Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive628

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Happymandem is out of control[edit]

We need an admin/clerk there ASAP as Happymandem (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Mandemhappy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) are being racist to each other in that SPI and they are fighting. Break's Over Roach, let's go (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Both accounts blocked. See my comments the SPI page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Sjakkalle, I'm sure there are some sleepers. Break's Over Roach, let's go (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Caden[edit]

I am leaving this message here out of concern that a potential problem relating to the ongoing rfc for Blablaaa (talk · contribs) may balloon to the point that an admin may be needed, but in the interest of transparency the matter I can not handle the matter since I am one of a number of the current admins and coordinators of the military project presently involved in the above mentioned rfc.

My concern relates to the behavior of one Caden (talk · contribs), who over the last few days seems to have tried very hard to inflame not just those opposing Blablaaa in the rfc but also Blablaaa himself (interpreted by me from this discussion here, where Caden appears to canvass a little until Blablaa asks him to stop). From where I sit on the matter, the behavior exhibited by Caden could be interpreted any number of ways from unsound advise given in good faith to disruptive editing.

Over the past 48 hours Caden has alleged that a so called conspiracy exists, and has openly rather unsubtly called several different editors out his RFC post (full details), and has singled out both EyeSerene (talk · contribs) (see banned editors link for details) and The ed17 (talk · contribs) out as problematic editors (against ed), even going so far as to defend a banned editor by claiming he was a victim of EyeSerene's abuse of admin privileges.

Certainly I feel that the matter is explosive enough without his two cents, and that is why I am asking for an outside opinion on the matter. I do not believe Caden is acting for anyone's good, I think he is capitalizing on the situation to maneuver a couple of people around so he can further his position that we are all involved in some kind of conspiracy. As I noted above, I'm involved, so I recuse myself from taking an official action, but (and I believe I speak for everyone at the this point) an outside opinion on the matter would at this point be greatly appreciated. At the very least, we must protect Blablaaa from Caden's influence to ensure that the RFC currently running on him remains doesn't collapse into conspiracy theories. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

My relevant contribution here is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blablaaa#An annoyed and slightly off-topic second outside view by The ed17. I regret showing so much of my annoyance in that post, but the overall sentiment is (I hope) clear. Caden's use of these unfounded, baseless, and quite offending accusations without any sort of evidence has gone on for too long. —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 00:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Caden means well. My impression of him is that he's younger and holds the moral absolutes of the young. When it comes to anything remotely political, he's right and everyone who disagrees with his position is part of a (gay or liberal or anti-German) conspiracy. He does quite well when he's editing music or model articles, but he gets really easily worked up when he edits articles that are political (for lack of a better term). He's been topic banned from articles in regards to sexuality before, and he's managed to stay away from those since it expired. I'm not familiar with this situation, but he's a fine editor when he's not emotionally invested in the topic. AniMate 01:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll let it be then, however the others may have different opinions on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm just giving background. If he's as disruptive as you say, another topic ban might get him back to editing productively. AniMate 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm slightly hesitant about posting here, but thank you AinMate for your advice. I must admit I'm starting to wonder if I've run over Caden's cat or something; it's quite disconcerting when an editor I've never encountered before turns out to be able to dismiss four years' work here as POV pushing and admin abuse using only their logic and common sense. However, I certainly don't feel any need to defend myself against Kurfurst's lunatic notions - his record speaks for itself, he remains indefblocked and Wikipedia's a better place for his absence. If certain editors feel that citing him as evidence will improve their case that's their decision, though it's not one I would be making in their position. It is disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, to see the RfC/U being used as a vehicle for unsubstantiated personal attacks and daft conspiracy theories, but I'm still hoping something worthwhile will come of it all. Stranger things have happened :) EyeSerenetalk 08:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I actually don't know a lot about Caden, but on his allegations of a conspiracy: As I pointed out here (which EyeSerene responded to here), there is some funny (as in bad funny) activity going on by the group against Blablaaa. No administrative misconduct by Eyeserene that I've seen but the understanding of WP:SYNTH is not what I would expect of an admin (see EyeSerene's response for details). People here might be surprised at what EyeSerene considered forumshopping (EyeSerene admitted in the above response that Blablaaa really wasn't forumshopping at that point): Blablaa raises an issue about a WWII battle at a talkpage where people disagree, discusses it a bit at the disagreeing people's user talk pages, then raises it at WP:MILHIST. EyeSerene argued that when Blablaa raised the issue at WP:MILHIST it was forumshopping - that is, the first attempt to seek uninvolved help in a dispute was forumshopping. This has to raise eyebrows and suggests that EyeSerene may not be the best person to be issuing unilateral blocks for disruptive editing. EyeSerene has a decently nice internet tone and seems willing to admit mistakes, and I do think everyone involved will be able to work it out, but I felt compelled to mention this because I think these interpretations of policy are off and I think it can be helpful to discuss policy clarifications. I strongly suspect the editor EyeSerene blocked in question was disruptive, but there's some overall behavior in regard to British-German WWII battles that suggests to me that there is a pro-British spin on the articles. Considering we are the English Wikipedia, it's not all that surprising, but potential English bias also an obvious blind spot that we can watch for. And it's not like admitting that the Germans might have had a good battle or destroyed a few extra tanks is supportive of Nazis or anything either. II | (t - c) 11:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
II, might I ask for some diffs of this alleged pro-British/Allied bias? Yourself, Blablaaa and Caden have stated this numerous times, but I've yet to see any diffs to back this up; you yourself have said several times that you haven't look deeply into the matter (ie Kurfurst and the potential area of bias). Do you have any evidence of this please? It would be interesting to see if there is such a bias, and what could be done to correct it. Skinny87 (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I had a response here but I guess it didn't end up being submitted. Did you read my RfC, where I documented fairly clearly a case where original research was clearly used to support a more favorable interpretation of a certain battle, yet nobody supported Blablaaa in the effort. Blablaaa recently brought my attention to the Battle of Jutland which, I think, is a similar case - Blablaaa presents 90 sources with quotes which call the battle a tactical victory for the Germans and a strategic victory for the English, yet there's no budging from the status quo of "tactical inconclusive" except for a single editor. II | (t - c) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Can I respectfully add that although you've made quite a serious charge about my interpretation of a fundamental article writing policy at the RfC and again here, you haven't actually explained anywhere why you think I don't understand WP:SYNTH. I gave you a full explanation of why I believe your take on the policy is not entirely correct in this case and is out of step with good article-writing practice. I'd be very interested to hear exactly what your understanding of WP:SYNTH is and why you think I'm mistaken. Obviously ANI is probably not the best place for this, so I'd be happy to take it somewhere more appropriate. However, I do appreciate that you've indicated elsewhere that you don't have the time to endlessly debate this, so if you'd prefer to spend your time doing something more productive I completely understand. EyeSerenetalk 20:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for not explaining and I appreciate that you have remained calm in spite of what could some editors in this emotionally-charged website would view as personal attacks. The honest truth is that I was hoping you would revise your explanation of SYNTH/OR, since your major argument was apparently that since the OR was not used "to advance a position" and it occurred in the lead, it was acceptable. Let me know if you think I've just set up a straw man there. I added my response on why I don't think that makes sense. Summarizing my response for anyone viewing here, I think you need to keep in mind that every sentence in Wikipedia articlespace advances a position, even if the position is a simple fact. The lead actually needs be more directly supported by the sources, not less, regardless of what you've experienced. This makes sense because introducing misleading or original facts (which don't come from actual scholars directly) into the lead is very dangerous - it can seriously confuse the factual record on a topic. II | (t - c) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I've read your response at the RfC. I'll reply there because I think this is going beyond the scope of ANI. However, from your post there (and above) I think we may be more in agreement that it first appeared. Thank you for taking the time on this, EyeSerenetalk 08:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazi comment[edit]

Just thought I'd drop in here to point out that user Caden has been to my user page and practically threatened me because I questioned user Blablaa's unanimous editing. Furthermore, I have seen SOME articles where use Blablaa has edited with a large amount of sources, but I've seen others where he clearly mis-represents the sources and simply mis-quotes then and claims he's reading out of a book. What is more opaque is that EVERY edit he makes understates German losses and claims the source that quotes the lowest German losses and highest Allied losses is the only worthy source. This is essentially contrary to academic opinion since the historians he quotes are often relatively unheard of or simply collating previously debunked figures. I would go into more depth, but this is about Caden, so I'll reiterate on my relationship with him. User BlaBlaa and I got into a conflict where I felt he was unanimously editing an article so I checked his talk page only to find he's repeatedly been blocked for uncivil behaviour and disruptive editing. There I find the only person supportive of him is User Caden. I comment there. Soon after I have a threat from Caden on my talk page.--Senor Freebie (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

... Facepalm Facepalm WP:BOOMERANG, anyone?
Sorry, SF, what Caden said was not a "threat" by any stretch. In fact, I'd say he was pretty well justified being upset at your comment here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Uh, what does "editing unanimously" entail? Did you mean to say "anonymously?" Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This guy needs to be blocked per Wikipedia:NPA#Blocking_for_personal_attacks:

"Extreme personal attacks, or personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted".

