the subject is a living person, which should be replaceable under Wikipedia:Non-free content. Could a sysop review the situation and determine the appropriate action? This will be a touchy situation, because Doug Hoffman is currently running in the New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 2009--Blargh29 (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Both are replaceable and should be deleted and replaced with File:Replace this image male.svg/File:Replace this image female.svg. This will hopefully motivate their campaigns to donate free images. If not, their loss.  Sandstein  06:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
They DID donate free images. They provided hi rez images for download and/or media use. Notice that "media" is in the very name of the Wikimedia Foundation. The only thing missing is associated legalese. Another triumph over bureaucracy over common sense.Bdell555 (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • They are both tagged as such, but awaiting a sysop to delete them. I am not one, which is why I made this note here.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Wreid[edit]

Hi. Wondering if someone could look at the edits by User:Wreid. There has been admission of some kind of off-wiki dispute between him and Alexander Halavais (who edits as User:Halavais, and they had an edit war recently that has seemed to calm down. However, Wreid seems to have taken interest in Halavais's article (which I fear might be a COI), and also went so far as to include critical commentary about Halavais at Criticism of Wikipedia. I feel this most recent edit is quite problematic, and that their off-wiki conflict is spilling into this space. Thx. 130.132.143.49 (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wreid has been notified of this thread. Basket of Puppies 02:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I tried my best to deal with this when it was on my talk page (section). I told both Halavais and Wried to stop editing articles related to their field (internet studies), but both of the users did not take my advice. However, Halavis made suggnifigant improvements to the article Internet Studies, in the process adding a wikilink to his Center's wikipedia page. I felt that the wikilink was a good compromise to the external link that they both appeared to be debating. Tim1357 (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Terror threats[edit]

Resolved: Jake Wartenberg 03:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

122.104.198.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at Talk:Barack_Obama. Dr.K. praxislogos 03:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a clear terror threat, bust out the hammer.--SKATER Speak. 03:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Got it. This kind of thing can go to AIV in the future. — Jake Wartenberg 03:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought he had to get a level 4 for that. Thanks for the tip anyway. Dr.K. praxislogos 03:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh my. What is the thing to do in cases like this, other than revert? Basket of Puppies 03:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not resolved just yet. Some admin, please expunge this item [1] from the history, as was done with a similar threat a day or two ago that was posted in the OBL page's history. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Gonna need a steward for that one. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Needs not a steward, but Oversight. Beyond the reach of admins because the page is too large. Needs an oversighter since the devs seem to be sitting on bugzilla:21165. — Jake Wartenberg 03:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Revdeleted an Oversighter. — Jake Wartenberg 04:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Doug Hoffman promo photo.JPG[edit]

Resolved

The image File:Doug Hoffman promo photo.JPG is under a disputed fair use claim, but the subject is a living person, which should be replaceable under Wikipedia:Non-free content. Could a sysop review the situation and determine the appropriate action? This will be a touchy situation, because Doug Hoffman is currently running in the New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 2009--Blargh29 (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Both are replaceable and should be deleted and replaced with File:Replace this image male.svg/File:Replace this image female.svg. This will hopefully motivate their campaigns to donate free images. If not, their loss.  Sandstein  06:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
They DID donate free images. They provided hi rez images for download and/or media use. Notice that "media" is in the very name of the Wikimedia Foundation. The only thing missing is associated legalese. Another triumph over bureaucracy over common sense.Bdell555 (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • They are both tagged as such, but awaiting a sysop to delete them. I am not one, which is why I made this note here.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Wreid[edit]

Hi. Wondering if someone could look at the edits by User:Wreid. There has been admission of some kind of off-wiki dispute between him and Alexander Halavais (who edits as User:Halavais, and they had an edit war recently that has seemed to calm down. However, Wreid seems to have taken interest in Halavais's article (which I fear might be a COI), and also went so far as to include critical commentary about Halavais at Criticism of Wikipedia. I feel this most recent edit is quite problematic, and that their off-wiki conflict is spilling into this space. Thx. 130.132.143.49 (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wreid has been notified of this thread. Basket of Puppies 02:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I tried my best to deal with this when it was on my talk page (section). I told both Halavais and Wried to stop editing articles related to their field (internet studies), but both of the users did not take my advice. However, Halavis made suggnifigant improvements to the article Internet Studies, in the process adding a wikilink to his Center's wikipedia page. I felt that the wikilink was a good compromise to the external link that they both appeared to be debating. Tim1357 (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tim1357, I take exception to your characterization that "critical commentary" was atributable to me. I did not such thing. I provided links to comments the subject made himself about his own behavior. I expnded a topic that the previous author (someone other than me) wrote about the subject person. I carefully provided information without the color of my opinion. Halavais own words form the primary sources. Ommision of his self-disclosure misrepresents the facts. Wreid (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Terror threats[edit]

Resolved: Jake Wartenberg 03:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

122.104.198.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at Talk:Barack_Obama. Dr.K. praxislogos 03:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a clear terror threat, bust out the hammer.--SKATER Speak. 03:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Got it. This kind of thing can go to AIV in the future. — Jake Wartenberg 03:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought he had to get a level 4 for that. Thanks for the tip anyway. Dr.K. praxislogos 03:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh my. What is the thing to do in cases like this, other than revert? Basket of Puppies 03:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not resolved just yet. Some admin, please expunge this item [2] from the history, as was done with a similar threat a day or two ago that was posted in the OBL page's history. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Gonna need a steward for that one. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Needs not a steward, but Oversight. Beyond the reach of admins because the page is too large. Needs an oversighter since the devs seem to be sitting on bugzilla:21165. — Jake Wartenberg 03:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Revdeleted an Oversighter. — Jake Wartenberg 04:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi[edit]

User:Moreschi with the help of User:Grandmaster tries to merge the article of Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan while no any consensus (3v3) at the talk [3] and no admin made any decision on merge. Using his admin privileges, Moreschi is supporting one-side actions at the Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement area which is quite dubious and a neutral view on these actions could be very helpful! Gazifikator (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

