Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive612

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Possible legal threat?

I just noticed an edit summary by 69.154.210.160 that implies that someone will be arrested if they keep posting something. [1] The Thing // Talk // Contribs 06:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, the IP has been blocked... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 06:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Obviously the anon is question thinks people will be arrested for "corruption and misconduct" like "Governor Blagojevich" for posting sock template. Not a legal threat, but definitely disruptive. Recommend the anon be blocked for 24 (longer if their block log requires it) and laughed at for the silliest threat possibly in awhile. - NeutralHomerTalk • 06:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
...like Blagojevich, "and for the same reason". Yes, we've had several wikipedians who tried to sell Senate appointments. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That comment seems to be more out of rage than anything, but is clearly against NPA at the least. Might be a legal threat, but seems more like inflammatory personal attacking, in my opinion. Ks0stm (TCG) 06:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Biting, assumptions of bad faith, and other assorted nonsense at AfD

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boba Phat (2nd nomination), several editors who should seriously know better (Milowent (talk · contribs) and MuZemike (talk · contribs) being the biggest offenders) have been calling the nominator, Biohazard388 (talk · contribs) a sockpuppet and automatically assuming bad faith from the moment the nomination began. Their only bases is that the AfD was Biohazard388's first edit. They have also accused two other SPAs, Rogueslade (talk · contribs) and Mandoman89 (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets or meetpuppet without any evidence. This of course has erupted in a war of words between all the involved editors, and despite a warning to Milowent about assuming good faith and not biting the newbies, has shown any indication he will do so.[2] MuZemike has also indicated that he will not assume good faith either.[3] A sockpuppet case was opened and closed clear all three of the SPAs of the sockpuppetry charges[4] and there has been no evidence that any meetpuppetry is taking place. Now with the SPI closed, Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), who filed the SPI case,[5] is calling for the AfD to be closed as no consensus even though the discussion has only been going on for two days.[6]

On the other end, I've warned Rogueslade about making personal attacks,[7] which he has since apologized for.[8]

What is needed is an admin to come in and start laying down the law about assumptions of bad faith accusations others of sock/meet puppetry without any evidence and to lay off the personal attacks on other editors. I've already attempted to move some of the comments about other editors to the AfD's talk page earlier, but things are still out of hand. —Farix (t | c) 21:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: Even though I know I may be biased, as I am one of the "victims" of these users and this unusual suspect behavior, I must concur with Farix. I am a member on several other wikis, and in one case, an administrator. This is my first time attempting the "Big leagues" of Wikipedia.org, and I have been VERY surprised at the seeming amount of conspiracy-jockying that MuZemike and Milowent have brought to the table. They seem to assume Bad Faith, and have not slowed down since the beginning. Milowent has recently started to contribute to the discussion on the aforementioned AfD. This behavior has cause the discussion on the AfD in question to become somewhat diluted. Much of the discussion (contributed by these users) has seemed to be in attempt to draw attention away from the articles AfD, or at least to hinder the discussion. If possible, it would be nice to see an Admin clean up the AfD so that discussion can continue smoothly and on track.Biohazard388 (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: Also, when the sockpuppet case WAS opened, the users seemingly protected the page, which did not allow the accused parties to add their defensive arguments and comments. This may be the norm, but not as far as I know. This seems to point to more Bad Faith. It might be nothing, but thought I'd add the idea for consideration.Biohazard388 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Come on people. Yes I was suspicious (and am still though without evidence, but I shall hold my personal opinions henceforth), but you are making a mountain out of a molehill. However, I pledge to cease and desist the use of any insinuations humorous or otherwise any further in that AfD. Boba Phat will have to fend for himself. Biohazard388 et al, I apologize for any offense I have caused, I suggest you do not became a regular editor on Encyclopedia Dramatica or whatever its called.--Milowent (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment Accusing a nominator and several persons in an AFD of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, even after they have been conclusively demonstrated to be innocent of these charges, is poisoning the well. Nor did it even cross my mind that you were attempting to merely be "humorous." I think your initial suspicions were well-founded, certainly, but don't poison an AfD with these accusations, and know to drop them once they've been shown to be unfounded. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't see how they have been conclusively proven innocent, they just haven't been proven guilty. Though I stand by all my edits, I have also apologized to Bioh. and I seem to think we can all move on now.--Milowent (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: Milowent, I graciously accept your apologize. Please make sure to note that I had mentioned your coming around in a previous post here in this section. I agree that things seem to be going more smoothly since the Sockpuppet case ended. However, I must also agree that Admin intervention to clean up the AfD would be a good idea. I agree with both Farix and Ginsengbomb that the discussion has been harmed by several users. The discussion has suffered so far, due in part to users continuing discussion where it maybe shouldn't have been. An official cleanup from the staff would be a much appreciated effort, as far as I'm concerned. I'm completely on the side of being fair to the article's creator and the community at large. I'd like to see the discussion cleaned up and focused so that a clear consensus can be reached.Biohazard388 (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In their defense Bio, we did suspect something weird when you came and immediately nominated something for deletion. Although it is an odd first edit, there has been a sockpuppeter who has done exactly that. If you had mentioned that you are an admin on another Wikipedia, I'm sure we would have supported you. The page was protected because there was an attack by another user there and no one removed it because they didn't want to risk another attack. Personally, I was rooting for more socks to be bagged, and the checkuser actually changed the sockmaster of some of them to another user. All is well now and I'm sorry if we ever hurt you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Biohazard388 did not say he was an admin on another "Wikipedia", but on another "wiki", a generic term for any site which uses wiki software. If he's an admin on another Wikipedia, I'd suggest he should say what it is, because it's certainly not under this name, which is active only on en.wikipedia. [9]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Kevin, I completely understand where you are coming from. I realize the situation seemed fishy at the time, and probably would have taken similar action. However, the discussion should have been kept consolidated at the Sockpuppet case's page, instead of overflowing into the AfD page. It also should have ended when the case was closed. Instead, it continued most thoroughly. As an example,MuZemike posted this post-sockpuppet case on the AfD discussion page: "Speedy keep – This is a clear bad-faith nomination by User:Biohazard388. If this isn't sock puppetry by those involved in the SPI, then this is clear meatpuppetry orchestrated by someone on the outside who is recruiting someone to propose deletion on Star Wars-related material on the behalf of Dalejenkins. –MuZemike {timestamp removed to prevent confusion}" This comment can be found on the aforementioned AfD. This is why I feel an admin should clear the page up a bit and try and make sure that the conspiracy theories end so discussion can continue unhindered. I don't have any harsh feelings towards anyone. I just want to make sure that the policies are followed and that we can have a concise discussion in the appropriate section.Biohazard388 (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment – The SPI page was protected due to persistent vandalism by socks of GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs) who was recently causing massive SPI disruption. I have nothing else to say about this matter other than that I still reserve my suspicions as stated; nobody learns how to set up an AFD flawlessly upon their very first edits. –MuZemike 22:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: The reasoning behind the SPI lock makes sense. Concerning the AFD suspicions, I'd like to make it a point to say again, that I am a member of other Wikimedia projects and am fluent in Wiki coding. I also am able to venture forth on the site and find articles such as Articles for Deletion which makes the process quite easy to understand. Wikipedia editing is not just for the advanced and experienced users. It is also there for the daring one's that take it upon themselves to begin working on the site and are willing to read a "how to" article. Don't assume every "newbie" is a "noob". That is why we have rules such as Assume Good Faith.Biohazard388 (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, you're right. There's AGF, and then there's not not making AGF into a suicide pact. That being said, I'm not infallible, and perhaps I have erred and was a bit biased since I thought I was so convinced since there were socks of this user up to two weeks ago who were still trying to nominate Star Wars-related stuff for deletion. Perhaps you came on at the wrong place at the wrong time, but that couldn't be helped. I'll just drop this right here and carry on. –MuZemike 22:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Comment: Thank you for your understanding, MuZemike. Would you be "for" having an admin come in and clean up the AfD so that we can proceed in discussing it thoroughly?Biohazard388 (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Go ahead and have said admin hack away. I consider myself recused from the remainder of the deletion discussio here. –MuZemike 22:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment above stricken as there's a little more background, now. –MuZemike 22:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's good to see that both editors have now appologize. However, I think it is imperative that they strike all sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry accusations as well as bad faith assumptions from their AfD comments. —Farix (t | c) 02:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be very good, especially since people are making more accusations based on those prior comments, and this bad faith toward the nominator seems to be influencing the deletion discussion, as they are suggesting that the article be kept solely because they don't trust the nominator, not on the merits of the article itself. -- Atama 16:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why the SPI page was protected. I know MuZemike said it was because of vandalism by GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs), but if you click that user's contribs you'll see it last edited January 4, 2010. Why is mike still concerned about vandalism?? The page was protected April 25, 2010, with no sign of vandalism in the history. I would hope that the protection wasn't to stifle the accused's ability to defend itself, but unless there's more to the story, that's how it looks. I guess I didn't look closely:there's vandalism of an odd sort (copying back archives). II | (t - c) 05:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Biting, Assumption of Bad Faith and othe assorted nonsense at ANI