Calling someone a Nazi is on a similar level as calling someone a pedophile. Simply because someone argues that the Germans were superior militarily or whatever doesn't make that person a Nazi and such comments should not be allowed. Further, as Blablaaa has documented, Senor's inconsistent use of a source suggests that Senor actually did not know what he were talking about and may be misrepresenting sources. II | (t - c) 00:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: He means "unilaterally" I think. --Diannaa (Talk) 05:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It would probably be helpful if several participants in the RfC moderated their comments. I note, for instance, that Caden labeled me "anti-German" (among several other slurs) in his contribution to the RfC. All the RfC seems to be establishing is that this situation is probably going to end up at Arb Com. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Nick. Things have got over-heated in places, but in Blablaaa's defence I've never seen anything to indicate he has an extreme right-wing agenda. In Senor Freebie's defence, while his comment was not WP:CIVIL he didn't call Blablaaa a Nazi; many people, incorrectly in my view, loosely refer to the Germans during the 1930s & 40s as "the Nazis". Perhaps we could usefully invoke Godwin's Law and close this thread? EyeSerenetalk 08:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I only happened to see this because I was here to comment on something else. Godwin's law is fit for stirring up thought, but invoking it to end a discussion is almost always mistaken, whether or not the discussion should indeed be ended for more meaningful reasons. Calling someone "pro-Nazi," without a ream or two of diffs to back it up, is not on here. I've both heard and read a lot about the German military in the early 1940s and by most accounts, it was better equipped, educated and motivated than any other in the world at that time. Saying so is not "pro-Nazi." That it was built up and dispatched to what can easily be called evil ends is widely understood. That Germany lost the 1939-45 war through overwhelming attrition and inept leadership can likewise be cited. The meaning of the word Nazi has become so widened and fuzzy as to be almost meaningless in most contexts where it is hurled, other than as a wanton slur, meant only to halt discussion, much as the nouns racist and pedophile and I might also throw in, troll as to anything online. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, there's absolutely no place for racial, sexist, political or any other types of slur on Wikipedia. I was charitably making the assumption that since Blablaaa has never displayed any pro-right wing bias that I've seen, Senor Freebie couldn't be making such an unfounded accusation and had therefore chosen his words poorly and used "Nazi" when he meant "German" (as many people wrongly do). If he needs to be sanctioned for his attack, so be it - I've blocked editors myself for similar violations of NPA. My reference to Godwin's Law - an internet joke - was a light-hearted attempt to take some of the heat out of the uncivil accusations and counter-accusations that have been thrown around during the RfC, none of which are helpful. It wasn't an attempt to end the discussion or avoid scrutiny, it was poorly considered and I apologise that it came across as badly it clearly did. I'll leave attempts at wit to editors better qualified than I am in future. EyeSerenetalk 09:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it was me. I'm likely too over-keen about Godwin's law because there was a time here on en.WP when it was indeed invoked by some to squash threads into archives. Doing so has always been mistaken, since Godwin meant it to be funny (as you did) from the beginning and moreover, it only has to do with the truly high likelihood of the topic coming up sooner or later if any thread goes on long enough, but often got wrongly cited as meaning "now that you've brought it up, we're done here." Gwen Gale (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that it has actually been seriously invoked to close discussions - that seems a bizarre interpretation of its intent to me. I have to confess my heart sank a bit when I saw your post though. I've been accused of all sorts of misconduct on the RfC, one repeated theme being that I've tried to quash discussion and defended (including misusing my admin tools) misconduct from editors where I support their alleged POV. I read your post and thought "Oh crap... I know where this is going to end being quoted :(" Not your fault in any way - it was my own goal and I've given myself a good hard kick - but I hope it explains any over-defensiveness in my earlier rely. Best regards, EyeSerenetalk 10:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
My botch! I was too eager to hop up on the ol' soapbox and preach about a pet peeve of mine :) Gwen Gale (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, no worries :) We've all got our peeves - mine tend to emerge Grumpy Old Men-style at random moments, usually in response to handcream or mobile phone adverts on TV (I mean, thousands of years of human civilisation and this is the pinnacle of our aspirational development?) It tends to attract what I can only describe as 'old-fashioned' looks from my kids... EyeSerenetalk 12:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Guy Stone / Aussieboy373[edit]

(edit conflict × 2) When I was RC patrolling, I came upon the edits of Aussieboy373. They're blanking and prodding pages claiming that the article subject wants them deleted. Due to the BLP stuff, I didn't revert, and instead decided to bring it to others' attention. I'm not too sure about what to do in these instances, hence my bringing it here for others to see. (X! · talk)  · @743  ·  16:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I created that page, and I want it deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussieboy373 (talkcontribs) 16:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, MANDIC777 created it (see the page history here). You created a redirect. Even if you did create it, replacing the content with a prod is disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The page was created by MANDIC777 (talk · contribs) and significantly edited by someone not logged in using the IP address 24.46.211.161 (talk · contribs). Are both of those you? If so (and you can demonstrate it, for example by posting here from both the account and the IP address) then we can delete the article immiediately under G7 of the speedy deletion criteria. If not then it will be deleted if noone objects to the PROD for a week.
Having looked at the sources, I don't think they really confer notability to Stone so deletion in one way or another is fine by me. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
X!, you seemed to be talking about multiple pages but I just see the one. Am I missing something, or...? Olaf Davis (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
(EC)Even if you create an article, you still do not own it, so it is not up to you to delete it if others contribute. That is what you sing up to when startin to work in Wikipedia
All of them. This is a BLP issue, so this needs to be treaded on with careful steps. (X! · talk)  · @846  ·  19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Additionally not you but User:Mandic777 created the article in February 2010. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, this is me as: 1. aussieboy373 asking for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.212.171 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, now as 2: (whatever my IP address is) I am asking for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.212.171 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So, now as 3: mandic777 am deleting this page. I hope that this is proof enough that I did create the page, I am going to delete the contents of the page (again) and ask for speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MANDIC777 (talkcontribs) 18:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

i would appreciate if my request for a speedy deletion would not be fought against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MANDIC777 (talkcontribs) 18:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand a good number of other users have contributed to this article. On the other, though, I would question whether they qualify as significant contributors. Thoughts? - Vianello (Talk) 20:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, when you say a good number of users, you mean me. That is my IP address that appears so frequently, and my two user names. The only other edits seem to be people monitoring pages to check if the sources are accurate and have proper citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MANDIC777 (talkcontribs) 20:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you using two user names? Did you forget the password for Aussieboy373?   — Jeff G.  ツ 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
No, his first comment here came from the Aussieboy ID. The editor seems to edit using both IDs and a fixed IP address. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll also point out that the subject of the article, Guy Stone, is said in the article to be born as "Guy Mandic". One of the editors IDs is MANDIC777. If there is a relationship between the subject and this editor, that would possibly mean they have a conflict of interest in regard to the article and should take alook at WP:COI. Also, if the editor involved is the subject of the article, he should probably contact OTRS if he has a complaint about the article. I'm not sure why there would be, since they contributed a great deal of the information in it -- but others have contributed as well, so it's possible that some misinformation crept in. If so, the answer is not to delete the article, but to correct it, using OTRS or the procedures suggested in WP:COI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It should also be noted that one cannot revoke their contributions under the CC-BY-SA; this is made clear between the edit box and the edit summary everytime someone goes to edit a page. –MuZemike 01:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
That being said, it would behoove MANDIC777/et al to quickly go over Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself and send an email to the OTRS team at the email provided there if there are problems with the article. –MuZemike 01:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I filed an SPI, even though it's a self confessed duck. Aussieboy tried blanking the article again, I reverted and warned, he switched to MANDIC777 and tried it again, leaving a message on my talk page saying he's the "sole" contributor. I was gonna leave him alone on the two accounts, but the warning dodging, the potential COI, and snubbing the contributions of others (assuming he knows what "sole" means, here) gets under my skin. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not notable. The guy who wrote it, and presumably is the subject of it, wants it deleted. What's the problem? Just do the right thing. Jesus. Anthony (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia is not Facebook or MySpace, we're not here for people to write stuff about themselves and then maintain control of the content and the fate of the article. He, apparently, wrote an article about himself, and it's been here for almost half a year, when all of a sudden he decides he doesn't want the article – but that's no longer his decision to make. The article is now ours, and the community decides what to do with it through policies. If you or anybody else thinks the subject is not notable, take it to AfD. If he thinks the article he wrote about himself isn't accurate, then he can to to OTRS and make a complaint. What he doesn't get to do is control the fate of the article on his own say-so. In the meantime, he's been playing fast and loose with multiple policies, and we need to decide if this person is someone that we wish to allow to have access for future editing, since they seem to have no real purpose in being here outside of self-promotion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew all that. Who will benefit from us keeping a non-notable, autobiographical puff piece? And who will be hurt by it? Exactly what are your motives here? Anthony (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
How pleasant to have my motivations questioned. I suggest you AGF, and if you think the subject isn't notable (the article's not a puff piece at all, it's pretty much a standard actor bio) take to to AfD.