it does look to me that he is abusing his privileges. maybe his administrator status should be challenged. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Gazifikator, if you want this to be able to stand on its own, you need to expand Islam in Azerbaijan to the point where summary style article is warranted if that article is not to become grossly swollen. Please read that guideline and abide by it, otherwise you are just disruptively content forking. Moreschi (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
so should we merge Fundamentalist_Christianity and Christianity or are those two separate things? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you could read Wikipedia:Summary style as well, and stop sticking your nose into areas where you patently have no clue just to piss me off. Shoo. Moreschi (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
man, are you unpleasant type. i'm going to "stick my nose" where ever i want. piss your self off as much as you want, i don't give a damn. Shoo you. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Moreschi, the policies regarding civility and no personal attacks apply to administrators even more than to other editors. Please observe them in the future.  Sandstein  10:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein, since when is "shoo" incivil? As to the rest, it was a factual description of what this IP is doing. He's pissed off because I blocked his friend Ludvikus, posted in this thread, not because he knows anything about the long-running armenia-azeri wars, but just to annoy me. Moreschi (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I know what it's like to do admin work in a highly contentious ethno-political subject area. Just keep your cool and try not to sink to the level of discourse preferred by the various ethno-warriors, is my advice.  Sandstein  11:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
i really don't need to have a harvard education to be able to make a distinction between radical islam and islam. it is quite obvious to me. no need to look into talk page archives for the "reasoning" behind their merge. (ps. i saw this thread only because it was right above my thread below -- i didn't "chase" you through this page to find you and "piss you off") 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
p.s. Ludvikus is NOT my friend, nor do i know him/her. I simply don't like seeing unjustice, and i see it quite a bit here on wikipedia. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Harvard education or no, you have clearly not read Wikipedia:Summary style, or, for that matter Wikipedia:Content forking. If you had, you might understand why it is the correct style to treat "radical islam in X" as apart of "islam in X" until the "radical" section becomes too big and has to be spun off into its own child article. Which it probably will do in most cases, but clearly not here. Moreschi (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
you're right, 212.200.205.163! That's what we discussed with other users, while Moreschi preferred to merge the article with no explanation and in the same 'civil' manner he/she has. Admins with such a 'civil' language and no interest to discuss or even explain his views do not add any honor to Wikipedia! Like in our post-soviet semi-democratic countries where the government is less civil than the citizens. That's sad... Gazifikator (talk) 11:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You are being highly disingenuous. I quick glance at the talk page shows 5 users supporting a merge with 3 opposing, one of whom just said "per Gazifikator". Looks like ample consensus for a merge to me, particularly as all the actual content is retained at (you guessed it) [[Islam in Azerbaijan, without, it seems, overburdening that article. Wikipedia guidelines take precedence over your desire to create your own content fork. Moreschi (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
your mention of Wikipedia:Content forking shows that you don't understand the distinction between radical islam and islam. they are not POV's, they are different things. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • To address the original point made by Gazifikator, after looking at the history of Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) it does appear that Moreschi has misused his admin tools to win a content dispute. After having revert-warred over the merger of the page to Islam in Azerbaijan previously ([4], [5], [6]), he protected the page in his preferred (merged) version ([7]). That is a very serious matter. I do hope there is a good explanation for this, because otherwise a request for arbitral removal of tools will be unavoidable.  Sandstein  11:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, please. Have you bothered to have a look at the history? 5 users support the merge, 3 oppose, all the content is retained at the target article, I do the merge as uninvolved admin. This is how consensus works, no? A couple of SPAS and IPs (presumably socks/meatpuppets of Gazifikator) revert, they are in turn reverted and the redirect semiprotected. Locked out because of the autoconfirm requirement, Gazikikator immediately logs back in to revert himself. The original consensus stands, so he is reverted and the redirect locked. This is in no way violation of tools, just administrative enforcement of legitimate talkpage consensus. The fact that I happen to agree with the merge is irrelevant, as I did not participate in the original talkpage discussion. Moreschi (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec) I assume you refer to Talk:Islam in Azerbaijan#Merge. It is not common practice to enforce a merger consensus with page protection, since consensus can change (and 5 to 3 doesn't look like a consensus for merging to me). Should there be edit warring about a contested merger, your duty as an uninvolved admin would be to sanction the edit warriors or protect the m:WRONG version, not revert to your preferred version first. It is also not clear from the history that you acted as an uninvolved administrator in this merger discussion, and contrary to what you say I can't see where you made the merger. Your contributions to Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan are limited to repeatedly reverting the unmergers of others, without discussion, and finally protecting the page in the merged version.  Sandstein  11:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you please bother to review the history? The merge was made (can't remember who by) Gazifikator reverted, I reverted back. By doing so I was signalling my approval as uninvolved admin that the merge should go ahead. Which it did with no dissent, apart from IPs, SPAs, and Gazifikator, who seems to have reverted to meatpuppetry. Gazifikator does not get to ignore a perfectly valid talkpage consensus (and, frankly, not only did the mergists not only have better numbers but also better arguments by far, and yes, we are supposed to evaluate that) simply by reverting back to his content fork. Edit warring, ignoring consensus, content forking, and apparently meatpuppetry. This is disruption. Moreschi (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You may be right that there's disruption going on, Moreschi, but (a) admins have no special authority in content issues, and (b) one can either act as an editor or as an administrator in a content dispute, not both. At no time during your reverts of the unmerger did you indicate that you were acting as an administrator to enforce a consensus (even if "enforcing consensus" was an admin job, which it is not). This means you acted as an ordinary editor, and can't later put on your admin hat to stop an edit war that you were a part of. I'm sorry, but I am very disappointed.  Sandstein  11:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Huh? I'm sorry: it is generally accepted practice that admins close contested merge discussions. We have a whole page for it. The only valid criticism to be made here is that, yes, I arguably should have explicitly stated on the talkpage "I am closing this merge discussion". Calling for an arbcom case just because I didn't fill out all the form is just bizarre. Why not just AGF that was I not trying to edit war, and was instead trying to close the merge discussion? Clearly it seems I should have posted on the talkpage, although no one seemed to complain at the time. FFS, I think dealing with disruption is far more important than making sure each microscopic step of process is followed to the letter, in triplicate. This is process wanksterism, and it's highly unconstructive. Moreschi (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The page you link to is WP:RM, which is about moves, not mergers. Maybe you meant WP:PM, but that page does not mention the intervention of admins anywhere. I am sorry, but I do not see you acting as an administrator trying to close a merge discussion. Had you wanted to, you would have actually closed it. Rather, you simply reverted to a redirect multiple times without any discussion whatsoever. That would be bad editing practice for any normal editor, let alone an administrator.  Sandstein  12:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein, why not AGF? Why are you assuming I am lying? The discussion had been done on the talkpage, and IPs, SPAs, and the article creator were trying to ignore it. Since we can assume the IPs and SPAs to be meatpuppets of the article creator, this is disruption in the form of ignoring consensus. While the vast majority of merge discussions need no admin intervention, it is common practice in nationalist disputes to get an uninvolved admin to help out (my talkpage archives are chockfull of such requests) as the parties realise any attempt to deal with a contested merge themselves will simply lead to a vast bout of revert-warring. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd very much like to see it your way, because I appreciate your work in these topic areas, and fully agree with your essay, User:Moreschi/The Plague. But what I see in the article history simply does not match your explanation. All I see are three reverts (1, 2, 3), with no useful edit summary or talk page explanation or anything. That is typical edit-warring behaviour, but more importantly, by repeatedly reverting to your preferred version (whether or not it has consensus behind it), you became an involved editor in the content dispute. That was why it was completely out of order for you to suddenly put on your admin hat after the last revert and protect your preferred version.
I would like to have a committment from you that you will not use admin tools again to enforce what you perceive to be consensus in content issues, and that you will more generally not use admin tools again while involved in a content dispute. If that's fine with you, the matter is resolved as far as I am concerned, and we can go ban a few nationalist trolls together.  Sandstein  12:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Reverting a single-purpose account, or a random one-edit IP address, is not edit-warring. It is responsible use of the revert button in accordance with maintaining encyclopedicity and consensuality. Yes, I should have posted on the talkpage, but since everybody concerned knew who I was and what I do, they understood perfectly well what was going on. You are wikilawyering, enabling trolls and forum-shoppers, and seem totally unable to understand that banning or blocking nationalist trolls is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. That end is encyclopedicity. You can either take this to arbcom or quit this thread. I am not going to change my methodology. I have used admin status and tools to nudge the nationalists towards WP:ENC for 2 years now. It has worked well, far better than any robotic enforcement of the rules, and is not going to be altered. Moreschi (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. I'll drop it here, if only because I have no intention of supporting whatever assortment of POV-pushers are on either side of this dispute, but I do believe your approach of involving yourself in content disputes with admin tools is profoundly mistaken, and very likely counterproductive.  Sandstein  13:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Unfortunately, if admins have no authority in content issues, Wikipedia effectively has no way to enforce consensus. There's a highly mistaken notion out there that consensus will enforce itself just by the continued editing of the community. In areas like this one that are classic nationalist hotspots, this is more or less guaranteed not to happen due to the truth crusaders who will stop at nothing. This leaves us with a need for occasional bending of the rules (which, may I point out, is entirely accepted within policy). Also, Sandstein, your patronizing attitude is not helping anything. If you cannot see that Moreschi is trying to enforce Wikipedia's content policies, you're missing the point completely, and being patronizing toward someone like that is also missing the point completely. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not mean to be patronizing, but please show me the policy that says that admins have the authority to enforce consensus with administrator tools. The proper way to deal with truth crusaders is to ban or block them, not to take sides in their content disputes, as Moreschi did here.  Sandstein  12:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, lord. You just don't get it, do you? Our job is the maintence of encyclopedicity. Everything is secondary to that - everything. The nationalists actually understand that, which is why, by and large, my role as a neutral voice settling their disputes is largely accepted. The encyclopedia is the patient suffering from plague. Our role as admins in curing the plague consists largely of minimizing disruption, yes, but this dependent upon establishing which side of the dispute is most in accord with encyclopedicity. If we don't do that, we're doing more harm than good. Acting out of ignorance is worse than not acting at all. Encyclopedicity here means Wikipedia:Summary style, incidentally. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
That sounds good, but of course it assumes that we administrators are the judges of encyclopedicity. Wikipedia just does not work that way. Content is determined by consensus, not by decree, and we were elected as administrators, not as content moderators.  Sandstein  13:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Heimstern's post is correct, of course, but doesn't actually go far enough. People like Gazifikator are always going to revert as much as they can even when consensus is against them. They'll use up their 3rr allowance, and the other editors (Grandmaster, etc), if they are to "enforce consensus", have to revert as well. Of course, to people like Sandstein, this will look like nationalist gang warfare (as indeed it would be, to a certain extent). So everyone gets blocked and heaven knows what happens to the article.
This is clearly not sustainable, hence we have admins (that's me) dealing with disruption, closing merge discussions, and enforcing consensus. Yes, this may be skating on thin ice as far as WP:ADMIN is concerned, but the alternative is far worse. At the price of (arguably inflated, yes) sysop power, we get a massive reduction in disruption and drama (or we would do were it not for Sandstein stirring the pot here). A price worth paying? You decide. Moreschi (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
"..At the price of (arguably inflated, yes) sysop power.." You said it all with that statement. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Shrug. The disruption that caused 2 massive arbcom cases has not revisited arbcom since - and that's only in this topic-area, let alone the other areas I monitor. I'd say it works fairly well, given the passion of the editors at hand. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
      • While I accept Moreschi's explanation in principle, I agree it looks a little bit borderline; however, I too find that in light of relevant guidelines and on the basis of strength of policy-based arguments there was a valid consensus to merge, so I have removed Moreschi's protection and replaced it with my own, as an entirely uninvolved administrator. Fut.Perf. 11:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
      • The article was a clear POV fork littered with weasel words and original research, and note that at least four editors including Moreschi were redirecting, versus Gazifikator, an IP and a clear sock. Whilst in a perfect world Moreschi should've asked someone else to protect it, There's certainly no need to get all dramatic and start asking for an ArbCom case. There's nothing here that demands that. Black Kite 11:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Just an example of OR from the article, please! And could you explain, why the only 2 uninvolved users are supporting that "weasel worded OR"? Gazifikator (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In fact the far more serious issue appears to be that Gazifikator has either been sockpuppeting or soliciting meatpuppets. It is certainly highly suspicious that the minute my semiprotection locks out the IPs and SPAs he reappears with his main account to revert again. This suggests either a highly improper degree of coordination or just plain socking. Moreschi (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Quite possibly, but that is a matter for a WP:SPI investigation. Though I am frankly tired of seeing Gazifikator and Grandmaster (talk · contribs) repeatedly involved in every one of these A-A wars; maybe both need a long topic ban.  Sandstein  11:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, this is a tempting way to look at it. Unfortunately if I banned every single one of these people, they'd be replaced by a new crowd of nationalists within about six months (including some reincarnations). And we wouldn't get anywhere. We just have to deal with the disruption as it comes and keep things at a low leve, periodically blocking those who sock, edit war or violate WP:BATTLEGROUND too blatantly. It's a perennial problem that has to be solved by constant supervision. There is no way around this. Moreschi (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Once again we have this [8], so I prefer to not be called a SPA-user by Moreschi. He can't attack me using non-confirmed accusations! Gazifikator (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I didn't call you a SPA. Stop being silly. That comment was for the one-edit account who did a revert. Moreschi (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
      • The only 2 uninvolved users voted 'oppose', and what's wrong if one of them preferred just to support my view. While you failed to express your views on support of under AA2 users (you know, I mean the Azerbaijani users who obviously dislike the existence of such an article: one of them vandalized the article previously and another was noticed for non-civil comment). And about "SPA"'s and IP's - they have no relation with me [9] (I wasn't the only active editor), others also just see injustice in your unexplained actions! And FYI: there is still no admin's decision in your "5/3" Gazifikator (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, the IP's use of English was better than Ludvikus. Then again, I appear to have already made an blunder by WP:AGFing on Ludvikus for so long. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Involved admin in topic areas shouldn't be using ops in any kind of regard. Ryulong was desysopped not too long ago with ArbCom making very clear statements to this effect. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Blocking of “A” “nationalists” [10] – looks like support of “B” "nationalists" [11]. May be such definitely not easy issues better to be handled not by opera prolific editor with a big admin guns?94.179.181.178 (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm late for the party, but if you read the entire talkpage, there is 5v3, not 3v3 as indicated above. Hope, that says it all. Moreschi's actions are entirely justified, no need for a storm in a teacup. Brand[t] 21:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The blocking policy makes it clear that involved admins are not justified. By making such a claim as you do above, you do not benefit to Moreschi, but you undermine your future credibility in responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Ottava Rima, the majority of your response is quite counterproductive, and I think you appear to have troubles accepting that anyones opinion can be different to yours. This is highlighted by your choice to focus on Brand's last sentence which is his opinion on the merits of this, rather than on his first sentence which notes a useful fact that there were clear issues with the filing complaint to begin with. This is further problematic when you bring up a user's credibility - neither is it needed at this discussion (or by policy), nor is it appropriate. By contrast, your first sentence would have been both appropriate and sufficient, on its own. You really need to start taking on the advice you were given during your previous block (or when it was lifted): to change your approach in responding to others, particularly those you disagree with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Blocking policy is rather clear. It is not "opinion" based. If you disagree, please look at many ArbCom cases with such individual desysopped. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand why Moreschi is being criticized here. Let's have a look at the history of the article. The article was merged after the discussion at talk by User:NickPenguin [12], an editor, who has previously never been involved in AA issues. Gazifikator reverted the merge, [13] and started an edit war, despite the fact that he was placed on 1 rv per week parole. Gazifikator got blocked twice for edit warring on this article, trying to undo the merge. First time he was blocked by Sandstein, [14] and second time by Moreschi: [15] When edit warring on Radical Islamism became problematic for Gazifikator, it was suspiciously picked up by SPAs and anon IPs. First it was reverted by an obvious SPA Ptrustct (talk · contribs): [16], and then twice by 91.210.40.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). [17] [18] This pretty much looks like meatpuppeting, as the sock and the anon were continuing the edit war led by Gazifikator. Note that once the article got semiprotected, and edit warring using anon IPs became impossible, Gazifikator resumed the edit war on that article: [19] To me this looks like an off-wiki coordinated effort. And then when the redirect got permanently protected, Gazifikator took it here, complaining about the admin who protected it. I'm surprised that no one takes any notice of disruption by Gazifikator, of the off wiki coordinated edit warring with the use of SPAs, but the admin who tried to stop the disruption became a target of criticism. If someone is not happy with the merge, there are procedures for contesting it, but edit warring should not be tolerated and encouraged, especially when it involves violation of editing restrictions and apparent meatpuppeting. Grandmaster 06:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal Threat[edit]