This thread is nonsense. there were clear reasons that allowed for a sockpuppetry case. There are three great reasons to file a sock puppet case, One the names and MO matched Dale Jenkins. Two neither of these accounts have done anything other then vote delete, [[10]] [[11]]. Yes in the end a couple weren't socks of Dale Jenkins. That leaves meat-puppetry or truly uninvolved editors that created a account just to vote delete in an afd. I would ask how many votes in the last ten actually allude to sockpuppetry concerns? 90 percent of all delete opinions have been issues with the sourcing or lack thereof of notability. Either way none of this required a report at ANI. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  • As one of the editors in question, I feel that there was indeed ample reason for this thread in the ANI. Yes, there was ample evidence for an investigation into sockpuppetry. I don't contend that, but after the case was closed and decided that none of us have anything to do with this Dale Jenkins character, individuals continued to attack us. Perhaps you missed the comments that were deleted, but they continued to make every effort to have the AfD pulled, not because of evidence supporting the article, but by making direct attacks on the original nominator and a couple others, myself included. I can't speak for the others, but I have in fact made several prior edits as an anonymous user. Unless you possess the capability to track edits by IP address, you'll have to take my word on that. It was only when I saw the article in question, and chose to support the decision to delete it, that I felt it prudent to create a user account. I don't know if it is possible to vote in an AfD anonymously, but even if it is, I don't believe it would carry as much weight as from a registered user. My having a new user name, and indeed the nominator and any others having new user names, was no reason for the other editors, a specific two or three, to continually attack us and make repeated Bad Faith accusations after we were proven to have nothing to do with Dale Jenkins or one another. Rogueslade (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Based on the editing pattern it makes perfect sense. Like I said you weren't proved to be his sosck, that leaves two other choices Meatpuppet or uninvolved, either way this thread is a monstrous waste of community time and effort. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying you condone their continual slanderous comments? The only waste of time was the numerous accusations of bad faith and continued comments on meatpuppetry. If they were so concerned, it should have been brought up to an admin, not reiterated over and over again in the AfD discussion.Rogueslade (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Well if you look they only spoke their suspicions. I am the one who actually filed a sockpuppet case and as I said the sockpuppet investigation only conclusively proves you aren't Dale Jenkins. I am actaully glad the turn that afd is taking though, i thought that article should've been deleted a while ago Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Pizzashoe

Pizzashoe (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

This user is already blocked, but they are exhibiting sock-like behavior. I realize SPI is over here, but as I have no one to link this too, I was hoping someone here might recognize any patterns.— dαlus Contribs 09:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone?— dαlus Contribs 07:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't ring any bells for me, sorry. You could check the page history of the articles which they edited and see if any blocked users jump out as related. TNXMan 14:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hoax article

Resolved

Katrine Tendido has had a speedy tag on it for several hours. The talk page is copy and pasted by the creator from a different article. This article has been deleted two times previously as a hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you not wait patiently like 170 other people? ╟─TreasuryTagdirectorate─╢ 13:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the talk page because it's a blatant misrepresentation of those comments, which were posted t Talk:Miley Cyrus. I'd rather leave the article itself to another admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Additionally, the creator has been blocked, and the userpage which formed the original source of this article has been deleted. Soap 13:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Page deleted as an obvious hoax, each "cast billing" was proved by the article on the program to be bogus, the photograph was of Miley Cyrus. User who created the article had the same content on their userpage, which I have deleted as promotional material, and account indef blocked as a clear violation of WP:U (spam/promotional + disruptive). SGGH ping! 13:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Salting might be in order. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruption, edit warring and 3RR on my talk page.

no admin action needed, user already apologized and explained their error. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR has been edit warring over messages that I had receved from another editor on my talk page. To make things worste, I had already told several times to direktor not to post on my talk page (I supose that also means, not to delete edits...). Here are some usefull diffs:

  • 1) The deleting by direktors of posts on my talk page: [12].
  • 2) As seen, he broke the WP:3-RR there.
  • 3) This is far from being the first time he edits on my talk page knowing that I asked him not to, here: [13] (the edit itself, see last comment), or [14], here you can see it in context.
  • 4) One exemple of his clear acknolledge of that fact (knowing that I don´t want him posting on my talk page) is found here [15] where you can see him saying that he didn´t noticed me about a ANI report he donne on me, because, in his words: "the user instructed me not to address him". So, he doesn´t warn me on ANI report because of it, but edit wars with another user when he feels to?

I had already done a report on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but an advice I had receved was to take the report here. The excuse direktor has been using is that he touth that the user posting on my talk page was a sock, but it isn´t. Direktor has been using this "he is sock!" excuse in several ocasions and for reverting edits on several articles. I am reporting him for doing it on my talk page, where he has been edit warring and where he brole the WP:3-RR while knowing that I had deniyed him access to my talk page. He obviously had many other ways to react there, he chouse the worste. He has also been very disruptive on the Flag of Yugoslavia article where he has been editing the article against all other users (6 in total) even ignoring the recomendations from the project itself (Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, other comparable cases and where he also made racial and other attacks on oposing editors. I just want to see how many rightfull reports on him are going to be ignored (if...) here. Hoping that will not be the case, I send best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

His mens rea depends on who he believes the user to be a sock of? A banned user? Though I agree editing anothers talk is very bad form. SGGH ping! 20:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you guys need to move on to WP:ARBCOM, these constant threads at ANI are ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It´s up to you to end this, but calling rightfull reports "ridiculous" is contraproductive... FkpCascais (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Here we go again... People were just starting to miss you I think, User:FkpCascais.
Two things old FkpCascais accidentally forgot to mention:
  • 1. Here's the post I removed:
    • "i met the same problem as you with the same user:DIREKTOR, but on another side of his influenced area of wikipedia. His making the wikipedia project dangerously drifting away on the articles regarding his political position. Look to set a dialogue on his discussion page. I'm with you."
  • 2. I know I violated WP:3RR, but I did so under the assumption that the account was a sockpuppet (3RR does not apply to reverting socks, I think). And with the history of those articles, I really think my mistake may be considered an understandable error. I emphasize: every single account that restored sock edits & pushed the changes Theirrulez pushed on those articles turned out to be a sockpuppet. No exceptions. And there have been many, many sockpuppets as any involved admin will know. They are blocked by the bushel-full as DUCKS, User:Butler.banana just got banned yesterday.
I understand my actions were rash, but they were in good faith, and removal of (confirmed) sock posts on those articles is practically a daily chore (I ought to hire a secretary). Anyway I had already admitted my error, restored posts and have apologized profusely, explained my actions [16]. What interests me is the motivation behind FkpCascais eager exploitation of an honest mistake... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed, this is a non-issue and no admin action is called for. I think it would be best if you two avoided each other. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Domination of edits and reverts by a number of Korean accounts

Page: Balhae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Kim Gu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Jang In-hwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Yoon Bong-Gil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Goguryeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Koreans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kuebie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been editing up to the 3RR limit at the Goguryeo article.