I think we're done here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, motive. It's time someone enquired into that. What is your aim? What are you trying to do here? Did it occur to you to be kind? All I can see is you making someone live with a blp when they don't want to, when, apart from {{reflist}} and some tags and categories, they wrote the whole thing. Surely I'm wrong but it just looks gratuitously petty and cruel.

Now we're done. Anthony (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, gratuitous pettiness and cruelty are my middle names, they're what motivate everything I do here. I'm really surprised no one's picked up on it before now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
How about nominating for AfD and deciding based on notability? Despite your disagreement in the last couple of comments, this seems to be the point of convergence of what you both say. Antipastor (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
What exactly are your motives, Anthony? Hm? Why do you want the article deleted? Maybe you're a sock for Mandic777/Aussieboy373? Or maybe you're a communist spy? Hm? Or perhaps you're part one of the Illuminati, trying to hide the cover of one of your top agents?!? And I'll turn off my mind control lazers that are totally preventing you from taking the article to AfD, which is why you've been forced to question the motives of and badger others for not doing so. Although, you could have just put on a tin-foil hat to block the beam, honestly. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(Colander firmly in place)Sorry Ken. That was a pretty superficial reading of one single thread. Anthony (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I know how things can get, sometimes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed block of MANDIC777 and Aussieboy373[edit]

Why not? He replaces the content of an article with prods and db tags after being told repeatedly not to, acts like he WP:OWNs the article, snubs the work of others, has a COI, and is spreading warnings out over multiple accounts (if it was a single account, it'd've been blocked by now). Then again, I've been drinking, so if I need to be trouted, please do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As a result of the SPI, Aussieboy373 has been blocked for a couple of weeks, and MANDIC777 has been indef blocked. I believe the static IP has been autoblocked as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OTRS ticket[edit]

I feel I should explain my actions in deleting the Guy Stone article. I'm an OTRS volunteer almost exclusively - I hardly ever edit Wikipedia if I can avoid it. I do read AN and ANI, and the VP occasionally, but not hourly. OTRS received an email from the subject explaining the situation, and although the email itself is confidential, MANDIC777 and Aussieboy373 are editing from the same household and are not sockpuppets, although they didn't intend to promote the subject, and didn't do it with the subject's permission or awareness. Because both MANDIC777 and Aussieboy373 wanted the article deleted (and performed the only significant edits to the article), and the subject wanted that version of the article deleted as soon as he was aware of it, I felt the only recourse was to delete the article under G7.

The notability of the subject did not enter into my decision, and no-one has any problems with a new article being created. I only made a common-sense decision that as MANDIC777 and Aussieboy373 were the only significant editors, both wanted the article deleted, and the subject (who was not aware of the article) wanted it deleted, the only sensible recourse was to delete that version.

I'm also concerned at the number of non-administrators who turned down the speedy deletion request without an administrator reviewing it - I was under the impression that only admins could outright cancel speedy deletion notices. Did an admin even get to see the deletion request? Was there an AfD discussion - did anyone inform the editors of the possibility of an AfD? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

1RR on talk pages?[edit]

Resolved: answered. 1RR rule does not apply on talk pages. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

On Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes I changed a heading that was misleading. This got reverted [1], I reverted back, and then it got reverted again: [2]

So the question is, is the talk page also under 1RR rule? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Specifying where the 1RR sanction has been logged would help users answer the question you are asking.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I was the one who initially placed the article on 1RR. Only the article and not the talk page was placed on any limitation. However, editing another's comments or edit warring on the talk page is just profoundly ridiculous, and will be met with blocks for general disruption if necessary. Just leave the header as is and counter the points they raise instead. (That applies to everyone, and not just you). NW (Talk) 13:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Trouble with user Ariana301[edit]

Content disputes belong on article talk pages. Edit wars belong at WP:ANEW. WP:3O was an excellent suggestion, but WP:ANEW seems to be the editors' preference... TFOWR 11:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I made a small change in Afghanistan#Foreign relations and military and provided reliable source as well as explained my reasons at Talk:Afghanistan#Foreign_relations_and_military then Ariana310 (talk · contribs) appeared and started replying in a rude tone, deleting my sourced edits and calling me a pro-Pakistani POV pusher everywhere. Ariana310 violated 3rr after I warned her and refuse to stop deleting sourced content. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] --119.73.1.34 (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not only me who finds 119.73.1.34's edits as POV and confusion, but other users too agree with me on the same point. Here, here, and here, reverts by two different users User:Begoon and User:John.
119.73.1.34 is overly-emphasizing on Afghanistan-Pakistan relations, while skipping and ignoring more important and healthier relations with other countries. He/She is trying to show off the Afghan-Pak relations to be friendly and without any tension, and is relying purely on one-sided and unreliable sources. A wikipedia article should have a balanced approach; we cannot focus solely on a single country.
I have added reliable sources for the reverts I made and for which there weren't any prior references: in here and here. The rest of my edits were removal of pure POV, for example in here. Ariana (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The source you provided simply says that Iran has relations with the ethnic Tajiks and Shia Hazaras in Afghanistan, those are not Afghan rulers. The Pakhtun are the ruling people of Afghanistan and you need to provide a reliable source that states that the Pakhtun leaders have or had relations with Iran. As far as history goes, they were at war with one another since the time of Hotaki dynasty in 1709. You are falsifying sources.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Direct quote from the source: Iran has close linguistic and cultural ties to AfghanistanAriana (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
My name is Ali, no I'm not that user.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Understood. I've amended the WP:ANEW report to use your "username", which is 119.73.1.34 - confusing though that may seem ;-)
My comment about WP:FORUMSHOPPING may need some explanation. In general, you should only report an issue in one place. I'll leave it to others to decide whether this issue should be handled here or at WP:ANEW. TFOWR 09:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll suggest here what was said in reply to 119.73.1.34 on my talk page. Since this appears basically to be a disagreement on content between just 2 editors, why not close this thread and the one at WP:ANEW and take it to WP:3O for a third opinion. I have no view on the content issues, my revert was purely for an edit that seemed on balance POV and unsourced, and I encouraged the user to discuss this on the article talk page, which he has done. I think it needs extra eyes, because it's stuck, but this probably isn't the right place. I'd hope both editors can remain calm and get this resolved amicably.  Begoontalk 10:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I added two reliable sources, one from the Journal of International Affairs of the Columbia University for the Afghan-Pakistan's long-lasting tension (in here) and the other for Afghan-Iran historical and linguistic ties from the Council on Foreign Relations (in here); but 119.73.1.34 removed both sources in here. In addition, he/she placed the CFR's reference after a sentence which has nothing to do with it (here), and in addition without even writing the source in a complete reference style. That's a vandalism by itself. He/She uses uses the texts published by the embassies of the two countries, instead of using the media or other scholarly sources which are impartial and unbiased. Ariana (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Ariana310 is trying to built controversy in the Afghan foreign relations section. She should explain the long-lasting tension in the main article Afghanistan-Pakistan relations. The section I edited is mainly focusing on the current-relations. She believes the words of Afghanistan's politicians are irrelevant and decides to remove this Afghan foregin ministry statement about Afghan-Pakistani relations. I made my argument clear at Talk:Afghanistan#Foreign relations and military but there she is not writing anything important other than calling me POV pusher. Along with that she is showing anti-Pakistan sentiments because according to her she lived in Pakistan and was probably harrassed by Pakistani police, using her own personal experiance to explain Afghan-Pak relations with an anti-Pakistani way. That's why I brought this here.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Or you could both keep arguing about content here... Mine was only a suggestion, after all...  Begoontalk 11:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous! WP:3O would offer a neutral editor with friendly advice. WP:ANEW will offer a bloody-minded admin choosing between 0, 1 and 2 blocks... ;-) TFOWR 11:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Happymandem is out of control[edit]

We need an admin/clerk there ASAP as Happymandem (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Mandemhappy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) are being racist to each other in that SPI and they are fighting. Break's Over Roach, let's go (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Both accounts blocked. See my comments the SPI page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Sjakkalle, I'm sure there are some sleepers. Break's Over Roach, let's go (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

edit warring at Talk:New antisemitism[edit]

Resolved: User blocked by Dougweller (talk · contribs). Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 17:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

99.231.81.164 (talk · contribs · count) and his various clones keep on reinstating material removed by User:Mbz1 and myself on this talk page. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Franklin.vp for confirmation of the clone status and Mbz1's description of previous stalking behaviour against her.