Noticed this from a Wikiquette thread. User:190.25.80.226 has made legal threats (claims he is being discriminated against) on Talk:Involuntary_euthanasia. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 05:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Which specific edit are you referring too? It would help a lot if you provided a diff. Chillum 05:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I tried to get a diff, but the user makes many edits in succession, and I can't yet find it. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 05:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Got it. [20] [21]. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 05:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
There's a description of the "Euthanasia is murder" multiple IP spree disruption incident up a few incidents. I have blocked this IP for 48 hrs. Please block any more IPs participating in this as well.
If they won't slow down generating new IPs, consider rangeblocks and/or semiprotection of pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Disruptive/warring editor (and perhapsdefinitely blockable on that alone), but not legal threat IMO. DMacks (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Tweaked after looking at previous discussion of this edit pattern. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Disruption and whining, but I don't see a legal threat there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I've protected the article for two weeks. Hopefully the block works, but he jumps IPs pretty often. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Why you protected the article? why you blocked me? It was not a legal threat, even the user who asked if that was a threat realized it was not a threat, that happened more than two hours ago, the thing was resolved and we continued discussing the article content!!! Now you blocked me saying that I was editing warring, but since we were discussing in the talk page two hours ago, I made no editions to the article. Should I think that this is a way to avoid the discussion because a lack of arguments and sources? 190.25.110.56 (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
¿Cómo se dice "disruptive" en español?Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
"...The Committee is well aware that the new Act does not as such decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide...The new Act contains, however, a number of conditions under which the physician is not punishable when he or she terminates the life of a person"