He has a long history of reverting objective edits unfavorable to his nationalist views. Editing wikipedia required neutral point of view, for example, different nationalist views. A domination of edits and reverts by a number of Korean accounts to some Chinese-Korean and Japanese-Korean dispute pages over a few years they become biased. During past two months, User:Historiographer, User:Kuebie, User:KoreanSentry and some less used accounts often appear in the same editing wars reverting other views. There may be sock puppetry in it. Revision on those edits and reverts and contributions from other nationalists would restore their neutrality.Sammyy85 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a content dispute, so that means you have both broken WP:3RR, each party has reverted the article 4-5 times... SGGH ping! 15:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I have left a 3RR reminder on both accounts, however it is clear that Kuebie has a history of edit warring and the changes he has made to the above article are fringey and weighted POV. I've also notified the other party. SGGH ping! 16:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I've simply reverted the 115.42.156.50 IP's (comical) initial edit. The sort of catalyst of the whole edit-warring. Clearly an SPA, although it's odd Sammyy85 is keen to favor the IP's version. The Goguryeo article is extensively sourced and cited, with dozens of editors participating on its content since 2005. Sammyy85 claims that the Chinese scholar is not named in the source, and because of that it somehow makes it unreliable (the name IS given, hence the reason why I reverted his deceptive edit). Interestingly enough, Sammyy85 has used this exact report on the edit-warring noticeboard (result was stale). Which leads me to believe he's trying to silence me or have me blocked through various channels, instead of admitting to his obvious deceptive editing. And no Sam, wikipedia should not be home to some nationalist chest-thumping contest. One of the reasons why wikipedia advocates the use of credible sources, to circumvent any nationalist slant. Akkies (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
This is because Kuebie, Historiographer and myself are using same old account where as these Chinese and Japanese trolls are using multiple accounts to edits popular Korean articles under their POV. Sammyy85 is not providing reputable sources for his edits therefore his another troll.--Korsentry 04:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Block review

They've agreed to change their username. Let's leave it at that and AGF. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:21:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC) was reported at WP:UAA yesterday. Let me state that I do find the idea of using a timestamp as a username somewhat annoying. On the other hand, I do not see how it could possibly violate our username policy to such an extent that it warranted an indefinite block. As a matter of fact the relevant policy section is quite clear that confusing usernames are discouraged but are not blockable. I said all this both at UAA and the user's talk page, only to find a bit later that my decision not to block had been overturned. This user was not vandalizing, trolling, or engaging in other disruptive behavior, and in fact remained perfectly calm and civil in the face of nearly hysterical threats from another user to change their name or be blocked. The third, oft-overlooked option of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names was apparently not even considered by those who had a problem with this name. The user has made their case to on their talk page. I think wider input is needed to review how this block is supposed to be helping prevent damage to Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As I see it you followed policy: confusing but not blockable. Perhaps a signature tweak is/was a better option for this user. Unfortunatly this incident may have permanently chased this editor away. Jarkeld (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Not yet apparently. They have posted a civil, well written response to this block on their talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I made the block after a discussion on UAA in which several editors and administrators opined that they find the username disruptive. There is currently a discussion on the editor's talk page, though I'd like to ask the peanut gallery to back off from there. I stand by my decision to block, but I will abide by any consensus that emerges here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
As I opposed HJ's recent RfA, he'd be an obvious target if this was a contentious block. But really, it shouldn't be. Perhaps I'm missing it, but Beeblebrox states that it's "quite clear" that confusing usernames are not blockable; I don't see that at all in WP:UNCONF. In fact, this part - "admins should use their discretion and common sense" - is most appropriate here. This user's name is going to cause confusion and disruption in every discussion in which they participate. If this user cannot immediately see why this username is highly disruptive and agree to change it, then they are not here to help build an encyclopedia but to otherwise prove some sort of point or further a personal agenda. Good block. Tan | 39 19:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Pettiness that plays so rough. Peanut gallery (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tan here. Not only is the username confusing, but the user's unwillingness to change it is disturbing. Aditya Ex Machina 19:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
As Tan 39 said above, this timestamp as a username is highly confusing and disruptive. Per WP:U; Good Block. Acps110 (talkcontribs) 19:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand what Tan is saying, but I'm with Beeblebrox in principle. I think it's a damn stupid name (and I fail to understand why the user totally refuses to even consider changing it, only changing his/her sig) but I don't think it's against policy per se. The user taking the piss, and refuses to discuss it sensibly is disrupive however, and for that reason I now agree with the indef block. If the user refuses to discuss it on their talk page in sensible manner, perhaps the access to their user talk page should be stopped as well. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I too concur with the indef block, not if it had been performed outright, but after a very understanding discussion following on from a UNC template where the user seemed to never get it - I find it difficult to WP:AGF with that lack comprehension. SGGH ping! 19:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Part of that may be because no one seems to have told him there is a difference between changing your signature and changing your username. I don't care what the username policy is - if you have a problem with his name, ask him to change it before you block him, and tell him how to do it. Prodego talk 20:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I did this just as you were posting :) As for asking him before you block, they did ask him, several times, it just isn't on the talk page anymore. It is in the history. SGGH ping! 20:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
He responded to that positively and by trying to fix it. And he got blocked anyway. Then 80 zillion people went to his talk page telling him to fix this problem, which he repeatedly tries to fix. But he misunderstands. Instead of assuming he didn't know what he was doing, he gets blocked and gets fun messages accusing him of trolling, telling him he is being insensible, etc. Where has he ever made a statement indicating he refuses to fix something? Prodego talk 20:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A reminder that Wikipedia policies are supposed to be descriptive and not prescriptive. I'm not sure a circumstance such as this has come up before, so one would not expect the username policy to deal with it specifically. I disagree with the contention that the name was not disruptive, as it would clearly cause continuing problems wherever it appeared. Having the editor change it was the right call. Whether the block was good or not depends on whether the editor was attempting to make the change in good faith or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Good block, he was causing confusion. If he really wants to continue to edit constructively as he was, he can just create another account and move on.--SKATER Speak. 20:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, he has a disruptive username and he hasn't sorted it out yet. I wonder who he is? Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Was about to say the same thing before being edit-conflicted umpteen times. I'd like to know how that person ended up choosing that specific username, assuming he/she has had absolutely no Wikipedia-knowledge whatsoever. –MuZemike 20:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I would suspect he has copied it from an edit summary or page history because he or she thought it inventive, which it is, though also impractical. SGGH ping! 20:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with this block. The username is unnecessarily confusing and therefore disruptive. Usernames are a means for others to identify you, not a venue for self-expression or for making a funny point. The editor should remain blocked until he changes both his username and his signature to a non-confusing string of characters.  Sandstein  20:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I admit I certainly do find it a very odd choice, but I question the need to block for it. I would again mention that for "confusing" or other problematic usernames that are not so blatantly disruptive as to warrant an immediate block, we have a dedicated forum specifically for dealing with them. He was asked to change it, and indicated he didn't want to. So the next step, since asking them didn't work, is to throw them out until they change it because it is harming Wikipedia so badly that we would be better off if we didn't see it and get "confused"? I can't get behind that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Crat note
Ok, I renamed him to something new that seems appropriate. Lesson to take away from this is that sometimes if a user seems to be acting in good faith, we should extend it to them and try to AGF. I'm known as being very tough on username enforcement, but many times we need to remember that new users aren't as experienced as us and as long as they aren't breaking stuff (spam, etc), we should try to play nice. MBisanz talk 20:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I hate to continue a resolved thread, but I want to stick up for the users involved because they did try to be nice, over about two dozen posts (some only in the history now) it wasn't a case of talk, confuse, block. SGGH ping! 20:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
As this issue is not specifically covered under the username policy, I've raised it at WT:U. Mjroots2 (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Links to automatic downloads

In my role as a user, I clicked on a reference in the article Comparison of iPod managers, and was stunned when a program immediately began downloading to my Mac. I immediately deleted the reference, along with another reference that also contained an automatic download, and searched the page history to find out who had inserted the links.

The first link was inserted by Ceyockey. [21] I have notified Ceyockey of this discussion. The second link was inserted by IP address 92.104.196.163. [22] I tried to notify 92.104.196.163 that I was discussing him/her/it, but there's no talk page for that address.

I'm a fairly infrequent Wikipedia editor, so am not sure whether this incident is worthy of reporting, or whether this noticeboard is the place to report the incident if so. If I've made any errors, please pardon me.

Languorous Lass (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, it looks like whoever added the links linked directly to the software's download page. That's obviously not ideal, and you did the right thing by removing the links. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC).
Thanks! I was amazed when I realized that the earlier of the two links has been there since September 2008, and that people have been updating the software version numbers and dates on both links since then.
Surely there must be a Wikipedia policy against automatic downloads, but I couldn't find one anywhere on the site -- the topic didn't seem to fit under vandalism, unless the program is malware, and it didn't seem to be that. Lankvei, can you -- or can anyone else -- direct me to the right policy? Languorous Lass (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:EL may have something. I did notify the IP in the end, whether it is still active or not I didn't check. SGGH ping! 00:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:EL discusses such stuff. Yeah, just remove the link and put a comment in the edit summary and maybe the article talk page. I wouldn't bother notifying the editor who put the link there of the removal since if they still care about it they can check what happened on the article page. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Bullying and user bias