I request that an admin either considers the CU result and take action against the various linked ids or puts the talk page on review so that the puppeetteers edits can be stopped from displaying. Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Doug.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring in user talk page[edit]

Resolved: Information was kept

Hello! I am currently in a edit war with Tournesol on his user talk page, in order to get personal information about myself removed. Even though I am asking him why I am not allowed to do so, he is continuing to revert it. Am I allowed to remove personal and background information about myself? /HeyMid (contributions) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The personal information does not seem to violate any guidelines or policies. On top of that, it seems you added it yourself. In general removal/maintenance of talk page content is at the discretion of the user whose talk page it is. So altogether, that does not make a very strong case for you. I would not worry too much, hardly anyone ever reads talk pages, except for the owner, but (s)he read it already of course. Arnoutf (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
If it leads to bullying, then I am seriously worried. I know I have to be very careful with providing personal information, unless there is a real reason as to why. /HeyMid (contributions) 16:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Looking at the history's, I'm not sure I see any personal information that you did not yourself speak off being revealed. I do, however, see that you are indef blocked at another Wiki[8][9] for pulling the same sort of stuff you attempted at the Bambifan101 SPI (i.e. trying to close it)[10] when you had absolutely no business doing so. And that you have already gotten final warnings here to stop badgering the folks who reported you for blocking there as well[11] I won't repeat the statements you have indicated you want removed, but I will say, it is NO excuse for violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And frankly, I'm finding your focus on SPIs as a newer editor a bit concerning particularly when we have had an editor not too long ago get community banned who made the exact same excuses for their inappropriate behaviors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I was actually this close to blocking outright when I saw that Heymid had continued the problematic behavior he had previously been warned for. However, I decided to give him a final chance to continue contributing constructively. And yes, that would not include SPI work if I interpret your and Deskana's comments correctly. However, his non-answers do not really inspire confidence, and I feel we have a total failure to communicate (perhaps due to Heymid's age and the fact that he is not a native speaker of English), so any input on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. decltype (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think HeyMid should carefully read Wikipedia:Competence is required and consider wether he can live up to these standards. I am afraid his competence is more of an issue than deliberate vandalism, but that is no excuse. Arnoutf (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree, this has not been a good day for me. I am not sure meta discussing is for me. And my behaviour has already been too bad I can't apologize for all the bad I have done to Wikipedia. I believe my block on SvWp is nonsense; my life at EnWp has changed since then, and I have always said I would really appreciate another chance there. I see EnWp as a better community than SvWp. Thanks for your understandings. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
If I am asking for help, I will instead be facing the negatives and criticism against myself. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. I promise I will immediately return to my constructive editing. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
When you post a complaint here, the entire situation will be looked at, including your own behavior. As it is, even after all of the above, you turned around and tried to deny requests at WP:RFPP[12] and randomly interjecting your clearly uninformed opinions in other pages and filing spurious requests. You seem to either NOT understand the warnings leveled at you, or don't intend to follow them. At this point, I'm thinking SvWp had the right idea. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 19:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
If I simply just focus all my energy on improving articles, there will be no problems or need for blocks. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
So what is Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy then? If that is true, then I should be allowed to remove personal information about myself, due to my young age. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay...despite his promises above, Heymid has again injected himself into SPI[13] (which he at least self-reverted), and making spurious requests at RFPP[14] (to have a page move protected as a "high visibility" that has not had any page move vandalism that I can see). As he seems completely incapable of keeping to his own advice, and is still also pestering the fellow from SvWp[15]. At this point, I'm thinking a block, at the minimum, is needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a few things:
  1. What does high visibility mean? Alexander Ovechkin was indefinitely sysop move-protected yesterday.
  2. I did not understand the headline should be deactivated in the SPI archives. Sorry for that again. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
You don't need to understand it because you have already been told repeatedly to stay out of SPI all together. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. If it is that serious, then I will immediately leave the SPI and RfPP pages/sections. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd be glad if someone removes my personal information at User_talk:Tournesol (especially the part saying Asperger's syndrome). /HeyMid (contributions) 17:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Your request has already been answered. Your refusal to accept what has already been told to you is now reminding me of this where I had to repeat myself about four times for you to get it. You really are pushing your luck. --Deskana (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure he understood exactly what I meant. /HeyMid (contributions) 18:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
He answered exactly what you asked. No, you do not have the right to remove information you posted on another person's Talk page. No one here seems inclined to remove it for you, either. I don't see anything else to be done here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:OUTING states, "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing." Thus, while User:Tournesol has done nothing wrong by posting the info, s/he is, as far as I can see at least "supposed to" remove it. At best, it's uncivil for Torunesol to leave the information up after specifically asking that it be taken down. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
True, it would be courteous to remove it, but not required. If Tournesol chooses not to remove it, a warning is about the worst we could do, since it's not personally identifying in any way. An admin could remove it if they wanted, but I wouldn't recommend a non-Admin touch it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Tendentiousness on Akins, part two[edit]

Resolved: blocked - 2/0 (cont.) 15:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be such a pain in the ass, but the issues over at Akins aren't getting better. I was originally the 3O on the page regarding a sourcing problem, but I guess I've become more active there. A few days ago I reported Wyvren (talk · contribs), an editor who was being particularly tendentious on this one article. He was blocked for 31 hours, but nearly as soon as he was unblocked, his editing started again. Actually, Dougweller brought this up to the blocking admin on the blocking admin's talk page, and I received a note asking me to chime in. I've tried to work with this editor on the talk page about sourcing, but they left a few small notes and have ignored the rest. He's making large edits that are largely rolling back any productive changes that have been made. I've left a note on the blocking admin's talk page about this, but their edits just don't seem to be stopping anytime soon, and I don't know what to do. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this dispute, but I do know that Wyvren did this, which puts his ability to contribute constructively to Wikipedia in serious doubt. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that the POV of the current article on the Stormfront website is biased? Calling Stormfront a "hate site" is like calling the NAACP a "racist, black-supremacist, hate group". What is with the double-standard here? Using terms like "White-Rights Advocacy site" is much less biased than labeling Stormfront as a Neo-Nazi White Supremacist site. --Wyvren (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, Wyvren, those two things are not alike. At all. Not even close. Not to anyone who has any contact with reality. You may think differently, but we go with what the reliable sources say, not your personal fantasies about the matter. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Coming back from a block and basically reinstating his edits is a bit of 'my way or the highway' and is putting off other editors. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
G-d no! Even the name has Neo-Nazi connotations - and I find it impossible to believe that was an accident. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, alright. Wyvren is still editing with no regard for previous opinions; they readded some images that are apparently of a dubious nature, and they just made some pretty sweeping changes to the lede, now causing it to be bigger than the rest of the article. It's also skewing pretty hard POV, I think. Can we actually do anything about this? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Returning immediately to the same sorts of edits after a block is poor form. I have made no attempt to clean up any of these edits - if they require further discussion here, please unmark this as resolved. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this; I've been a bit busy IRL. That's the same conduct I blocked Wyvren for, so I think a second block is the right course. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please explicate the neo-Nazi implications of his user name? I'm not getting any help from Google. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yoganate79[edit]

Resolved: All good - no admin action required. Users are permitted to blank their talk pages. TFOWR 20:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User Yoganate79 seems to blank his talk page over and over again. It also seems that the user has blanked or removed article talk page content in the pasts. --Kslotte (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Although archiving is more customary, users are permitted to blank their talk pages, if they choose. Doing so is considered acknowledgement that they have read the messages. You appear to have forgotten to inform User:Yoganate79 of this discussion, so I'll take care of it for you. If there's a problem with that user's edits, messages from the talk page can be found in the talk page history. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally I found archiving a right pain to set up, and until I eventually settled on a solution that worked it was broken more often than not. Kslotte, it might be worth volunteering to help Yoganate79 set up archiving? It may be that they simply don't know about it or can't be bothered fighting with an evil bot... TFOWR 15:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
But for the most part, we have nothing to see here. As pointed out here (and your talk page...which granted, was after you posted here), users are permitted to blank their talk page. Unless you can provide us some diffs of him inappropriately removing article talk content as you insinuate, I think we can mark this as resolved.. --Smashvilletalk 16:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Information about the article talk removals can be found here. But, I assume restoring talk content (I can do it) is the way to go here. I have a concern that the user may have other places where talk content has been removed. --Kslotte (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I must not be in the right place, since i am not seeing anything about this editor's offensive comments in Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Bias, where the said editor insults a people as a whole, which cost the editor a block of one day ([16]), for "attempting to harass other users" (where i read "users" as "editors"). I think that the offense is greater, particularly considering that User:Yoganate79 refuses to remove his offensive comments, which are still there to displease the reader and his fellow editors, and adds to the insult another one. I see here a tentative slap on the hand, but with no results for the moment. In my mind, the said user must comply with the rules. --Jerome Potts (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You do know that psychic powers are not a part of the admin toolbox, right? Also, what exactly are you asking for? Based on the information you just provided, the user did something and was then blocked for it. What has he done since the unblock? --Smashvilletalk 16:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I suppose that there are two ways to go about this : he got blocked, and we do the clean-up of his offensive comments ourselves, or, he is penalised (or cautioned to be) until he removes his own filth. If the former, should i perform the clean-up myself ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible suicide threat?[edit]

I just reverted this, in which someone threatens that they "will commit suicide to get on Americas Got Talent. If I don't, I might just do it."