UN - Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : Netherlands.[22]

And involuntary euthanasia is defined as a crime, be it as a murder be it as a assited suicide, that is a legal fact, why do you think it is disruptive and a pretext to block me??? see the source. Actually we were not discussing if that was true but if it was pertinent to include that information on the article and where. 190.25.110.56 (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not what it says in the quote box you posted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
To the anon - we will block any IP you use in this series of edits and protect any page, until you agree to stop vandalizing and inserting your own point of view into articles rather than relying on published sources, and agree to not use wikipedia to fight your external political or social battles.
What you are doing here is a gross violation of why Wikipedia exists and is offensive to our core goals and purpose of existence. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Then what is the source saying? it is an example of the Netherlands, and says that euthanasia has not be decriminalized, it means it is still a crime. And I refered to the Netherlands because it is the only country were the involuntary euthanasia on new born has beeen declared not punishable and you can read that the definition of involuntary euthanasia in this wikipedia refers to that specific case!!!. 190.25.106.87 (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Stop this. We can block the entire IP range you're coming from if need be, and protect this page if necessary, along with all the others you're contributing to. You're being unspeakably rude to us by behaving in this manner. Stop now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Instead discussing the thing you are just blocking me. Even although I'm not editing the article, and eventhough I'm providing the reliable sources and arguments anyone asks for. I'm just inviting you to the discuss page. Let us continue in the talk page of the article instead of threating with blocks. When you arrived with your blocks we were already discussing the thing there, and I was trying to reach a consensus, for example, I was asking and waiting for a reliable source which demonstrates that the legal definition of involuntary euthanasia is NOT relevant to define it as whole. Now I will also wait for a reliable source showing that involuntary euthanasia is not a crime in some country on the world. Asking for those sources is a violation of the wikipedia policies? 190.25.110.182 (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Your contributions to date, and your approach to "discussing this", have been unspeakably rude and abusive by Wikipedia standards. If you do not stop this behavior we will stop you by blocking anonymous editing on the pages you're discussing on and if necessary blocking the IP ranges you are editing from temporarily.
Please believe me when I say that both:
  • Your behavior has been unacceptable over the last day or so.
  • We can stop you, and we will if you do not stop behaving badly.
If you actually intend to discuss this in a reasonable manner and in the appropriate places we will not do either of those things. But your comments so far have been grossly unacceptable. Please stop that behavior rather than force us to stop you. What you have done is grossly counterproductive. If you actually care about the topic and point you are trying to make, please look back at your behavior and think about it, and then change that behavior.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm just waiting for the sources and the arguments. You are the one accusing, threating and blocking. If you think you are right, it is not my ethical problem. Three hours ago when I was warned and invited to discuss in the talk page instead of editing, I understood the right proceeding, I went to discuss the thing and I stopped editing, and anyone can see that we were discussing, in fact I was waiting for the answers to my questions, until you arrived blocking me and the pages. 190.25.98.152 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
This page has been semi-protected for the next six hours (or until another administrator judges that this incident is over). If you continue this harrassment behavior on other pages we will block your IP range. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
190.25.0.0/16 is soft blocked for 6 hours. Note that J.Delanoy had to do this on Sept 27 of this year over their earlier behavior - this user is intermittent but persistent. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Weber[edit]

Kmweber (talk · contribs) has begun editing again, and asked on GlassCobra's talk page for his user and user talk pages to be unprotected. I have done so, and have also undeleted the histories of both those pages. I vaguely remember some drama around the time that Kurt left the community, so I would appreciate it if someone could look over my actions. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the user vanished. Vanished means vanished; it's not the same as a wikibreak. Majorly talk 18:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This was the state of the ban proposal during which Kurt retired. I don't think there was consensus to ban then and he seemed to acknowledge that his behaviour had been disruptive in a way that he had not intended, so unless there have been developments between then and now, I don't see why he does not deserve a wait and see approach.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the consensus to ban was pretty apparent, but was made moot by the retirement of Kurt. If Kurt wants to edit again, then the obvious thing to do is to make a new account; if he stays away from the type of interaction that got people so exasperated then there will be no reason for the accounts to be linked. I don't know why Kurt is so keen to reactivate the old account, and am afraid that is indicates that Kurt still does not "get it" why people previously complained about him. That said, I would not be adverse to the content editor that previously edited as Kmweber returning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why you would want him to create a new account. We should encourage him to stick to the old account if anything. Whether or not he should be allowed to edit is another matter altogether. And he did not vanish, he left. That's not the same thing at all. He left, he can come back, if he wasn't banned, he can edit; if he was banned (or would have been) then he can edit only if we let him. BTW, protecting his talk page was out of process.--Doug.(talk contribs) 18:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Doug is right. Creating a new account would make it look as if he tried to trick the community into thinking he was a new user. Just let him edit from the old account, if he does exhibit a problematic editing pattern again, we can act upon it when it happens. It's not as if he does not know that. Regards SoWhy 19:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
And looking back at the discussion, I do not see a consensus for an outright ban. A topic ban restricting him to article and article talk space does appear to have been getting solid support but I concur that we should let him edit and wait and see what he does. Has anybody talked to him about his choice to come back?--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I just notified him of this thread on his talk page. I note that he returned on the 9th with four edits in the article/talk space and two edits yesterday, one in article space and one requesting assistance from an admin with a deleted page. That plus the request for unprotection don't give me a whole lot of concern yet. I think we can close this thread as resolved in that no one has suggested that NW's unprotection was improper.--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I unprotected the talk page to let him do what he needs and so the tabs look right for other editors.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 20:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about the community ban part, but it's certainly clear that there are a lot of people who would be happy if he refrains from posting in WP:RFA indefinitely. If he wants to prove to his detractors that he is interested in making good faith contributions to Wikipedia, I strongly advise him to stay far away from there. -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The rfa stuff is fine; there's a fucking huge slab of text there now about ignoring some votes. anyone running for admin who doesn't even read the rfa rules doesn't deserve to pass. anyone who thinks he's trolling shouldn't be feeding his. anyone who thinks his point needs rebuttal can e pointed to the fucking huge slab of text, and reminded that closing vote counters ignore his votes. He's a lot less disruptive than many other editors. (eg most frequent poster here) Remember Civility (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
With a name like that & all of those f-bombs in your post, I figure you live under a bridge yourself & have nothing to contribute here. -- llywrch (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
A general comment. Please stop recommending that past banned users should start up new accounts. Apart from the fact that such an action is technically possible (thought see Durova for an argument that evasion is eventually futile), it does us no good to suggest that obscuring account history is valuable. We have this bizarre community hallucination about the ideal banned editor who starts up a new account and edits productively outside a narrow topic area that got them banned. That either describes an exceptionally narrow band of editors or stems from rampant wishful thinking on the part of a community known for wishful thinking. I'm not disputing that some bans are de facto topic bans and that circumventing those bans may actually result in a net-good, just arguing that the track record is pretty shitty. The blanket suggestion should look like this: for bans imposed hastily or unilaterally, some unblock or unban without conditions should be considered (or with a topic ban as a sole condition). For bans imposed after some time (as KM's was), the standard offer should be extended. Not this garbage about starting a new account. Protonk (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Also a specific comment. Linking to the most recent ban for KMW obscures the fact that prior bans and topic bans had been enacted. Full disclosure, I supported one of the ban proposals after he left a particularly nasty comment to a new user on AN. But if he is back and wants to act like an adult, then welcome back. Protonk (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I was going to make a rather snarky addition to this discussion, but re-wrote my comment here because Protonk is 100% correct. The Wikipedia community has an amazing capacity for giving people second chances and AGF in the rehabilitation of formerly-former editors. If Kurt is willing to stop doing the things that nearly got him banned last time, then welcome back. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, let's give Kurt a chance to show us what he can do, and hope that he knows enough to stay away from RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm no fan of Kurt's, and I never have been, but he's been away for almost a year, lets at least give him a chance to prove that he's changed his ways. He can easily be banned if he starts up with the same stuff as last time, but I think that the potential good if he just sticks to contributing in the mainspace is too tempting to just pass up. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC).
Weber was facing a total ban for months of trolling and harassment, and there was finally a consensus forming to get rid of him, and we allowed him to vanish on the proviso he wouldn't come back. However, I'm showing him some good faith, because he might have grown up over the past year (although, if he's still an Objectivist...). So I support allowing him back, on the provision that this is absolutely his final chance. If it even looks like he's going to start trolling or harassing people, he's gone and won't be back. Sceptre (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ill-considered article moves[edit]