filing user has been blocked per WP:DUCK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Something odd is going on here. I made some pretty simple edits to an article (Yesterday Was a Lie). I changed the tense to past (it said April 2010 was in the future), replaced a dead link with citation needed, replaced another citation needed tag with a accurate citation, and added a couple reviews of the DVD release which seemed appropriate. I also removed one or two weasel word sentences, because the information in them was the opposite of the information in the respective citations. An editor named User:Beyond My Ken reverted every thing I did with no explanation. I tired to ask him why and his response was to open a sock investigation into me and not tell me. He didn't answer my question about what was actually wrong with my edits, because there is no answer. This editor states that people (and me) are "downplaying" negative reviews. But actually it looks like he is trying to downplay positive reviews by casting them as "negative." If you look at the article history you can see that he keeps inserting things into the Variety review that are not actually in the citation, and that he has removed a link to Rotten Tomatoes which shows that the Variety review was counted as "positive." He also keeps introducing invalid citations to supposed negative reviews (a dead link and a link to an unrelated article in a different newspaper!). So it seems this person has some type of bone to pick and is pretty preoccupied with introducing fake information about reviews into the article. I think an admin needs to investigate this person to see if they have some type of bias regarding this subject. I think he got caught with his pants down trying to include wrong information in the article and now he's trying to change the subject.Vulcanism (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I am correct. According to his talk page, User:Beyond My Ken has a previous username of User:Ed Fitzgerald. His biographical information is here. This matches this and this. I do not think someone affiliated with this film production should be permitted to edit the article.Vulcanism (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Moved to WP:COIN Vulcanism (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see [23] and [24], especially [25] 2nd item. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Mr. ken, none of that explains why you 1. added false citations to support "negative" reviews in which the citations do not link to anything about the film, 2. erased part of the Variety quote to make it look like the review attacked the film's story, 3. erased a link to Rotten Tomatoes re: the Variety review being positive, or 4. insist on referring to the April 6 DVD release as in the future. Again, it looks like you are trying to deflect attention away from content issues and false information that you are putting in the article. Vulcanism (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Vulcanism is, without any doubt now, the latest sock of User:Sorrywrongnumber. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Beyond My Ken is, without any doubt now, desperately trying to evade having to explain why he has introduced fake citations and altered quotes into the article. Vulcanism (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know whose sock drawer that Vulcanism belongs in, but it is undoubtedly a sock account. The editing history makes that quite clear. I will be blocking presently. --Jayron32 04:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fansite nonsense and offsite drama spilling onto the project

Some time last year, I was contacted by an acquaintance who goes by the handle "Shougo B'stard" online concerning the fact that the English Wikipedia article Dengeki Sentai Changeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) extensively copied information from his personal fan site on the series. I checked the article, and removed and rewrote most of it while devolving into heated discussion, mostly because the information was copied and his website was not being used as a source. I tried to work on removing the copyright violations, and the discussion ended.

Yesterday, Delaluz (talk · contribs) added a link to Shougo's fansite to the article, and it was reverted by one of the external link bots and myself. I advised him that the link was not allowed, and he retorted by saying that other fansites were used. I rectified this by removing as many other fansites as I could, while asking a friend to add links to official sites where he could. Delaluz began this discussion on my talk page where I attempted to clarify both Wikipedia's and the topic area's editors' decision on fansites, but then he merely began a discussion on the article talk page where he begins to accuse me of having some sort of personal vendetta against Shougo by not allowing the fansite in the external links section. While investigating the content more, I realized that almost all of it is lifted from Shougo's site and I remove all of the copy-pasted and paraphrased information and introduce new content translated from other language projects. This has only appeared to make Delaluz only more irate that the fansite is not being linked because he claims that Shougo is some sort of "recognized authority" (pulling a criterion from WP:EL).

Ohnoitsjamie provided a third opinion (Delaluz went to WP:3O), but this has not seemed to quell the issue. The page is not high traffic, and it appears that for four years, most of the content was lifted directly from the fansite. This needs a wider audience because it's not getting one from its normal traffic.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Move fixing

Can an admin please fix List of film production companies. A editor moved it some three to four times and it is all borked up. It was moved from its original name to List of Film Distribution Companies, then to List of Hollywood and Independent Film Distribution Companies then to List of Theatrical Film Distributors then to List of Theatrical Film Companies. Then they

None of the new names are correct and it really needs to be moved back, but because of all the moving and a bot corrected the first double redirect already, it can't be done by a regular editor. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved back, redirects deleted, and move protected for one week. Tim Song (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone might want to inform the editor that his numerous messages asking for help now link to two red links. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The same editor, Misterix (talk · contribs), is apparently very confused. He keeps recreating the talk pages of the various deleted renames asking that they be undeleted. Myself and another editor have attempted to explain to him what he did wrong and why those efforts are not the correct method of dealing with his idea, but instead he did a copy paste move of List of film production companies to List of theatrical film distributors, then blanked the former leaving a note to Tim Song asking that it be deleted[26]. I've left him another note asking him to stop and trying to explain what he is doing wrong, but thus far he is leaving people messages but not really being responsive to others. Need some admin help in cleaning up the various talk pages for non-existent article's he's made, and the copy/paste move. He is aware of this thread as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Does removal of user comments need to be justified?

Has been discussed sufficiently, both here and elsewhere.  Frank  |  talk  11:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Does removal of user comments from an article talk page need to be justified? Per WP:TPO it seems to me it does. Even if it's blatant abuse - I think it's common sense that you have to explain the reason in the edit comment for the edit in which the user's comment is removed. No?

Is citing WP:NOTAFORUM sufficient justification for removing a user's comment? I agree that WP:NOTAFORUM discourages such comments, but it says nothing about removing comments that do not comply. Nor does WP:TPO.

The issue that prompted all this was a comment that arguably violated WP:BLP. That's a much more serious violation and does of course warrant removal, but in this case the comment was removed four times in a row. , and each time only NOTAFORUM was cited as justification. Is that acceptable?

The impression I get from reading WP:TPO is that removing user comments should not be taken lightly, and yet here we have people removing comments whose removal might have been justified, but they only cited WP:NOTAFORUM.

My question is not whether removal of this particular comment was justified, but whether it was justified when citing only WP:NOTAFORUM.


Discussion: Talk:Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard#WP:NOTAFORUM_does_not_trump_WP:TPO.

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is "Yes", as already stated. The post was NOT directed to an improvement of the article. WP:TPO is quite clear that "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" includes "Removing prohibited material such as libel". Maybe the wrong reason was given for removal, but saying that someone currently facing trial for rape will rape again is about as prejudicial as I can imagine. WP:BLP is even more clear. Whatever the reasons given for removal, no way should that comment have been allowed to remain on Wikipedia, on any page whatever, and this editor has already been advised of this. The fact that weaker reasons for removal were given when stronger ones could have prevailed (and eventually did) is irrelevant in this case. Rodhullandemu 22:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I concur with the removal of this comment and with what User:Ianmacm said - I would have removed that comment on sight, it is completely inappropriate. This is a no-brainer for me, the user who made the comment should be spoken to. Perhaps WP:NOTAFORUM was not enough policy to quote, but the subsequent policies quoted in subsequent removals are justification enough. I suspect the admins who removed it saw it as an equal no-brainer. SGGH ping! 22:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
In answer to your overall question, yes it must be justified, proportionate and accountable, but as I said this case was an obvious one for me. SGGH ping! 22:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I was just going to say you did not answer my question. Thank you for answering it. It was obvious for you and others, but it was not for me, not initially at least. That's why clear and proper justification needs to be stated, even when it appears obvious, especially when the comment is being removed and restored multiple times, as was the case here. That's my only point, and I don't understand why it's so difficult to get anyone to concede this point. It's not like agreeing with my point means you think the comment should not have been removed! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The removal is fine, talk pages are for article development. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
"My question is not whether removal of this particular comment was justified..."
"The removal is fine, ..."
... Sigh.
Are you saying that removal of any comment that is not about article development is fine? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, because that is what WP:NOTAFORUM says.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I saw nothing at WP:NOTAFORUM even addressing the removal of others' comments, much less sanctioning it. Because of that, I added a reference to WP:TPO where the issue is addressed. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Not every comment that is not about article development needs to be removed, and there are plenty of talk page comments that don't relate to article development that should stay, but that's why IAR exists. Every comment that is not about article development is subject to potential removal, and "because I felt like it" is enough of a reason to remove an irrelevant comment.--CastAStone//(talk) 22:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
WP is not a bureaucracy so yes, we let lots of non-development stuff (such as editor banter) slide and nobody cares. It keeps the atmosphere friendlier, which is always a good thing. The idea is to use sound judgment and don't get into edit wars. NOTAFORUM gets invoked when someone starts using the talk page for tendentious debate, which is exactly what that particular interchange was. Even if the removal was dubious, per WP:BRD don't keep reverting. Discuss the issue instead, preferably on the user talk page of the person you're having the disagreement with, rather than on the article talk page. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Good heavens- of course BLP was an underriding concern and the main reason I removed the comment: just because I didn't say so is no reason to restore the obviously unsuitable comment. Pure wonkery. –xenotalk 22:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Meh. Do you mean "underlying" or "overriding", not that it really makes any difference? This topic has now been raised in three forums all to the same general effect and if nobody is going to bring anything new to the party, I suggest we move on. Rodhullandemu 23:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, both actually. Sorry for making up words. –xenotalk 23:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Xeno, I didn't restore the comment simply because you didn't say BLP was an underlying reason -- I restored the comment because I had no idea that was the underlying reason. In retrospect, yeah, it's obvious, but at the time all I saw was WP:NOTAFORUM as the stated justification, which was in and of itself not sufficient justification, and is my only point here: Comments of others should not be removed simply because they do not comply with WP:NOTAFORUM. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure it is, and this is codified at WP:TPG. –xenotalk 23:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I don't see where Comments of others should be removed simply because they do not comply with WP:NOTAFORUM. is codified at WP:TPG. Can you point it out please? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of one's comments is very close to censorship, and as such should be used only in extreme situations. Usually, when a comment should be removed, it also should be oversighted. If the comment would not be oversighted, it probably should be left in place (which, however, does not preclude warning or sanctioning a user who made it if it is a personal attack, a legal threat, and so on). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Piotr... finally!!! someone who understands my point! --Born2cycle (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, I disagree completely, because there is also an issue of relevance to building an encyclopedia, to which WP:NOTAFORUM is mainly directed. Irrelevant comments that amount to libel tend to be deleted per WP:BLP, but not necessarily oversighted because that function is generally reserved for personal details. The middle course is Admin deletion of libellous comments to remove from public view, and thus protect the WMF from legal action. But oversight is only for really tendentious stuff and not "X blows goats"-style vandalism. Rodhullandemu 23:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Piotrus is being silly, comparing that reversion to censorship. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Most of the time stuff like that inserted into articles is just reverted, not even deleted, much less oversighted. Calling for oversight of all crap removed from talkpages (or retention of all crap on talk pages that doesn't meet the standard of requiring oversight) doesn't make any sense. It's fine to revert disruptive stuff from talkpages that doesn't have a plausible encyclopedic purpose. It's a good and healthy thing that there are many internet forums were people can freely debate politics, and those seeking such forums can easily find them. None of them happen to be Wikipedia.