It looks more like some desperate attempt to appeal to Simon Cowell, but I want to err on the side of caution and report this here. I will notify the user. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the things in that post strike me of being red flags of people who have suicidal ideation, so I would take this seriously. I'll try to help.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The IP is a comcast address, geolocates to Owings Mills, Maryland, but I wouldn't take that as reliable. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Fwiw, i found this.
Dial 911
Non-Emergency complaints 410-887-2222
Terrorism Hotline 1-800-492-TIPS
Metro Crime Stoppers 1-866-7-LOCKUP
Gang Hotline 410-823-0785
Crime Information Hotline 410-583-2216
Gun Hotline 410-887-GUNS

Pilif12p :  Yo  19:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I dropped an email over to bcpd@baltimorecountymd.gov with the details and WMF contact info. Someone should probably call if they get a chance; I just don't have time to spend an hour on the phone with them. :P --slakrtalk / 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"I'm willing to COMMIT SUICIDE to get there." somehow I'm not quite picking up on the cause-and-effect here. --Golbez (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, isn't Simon a judge for American Idol, not America's Got Talent? 174.52.141.138 (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't know if this is of any help, but apparently there is a video entry for the show from someone with that name. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I called and reported it. Had to relay the info three times. They said they'll take care of it. I found two Vo families in Owings Mills, MD using whitepages.com, so he could be at one of those. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor disruption -- Darkstar1st deleting talk page comments[edit]

In violation of WP:TPG, User:Darkstar1st has, for some reason, decided that he is entitled to outright delete the talk page comments of other editors even when they are directly discussing the progress of the Wiki article. He removed my comment (and another editor's with this edit.

I insisted that he restore the comments: [17]

Instead, he gave a statement to justify his actions: [18]

I find User:Darkstar1st's apparent WP:OWN issues with the talk page to be disruptive. (I also find them disgustingly ironic, given that he's garnered quite a reputation for soapboxing, as mentioned in a previous ANI.) Of course, I can revert his edit to restore my comment, but -- given his declining of my request -- it seems the underlying issue would persist. BigK HeX (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The comment has been restored, i have asked darkstar to not remove comments unless they are blp violations or personal attacks per WP:TPG, i am sure he shall not make the same mistake again mark nutley (talk)
A note that the comments were restored by an editor not discussed or represented here. BigK HeX (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:GoldVillage[edit]

Resolved: troll-be-gone applied. Horologium (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the latest comment at User talk:GoldVillage, I suggest it might be time to block Talk page access too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the comment, and disabled talk page and e-mail access for the editor. Horologium (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

New editor redirecting to sock[edit]

Resolved

Not sure what is going on here but user:COAOneHundredTwo started by removing the permanent block notice from User:MidnightBlueMan and has now redirected their user and talk pages to Midnight. --Snowded TALK 19:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Quacky enough for me, if not then still very odd behaviour. Can always use an unblock request to state a rebuttal. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
...which they've done. Apparently they're not a sock at all: they just "admire MidnightBlueMan very much". Quack! TFOWR 19:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It's all locked up now, marked as resolved. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Fut.Perf.'s self-issued topic ban to User:Hkwon[edit]

Background: I have been working on a content dispute on Kimchi for about one month. I came to this dispute (if I recall correctly) because of an RfC about how to word the lead. The dispute essentially boiled down to User:Hkwon having a preferred way to state the lead, and between 2 and 5 other editors, myself included, preferring another. During that time, due to edit-warring being conducted by several participants, the page was fully protected twice (once for 3 days, once for a week). There was a bit of incivility, mostly between Hkwon and User:Sennen goroshi and, to a lesser extent, User:Melonbarmonster2; incivility which I believe spanned across this page as well as user pages and other Korean-related pages. At one point User:Hkwon was blocked for a week for personal attacks [19], later reduced to 24 hours [20]. By the end of the last protecting, we still hadn't reached consensus; however, once the protection was removed, edit warring did not recommence--instead, the lead was changed to the majority view, and Hkwon requested assistance from the Mediation Cabal (the request for mediation has not been acted on yet, and can be seen here. For my part, at least, throughout the Kimchi debate, I found Hkwon's insistence on his version to be tendentious, but I also felt that he was providing solid, policy based reasons for his opinions along with reliable sources to support it. He didn't seem to be edit warring any more or less than other users. I further felt that he was no more incivil than other participants. During the same time frame, though, Hkwon was also involved in what I believe were heated discussions on other Korean related topics; I wasn't involved so I won't speak to his behavior there.
On July 22, however, Fut.Perf. posted on Hkwon's talk page [21] that s/he believed Hkwon had been "persistently disruptive" and "fuelling one of the lamest edit wars I've ever seen." Then s/he stated that Hkwon was "indefinitely topic-banned from all edits relating to Korean cuisine (including, but not restricted to, the Kimchi article and anything to do with dog meat). If you make any edits about this topic, you will be blocked with no further warning." I am requesting community review of that "decision." According to WP:BAN, bans (both full bans and topic bans) can be only issued by community consensus, ArbCom (directly, or by uninvolved administrators in areas they have specifically delineated), Jimbo Wales, and the WMF. Therefore, I don't think Hkwon is actually banned, because I don't think Fut.Perf. has the authority to do so. User:Martin Hogbin and myself questioned FP about this "banning" on FP's talk page, both stating that we felt it was excessive; other users (User:Heimstern and User:Cydevil38) argued that if Hkwon deserved a topic ban, so did others, for employing the same basic behaviors. FP has so far stated that he believes his actions were right, that his experience with Korean topics leads him to believe strong administrator action is needed/justified, and that the burden is currently on Hkwon to "comment on the situation and explain how he plans to conduct himself more constructively in the future."
So, two questions: 1) Is Hkwon really topic banned (that is, does FP's comment have the force of policy), and 2) Is it appropriate for an administrator to act unilaterally in this fashion?
tl;dr:FP unilaterally claimed to topic ban Hkwon. Is this acceptable and legitimate? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I came as an uninvolved editor to the kimchi article as a result of the RfC. After a while of trying to mediate in a simple but intractable discussion on whether kimchi was 'a fermented food' I was staggered to find that the supporter on one particular view, Hkwon, had received an indefinite topic ban from Fut. perf. I commented on FP's talk page that I thought his action was too strong and later made this simple and positive suggestion to FP: 'Can I suggest that you lift the ban on Hkwon and allow the uninvolved editors to continue the mediation, with the strong suggestion that all the involved editors refrain from editing the article and on the understanding that if we get nowhere we can hand the topic back to you for tougher action'. This was rejected. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