Resolved: An administrator has rectified the situation. --Favonian (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We have a bit of trouble with an editor who on three occasions ([23],[24],[25]) has moved articles about fairly notable athletes to names under which they are not commonly known. According to the edit summaries this was done in order to make room for the creation of articles about other persons. The first two moves were undone by administrators, but now he is at it again. The third move is in fact a repeat of the first one. The editor has been notified that such moves are not appropriate, but this does not seem to have had the desired effect. Favonian (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bose products deletion redux[edit]

A recent multi-article AfD was less than cordial, with warnings for off-wiki canvassing, allegations of being a corporate flack, WQA, socks / SPAs, the works.

As it hardly surprisingly closed non-consensus, the same nominator, Snottywong, has now (quite properly) put forward a merge proposal (effectively the same goal as the multi-AfD, but without the visibility). They then canvassed a partisan selection of those who'd commented on the AfD in support of their position. I would however see their recent bulk deletion of content across these articles as prejudicial to a consensus merge process and beyond a GF action. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

IP posting about blocked user FrancisLightHouse[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked, talk page locked. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP 74.99.83.3 (contributions) is posting all over the place with demands that all "content" about User:FrancisLightHouse should be removed from Wikipedia. No actual legal threats, but needs to be nipped in the bud all the same, I think. It's probably a sock of the user. --bonadea contributions talk 16:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Left a stern note/final warning. If they post again, they'll be blocked. TNXMan 16:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Not having read this message, I have blocked the IP 6 months for block evasion as well as deleted and salted the previously-recreated user talk pages. If any other admin desires to undo my block and/or deletions, I am open to that. However, I know that everytime this vandal comes back, he is up to no good (just like a similar vandal that deals with courthouses). MuZemike 17:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Tnxman, for going over your head. MuZemike 17:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries here. TNXMan 18:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Didn't see this thread until now. Reviewed an unblock request, then found the IP refactoring my comments, adding their own unblock accepted template, and other, similar shenanigans - so I locked the talk page. I think we're done here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring over 30 Seconds to Mars[edit]

I already reported it at WP:AIV and even told this admin and even tried to settle it myself through discussion but this IP has continuously edit warred regardless of the fact that this is fully sourced content and doesn't even have a valid reason to what edits they have been making. Their edits have been continuously reverted (since ysterday and not just by me). There's absolutely nothing I can do, I've tried everything, I'm now at this point leaving the IP address warnings for the disruptive edit wars. -- GunMetal Angel 18:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't care one way or the other, but the IP has made almost no attempt to open a discussion concerning their changes beyond screaming about it on the talk pages of the article in question and then deciding that they'd 'discussed' it. I'm only reverting because he appears to be doing this without consensus. HalfShadow (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
All Music Guide says post grunge and neo prog. if A Beautiful Lie is an emo album, under the heading "Styles" there was written "emo". So, there aren't the sources thay say "30 Seconds to Mars is emo". Please, read the review.--151.49.225.4 (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to thank the IP address for pointing this out, the source that they are referring to is being misinterpreted. Let me explain; the "styles" section are not genres and do not warrant what is written on a Wikipedia article's genre section. Either way or another, this still would have "emo" stated, because emo is mentioned at the end of the allmusic review for 30 Seconds to Mars' A Beautiful Lie album. This IP address continuously denies this, and continuously edit wars, I've left this IP address already four warnings and should be blocked. -- GunMetal Angel 18:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

To GunMetal Angel: Please don't use WP:AIV for content disputes. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's kind of my fault; I wasn't sure exactly where he should being this up. AIV seemed the best place. HalfShadow (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
At this point, on the content dispute, both parties appear to be in a 3RR violation on the page. I've posted warnings to the talk page of both 151.49.225.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Gunmetal Angel (talk · contribs). This needs to be resolved on the talk page, not endless reverts. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: A new IP (95.239.182.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), which is demonstrating an interest in the same articles, is now also editing the 30 Seconds to Mars article. A checkuser would be needed to confirm; but the quack test suggests the new IP is being used as a sockpuppet to attempt to circumvent the 3RR warning. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If the review says that the album is emo, it was referred like here. Please, discuss on the talk page.--Loverdrive (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi violating the terms of his probation[edit]

Resolved: Both Muntuwandi as well as Captain Occam are placed on a 0RR restriction for 1 month

--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In July, the user Muntuwandi was unbanned from Wikipedia under the condition that he follow 1RR and avoid engaging in disruptive behavior. However, over the past three weeks he has been violating these conditions, and multiple attempts to resolve this issue with him on his userpage have been futile.

Most of Muntuwandi’s disruptive behavior has been related to the Race and genetics article, and his desire to remove a certain image from it. Each time that he tries to remove it, he’s cited a different Wikipedia policy that he claimed it was violating; justification he’s given for removing it include original research, unreliable source material, that it’s “misleading”, and the availability of a better image. He’s also nominated it for deletion at Wikimedia commons based on based on the claim that it violates its source material’s copyright. Since none of these claims from him are rule violations per se, I don’t think it’s necessary to provide diffs for them, but the relevant point is that his desire for this image to be removed is not based on any one specific policy. Each time that one of his efforts to remove it based on a particular policy has failed, he’s begun a new attempt to remove it based on an entirely different policy; I don’t think he disputes this fact.

The important point here is the one reason for removing this image that Muntuwandi has brought up again and again, which is based on a personal attack and nothing else. Muntuwandi has found some of what I’ve written about this topic at a website outside Wikipedia, and based on what he’s inferred about my motives from what I’ve written there, he’s come to the conclusion that my motive for editing this article is not acceptable. Several of the times that he’s removed this image from the article, it has been because he dislikes my motives and for no other reason, such as this diff—he did not explain this removal on the basis of anything wrong with the image itself, but only that he believed me to have been intending to push a POV when I added it to the article.

WP:NPA states that in content disputes, arguments for the removal of content should be based on what we think is wrong with the content itself, not based on attacks against the editor who added it. Since Muntuwandi has been arguing for this image’s removal based on my motives for adding it, in some cases to the exclusion of all other reasons, I think this is a pretty clear violation of NPA policy.

Here’s a brief history of Muntuwandi’s use of personal attacks as a justification for this image’s removal:

Oct. 24: (1): “Occam on his talk page and blog has stated that he believes that there is a "biological basis for the concept of race".”

Oct. 25: (2): “On your blog, you state that this image proves that there is a biological basis for race. You have introduced the very image into the article race and genetics. It is pretty clear to me that you are trying to use this image in the article to prove that there is a biological basis for race.”