If the stuff has to be left on the talkpage once it's there, then for NOTFORUM to mean anything at all, the only way to enforce NOTFORUM is to block the user. Does Piotrus think that blocking users is further from censorship than reverting inappropriate comments? That's just absurd. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"If the stuff has to be left on the talkpage once it's there, then for NOTFORUM to mean anything at all, the only way to enforce NOTFORUM is to block the user." First, we have to distinguish if we're talking about a BLP violation or something similarly serious, or just plain NOTFORUM banter. If the former (which it was in this case) then I suspect we have near-consensus support immediate removal, but only if it is so noted (which it was not in this case). In the case of pure NOTFORUM banter I think a simply comment with a link to NOTFORUM should more than suffice. If the banter continues then further steps can be taken, including, ultimately, comment removal and user blocking. But those are extreme measures which should not be resorted to initially, which appeared to be the case here since removal was justified purely by lack of compliance with NOTAFORUM.
This is not an isolated case. Note the issue cited in the next section. I think we need to have more clarity on this issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, removal of forumy content is allowed per TPG, there is no need to explicitly refer to BLP if that is also an issue; of course it might help for future cases where someone edit wars to restore it as in this case. –xenotalk 00:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI, there's a similar discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, originated by the same user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that. In retrospect, I probably should have linked to the original discussion on the other talk pages, rather than starting independent discussions there. But I'll suggest everyone move to this discussion at this point. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Point them to the guideline talk page. General discussion isn't for ANI and this incident is resolved, the removal being endorsed by numerous parties. –xenotalk 00:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The removal incident was never the issue in this ANI as I stated clearly when I opened it.
The issue was always and remains whether merely referencing WP:NOTAFORUM is sufficient explanation for removing others' comments. Hardly anyone has even addressed this question here, and of those who have the consensus seems to be more "no" than "yes". --Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I was actually going to suggest the opposite, moving it to the talk page most relevant to save clogging ANI up too much with what may become a policy discussion. SGGH ping! 00:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been getting suggestions for both, hence I have started the multiple discussions, including this one. Very confusing. Sorry. Anyway, if everyone agrees to continue only at WT:TPG#Removing_others.27_comments_that_violate_WP:NOTAFORUM, that's fine with me. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, the real problem here was not misinterpretation of NOTFORUM by one side or the other. It was edit warring. The multiple reversions were just wrong. After the second or so revert there should have been discussion. Rodhullandemu could even have protected the talkpage for 5 or 10 minutes and posted a message asking everyone to cool it. As for the comment removal itself, it's almost always been sufficient to decide such things with common sense. I noticed that most of the users removing the comment were experienced while those putting it back were relative newbies. Newbies, please understand, there are lots of dynamics and customs around here that are not written down in policy documents. It takes a while to get used to them; until you've been active for a while, if someone tells you "you're doing it wrong", can you give some credence to the idea that they might know what they're doing? If you have questions, engage them in discussion. Don't get in a revert war. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The anon IP addresses the "newbies"? How presumptuous. I'm not an admin, but not a newbie either. Removing others' comments without appropriate justification is not the way things are normally done here. The edit war was a problem, but not the real problem. The real problem was that hose removing the comment were simply repeating and re-repeating their "justification", which was an irrelevant reference to WP:NOTAFORUM. The comment history speaks for itself.
delete 1: rm, WP:NOTAFORUM
restore 1: its a talk page for us to discuss the article
delete 2: rv. per WP:NOTAFORUM; you are correct that the talk page is for discussing the article, but that is not what your comment is doing.
restore 2: It is true that such comments are inappropriate and possibly disruptive, but deleting such comments is even more disruptive. Just leave a friendly comment/reminder about WP:NOTAFORUM.
delete 3: Sorry, no. This really doesn't belong on the talk page because it violates WP:NOTAFORUM. It has to go.
restore 3: Sorry. Please review WP:TPO. Removing comments of others is serious, but allowed in some cases. "Violation" of WP:NOTAFORUM is not one of those cases.
delete 4: "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article" (quote from WP:NOTAFORUM)
restore 4: (WP:NOTAFORUM does not address much less sanction your behavior: removal of others' comments; see WP:TPO for that.
delete 5: Reverted good faith edits by Born2cycle; Removed as obvious and gross breach of WP:BLP. Kindly stop this disruption.
Note that the first time anything other than WP:NOTAFORUM was mentioned as a justification in the delete comments was in the 5th and final delete. The quote in delete 4 is from WP:NOTAFORUM. It's like no one on the delete side was paying attention to the discussion until the final delete 5, when, finally, the real legitimate justification to delete was mentioned: WP:BLP.
The whole point of this ANI is to verify whether, regardless of how justifiable a given comment removal may be for unstated reasons, merely referring to WP:NOTAFORUM is sufficient basis to remove a user's comment. I say it isn't, and such removals should not be tolerated; so if that's the only justification provided for removing an others' comment, the delete should be immediately reverted. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
NOTAFORUM is sufficient. If you had questions you should have just asked them, not edit warred. BLP was brought in to put a stop to the nonsense more decisively, though it failed to do so. If you look at the edit counts of the other restorers, most are newbies. If they're not newbies, they have even less excuse. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Among the few who are actually addressing the question here, experienced editors are saying merely referencing NOTAFORUM is not sufficient basis to warrant removing others' comments. There are excellent reasons that experienced editors have prohibited removing others' comments at WP:TPO, except in the specific exceptions listed. In case you didn't notice, strict application of WP:BLP is a relatively new thing at Wikipedia; about the last year or so, and it is not yet reflected in all the policies. At least it's reflected in WP:TPO now (you're welcome). From now on hopefully at least everyone involved here will know to reference WP:TPO rather than the irrelevant NOTAFORUM when justifying the removal of others' comments. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that more discussion would have been helpful in promoting understanding for those confused, and have already said as much. The removers erred in assuming the point to be obvious (which to most commenters of this thread, it was) rather than realizing that some participants needed more explanation. I don't understand why you think off-purpose talkpage rants are something precious that need to be kept on display for all to see. They are still in the page history if someone wants to research them. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
When those doing something with no or irrelevant explanation, confusion should be expected.
I don't understand how you could be paying attention and yet think I "think off-purpose talk page rants are something precious that need to be kept on display for all to see". I've said nothing of the sort, and it's the kind of thing that WP:TPO clearly allows removal of. Have you read it? Have you been reading what I've been saying? Have you read my opening remarks in this section? Where do you get this idea? I'm really curious, because if that's the impression you're getting, there's no telling what else you might be inexplicably confused about.
My only point centers on the indisputable fact that WP:NOTAFORUM says nothing about, and has nothing to do with, justifying the removal of others' comments. Deletions of others' comments based entirely on referencing NOTAFORUM should not be tolerated. Editors should treat other editors with more respect than that, even if one is just ranting. That's not to say that the rant should not be deleted, but that proper justification be provided when the rant is removed, and simply citing WP:NOTAFORUM does not even begin to cut it. Not even close. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
NOTAFORUM was sufficient in the initial removal's edit summary to signify what the problem was, even though it didn't go into further analysis. WP is not a bureaucracy and it was reasonable to expect most editors to understand the issue right away. Once it was clear that some users didn't understand, then more explanation would have been apropos. WP:NOTAFORUM now says "Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines" which I hope satisfies you, but even before, it's never been the case that every commonsense action anyone does has to be spelled out ahead of time in some policy document. It's enough to connect the action by reference to a relevant principle, then deal with the WP:BRD cycle if it occurs. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