  • This was recently discussed (can't seem to recall where), I believe the notion was generally disfavoured as it had too much potential for abuse. In general, my thoughts are that if the behaviour in question could justify an indefinite block, then the topic ban to prevent disruption is being offered to the user as a lesser measure. Haven't looked at this in any detail, so I can't say whether it would apply here. –xenotalk 14:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Disclosure - I was previously blocked by FPAS. I'm not otherwise involved. I believe that it is beyond FPAS's authority as an admin to topic ban an editor. Bans are to be imposed by the community or ArbCom, and an admin does not have that authority. Further, based on the fact that FPAS exceeded their authority as an admin, I believe that a subsequent block by FPAS would be ill-advised, and that either the community or another admin should handle the situation. I do not have any input on the conduct of any of the other parties in this matter, and am just commenting on the procedural issues. As far as I can tell, FPAS is otherwise a decent admin - there should in no way be any sanctions, just a friendly word of advice. GregJackP Boomer! 14:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Despite it never having been written into policy, it's not too uncommon for admins to issue sanctions on their own, particularly is heated areas. Note that this proposed finding of fact which would have clearly asserted that admins do not have the authority to issue topic bans was firmly rejected by ArbCom. (The sanction under consideration was in fact confirmed by the community, but that doesn't seem to have factored into the voting.) My observation has been that single-admin-imposed sanctions of this sort are valid if the community is willing to enforce them. For my part, the edit warring I saw at Kimchi makes me believe there ought to be more, not fewer, sanctions here (maybe not of indefinite duration, but definitely for long enough that the article can have some rest. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
*Disclosure - I was also previously blocked by FutPerf and also have been the subject of a topic ban (topic ban was nothing to do with Futperf) I have found that while FurPerf is not as lenient as other Admins, his actions (including this one) have been spot on every time. This isn't about punishing various editors, neither is this about a content dispute - this is about making specific set of articles free from disruption. The editor in question has been recently blocked twice in a few weeks for actions related to these articles and each time comes straight back and continues with the disruption. I consider a topic ban to be far more effective and lenient than a number of consecutive blocks that slowly increase in duration, with periods of disruption between each block. My topic ban saved me from my own stupidity and saved me from a far longer block than I have ever had the dubious pleasure of experiencing, it also allowed me to edit unrelated articles and contribute to wikipedia on less controversial articles. I wish Hkwon good luck and have confidence in him making constructive edits, I just don't think that will ever happen if he edits these particular articles - if it isn't on the Kimchi article, it will on another Korean cuisine related article. This topic ban probably means that he is unable to edit about 0.01% of the articles on Wikipedia, not such a heavy price to pay for some stability on these articles. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
This block does not affect just Hkwon. How is the issue now to be resolved? Hkwon is no longer able to put his side of the argument leaving the uninvolved editors who were trying to mediate hearing only one side of the story and thus unable to make any progress. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
They can read the archives to find out what he has to say -- it's not like his opinion has been completely removed from the discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who's been around the Korea/Japan related topics knows Futper has done this in the past. The ban is harsh but Hkwon picked up right where he started even after his ban instead toning it down. The situation was such that several neutral editors, and even Sennen and myself(mortal enemies) were on the same page trying to reason Hkwon into a compromise about kimchi being "often/usually/primarily" fermented to no avail. I do think a stern admin warning would have sufficed but I can't say I'm surprised and it puts the rest of us on notice.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Administrators have no authority to issue topic bans without prior authorization (normally concerning a specific topic area) by the Arbitration Committee or the community. A policy proposal (by me) that would have given administrators such authority, WP:Discretionary sanctions, did not obtain consensus. Accordingly, topic bans without basis in an ArbCom or community decision are void and can be ignored. However, admins may and often do sanction disruptive conduct with blocks, and if an adninistrator determines that a user's editing in a topic area is consistently disruptive, they are free to either block the user or to warn them that a block will ensue if disruptive editing in that topic area continues. The practical difference between this and a formal topic ban is that edits within the scope of a topic ban need not be disruptive in order to trigger a block.  Sandstein  21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sandstein that it seems to me Futper has applied WP:DIGWUREN reasoning to a topic area not addressed by ArbCom. There's also been a request to MedCab by Hkwon where the involved parties are welcome to comment there and I think any issue with Futper's actions should be brought here by Hkwon and not others. --Wgfinley (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that Futper was strongly admonished and desysopped for 3 months about "displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard". Later Jimbo raised concerns along similar lines. ++Lar: t/c 00:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant here. That arbitration action doesn't say anything about issuing topic bans and Jimbo's concerns appear to be about FPAS performing administrative actions related to Greece/Macedonia not him being "incivil, rude, offensive and insulting." AniMate 00:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The relevancy is to the misuse of admin power, not the specifics. Futper has a history of doing things administratively that perhaps are not completely within the appropriate boundaries and this current incident would be another example. Note that there was also an RfC in 2008. This ANI revolves around inappropriate use of admin authority (by imposing a topic ban). As did the prior incidents even if the details differ. ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A clarification to the above; I believe Melonbarmonster just misspoke, but Hkwon has not performed any editing since being banned. He did edit again after being blocked, and some of that editing was questionable. At least on kimchi, he did not, however, engage in any personal attacks, which is what he was blocked for. As with others above, I certainly believe Fut.Perf. can and should have warned Hkwon that his behavior was unacceptable, and that he was headed for a block (possibly even an escalating series of blocks). But banning is obviously far more harsh--it means that even should he make a good faith edit, everyone else can and should revert his edits without even reading them. Furthermore, the ban gives the appearance of being partial--it implies that the behavior of others in the topic area was acceptable, while Hkwon's was not, according to some arbitrary standard held by one administrator. In a sense, this topic ban is less readily reviewable by others than a block would be. I'll point out that while Fut.Perf. has posted on his own topic page that he wants Hkwon to account for his past behaviors and explain how he will fix them in the future, he hasn't notified Hkwon of this. If I and others hadn't brought this issue up, it must have appeared to Hkwon that he has no recourse to dispute this ban. Fut.Perf. implied that the law has been laid down, and that is the end of the discussion. Even a block has, built into the template itself, a means for disputing the block. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Sanstein has it correct. There have been a number of administrators who've inferred the ability to individually topic ban problematic users: after all, if you have the ability to physically block an editor from editing anything, isn't a topic ban a lesser included power? Consensus has been that no, it's not, and that topic bans should be proposed and discussed appropriately. This was hashed out sometime in the middle of 2009, IIRC, so I have no idea why FP thought it appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It has been longstanding practice, ever since the ad-hoc imposition of administrative emergency measures on Liancourt Rocks, that the specific field of Korean (and especially Korean-Japanese) disputes is under a de facto "discretionary sanctions" regime analogous to those of the Balkans, Eastern Europe and the like. We've had no formal Arbcom case stating such a rule, but given recent cases, there can be hardly any doubt that if the Korean-Japanese disputes were to be brought to Arbcom, exactly such a discretionary sanction rule (as is by now routine) would be formally passed. Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, it is only reasonable that we needn't wait for Arbcom to pass it. The amount of disruption on these articles is clearly comparable to that in other political hotspots. I have made such topic bans on several occasions in the past, and in each case that I can remember they have stuck and were upheld and sometimes enforced by other administrators. Best example I can remember was Bukubku (talk · contribs), who I topic-banned [22], and whose topic ban was confirmed on multiple occasions (appeal 1, (appeal 2) and further enforced by admins such as arbitrator Rlevse [23]. Of course, any such sanction is always open to review by the community, and if anybody wants to question this ban on its merits rather than on the formalities of how it was passed, I'm all ears. Fut.Perf. 06:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how the dispute over whether Kimchi is fermented is a Korea-Japan dispute. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
So it sounds to me like you held Hkwon to a standard (that he should have treated Korean articles as if they were under Arbcom sanctions) he could not possibly have known about, since it's a standard you interpolated from past Arbcom decisions. Is that what you're saying? Or am I misunderstanding you? Like I mentioned, I didn't follow Hkwon on the other articles, so I can't say for certain if he deserved it, we can raise that later (although, perhaps Hkwon should do so). I am still worried that many people have posted here that you seem to be taking up a right to act that you don't actually have.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Nod. Futper: Put this before the community and get a community imposed discretionary sanctions regime put in place. Properly argued, I think such is a likely outcome and will improve matters. But I think you exceeded your authority absent that or absent clear ArbCom direction, even under IAR. Inferring such broad outcomes, even if you are right, arguably may not be sufficient. Don't do this again please. I'm not seeing a lot of defense for your view, and a pretty strong consensus against it. Take that on board and let that be that. (but undo what was done to Hkwon to return to status quo ante) ++Lar: t/c 14:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. It doesn't appear that he returned to edit warring over the lead and sought out mediation to help with the dispute. A topic ban is ridiculous and far beyond FP.--Crossmr (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it is highly revealing that Hkwon is not here arguing to have the topic ban removed, perhaps he sees the logic in it and thinks it is much better than a long term/indef block. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, whatever. Given the level of disagreement here, I obviously have to agree that the ban is moot, for now. This is a pity, because I still think it was objectively warranted, and as I said, such sanctions have been used to good effect in the past. I hope people will understand that I acted according to my best understanding of previous practice and implicit community consensus based on earlier cases. - For now, I have informed Hkwon that the ban is moot, but I have converted it into a one-week block (which was amply warranted based on both edit-warring and personal attacks immediately prior to my intervention the other day). This leaves me with the issue of where and how to initiate a formal community decision for the future. I think I won't bother asking for a legitimized community topic ban in this individual case, right now (it will just need to be handled with escalating blocks, the old-fashioned way). But I want the community to impose a general discretionary-sanctions regime on this topic area for the future, which would make measures like the one I attempted procedurally valid. Such discretionary sanction rules have been working well on other national hotspots, and if Arbcom can create them, obviously the community can do the same. Fut.Perf. 21:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
    That sounds punitive and not preventative. They haven't done anything since you issued the ban which was a few days ago and now you're going to turn around and block.--Crossmr (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Futper: The Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation was raised at WP:AN. It became its own subtopic, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Climate_Change due to the length and number of participants. My suggestion is to review the various sanction regimes, craft a proposal, and bring it to AN (not AN/I) and see how it goes. If the proposal was similar to previous ethnic/nationalistic ones and took on board issues and concerns that folk had raised, I expect it would go well. I certainly would support a properly crafted proposal. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 06:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for block of Sennen Goroshi[edit]

As a related matter, at this point, I'd have to support a block on him for harassment and stirring the pot. During the last dust-up with Hkwon, Sennen Goroshi was one of the two poking Hkwon until he ended up using some personal attacks. They've been at each other for quite some time. Also during the last go around he was told to stay off Hkwon's talk page [24]. This was made clear to him during the discussion. Since then, he went back to the page 3 times to needlessly post things that others could have posted [25], [26], [27], sennen was then warned not to bait by SarekofVulcan [28]. His messages here seem to be of the same vein and tone for which was warned and directed at the same user. He obviously hasn't gotten the point yet--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