After the first two examples of this, I warned him on his userpage that this behavior from him was a violation of NPA policy. However, his behavior did not change.

His next personal attack, on October 28th: (3): “Occam stated on his blog that he believes that his image proves that there is a biological basis for race, though the authors of the image make no such proclamation... Occam has been insisting on using this image and he would like the community to pretend that the comments on his blog don't exist.”

At around the same time as this comment, his violated 1RR on the Race and genetics article, with two removals of the image (1) and (2), which were a little less than 21 hours apart. Because of this violation as well as his continued personal attacks, I warned him about this behavior on his userpage a second time.

Here is his latest personal attack, from earlier today: (4): “Naturally I don't expect you to care about such, since the most important thing for you is to show an image that you believe proves the existence of biological races.”

As can be seen from his response to me on his userpage the first time I warned him about this, Muntuwandi has tried to justify these personal attacks based of the fact that I linked to my DeviantArt gallery (it’s not actually a blog, but he can call it that if he wants) in a discussion with someone else in my user talk. However, this is irrelevant to the problem I have with his behavior, because my problem is not that I mind anyone knowing about what I’ve written elsewhere. As I’ve explained to him multiple times, the way in which he’s violating Wikipeda’s policies is by trying to get this image removed by attacking the contributor who added it, rather than the content itself. As pointed out by Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing, everybody has a bias, and the fact that any particular editor is biased does not matter as long as their contributions follow Wikipedia’s policies. But despite how many times I’ve pointed this out to Muntuwandi, he is continuing attack my motives as a reason why my contributions to this article aren’t acceptable, regardless of whether he can find a policy that my contributions violate or not.

There’s no end to this in sight. Neither of my attempts to resolve this issue with Muntuwandi on his userpage have made any difference, and neither does the fact that of the four editors currently involved in this article, (him, me, Varoon Arya and David.Kane), he is the only one who wants this image removed. His repeated attempts at this, citing a new Wikipedia policy after each of his earlier attempts based on another policy has failed, have filled more than half of the article’s total discussion—that is, including all of the archives—which could be considered a disruption even if it weren’t for his violation of 1RR and his repeated personal attacks. I think some admin intervention is necessary at this point. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User notified per WP:NOTIFY. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, and not the central point, that image is from 1994, and there ought to be a more accurate one available, considering all the work that has been done in the following 15 years on genetics of human populations. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
There might be, but the section of the article that currently includes this image is discussing the research of one specific person--Luigi Cavalli-Sforza--and this image is one of the most frequently-reproduced representations of his results. The current reason for including it is just as an illustration of Cavalli-Sforza's research in particular.
In any case, I'd rather not debate about the content of the article here, since a content dispute wasn't my reason for posting here. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure where to begin so as to add as little to the [[WP::DRAMA]]. What Captain Occam fails to mention is:
  • Captain Occam has been reverted on this by several other editors. One of the main objections (raised by at least 4 editors that I'm aware) was that the graph was not taken from Cavalli-Sforza, but from Jensen, who has been criticized for misinterpreting Cavalli-Sforza's results for his own ends.
  • Muntuwandi in his objections has always relied on content policies (he's cited more than one, true) and not on Captain Occam's words on his own site.
  • I fail to see how most of Muntuwandi's observations can be construed as personal attacks (personal attack = "you're an idiot" or something similar), although I can understand that Muntuwandi's guessing about Captain Occam's motives may have irritated him.
  • Captain Occam's behavior, both on that page and on Race and Intelligence, has in fact benn called tendentious editing in its own right.
In conclusion, all I see here is basically a bitter content dispute, and little in the way of sanctionable behaviour. I'd say let the drama end here and point this dispute back to its talk page where it belongs.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of raising this issue at ANI as well. To start with, there is an essay at WP:TLDR regarding long threads. There has been a recent surge in editing activity on a number of race related articles. Much this recent activity can be accounted for Captain Occam's edit, which at present are consistent with WP:SPA. Captain Occam made this image file:populations.png, and uploaded it to the article Race and genetics. Captain Occam also placed a link on his talk[26] to his personal blog in which Captain Occam states about the image
This image can be considered a visual representation of my argument against the claim that there’s no biological basis for the concept of race, which is a popular belief among sociologists.
It is not unreasonable to think that Captain Occam is insisting on using this image, because he believes that "it proves that there is a biological basis for race" as stated on his blog. I have therefore suggested that Captain Occam may be violating WP:NPOV by WP:ADVOCACY. This is because the author of the original image, Cavalli-Sforza, stated that this image should not be interpreted "racially". Captain Occam's racial interpretation of this image is his own original thought and personal opinion, and it would appear that he is trying to use this image as a way to skillfully advocate his opinion on wikipedia. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Ramdrake, I’m not sure why you’re getting involved in this issue, since you’re no longer participating in the discussion about this article. Probably because of your unfamiliarity with it, most of what you’re claiming here is simply false.
“Captain Occam has been reverted on this by several other editors. One of the main objections (raised by at least 4 editors that I'm aware) was that the graph was not taken from Cavalli-Sforza, but from Jensen, who has been criticized for misinterpreting Cavalli-Sforza's results for his own ends.”
Not anymore, it isn’t. When this objection to the image was raised originally, I found Cavalli-Sforza’s original study online, modified the image to be based on the original source material, and cited it to Cavalli-Sforza rather than Jensen. It no longer uses any information from Jensen and is no longer cited to him, and this has been pointed out on the article talk page. After I fixed this problem, Muntuwandi was the only editor who continued trying to get this image removed.
“Muntuwandi in his objections has always relied on content policies (he's cited more than one, true) and not on Captain Occam's words on his own site.”
If you look at the diffs I’ve linked to, as well as the explanations Muntuwandi has provided in his edits themselves, you’ll see that this is false also. Several of the times that he removed this image, my motives for adding it were the only justification he provided.
“I fail to see how most of Muntuwandi's observations can be construed as personal attacks (personal attack = "you're an idiot" or something similar), although I can understand that Muntuwandi's guessing about Captain Occam's motives may have irritated him.”
Actually, Muntuwand’s behavior is a perfect example of the description of an “ad hominem” attack at WP:NPA.
“Captain Occam's behavior, both on that page and on Race and Intelligence, has in fact benn called tendentious editing in its own right.”
Yes, primarily by you and Muntuwandi, and several other users have said the same thing about you. Let’s not distract the administrators by bringing up irrelevant issues here.
Muntuwandi: continuing your personal attack in this thread is probably not the best way to defend yourself here. Everything you’re saying here has not only been addressed, but is a further example of what I’m talking about. But just to summarize:
The current discussion about this image is whether, as an illustration of Cavalli-Sforza’s results, it belongs in the section of the article describing Cavalli-Sforza’s research in this area. The image does not mention race, and neither does the section of the article which includes it. For this reason, the image is being used in a way that is consistent with how its author intended it.
However, whether there is anything wrong with the actual content of the article does not appear to matter to you, because you believe that my motives are unacceptable, even if there’s nothing wrong with my edits themselves. You are supposed to criticize edits on the basis of the edits themselves, not the motives of the editors who made them. This has been pointed out to you multiple times, but each time you ignore it. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
User Mutuwandi has clearly broken his 1RR condition by repeated removing the graph. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a semi-formal community, one cannot make comments off-wiki and expect wikipedians to switch off and pretend that those comments were not made, especially if they relate to a wikipedia article. I have cited many policy issues regarding the image but this has mainly because Occam has shown little interest in the surrounding text and the article in general, which I believe is consistent with WP:ADVOCACY. Apart from introducing the image, Occam has made no effort whatsoever at integrating the image with the surrounding text, as a result the image improperly sourced. The image is from one publication, History and Geography of Human Genes and the surrounding text is from another, Genes Peoples and Lanuguages. Simply inserting an image from one publication into text based on another creates WP:SYNTH issues. I have removed the image for this reason. I have further stated that if indeed Occam had good faith intentions with using the image, then he or Aryaman, should write up text that is consistent with the source of the image and include it in the article. Occam or Aryaman have yet to do so but are claiming that I am edit warring when I have suggested what I believe, and hope others will too, is a reasonable compromise that an editor acting in good faith would definitely consider. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
As I stated earlier, this isn’t the place for a content dispute. It also isn’t the place for making allegations against me that aren’t relevant to the topic of this report—although your claim about what contributions I’ve made to this article is false, I also know that debating about this will only serve to distract the administrators from the topic of this report. What this thread is about is your personal attacks and your violation of 1RR.
Once again: I am not expecting anyone to pretend that my comments elsewhere were not made. What I am expecting, as I have explained both on your userpage and on the article talk page, is for you to only point out problems with the content of the article itself, rather than with the editors who added it.
Claiming that the article has synthesis issues is acceptable, although Varoon Arya has addressed this point the previous time you made it, and I suppose we can discuss this issue on the article talk page after this report is resolved, if the resolution doesn’t involve your ban being reinstated. But you’ve already made it clear that the reason you keep searching for new policies that you think this image violates is because you don’t approve of my motives for adding it. That’s the one point that you won’t stop bringing up, and as such it’s what I’d like to discuss here. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Muntuwandi has removed this image, which was added on July 4th with (as far as I can tell from the history) no negative response from any of the other involved editors, at least 5 times:
  • October 16 ([27]) with the edit summary: "image meant to push a POV".
  • October 24 ([28]) with the edit summary: "removed misleading image"
  • October 27 ([29]) with the edit summary: " caption says "one of eight genetic groups to which all human populations belong", not what Cavalli-Sforza says"
  • October 28 ([30]) with the edit summary: "replaced image with dendograms related to genetic distance matrix"
  • November 1 ([31]) with the edit summary: "some reorganization especially human genetic variation"
Muntuwandi is fully aware that his/her actions are considered unwarranted by at least three other editors, and yet persists in removing the image with the apparent approval of one other editor (who has also removed the image at least 3 times ([32], [33], [34]). The reasons Muntuwandi provided for his/her actions changed every time s/he removed the image, and even when Occam made efforts to satisfy his/her concerns, Muntuwandi persisted in having the image removed.
I tried to diffuse the situation by suggesting a compromise between Muntuwandi and Occam in the form of an entirely new image, and began trying to discuss the issue with Muntuwandi in a rational manner. Just when the discussion seemed to be moving in a positive direction, Muntuwandi performed this edit, which not only removed the image yet again, but which also made substantial unilateral changes to the very section under discussion. Now he refuses a compromise, and instead insists that his preferred text and image be presented along side what other editors are proposing.
I was only recently made aware of the fact that Muntuwandi was formerly User:Earl J. Redneck III and was banned for disruptive behavior. I have tried hard to help resolve this dispute, but I find Muntuwandi unreasonable on this point. --Aryaman (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe that you have cherry picked your diffs
So please don't give the impression that I have been unilaterally removing the image, or that there is near unanimous support for the image. I am no saint, but Aryaman is not exactly a saint either. I have seen some grumblings from other editors about Varoon Arya and Civil POV pushing [35]. His introduction on his user page is quite provocative. I believe he is entitled to his own opinion, but one wonders whether he can be neutral party in a dispute. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, a prime example of Muntuwandi's weird style of argumentation. This incident report is about Muntuwandi's behavior, not about the article, and not even about the image. I limited my comments to the appropriate scope accordingly, but he criticizes me for "cherry-picking" my diffs, ignoring the fact that such a thing in this context is expected. And what does my personal opinion on another, tangentially related topic have to do with Muntuwandi's behavior? Only Muntuwandi knows. --Aryaman (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Muntuwandi, I think it’s worth pointing out that since October 26th—that is, for the past week—you have been the only person who’s continued to remove this image. You’re removed it a total of three times since then; this can be seen from the last three diffs that Aryaman posted, as well as the article’s edit history. You may not be the only editor who had issues with this image at first, but now that I’ve addressed some of the concerns that were originally raised about it, it appears that at this point you really are the only editor who still wants to remove it. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed that no decision was ever made in response to this report from September about Muntuwandi edit warring on another article. Since that report apparently remains open, I encourage administrators to consider it in addition to this one in whatever decision they make. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's make this easy for you...
You're both edit warring over the image. I don't care to delve into correctness of the content issue.
Rather than pick one of you as "at fault" here I am simply imposing the following - you are both on 0RR (may not revert, in any way) on the article Race and Genetics, for the next month (as you've been doing this for at least that long so far). You both should have known better than to do this, and could have handled it in another nonconfrontational manner. Both of you are playing the abusive edits game - and you're both on time out.
If you can edit the article without reverting anyone over the next month, feel free. I don't see any sign you're being disruptive other than with the edit warring. But revert and be blocked.
Cc'ed at ANI, User talk:Captain Occam, and User talk:Muntuwandi Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and:

Rainbow trout.png

WHACK!
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi George, I understand that you have tried to create an "easy solution" to the crisis. But I have to disagree because this is not an necessarily an "easy problem". Captain Occam has been described by other editors as clearly "belligerent". He has already racked up two blocks for edit warring within the last month per his block log. He has openly asserted that he will engage in edit warring [36] and he has also stated that he intends not to engage in consensus building with myself because there is no need since I am on a 1RR probation, he will simply revert my edits [37]. Per his blog, Captain Occam has stated on his blog that he has a particular point of view, and that he intends to advocate it on Wikipedia. I have no demonstrable point of view regarding this article and I am simply interested in improving it. I don't know whether removing the image 5 times over a period of about 3 weeks is intense edit warring, I recall Occam having made about 10 reverts in a single day. My removal of the image may in fact help to improve the article. Occam stated on his blog that he hadn't read the original paper in which the image was published, stating Since I haven’t read Cavalli-Sforza’s original paper, this image is based mostly on Arthur Jensen’s analysis of Cavalli-Sforza’s results in The g Factor. After others had pointed out that Jensen is not a specialist in genetics, the general consensus was that the image could easily be misrepresented. Since then Occam has said he has read Cavalli-Sforza original paper and changed the sourcing from Jensen to Cavalli-Sforza. Lastly I have not said that I oppose the images that Aryaman and Occam propose under all circumstances. I have suggested that they can use their image if the cited correctly WP:Citing sources and if they avoid WP:SYNTH by not combining information from several different sources, all of which are Wikipedia guidelines. All this is on Talk:Race and genetics. Should I therefore have restrictions placed upon me for following wikipedia's guidelines to try to improve the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Man, what’s the point in even responding to you about this anymore? Apart from the things you’re saying that are completely irrelevant (such as my content in unrelated articles), it’s been explained why the rest of what you’re saying here is false in this thread. But you aren’t attempting to address my or Varoon Arya’s explanations of what’s wrong with your claims about this, or why these kinds of personal attacks don’t belong on Wikipedia at all; you’re just repeating them.
What will it accomplish if I explain all of this again? This has been explained to you so many times before that I don’t think it will change very much as far as your behavior is concerned. And it will make the discussion even longer, and confuse the administrators into assuming my report is about topics that have nothing to do with what I wanted to discuss here. Your use of this tactic so far has already apparently made this topic look like it was about a content dispute, despite my efforts to avoid that, so I suppose this is working.
There is one thing you’ve said here that I simply can’t ignore, though: “Per his blog, Captain Occam has stated on his blog that he has a particular point of view, and that he intends to advocate it on Wikipedia.
That’s a pretty serious accusation, but it should be easy for you to support if it’s true. If I’ve specifically said not only that hold this viewpoint, but that I actually intend to engage in WP:ADVOCACY about it, it should be easy for you to provide a quote in which I said that. If you can’t, then you’re in direct violation of this part of WP:NPA:
What is considered to be a personal attack?
Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users.
But you wouldn’t be violating that policy, now would you? --Captain Occam (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I don’t think this is the best decision. The relevant point here wasn’t the edit warring; it was that Muntuwandi was violating the 1RR that he had been placed under when he was unbanned. Since I didn’t have this restriction, the fact that I was reverting this article as often as he was shouldn’t have been the same type of problem in my own case.
This isn’t a content issue, and I’ve been trying to avoid the content disputes that other editors have been bringing up in this thread. It’s just an issue of whether Muntuwandi’s conduct has been violating the terms of his probation.
The fact that he’s been making personal attacks isn’t a content issue either, and that was the most important issue I wanted to resolve here, since both of my attempts to resolve it on his userpage have been unsuccessful. Is no one going to respond to this aspect of my report? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
You are both misbehaving in a very public manner and place. The fate of editors who do that is usually short and unfortunate. Would you both please accept the Trout of Shame and knock it off, before I or another admin takes sterner action? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I’m willing to accept your 0RR decision, but I’d like you (or someone else) to do something about the original topic of this report, which is Muntuwandi’s continued personal attacks. 0RR will not do anything to stop him continuing to make these attacks against other users on talk pages. The newest one in Muntuwandi’s last comment here is probably his most serious so far—claiming that I have specifically stated that I intend to engage in WP:ADVOCACY. I’m quite certain that I’ve never said this, and that Muntuwandi does not have any evidence to support his claim that I have.
Because of ongoing nature of this issue, and the fact that resolving it with Muntuwandi on his userpage has been impossible, I’ll probably need to file another AN/I report about it if it can’t be addressed in response to this one. Since this issue was intended to be the primary topic of my report, though, I would prefer if it could be resolved here. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I (FWIW) support Georgewilliamherbert 0RR on the disputed article on both editors for a month, this still means that you can add as much cited content to the article as you like, and can join in or start discussion on the article talk page. This editing restriction will hopefully help to reduce the tension between you two. Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the perfect solution because Captain Occam and Varoon Arya work in tandem while Muntuwandi seems to be working alone and will likely suffer more with a 0RR restriction but, short of delving into content, I can't see anything better. Muntuwandi, if you remain unsatisfied with the compromise being worked out on the talk page you can always consider an RFC to attract wider input. Meanwhile, I guess this thread can be closed. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Socialist Alternative (Australia) and IP conduct in relation to the inclusion of office holders in Student Unions.[edit]