The list at WP:TPO is not meant to be inclusive, it clearly is headed "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:". Perhaps this should be added as an example, but removal on the grounds of NOTAFORUM is not forbidden, it just wasn't included as an example. It is now I see, although the list of examples is still being treated as though it was more than that. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

All-time Long Island Rough Riders roster

Unsourced list of names with no reliable source. The creator of the article is not only reverting my prod blp tag in violation of the rules for unsourced blps, he's also repeatedly restoring a fair use image for which there is no rationale for us in that page. Woogee (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What part of "I am working on the article right now, and if you'll just hold your horses all your concerns will be addressed" don't you understand? --JonBroxton (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
What part of "Don't remove the prod tag until you provide a reliable source" do you not understand? Woogee (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The link provided is a reliable source as it links to the league's official archive of historical statistical data. More sources will be added shortly, if you leave me alone and let me get on with working on the article, instead of dragging me into pointless arguments like this. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
It links to a main page of the league's website, but not to any page which proves that any of those names were ever on that team. And you still haven't addressed the illegal use of the fair use image. Woogee (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Woogee, let the man complete the page. Jumping the gun and nom'ing it for deletion as soon as it is made is kinda biting. Relax. If it doesn't meet WP:N it will be deleted, if it does, then it will remain. Deleting conversations, bringing things to ANI, and just starting conversations everywhere is, as JonBroxton said, preventing him from getting his work done. Relax. It gets done, it gets done. Give the dude an hour. - NeutralHomerTalk • 05:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't nom it for deletion, I listed it for prod, which gives several days to provide reliable sources. What's the point of the PROD BLP tag if not to use it to make sure that BLPs are sourced properly? Woogee (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
A PROD tag can be removed by anyone, anytime. I made it very clear to JonBroxton on his talk page that he doesn't get a ton of time. He needs to get his work done tonight. I also told him that if he feels the page isn't mainspace worthy yet, it can always be moved back. Relax, Rome wasn't built in a day. - NeutralHomerTalk • 05:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. As you can see, I have now added five additional source references, and altered the licensing of the image. I would have done this earlier but, well, you know... --JonBroxton (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The BLP PROD never should have been applied to this article. It is for unsourced biographies. It is not for articles or lists that mention living people. It is not for pages with inadequate referencing. Maurreen (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about clarifying the scope of BLP Prods here. Maurreen (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
@Neutral Homer, what you say is true regarding generic PROD tags. The BLP PROD tag can be removed only upon the insertion of a WP:RS to support at least one statement made about the person in the article, per Wikipedia:STICKY#Objecting. Not that I'm saying that the BLP PROD tag belonged on the article, I'm just being overly fastidious... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Surely there could have been some good faith shown to an editor with 35,000 edits and a large number of well sourced articles created. Articles don't have to be perfect the moment they are published, and if they aren't, part of being a collaborative project means you could just as easily pitch in and help get something up to scratch rather than wasting time bringing things here. Camw (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I have removed Woogee's rollback rights, which have been misused [27], [28], and this happened two weeks after being blocked for edit-warring (with rollback). The BLP PROD can only be used on articles which are biographies of living people, so not for list of people. As Camw mentions, WP:AGF. Cenarium (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
If the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy applies to anything "...anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, images, and categories." then the PROD tag must as well. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 19:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The BLP PROD process was created to deal with unsourced biographies of living people, the consensus which led to its adoption was that it would be used on unsourced biographies of living people and the policy reflects it. There is no question on this; and any extension of its scope would require community consensus. Cenarium (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) Question: Woogee's user page says:

I am not a new user. In fact, I am a former admin who felt it would be best if I left Wikipedia for a while. I am back to try to start over again. I don't feel the need to reveal my past Username, though I might be willing to provide it if people email me, but don't consider this an obligation on my part. I'm going to start over as a basic user, and let's see how things go.

NOTE: I was not blocked or banned, I left voluntarily, several years ago.

I noticed this statement a while ago, when Woogee first began to participate on the noticeboards, but did not consider it pertinent at the time to dig further into it. Considering, however, the sum total of the editor's behavior since re-appearing, is it now legitimate to ask what Woogee's previous identity was and why they gave up the admin bit - i.e. was it voluntary or "under a cloud"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently BLP does not matter any more. Thanks for letting me know. Woogee (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that Woogee has left the room. I'm just wondering, in general, a couple of things: (1) How would erroneously listing someone on a soccer team roster count as a "BLP violation"? It's not like the article says "List of known perverts" or something. (2) How can an article be built without the sources already being known? I've often seen this argument: "I'll add sources later." How can you be posting unsourced information? Would it kill the author to include the sources while adding the information? I'm not arguing for overzealous deletion. I'm just curious how it's possible to build an article with sources apparently to be looked up later? "Putting the cart before the horse"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, it wasn't a case of "I'll add the sources later" being days later... Woogee tagged my article literally 90 seconds after I published it, while I was in the process of adding the additional sources, checking disambig links, and doing my post-publish cleanup. If he had waited 30 minutes, even 15 minutes, there would have been nothing for him to complain about and all this unpleasantness could have been avoided. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Woogee left with a FU to one editor [29] and a whining FU to everybody [30][31][32] and that prompts me to ask again: who is this person who claims to be an ex-admin and under what circumstance did he lose or drop the bit and leave Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Does it really matter? If Woogee truly left, then there shouldn't be a problem. If they return in the future, under that account or another, then it would be worth investigating. I admit to some personal curiosity but I think that everyone's time would be better spent on something more productive. -- Atama 17:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
That's sensible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User violates BLP on talk page

DD2K (talk · contribs) is reinserting a comment that refers disparagingly to Joseph Farah, and a journalist for the Greeley Gazette in violation of BLP. He then posts a legal threat warning on my page for bringing the BLP violation to his attention, which he removes as "bullshit". --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I see neither legal threat nor BLP violation. (At least not in these diffs...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
How in the heck is that a WP:BLP violation? Being a birther is considered a fringe conspiracy theorist. The comment is tame, to say the least. There are factual errors in it(read birther theories), and it relates to the topic on the page. This is just ridiculous. Also, the user is abusing the tools and reverting my edits. Am I really missing something here or what? DD2K (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The content in the talk page is irrelevant unless it's a personal attack or vandalism. Biographies of a Living Person violations are not included. Sorry. --A3RO (mailbox)
True. Let's just trout'em both. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Just ignore each other for the time being. Thanks for being stellar editors! --A3RO (mailbox) 23:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
My mistake was the legal warning. It was in jest because I thought the BLP warning was absurd. I can't believe it was serious. Still, the use of rollback by Saturn is a violation. Anyway, sorry for this. DD2K (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Re A3RO: not sure about the present case (haven't reviewed it); but your statement that the BLP policy does not apply to talkpages is shockingly inaccurate. –xenotalk 23:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Hang on a minute here. First, the remark about this Farah guy could be interpreted as a BLP violation, as it suggests he's not in his right mind. As BLP violations go, though, it's pretty lame. Second, the "legal threat" was a good-faith but mistaken interpretation. Third, and most importantly, the statement that BLP violations are allowed on talk pages is flat-out, dead wrong. BLP violations are not allowed anywhere. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
What Bugs said. Yes, BLP applies on talk pages. Yes, that was a pretty mild BLP issue, but still not helpful to building an encyclopedia, and probably violated NOTFORUM as well. No, there's no legal threat. If we can all just act civil and professional, the issue goes away, no? Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • For the record, I knew that BLP violations are not permitted anywhere, articles, talk pages or anywhere else on Wikipedia. But for those not familiar with American football, a receiver has to have "both feet in bounds" for it to be a good catch. Using the phrase of not have both feet in bounds just means it's incorrect, no good, out of bounds, wrong. DD2K (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That's true, but even knowing that, I took it as a euphemism along the lines of "the elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor", and the like. Thanks for the explanation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Where was it said that BLP vios are allowed? When I said it was not included I meant that there was never one in the first place provided in the diffs. Some people like to beat dead horses. --A3RO (mailbox) 01:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
"The content in the talk page is irrelevant unless it's a personal attack or vandalism. Biographies of a Living Person violations are not included." Two or three of us, at least, read that as implying BLP vios are OK on the talk page. And it still looks like that's what you're saying. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User:AmyFuller