and I will note these personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith by him from Talk:Kimchi [29], [30], [31]--Crossmr (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
So in a nutshell, since being warned by an admin, I have not posted anything on Hkwon's talk page. In addition to that, I have commented on Hkwon's disregard of consensus, whilst not stooping to personal attacks at any time. Considering the blatant personal attacks made against me by Hkwon (which has was blocked for) I have been rather restrained in my comments. Baiting does not include making valid comments regarding another user's edits. There are no more problems between Hkwon and myself at this time, blocks are designed to protect Wikipedia - they are not designed to punish editors - blocking me from editing would serve no purpose whatsoever. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
You don't need to be told by an admin not to go to his page. You were told by him not to go there before, you went back 3 times. During which time you picked up an additional warning for baiting by an admin who may not have realized you were told to stay off that page. You also engaged in baiting with melonball last time around to get him blocked. And of course you have no problem with him right now, he's been reblocked punitively by Futureperfect. Baiting can include making valid comments about another user. if there are valid comments to be made about his behaviours, others can do it. You two have an extensive history and your extensive picking at him is unnecessary and only makes the situation worse. There was absolutely no benefit to your comment on why you felt he wasn't commenting on this discussion. I mean, unless you can read minds?--Crossmr (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm just trying to work out why any of the above, would be any concern of yours. I'm glad you pointed out that Hkwon requested that I stay away from his talk page [32] - let me just quote his polite request for me to stay away from his page, so that anyone else reading can see exactly how rude I was to ignore such a polite request :: To Sennen goroshi|talk]]: Upset? You are not some kind of humorless blob, are you? Helping me to find content that I was unable to locate. Wow. Such an "大きなお世話". If it's not too much trouble, try not to stain my talk page any more please. Although your rambling amuses me every time, I don't want other people who look at this page to think I am associated with kinds of you in any way. Report me? Maybe you haven't completely lost your sense of humor yet. Hkwon (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC) - I have not posted on his page in two weeks - this complaint is stale and without merit. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Disruption on the encyclopedia is everyone's concern. You were told to stay off his page, how he did it is irrelevant. In fact if you'd like to start getting picky about what involves people, the action that got you told to stay off his page was you unnecessarily going over and trying to bait him in the middle of his conversation with me about revert counting. A discussion that was already being handled quite well in which you came to further disrupt, bait and harass. If you want to be transparent, then let's be transparent shall we? [33]. I renew my recommendation and call for a block. You've been disruptive for some time now, you've been intentionally baiting and harassing a user, and clearly don't get it, so as far as I can see that means it will continue just as soon as Hkwon can edit again. So to prevent further disruption you should be blocked until such a time that you demonstrate you clearly understand the the relevant policies like WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND and agree to abide by them.--Crossmr (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
and there is nothing stale about this. Your last set of personal attacks were only a few days ago before everything blew up in hkwons face again, and there is no reason to expect that when he is free to continue editing you won't be back on him since you've been continuing this for so long.--Crossmr (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, you think I should be blocked from editing - I don't - neither of us have any authority to make or deny a block. I do not plan on wasting any more time/bandwidth on this topic, until such time as your request for me to be blocked is granted/denied or something new/valid is brought up. Peace カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course you don't think you should be blocked, but you also haven't demonstrated that you won't continue the disruption which is all the reason you should be blocked. You've established a pattern of long term harassment against a user and show no indication of stopping.--Crossmr (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by User Njsustain[edit]

Njsustain has recently engaged in a pattern of disruption across multiple New Jersey-related articles. The user has refused to present reliable secondary sources to back up his spurious claims, and instead repeatedly edit-wars with multiple editors.

Requesting an uninvolved administrator to take action with regard to this user.


New Brunswick, New Jersey
  • 19:16, 19 July 2010 - Njsustain undid revision 374346960 by Amatulic (no talk page discussion)
  • 10:36, 21 July 2010 - Njsustain undid revision 374566210 by Shimeru (no edit summary explaining this whatsoever)
  • 11:05, 22 July 2010 - Njsustain undid revision 374346960 by Amatulic (again, still no talk page discussion)
Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggested an article was a puff piece. Rather than engage in discussion, the article creator has been deleting standard WP procedures for addressing these concerns. Cirt has been both disruptive and using harrassing techniques to defend the article used to advertise the "Daryl restaurant and wine bar." He clearly has a personal interest in the restaurant is is using his position as an administrator abusively. Njsustain (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I have repeatedly requested Njsustain (talk · contribs) cease the disruption, and instead suggest reliable secondary sources to support his POV-pushing. Njsustain (talk · contribs) has repeatedly refused and failed to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You repeatedly refuse to allow discussion as per standard WP procudures. You clearly have a personal interest in this restaurant and are abusing your privledges as an administrator and showing your bias through these bully tactics. You don't seem interested in other user or administrator comments about the article or about this incident, only in keeping YOUR article (or should I say advertisement) for the restaurant exactly the way you want it to be. Your comments are a big flashing sign saying that the article is nothing more than I biased puff piece. It consists of nothing but positively spun lore about the restaurant and a bunch of positive reviews. It is non-neutral, non-notable, and you just can't accept it, and are taking it out on the user that happened to point it out. You are trying to smear me in order to keep your advertisement for the restaurant. This is administrator abuse for personal gain. It is totally inappropriate.Njsustain (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect assumptions. Njsustain (talk · contribs) refuses to stop making these spurious claims, which amount to violations of WP:NPA. -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
They are not assumptions, they are conclusions based on the article. You seem to believe that only your conclusions are correct. You don't seem interested in waiting for other opinions, only in pointing out "rules" that are in your favoer and inappropriately ignoring ones that are not. I may not have 40,000 edits or a jillion barnstars, but I can see a puff piece, administrator abuse, and someone looking for a fight when I see them. Njsustain (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
What I don't understand is why you were inappropriately ignoring simple rules like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPA, and so on. If you have a concern that an article is POV, why have you failed to produce reliable sources to verify claims that suggest that the article is POV? It's all very well if an article is presenting positive reviews, but if no negative reviews exist in reliable sources, are you still going to allege that it is POV? That sure sounds like your argument at the moment. What evidence do you have to demonstrate there is a conflict of interest? That's what is needed rather than the bickering. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, well don't make ANI another venue for the two of you to continue a dispute. Hold fire while a third party admin takes a look at things, that way neither of you talk yourselves into something else. Take heart the lessons of Wikipedia:Catch Once and Leave S.G.(GH) ping! 17:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, SGGH, understood. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, SGGH. Njsustain (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I honestly think Njsustain is being a bit of a dick here. Assuming Cirt has a conflict in interest with the subject of the article just because he wrote it doesn't really make sense; plenty of editors write articles about things that they don't have a stake in. The claims that Cirt is abusing his authority as an administrator are also fairly ludicrous; until I've seen a diff of Cirt threatening to block, or protecting "his" version of the article, or something similar, I suggest Njsustain drop that particular line of complaints. If Njsustain thinks the article is so bad, he's more than welcome to take it to WP:AFD, especially since the prod is very much contested (and Cirt is well within his right, even as the article author, to remove that). EVula // talk // // 17:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, after several years on WP, I clearly don't understand the standards if it is (apparently) okay for administrators to go around calling other users "dicks." Fine, Cirt, you won. Have your advertisement, and keep hiding behind the white wall of silence. Have a nice day. Njsustain (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
If you keep acting like a dick, I'll keep saying you're acting like a dick. You've made unsubstantiated claims repeatedly, both about the article and Cirt himself (the former is a mere content dispute, but you're the one that started making the dispute personal by making allusions of COI, which you never provided evidence of). You thanked SGGH for his comments that a third party should look at things, and guess what, third parties (myself and Ncmvocalist) looked at things and don't think you're right, so now you're just going to "give up" the argument with a potshot at Cirt as a part of your concession? Lame. EVula // talk // // 18:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You're making my point for me. You and Cirt aren't interested in rational reasons for why I'm wrong, you're interested in smearing and name calling (i.e. swearing). If your arguments were logical, you wouldn't need to do those things. You would make them in due course, not use ad hominem attacks. Talk about lame.Njsustain (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
And you've just suggested EVula and Cirt are not rational (which goes to mental stability); I think you are heading towards a block with this behavior. I've asked you a question and given a view on how you are appearing based on site policy, but your refusal to civilly respond to that is problematic - that you also choose to engage in bickering with those who are disagreeing with you is compounding the concern. Where are your reliable sources to verify what you are saying? Where is your evidence? If you don't have anything, why not simply say so? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Cirt should be warned as well for assuming bad faith.--68.9.117.21 (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment from the peanut gallery: I got caught in the middle here merely because I observed what I thought was a pretty good, well-sourced article about a clearly notable restaurant, which was orphaned, and subsequently added a wikilink to another article to help out, which Njsustain reverted at least once or twice. I must say I am surprised that after so many claimed years of participation on Wikipedia, Njsustain seems evidently unaware of several policies and guidelines related to content as well as behavior. If Njsustain thinks the Daryl restaurant article is a "puff piece" or "advertisement" as he claims, then he should prove it. From where I sit as a disinterested party who knew nothing about the restaurant before I saw the article, it was blatantly obvious that it wasn't an advertisement, but an article about a restaurant that has well exceeded Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Nsjustain's behavior regarding this article and its author have been, in my opinion, curiously lacking in good faith and knowledge of the standards around here. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment It appears that you all are ganging up on Njsustain a bit unfairly here though perhaps s/he hasn't approached this correctly. If you ask me a majority of these articles should be deleted as advertisements -- category:Restaurants in the United States by state. The restaurant in question appears to currently be popular enough and has had good enough PR to have garnered a significant amount of promotional write ups in the lifestyle sections of various local media, and a insignificant mention or two in similar sections of the NYT. The article is exceedingly well written, and indeed was pretty much polished the minute it was added to Wikipedia. I have no idea what the truth of these COI allegations are, and I would suggest that making those allegations was inappropriate. On the other hand it is odd to see this kind of article pop up in such a polished state like that -- but maybe the writer is fan of restaurants or just a fan of this one? Who knows. I would suggest that if this article, and the other offenders in the category in question technically meet our notability criteria (does it?) its time to have a very detailed look at how to strengthen the policy in terms of commercial establishments like this. These types of establishments garner all kinds of local attention because that's how restaurant PR works. But should an encyclopedia further this PR, by using it to construct articles about these eateries? If we did this for every similar restaurant we'd double the size of Wikipedia overnight with more promotional material. This is a very bad path to go down.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more in principle, but the problem here is muddiness in the guidelines.
As an analogy, the consensus among members of WikiProject Wine is that Wikipedia's unclear criteria for inclusion result in the appearance of articles on arguably non-notable wineries that meet "the letter of the law" but not the spirit. See a real donnybrook argument about one such winery, as well as an even lengthier deletion review. To avoid such huge debates resulting from muddy guidelines, WikiProject Wine has a proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics), which attempts to interpret existing guidelines in the context of wine, which is a huge topic of global interest. Isn't there something like that somewhere for restaurants?
For wine, we would advocate that the "coverage in multiple sources" criterion in WP:CORP that specifies "at least regional" be eliminated, leaving national and international coverage — at least for wineries. On the other hand, for restaurants, who don't ship products all over the world, I'd say regional coverage by multiple reliable sources is sufficient. (And schools are another matter, assumed to be automatically notable regardless of actual notability!)
The point I'm making with this analogy is that a single guideline doesn't fit all cases. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Can we admit that this article is bad news and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia? Further discussions are taking place regarding this matter in several other venues:
The last one of these venues is clearly the most significant since it is the policy page in question. Comments there would be most helpful.Griswaldo (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
A counterattack by Cirt. I wonder how much he gets paid for writing these advertisement articles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice this is not the first recent instance when the communty has opined the same position... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kenneth_Dickson_(2nd_nomination) June 2010. AFD ...Keith Dickson appears to be your basic moderately-successful member of the community: lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, elected to various minor local positions, failed candidate for the California state senate. None of this reaches the level of notability for a Wikipedia article.In the event that the article is kept, it will need a good deal of pruning: it currently reads like a promotional puff piece , there was strong community support for this rational and the article was deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following. I'm sure there are tons of puff pieces being written on the encyclopedia (unfortunately). What is the importance of this one?Griswaldo (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Cirt adding Daryl's to the New Brunswick article was so blatant that Njsustain's edits seem appropriate. The disruption here seems to be the other way around.--Milowenttalkblp-r 07:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I did not add it to that other article. -- Cirt (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
      • But you aren't denying that my edit to New Brunswick was appropriate, especially retrospectively in light of the current discussions on other pages. Jimbo Wales himself states that the Daryl article reads like an advertisement and should be deleted for non-notability (and also suggests it may have been created by you for COI reasons), and asked you why you removed the COI tag I placed on the article while a dispute was still on the table. Also, I was unaware that it was inappropriate to delete information on your own user talk page. I read the information before it was deleted, and while I know that I don't "own" my user talk page, was under the impression that it was not under the same restrictions as an article talk page and I was free to delete things. If this is incorrect, I think it behooves the administrators as leaders on WP to inform people of such before publically calling them "disruptive." I apologize if in my naivete of procedures that I made any faux pas, but in light of the recent discussions, I request that this discussion be closed, and I promise to be more gentile in the future, even if it means being less bold a contributor.Njsustain (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
        • For what it's worth, nobody has said that you couldn't remove stuff from your talk page (as you point out, you are well within your right to remove stuff from your own talk page); the diff provided by Cirt was cited in a way that illustrated that you weren't providing any reliable sources for your claims, which is a true statement. EVula // talk // // 01:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

comment i have to say having examined the artilce, I would have suspected COI myself had not User:Cirt written it. I have to say it has a lot of puffery and peacock terms. Njsustain has not handled this well, but frankly niether have you Cirt. Your a veteran Editor, You know how to write a neutral artilce. its nothing short of an advertisement. Seems to be more properly merged into the artilce on the guy who opened it. I firmly believe a couple of WP:TROUTS all around need to be issued and both Cirt and Njsustain need to go to their repecive corners and cool off on this. Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock Block Necessary[edit]

Resolved: Taken care of by User:Tiptoety. - NeutralhomerTalk • 07:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Could I get a sock block on User:User:Pez Pharmaceuticals Inc., a sockpuppet of indef blocked User:PzPharmacies? Rangeblock probably is needed. - NeutralhomerTalk • 07:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Redaction of a phone number[edit]

Resolved

Could someone please change the visibility of this edit to protect the phone number? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, but you may want to contact WP:Oversight. AniMate 07:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I sent a request. VQuakr (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-file pages in Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons[edit]

I noticed that there are a few user subpages in this category, especially user scripts (example). Could some admin please get them out there? I am not allowed to edit Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons or user scripts. --Leyo 09:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Active Banana[edit]

Resolved: IP has been informed of Wikipedia standards, nothing for admins to do. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Active Banana has engaged in overzealous editing over the last several days on the List of Annoying Orange episodes page. The revision history page shows four edits reverting to a description of a certain episode that was plagiarized. He also claimed that none of the edits deserved to stand because there was no reliable third party information- a threshold that, quite frankly, cannot be adhered to in this situation due to unique circumstances surrounding the article. This was explained to Active Banana on his talk page in great detail, and instead of responding he dismissed the legitimacy of the circumstances as my alleged unwillingness to follow policy. After I explained it to him again, he threatened me twice on my talk page. I did not appreciate his battle mentality nor did I appreciate his condescending attitude (which I noted as such), and I also did not appreciate the lack of good faith he showed in the edits I made. Placed here because I could not think of where else to put it. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what the poster is referring to when talking about Plagiarism. I am unaware that any of the content on the page is taken from elsewhere and not appropriately cited. If there is such content on the page, I fully support removing it/citing it.
On other matters, after receiving a final warning about disruptive editing on my talk page on July 22 from User:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered [34], the IP responded on my talk page with [35] oops that was a different IP posting in the middle of the conversation with this IP. Active Banana (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought you might blame that one on me- was a little concerned. (Obviously 78.whatever has some unresolved issues with you, Banana.) However, since you bring up disruptive editing, I noticed a blatant violation of 3RR extending from your eagerness to revert the edits for no legitimate reason. The points I raise are these.

1) The video in question features about as blatantly obvious a Lady Gaga parody as could possibly be. From the dress of the character to the video to there being a song that's a parody of "Bad Romance", it all fits the profile. It's common knowledge, not original research. 2) The video description is lifted word for word from the video itself. That's plagiarizing. If you're going to have a description, it really should be reworded as not to have it look like it was plagiarized. Which is why every other episode's description has been reworded. 3) The reason why I've said extenuating circumstances exist (as ActiveBanana has either not understood or refused to listen to) is because you may never get to 100% with reliable third party sources. This is a problem that exists on an overwhelming majority of episode lists. However, if you were to delete all of the episode lists based on that, you would do a disservice to the people who edit those pages and relay the information. My motives are based on having the free flow of information, not an unwillingness to follow policy, and I believe ActiveBanana is not only failing to assume good faith but engaging in unnecessary edit warring, battles, and an overall lousy attitude regarding something that quite frankly isn't worth the amount of trouble he's causing. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If the contents initially inserted by other editors are copyright violations, adding "in a parody of Lady Gaga" doesn't fix that issue at all. And the fact that WP:OTHERCRAP exists in no way is an excuse to allow unsourced crap in yet another article. Active Banana (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You forget that Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia that contains only content licensed under the Creative Commons-Sharealike license. –MuZemike 08:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I think we're all missing the point here. The description of the video that was posted on the Wiki is the exact same that is on the video. That is plagiarism and it must be reworded. ActiveBanana keeps reverting calling OR and it doesn't apply here. He's dangerously close to another 3RR violation, from what I've seen, and he's also taken on a bully/battle mentality. He is not assuming good faith, he is not allowing for the free flow of information, and I have to start questioning whether this conduct is falling under WP:OWN as well. There is no reason why the information that he has removed from the page should not be listed. None. And I'm starting to wonder why nothing has been done to resolve this yet. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Besides, he's misinterpreting WP:OTHERCRAP. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
First, I think you're misunderstanding what plagiarism is. Unless you can show that the text itself was copied from elsewhere, it's not plagiarism. Second, you're attempting to insert your own assumption (Lady Pasta = Lady Gaga parody) with no source to back it up. That's the definition of OR. So, without some sourcing, AB appears to be in the right here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay then. Plagiarism charge, corroboration. Description of the episode in question on the Annoying Orange YouTube channel: "Orange meets one of the hottest new artists: Lady Pasta." From the summary of the episode on the Annoying Orange episode list: "Orange meets one of the hottest new artists: Lady Pasta." Ergo, plagiarism, must be reworded. --173.54.204.113 (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Part deux, in regards to the so-called "assumption" that Lady Pasta is a parody of Lady Gaga, one needs to look no further than the song parody a