User:118.138.192.123 has been slow edit warring on Socialist Alternative (Australia) over the inclusion, or non-inclusion, of various student union office bearers. The problem isn't the content dispute; but, rather, that the IP has stated they will continue removal, and has ignored Talk: and User talk: discussions on the point, and warnings. What do you do with an otherwise well behaved IP who has a bee in their bonnet and won't discuss?

Discussion attempts: Talk:Socialist_Alternative_(Australia)#Notability_of_current_members User talk discussion attempts and warnings to discuss: User_talk:118.138.192.123 Example of stated willingness to continue without discussion: User_talk:Fifelfoo#Re:_Socialist_Alternative Edit history of nine reversions without discussion since September: Special:Contributions/118.138.192.123

Advice, help? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment from a non-admin: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people does not specifically mention student union office bearers. It mentions alumni, but says that "only those with verifiable notability" should be listed. It also says "On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents can contain all past presidents, not just those who are independently notable" - but whether this would include Student Union office bearers is debateable. My take on this would be that Union Office bearers should only be included if the appointment is for more than a year. Some offices are for a few years, others for one year. I would say that any President/VP/General Secretary could possibly be considered notable, whereas "Education Officer", "Welfare Officers" and the like would not be. But that is merely my take on this - the policy does not appear to be clear-cut in this particular case, so I would be interested in what admins would say. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    Hi Steve, I don't know if you know the Australian union systems, but usually the President, General Secretary and Education officer (due to disposable budget) are significant local positions. VPs tend to be sinecures in non-militant student unions (cough cough). The other context is that Australia's relatively unitary student unions system means that holding local yearly positions influences the weight a faction exerts on the National Union of Students (Australia). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for that, Fifelfoo - but as I said, I'm not an admin! I'd be interested in seeing what an admin will have to say about this though - this is a learning opportunity for me to get to know policy better. Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • User:118.138.192.123 advises that they can't edit this page to comment here. They've noted their opinion at Talk:Socialist Alternative (Australia) Fifelfoo (talk)
  • In my defence, I am only removing irrelevant information. The people are not notable, they are student representatives within a group. Why not mention in the Labor Party's page people from Labor aligned groups who are office bearers? Or members of other groups who are also? I'm making the article concise, and contain only relevant information. The people are not noteworthy, and thus do not need to be mentioned on wikipedia. The only reason it seems these people would want their names to remain on the page is to gain some form of recognition by the public, which shows they'd only be using their positions as a way to become known and get somewhere further in life. (Career Politicians?) Either way. I will not remove the information until I've been given the go-ahead to do so, but I do not see why these people require their names up there, nor how they'd be considered 'notable' enough to be mentioned anyway. The NUS people, yes, I understand why they're notable, they represent the australian student population at large, but office bearers of individual universities do not and thus do not seem as noteworthy. Either way, as per what was said, these people do not meet the "only those with verifiable notability" criteria. 118.138.192.123 (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is primarily a content dispute, and administrators aren't "super-users" in the sense of possessing extra authority in content disputes. Whilst there may come a time when administrative action against one or other party is required for edit-warring, I don't think that point has been reached yet. So I don't think there's really a need for admin intervention; the solution will hopefully come if participation in the discussion can be broadened in an effort to reach consensus. The suggestion of a Request for Comment on the issue is a good idea; neutral messages inviting participation could also be left at the WikiProjects with tags on the article, as well as WP:UNI and WP:BIO. BencherliteTalk 15:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Threat of Violence[edit]

Can someone ask the foundation lawyer if there's specific action we need to take if there's any death threat against the US president, even if those threats aren't particularly credible? I think the feds take all such things seriously, and want them to be reported. I don't know if not reporting them is a problem or not. Please could that be clarified, by the person responsible for WP legal stuff? Remember Civility (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Such things are almost always reported, for two reasons - first, to stop the harm from occuring, if it's indeed going to occur. Second, we're not equipped to judge which threats of violence are credible and which are not - so if someone threatens to kill someone, and we ignore it, and they actually do kill someone, the project and the foundation are placed in a tricky legal situation (and, obviously, we have the tragedy of someone dying as well). So, both to discourage such things, and to prevent harm, we report them. Reported or not, do you have the diff or article where the threat is? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
In general, the way it works is:
  1. A diff or user is reported here; they get blocked.
  2. If necessary, a checkuser finds a general location for the user making the threat so that law enforcement can more easily pinpoint the perp
  3. A user in the area will contact local law enforcement (or in this case, anyone in the US can call the FBI). If a checkuser was needed, the checkuser can provide limited information to the user calling the cops to assist in their investigation.
  4. Cops take it from there. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. I agree we should not leave it up to our volunteers to decide which threats are credible, pass it on to someone whose job that is. Chillum 16:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. Sorry for the odd placement of my question and lack of heading. I'd meant to add it under a relevant AN/I report, where it seems like stuff was just being blanked without authorities being informed. Remember Civility (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on my user page[edit]

Resolved

Could some one please delete the record of the recent IP vandalism on my user page from its history? Thanks, --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 08:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

TYVM sir. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 17:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

IP User:65.204.124.131 making legal threats[edit]

This IP is repeatedly throwing around the word "libelous" in edit summaries and on talk pages. Since I could be interpreted as involved in a content dispute with him/her, I don't want to do an NLT block myself. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (Yes, I have templated them about the NLT policy.) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Since that address belongs to Extended Stay Hotels and only edited for a few hours, we have probably seen the last of it. Looie496 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTWEBHOST, some think we are..[edit]

Htw3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Seems an Assistant Professor, is using wikipedia as a webhost. Has a few edits outside his userspace (back in 2007), however the last 2 years seem to be userspace exclusive[38].

--Hu12 (