Can someone please block this disruptive editor? All they do is change "mother" to "woman" on Christianity and abortion, claiming consensus while they have zero edits to the talk page. Seems like a sock of User:CarolineWH to me, who made exactly the same edits to Christianity and abortion a few months back, but I won't bother with a checkuser request for this.--Atlan (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

12 hour for edit warring and vandalism. The SOCK possibility may be confirmed with a WP:DUCK test but I'm a tad busy packing! :) SGGH ping! 08:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
There is also CharlieC24 (talk · contribs · logs) per this edit. SGGH ping! 08:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 Done Blocked per WP:DUCK (I saw it at WP:SPI before realizing there was a note here). --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spotfixer - I had the time, please stop by if you can. - Schrandit (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I jumped in to state the obvious duckiness, but am not familiar with Spotfixer. SGGH ping! 16:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
And I just looked at the SPI archive - quite a rap sheet. SGGH ping! 16:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User GalaicoWarrior, "Founder of the Gallaic Revival Movement."

GalaicoWarrior (talk · contribs), also editing as 74.47.100.65 (talk · contribs) -- see [33] - is running through articles mentioning Iberia and replacing Iberia with Gallaecia [34], etc. Some of his edit summaries have been reverted as OR, nonsense, etc. but he clearly sees himself as on a mission. I'll inform him of this discussion now but I'm off to bed soon, so if others can keep an eye on him, advise him, etc. it would be useful. He's new so hopefully he can be persuaded to moderate his revivalism. Dougweller (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

He is also adding references to the entirely unattested (not to say fictitious) "Gallaic language": [35], [36], [37]. +Angr 20:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
And using his IP address to edit/revert/replace stuff he's edited with his account. What do we do about this? Shall I warn him to stop and block if he continues? Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
My rather cursory look at this makes me think he should be blocked as a hoax-only account, though I'll have to dig a little more before blocking myself. Blueboy96 20:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The langauge is certainly not true, and the attribution of everything Iberian to the Roman province seems a little too much. SGGH ping! 20:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

After doing some more digging, I've indefblocked him. Virtually his entire history is dedicated to promoting this nonexistent language. The level of hoaxing is such that to my mind, we can't allow him to edit. Blueboy96 19:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANEW backlog

The 3rr board is now 12 hours backlogged. Hipocrite (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Now 17 hours backlogged. Hipocrite (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated reversion to POV-full version of Ahmad Raza Khan (religious intellectual)

A number of editors have worked to make Ahmad Raza Khan a more neutral and objective article, but other editors have over the last few months repeatedly reverted the article to a different version which is full of honorifics, derogatory descriptions of other religious groups as "deviant sects", verbose anecdotes to prove how awesome the subject is, tons of unsourced statements, lists of people with no notability given, etc. I've tried several times to revert the article to a more neutral version from 2009, and have worked to improve that version even further, but a major POV editor, Thelonerex keeps reverting it back with little to no explanation, and won't answer my clearly-written points on Discussion as to why his version is inappropriate, only saying that the version he favors is "neutralized" and that my reversion to a NPOV version is "unjustified" without giving any real arguments.

Here's the diff for the version I support, and the version he supports; I argue the version he supports is just not NPOV. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User making disruptive legal threats

A disruptive user, Craigcobbcreativitypractitioner (who apparently is Craig Cobb) has been posting legal threats on other users' talk pages. For example, see [this diff], which includes the quote

I do understand how you people do not desire any mentions whatsoever of the tenured Prof Macdonald on my page, and that hateful, controlling "choke point" fact against NawlinWiki and Wikipedia will be in any future litigation in event of my assassination by ARA as well.

This is a deeply paranoid, deluded man who believes he will be targeted by an imminent assassination and is threatening to have Wikipedia sued. He is also threatening to "expose" various Wikipedia editors by making Podblanc videos. I believe speedy intervention of some sort is necessary. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for the legal threat. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Went to block, but was beaten to it. Fairly textbook application of WP:NLT really. The account could possibly have been blocked per WP:REALNAME, as well, at least until we confirmed whether it was the real Craig Cobb. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC).
That would have been a nonsensical use of a username block. It would say "Please change your username before you resume making legal threats". NLT was the correct reason to block. rspεεr (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Massive template breakage

Resolved: minor mistake, followed by an (understandable) panic-mode reaction. No issue. Amalthea 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

MC10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sometime today, near the morning UTC, MC10 (talk · contribs) decided to replace all instances of {{subst}} with <includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>.

This broke hundreds of the user warning templates.

I, along with a few admins, mainly Tim Song, managed to clean up this mess... At least to my knowledge. I may have missed a couple. To this end, I request, along with the below, to test every twinkle enabled user warning message on Example (talk · contribs)'s user talk page.


What do I want this thread to do? I would personally like an edit filter to prevent the above from ever happening again, or a note to never replace {{subst}} with what was noted above. If anything, I would like an admin to at least warn MC10 to not do this again.— dαlus Contribs 07:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The user has been notified.— dαlus Contribs 07:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That was a bit overeager. From the few I checked, only {{Welcome-anon}} was actually broken, since the use of safesubst broke the substitution check here and always displayed the error message. The changes to {{Uw-create1}} and all others I spot-checked were perfectly good, and a clear improvement.
I for one am happy that MC10 went through the uw- templates and made that change, I've made the same change to a couple dozen templates myself last week. So no, we need not prevent usage of safesubst, and not really need to test all messages since the warning templates will all have survived the change unless other mistakes were made, and as far as I can tell only the one welcome template was touched.
Amalthea 09:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, what does safesubst actually do? SGGH ping! 10:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Safesubst works the same as subst during substitution, but is simply ignored during transclusion. Previously, many templates (e.g. almost all user warning templates) that were supposed to be transcludable and (cleanly) substitutable had to be called with an additional parameter like {{subst:foo|subst=subst:}} to get rid of parser function cruft. With safesubst, that parameter can be omitted, and it just works. See WT:WikiProject Template#Safesubst or meta:Help:Safesubst for more.
That doesn't mean that all previous uses of subst should now be replaced with safesubst, or that all templates should now be built to allow both. But for most meta templates and talk page templates it's very useful.
Amalthea 11:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Didn't we just go through this the other day? (The moral of the story is to propose or announce your intention to make mass changes before carrying them out) –xenotalk 13:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Not sure that would have helped here: The intended change of the uw-* templates had merit and would have gotten support, and they were executed without issue. They simply coincided with the same change to one welcome template where it broke some special coding. It wasn't a "mass breakage", only a subsequent mass rollback of all changes guilty by association.
      It never hurts to discuss stuff, and one could have expected it in this case since MC10 was a burnt child, having made similar changes to that range of templates which actually broke functionality one year ago (contribs, talk). Nonetheless, I wouldn't have in this case – or rather, I haven't, as I said I've made a couple dozen of those changes myself.
      Amalthea 15:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I just applied the same change that {{welcome}} used. {{Welcome-anon}} was the only template broken, and that was by mistake; anyways, all of the uw- templates worked and were not broken. By this discussion, a bot request had already been filed for the change to be made. The rollback was unnecessary as only one template broke. MC10 (TCGBL) 16:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah, well, it even was discussed then. To sum up, it was a minor mistake, followed by an (understandable) panic-mode reaction. Once the bot gets full approval it can restore those changes.
      I consider this resolved. Amalthea 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that I panicked. When I tried to use {{Welcome-anon}}, the template didn't work both time I tried to sub it.— dαlus Contribs 19:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I was in the middle of the same panic, and had not yet finished testing the changed templates in the sandbox when you guys reverted all of the modifications. Having an approved bot do this sort of work would help to avoid these situations in the future. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Or even just link to a discussion on the matter - even a lightly trafficked one like in this case. –xenotalk 19:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, a wise old BAG saying. :) And Anomie's trial edits did just that, of course. Amalthea 20:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, don't worry about it. As I said, with you thinking the mess would get bigger the longer the changes stayed unreverted the reaction was understandable. Just run it by ANI first, next time. Amalthea 20:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I am fine with anything that happened. Sorry about the confusion with the {{welcome-anon}} template. MC10 (TCGBL) 01:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy and 1RR

I originally posted this on Abecedare's talk page in response to an accusation of edit warring made against another editor, but he seems to be on a wikibreak so I've brought it here. Radiopathy (talk · contribs) is under a 1RR restriction, and coming off a week-long block for socking. One if his first mainspace edits upon returning from the block was to change infobox information [38], then when his change was reverted he reverted back to his preferred version [39]. He then went on to accuse the other editor of edit warring on Abecedare's page [40].

As background, Radiopathy has been blocked multiple times for edit warring on this sort of thing. He's under an indefinite 1RR, and was recently caught socking to evade his restrictions and block log Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Radiopathy/Archive. Radiopathy has long edit warred over whether or not to include the full name of the country in the infobox, he claims the MOS doesn't apply to the infobox, other editors (including myself) disagree and Radiopathy feels he's right and there's no need to discuss. He's had three week-long blocks in the last six months.

When I posted this on Abecedare's page, Radiopathy's first response was to blank my edit [41], then to accuse me of edit warring [42] without any kind of DIFFs or proof. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy notified here [43] I've moved this to ANI. Dayewalker (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Is he on 0RR or 1RR? If he's on 1RR, he's only made 1 revert, no? –xenotalk 20:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
As per the ANI discussions (as can be seen from his block log), he's on indefinite 1RR. My understanding of 1RR is that an editor on 1RR is entitled to make changes, but if someone else reverts that change, re-reversion is not allowed. ("If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them.") He made the disputed edit above, then reverted to the edit again when another editor corrected him. If that's not a violation, then I apologize, and will close this thread. Dayewalker (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hm... That sounds more like a 0RR to me (see also a relevant discussion from the talk page of that essay). I personally wouldn't feel comfortable sanctioning an editor based on an essay. Where is the actual original restriction noted? –xenotalk 20:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
As a side note, I've changed the title of this section based on Xeno's comments. Dayewalker (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Note I've changed the essay to reflect a more common-sense understanding of 1RR. That being said if "1RR" is being handed down as an official sanction, it really ought be codified in a guideline rather than left to be explained in an essay. –xenotalk 20:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm about to be offline for quite a while, hopefully someone else has the official 1RR notice for Radiopathy from one of his ANI threads. If I'm incorrect here, I apologize. However while the specifics of 1RR are debatable, I feel certain this user was well aware of what they were doing based on their history of blocks for violating 1RR, their quickness to accuse other editors of edit warring, and their deletion of my first comments to Abecedare. If consensus is there's no violation, feel free to close this thread. Dayewalker (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
That may be so, but I'll have to leave it to someone more familiar with the history here to comment on that. –xenotalk 21:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────Here is the indef 1rr restriction notice.— dαlus Contribs 21:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing officially listed at WP:ER, but the 1RR notice on Radiopathy's talk page references WP:1RR. That does allow for one revert per day, which is what I usually restrict myself to voluntarily at any article. Xeno's recent change to the essay does reflect my interpretation of the restriction, and the way I've seen most others interpret it as well; it literally allows one revert per editor per article per day. The intent of such a restriction is to allow one revert to demonstrate clearly that the edit that was made was objected to. If the revert is uncontested, then it stays in place, no harm done. If the revert is undone, then discussion should take place rather than further reverts escalating into an edit war. I'm not one of Radiopathy's defenders, certainly, but I don't see that the restriction has been breached here. Furthermore, despite what may seem like aggressiveness in giving warnings to editors about edit wars, that is certainly in the spirit of 1RR to try to move the content dispute away from article space and into talkspace.
On the other hand, I don't see any justification for blanking out the message at Abecedare's talk page, which seems in violation of WP:TPO. -- Atama 22:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The blanking was a mistake, and I am the one who undid it.
  • I only reverted once at George Harrison, then left the message on Abecedare's talk page about Daedalus969 edit warring, and relented. If you check the edit histories of George Harrison and The Beatles, you'll see that this has come up many times before; Daedalus969 was told in an edit summary months ago that what he was doing was edit warring. This is an ongoing issue which has little to do with MoS, and in this particular instance is not an actual 1RR violation. Radiopathy •talk• 23:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
So 1RR actually means you're allowed to insert disputed material twice? Once originally inserted, then reinserted? If that's the case, then this case is obviously not valid and can be closed. If 3RR means you can edit that material in the same way three times (counting the original entry) before crossing the line, 1RR would seem to mean you can edit the material once, then you should discuss. I guess I'm confusing an edit (even a reversion of previously removed material) with a revert. Dayewalker (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
1RR applies to actually reverting material. Inserting material into an article for the first time, even if it is disputed, is not a reversion. Re-inserting it after it has been removed is. From what I can see of this case, the user has only reverted once and, so, is within their 1RR restriction. SilverserenC 23:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The material usually isn't "disputed" until someone protests its inclusion, so the first insertion of disputed material wouldn't be until the reinsertion from the original editor. 3RR does not mean you can edit the material in the same way three times before crossing the "bright line", 3RR means three reverts. To give an example, let's say User A adds info to an article and User B reverts that change. The edit log might look like this:
  • User A introduces info.
  • User B undoes the edit. (1st revert)
  • User A reinserts the info. (1st revert)
  • User B deletes the info. (2nd revert)
  • User A undoes the deletion. (2nd revert)
  • User B replaces the info with something different (3rd revert - at 3RR)
  • User A rewords the information to match their original edit. (3rd revert - at 3RR)
  • User B undoes the previous edit from User A. (4th revert - 3RR broken)
  • User A deletes the information that User B introduced. (4th revert - 3RR broken)
The 3RR rule states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period." It defines a revert as "any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". Just swap out the word "three" with the word "one", and you have the 1RR restriction. Sometimes editors are restricted to 1RR in a longer time period, 1 week is a common duration seen at WP:ER, but Radiopathy seems restricted to one per day from what I can see. -- Atama 23:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(OD)Radiopathy, as said above, has actually been edit warring about this material for some time. If one were to say that the first reversion is the first time the war started, they would be wrong, as it really started quite awhile ago. Here are the most recent of his reverts:

So, as you can see, his two most recent reversions take place within a 24 hour period, violating his restriction of one revert per 24 hours. I need to stress that editing content while reverting does not make the edit any less of a revert, that would fall under gaming the system, and thus does not fly.

Neither of those two are of course the first time the change was initially made, which if was the case, it would make the one at May 2nd the first. However, as said, the first change regarding such an edit happened months ago. In light of that, he has been edit warring over this change for months, and has been blocked several times before his 1rr restriction to that end.

Here, for instance, is a reverison he made a few weeks earlier, with his sockpuppet:

There are of course many other reversions. I can easily find and post them if required.. however, I don't think that's needed.

Radiopathy clearly violated his 1rr restriction, as the two reverts took place during a 24 hour period. I personally think per the above, this is an open and shut case.— dαlus Contribs 23:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus's post, of course, assumes that I'm the one who's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; however, his persistence in making provocative non-consensus edits clearly points to him being the edit warrior - and worse. It's very telling that he has not made any changes to any Britain-related articles that I have not also edited. Radiopathy •talk• 00:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
You couldn't be more wrong. I'm busy in real life, maybe you have noticed I've made few to no edits in the last hour except to this thread. Also, you speak of consensus for your edits. Care to point out where you gained such a consensus?dαlus Contribs 00:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
And really, it isn't telling of anything when I've been editing that article before you even started.— dαlus Contribs 00:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Further, do not put words in my mouth. I never said you were disrupting wikipedia to make a point, I said you were edit warring in clear violation of your 1rr restriction.— dαlus Contribs 00:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Lastly, my edits are not to provoke, they are per the manual of style, which quite clearly does -not- exclude info boxes.— dαlus Contribs 00:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection not working?

Resolved: User:Eagles247 did not know deleted edits played a factor in edit count for autoconfirmed status. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I had my userpage indefinitely semi-protected due to vandalism from IPs, and today Weakamus (talk · contribs) vandalized it. This user had 8 edits prior to the vandalism and created his account in August 2008. How was this user able to edit my userpage even though they weren't autoconfirmed? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

They had four deleted edits that probably pushed the total past the threshold. Resolute 22:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I didn't realize deleted edits count towards that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring, canvassing, vote-stacking, and BLP/Defamation by Annoynmous

Annoynmous (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD ·