Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Kobutsu outing attempts[edit]

This user has attempted now twice attempted to out another editor as part of an external dispute between Zen Buddhists imported to the Eido Tai Shimano page and elsewhere. I did not notice the first outing (since oversighted) for about a week since it was on a user's talkpage, but left a warning that it was not to be repeated. Kobutsu has since made another attempt at outing (which has again been oversighted). I have blocked for 24 hours for what is an obvious attempt at harassment, but am concerned that the block should be for longer. Opinions please. --Slp1 (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that you didn't notice the first attempt for a week and then the user made another one after your (very clear) warning, clearly it's a problem recurring over a much longer period than 24 hours; a 24-hour block is unlikely to do anything to stop the behaviour. I'd probably suggest a longer block, or even indefinite, until the user agrees to stop. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, good advice. Perhaps others will weigh in too. I'll just add that the target User:Spt51 has not edited since the first attempted outing, suggesting that the harassment has indeed done its work. --Slp1 (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Indef for outing, where it is used to chilling effect as in this case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC) I have enacted the indefinite block, and noted same at both editors talkpages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice and help, both of you. --Slp1 (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Major personal attack[edit]

Resolved: Admin attention not required; possibly a civility issue, but templates don't have feelings so not a personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

A big personal attack here : [1] should he be blocked? --Addihockey10 07:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It was language directed against {{unreferenced}}. I believe that should the template post here indicating its offence at being characterized so, then yes, admins should take action as a personal attack. Until that happens, however, there is no personal attack here. → ROUX  07:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
^ Agree. The IP was attacking the tag, not a user, so I see no problem. By the way, you (Addihockey10) neglected to notify the IP of this discussion. Please do so now. Goodvac (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Also I have warned the IP and reverted the removal → ROUX  07:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought that something less absolute would ease tensions so i changed it to {{morefootnotes}} because that tag does acknowledge the existence of some references while still requesting improvements. delirious & lost~hugs~ 08:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
That was pretty uncivil and I think the IP probably needs to be more WP:COOL so as not to cause disruption to other editors, but clearly swearing at a template isn't a personal attack unless there's scientific evidence that wikipedia templates are alive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of an article[edit]

The article Starscream (other incarnations) recently had a deletion nomination and the decision was to merge it with the article Starscream (Transformers). Now today I see some editor just deleted the first page, with none of the content being moved at all to the agreed on page, blanking it completely, so people can't even access the page, with no redirect. Not sure if this is the place, but can someone undo that so a PROPER perge can be done. Mathewignash (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not readily understanding that. As I understand, that does break attribution. Perhaps the deleting admin (who wasn't the same admin who closed the AFD) should explain why it was deleted per WP:CSD#A10. –MuZemike 22:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I restored it into your userspace at User:Mathewignas/Starscream (other incarnations), so that you can work on merging content from there. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Oops, good point on the attribution history ... before moving it back, I'll let the discussion proceed further. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Please put it back where it belongs and let all the Transformers Wikiproject editors work on a proper merger. Mathewignash (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Starscream (other incarnations) was nominated for speedy deletion under A10 (content that's available in another article) and I saw the banner that the AfD had been closed as merge. I looked at Starscream (Transformers) and saw that the article had the same section headings as the "Other incarnations" article, so I thought they had been merged. I'm sorry, I didn't consider that we needed to keep the old article for its GFDL contribution history. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for helping fix the problem. I'd work on the merge now but I'm just walking out the door. Can someone restore the talk page? Mathewignash (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Talk page restored. Favonian (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:GabrielVelasquez[edit]

Resolved: Long term problem, RFC about NPA didn't work, nor did previous block for NPA, things getting worse with socking so indeffed. Toddst1 (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

GabrielVelasquez has been engaging in harassment, personal attacks, edit warring, and sockpuppetry since at least 2008. After breaking the 3RR and filing a report against another user,[2], admin KrakatoaKatie blocked GV for edit warring on Nontrinitarian 23 January 2008.[3] A few days later, on 29 January 2008, John Carter filed two separate ANI reports on GV's disruptive and harrassing behavior on Nontrinitarianism, beginning on 27 January 2008.[4] The second report was filed on 29 January 2008.[5] Although there may be other earlier examples, it was at this point that GV began using sockpuppet accounts overtly, beginning with 142.132.6.8 (talk · contribs). John Carter noted the account in the latter report above. Looking at edits from GV and the IP, there is no question that the account is one and the same.

Cyclopia reported GV for disruption, harassment and personal attacks on Talk:Gliese 581 c approximately two years ago, on 1 October 2008.[6] This report led Cyclopia to file Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GabrielVelasquez on 6 October 2008. A statement of the dispute as summarized in the RfC, follows:

User:GabrielVelasquez has engaged in out-of-the-blue personal attacks, failed to assume good faith, tossed around several accusations of sockpuppetry and in general he is prone to aggressive, disruptive behaviour, making very hard for editors to proficiently discuss and edit pages of which User:GabrielVelasquez is interested, like Gliese 581 c.

The desired outcome of the RfC was a request that GV "should follow WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, or stop editing if he cannot avoid such behaviour." A subsequent Wikiquette report was filed by Gogo Dodo on 4 September 2009, and moved to ANI for further discussion by Ncmvocalist.[7] GV was warned about the personal attacks, continued to make them, and was blocked by Maunus on 5 September 2009.[8] Shortly thereafer, GV claimed to retire, but remained active. A year later, GV once again came to the attention of ANI when 208.87.197.82 (talk · contribs) showed up, and Jeffro77 reported him.[9] Toddst1 tagged GV's user page as a sockpuppet, but GV reverted.[10] In any case, GV did not retire, and when Gliese 581 g was announced, 24.78.166.69 (talk · contribs) showed up with the same modus operandi as all of the above, forcing the article to be protected.[11] Because of protection, 24.78.166.69 could no longer edit, so after two months of "not editing", GV showed up out of the blue, and in his very first edit, warns the opponents of 24.78.166.69 about edit warring.[12] One only has to look at the talk page and history of Talk:Gliese 581 g to see the same disruption by the IP and GV. Sockpuppet report still needs to be filed, but the consistent disruption since 2008 has not changed. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  • This edit summary is enough to earn him/her a 2 week block as a repeat NPA offender. Feel free to extend to indef for socking. Toddst1 (talk)
Not really being aware of the history here I warned GV of undoing this removal of a personal attack and threat from one of the 24 IPs [13] after he was blocked (the warning was after he was blocked, the editing by his account was obviously not 02:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)) Nil Einne (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
After reviewing the socks and the severity of the NPAs involved, I'm changing my block to indef for socking and severe, repeated NPAs. After attmpting to address this issue at RFC, this problem is not going to be solved, and it's getting worse. Toddst1 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Lehighton, Pennsylvania[edit]

Resolved: RBI Toddst1 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

71.175.133.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I found [this edit] while on vandal patrol. Threat of violence? Legal threat? --Diannaa (Talk) 02:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look credible to me; just someone who thinks this is a worthy way of spending his time. Revert, block, ignore. The first two parts of that have been done already. Ucucha 02:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Str1977 & Parrot of Doom[edit]

Str1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

To put it nicely, these two simply aren't getting along. I've been watching their fighting over the past couple of days, and it's becoming more and more of a problem, especially to editors who simply want to discuss changes to certain articles, not get involved in personal fights. The two main articles in question are two Pink Floyd albums, "Animals" and "The Division Bell" (though it is not limited to just those pages). These two don't seem to agree on anything, and the Str1977 recently started this discussion, a long rant which seems to be a cross between a discussion a personal attack. However, despite starting discussions on both pages, he has not stopped edit-warring. I personally see this as redundant. He opens civil discussions intended to avoid conflicts, and then continues to engage in those very conflicts. Parrot of Doom has responded aggressively, calling the accusations "bullshit" and the response "hilarious" His edit summaries have echoed this kind of sentiment, such as "better written my arse" and "just fucking pack it in will you?". Parrot of Doom's editing of certain articles has always often bordered on acting as if he owned them, and I'm not denying that I've had disagreements with him in the past, but his history as an editor clearly shows that he's made a vast amount of improvements to this encyclopedia as a whole. So I'm at a loss. I don't want to take sides here, so I hope this notice doesn't sound like a biased attack towards one editor or another. Getting myself sucked into the polarized fights on talk pages (or anywhere) doesn't sound helpful at this point. I'd really like this fighting to stop and I don't feel it's within my power to make that happen, so hopefully an administrator can resolve this issue. Thank you for your time. Friginator (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Friginator, for making a start.
I do agree with him that Parrot made a lot of valid and valuable contributions to many articles (and that only after having a quick look). But his achievements seem to have left him with the impression of ownership.
I have made several edits, mostly to "Animals" (the others are just formatting issues, though IMHO they do have repercussions on NPOV) but Parrot reverts basically everything I did, even minutae. I admit that I could have discussed matters at talk from the start but thus far this road has not yielded any positive results either. What I get is insult after insult (those were not responses to any attacks by me but what he did from the very start), no reply to some points while he at first seemed willing to at least have a look at some (but only some). He never did this thus far and for a while even refused this on a talk page formatting issue. But he still did so after I yielded to his demand. He usually blanket reverts everything. Even if he had agreed to something on a talk page (as he did to my compromise suggestion to spell out "United Kingdom" for its first appearance), he then simply reverted it, even making an extra edit for it.
I'd like this fightiging to stop too but how am I to react to things like "just fucking pack it in will you?" Yielding to such bullying is not helping Wikipedia.
I have desisted from describing the actual content disputes, as these are usually not welcomed at ANI.
Thanks for your patience. Str1977 (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
PS. One more thing: while my tone was indeed polemical and, given Parrot's treatment of me, increasingly angry, I did not make any "accusations". That term was introduced by Parrot. My talk page posting almost entirely consisted of the actual content points. My impression of OWNership and the word "obstruction" in the header were the only two exceptions. Str1977 (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
In what way is "just fucking pack it in will you?" bullying? You may (and others probably will) claim that it's uncivil, but bullying it is not. You and your friend have brought a content dispute here to ANI under the guise of something else. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to point out that none of this is in the "guise" of anything else. I'm not sure what you're implying. I know next to nothing about Str1977's previous history as an editor, and "friend" is not really a term I would use to describe him. Friginator (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
If he tells me what he did (the incivility of which is a matter of fact, not "claiming") and I yield, then it will be a bully getting his way.
The issue raised here by Friginator (with whom I have no previous acquaintance - hence he is not "my friend") are not about content but about behaviour. But what's it to you, Malleus?
Parrot by now has responded, on his talk page, apparently not bothering. Str1977 (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Very wise of him. Rather little of any real value happens here. Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's keep it constructive, please. It looks like a content dispute turned nasty. Having had a quick look at Animals I can see merit in the edits of both parties. Great example of how quickly things can get out of hand when folks forget the pillar of civility. --John (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
... and come here crying to teacher. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Malleus - I appreciate your ongoing advocacy of your personal beliefs regarding civility and Wikipedia, but I would like to remind you (again) that you do not represent the consensus admin or community opinions, who agree that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are important and need to be enforced. There is a difference between advocating for changes to those policies and/or enforcement and telling people in civility disputes that there is no issue, when community consensus would indicate there probably is.
Parrot and Str1977 - You both seem on first investigation to be constructive editors, outside of this dispute. Would admins issuing an involvement restriction on you two, just keeping you from responding to or talking to each other for a while, help things?
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Let me remind you of something George. Your beloved civility policy is applied inconsistently and corruptly, and so the faux consensus you cling to to justify your mission is of no interest to me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
PS. "Would admins issuing an involvement restriction on you two, just keeping you from responding to or talking to each other for a while, help things" is simply insulting, treating grown adults like children. Now that's what I call incivility. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
George,
on the contrary. Only dealing constructively with suggestions of the other can fix the problem. "Not talking to each other" is not a solution but actually - despite all the shouting - the problem. So, such a restriction is out of the question. That much is true in Malleus' cricitism (another part is true as well, but not as he intends it to be) but I can't help but wonder what business he has here. He's neither party to the conflict (is he?) nor an admin. Str1977 (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no restriction on random Wikipedians participating here. Community participation is encouraged; in this case, Malleus represents a tiny community fringe viewpoint that the whole idea of civility on Wikipedia is flawed and/or wrong and should be abandoned as a policy. But he's part of the community. We should not forget that he's there with that opinion (not likely 8-), nor allow that viewpoint to interfere with enforcing the working consensus policy.
Regarding an appropriate solution, in many cases we've seen that editors were able to just avoid each other and thus not antagonize each other. However, if you believe that the two of you can or need to cooperate on the articles, obviously that approach won't work.
I would like to see Parrot of Doom comment here. What, from his perspective, is causing the situation to go in the direction it's gone so far?
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Avoiding each other would come naturally, given the experience, if the underlying problem was only solved. I know ANI is not for content disputes but the way Parrot simply blocks content edits he doesn't like has to stop.
And sorry, I cannot agree with what you said about Malleus at all. He is entitled to his opinion but should not disrupt any attempt to find a solution. Str1977 (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't make me laugh. Nobody comes here looking for solutions, they come looking for sanctions. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that the only appropriate response is that you aren't a named party to the solution here, Malleus, and that you should take the meta-thread off to the ANI talk page and/or policy pages elsewhere. Poking at Str1977 isn't helping in any way. You had your say on the policy; you're now crossing the line into baiting them. Enough. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep your threats for someone who takes them seriously George, you know what I think of them. I understand that you don't like to hear the truth, but that's your problem, not mine. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked Str1977 to stay out of PoD's way; the latter is a good editor but has an unfortunate turn of phrase sometimes. With any luck, whether or not PoD responds here we can be pretty sure he has read it. I'd be inclined to archive this as long as nothing comes up again in the next while. There's a content issue here which needs attention in article talk, a possible user conduct issue which can be avoided by these two avoiding each other until they can be civil; what more needs to be said (or done by an admin), unless either of them is silly enough to keep making the content issue (which doesn't seem that huge to me) a personal one? --John (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

John, and as I told you, your suggestion is of no use as it boils down to Parrot simply having his way. As long as Parrot blocks content edits and ignores the behaviour issue, there is no solution. Ignoring the problem, as you suggest, will not make it go away. Str1977 (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
As I said, there's a content issue which you could resolve if you handled it better; personalizing a dispute like this (as you did at the talk page) seldom leads to a productive resolution. If there's a long-term problem with PoD's behavior (and I am not saying there isn't), you need to file a RfC/U. Short term, avoid the problem by avoiding each other. While not perfect, this is as good as we will get I think. If either of you continues with this disruption, I'm sure someone will be along to block either or both of you as required. I really hope that isn't necessary. In terms of this noticeboard, I think we have done all we can do. --John (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
In other words: nothing. Str1977 (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Before the interpersonal conflict went sideways, there was some productive talk page discussion regarding the content issues. That is not yet resolved. I don't know that either of you is obviously right or wrong on the content issue in question, and I think that discussion needs to happen before the right solution evolves.
Just because there was some abusive language does not automatically mean you win the content dispute. The merits still have to be discussed on that. If the abusive language is over, the content discussion has to resume. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
George,
despite the rocky start I was and am open to discuss on the talk page. Parrot has responded once (to some points) but then repeteadly refused to deal with me, even after I yielded to his demand to restore his "reply between the lines" format. The abusive language has been entirely his (unless pointing to WP policies is now considered "abusive").
I am still open to discuss but, according to John's neatly thought-out "solution", I am supposed to stay away from him, which basically confirms the ownership problem and leaves the content problems intact. It is the latter I am most concerned about. Str1977 (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
If that's true then you're in the wrong place. The place to discuss content disputes is the content noticeboard. This is the place where you demand that sanctions be placed on your enemies. Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you unable to read or simply unwilling, Malleus?
"As long as Parrot ... ignores the behaviour issue, there is no solution."
I came here for help regarding the behaviour so that discussion on content (which Parrot blocks) could move forward. It is the content why we are all here on Wikipedia, isn't it?
But I guess, you have been right about this place here: nothing really ever comes out of it as people are just uninterested. Wonder why they became admins in the first place. Str1977 (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
As a community of mature people writing an encyclopedia, we don't deal in slapped wrists as such. I believe the content issue is being discussed more appropriately at article talk, nobody was hurt, and normal service on improving the article can be resumed. I call that a result. --John (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure the content issues are best discussed at the article talk page! Who said otherwise? But even now, they are not discussed: and not just with me - another editor also made an addition and was swiftly reverted, his point on talk brushed aside.
Nobody was hurt? You must be joking! Not only was I hurt but as long as there is no proper discussion and no correction of the false information, the project is hurt. Str1977 (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I view the civil discussion at Talk:Animals (album) as a good outcome. I am sorry your feelings were hurt and I hope you will recover from that in time. I also hope the calm and proper discussion at article talk continues. --John (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

But discussion hasn't started yet over there. Str1977 (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

More Restoring Honor disputes[edit]

The article Restoring Honor rally was locked last month because of disputes over the Restoring Honor rally#Crowd size|crowd size section]]. The issues were discussed on the talk page and consensus was reached, despite a few loud editors in opposition. The article reached a relative calm a few days ago. However, two users who hardly participated in the talk page have walked in and reignited the same disputes and causing us to start all over again. For that reason I overhauled the whole section and compiled the estimates into a single table with references provided. However, these editors insist on beating a dead horse and adding undue weight to certain estimates. User:AzureCitizen has reverted my edits three times. I was unaware of that policy until another user alerted me to my own excessive reversion. Because the disputes have been unnecessarily reignited by editors who refuse to go back and read the archives and see that consensus has consistently been against their agendas for the article, I request that the page/section be locked until the issues can be resolved again, hopefully once and for all this time, or that the editors be blocked from the article for refusing to comply with consensus. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. In the future, you can take this to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Good luck. You may want to get some outside opinions, by starting a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. --Jayron32 03:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Did your page protection not stick? Or have I suddenly been granted the rights to edit protected articles? Perhaps you meant "Semi-protected"? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The description of BS24 is basically completely wrong. He made changes without having any consensus in sight - in contrary, many objected to these changes, where she/he basically just deleted information she/he does not like. BS24 even didn't give any reason for his deletions, just calling it "overhaul". (BS24 has a history of wrong claim and accusations.) This is not acceptable. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate sanctions imposed on Triton Rocker and LevenBoy[edit]

I would like a review of the administartor's noticeboard recently filed by User:Cailil. First, some background;

The fight between Irish nationalists and supporters of the pro-British position is a continuing and seemingly intractable problem at Wikipedia, as it is in real life. At Wikipedia the problem shows itself as continuing attempts to remove British Isles from the encyclopedia, the possible fabrication within Wikipedia of British Isles naming dispute (at best this is complete WP:OR), the systematic conversion of Londonderry to Derry (agreed in the MOS, but ongoing and unnecessary conversions guaranteed to cause trouble) and most recently an attempt by a number of editors to effectively downgrade the status of Northern Ireland by removing references to it being a country - see recent edits at Giant's Causeway. It is within this context that we have the so-called BISE page where interested editors will suggest articles to have British Isles removed, and more recently, and to counter the removals, other editors suggest articles for inclusion of the term.

Two editors, User:LevenBoy and User:Triton Rocker, have recently been voiciferous in their objections to removal of British Isles from articles and have drawn the attention of, amongst others, the admin User:Cailil. Cailil has tried to impose a version of civility on the debate, which, due to the nature of that debate, is arguably inappropriate. When LevenBoy complained to Cailil about his actions [14] he was immediately blocked, with Cailil citing a previous "transgression" [15] (would Cailil have blocked LevenBoy if LB had not made the comment on his talk page). Cailil then went to AN/I to put forward a case for civility patrol (see above) and alerted LB and TR as here User talk:LevenBoy#ANi September 26, 2010. Note that at this point both Triton Rocker and LevenBoy were blocked and could not therefore easily answer the accusations. Further, LevenBoy was even blcoked from editing his talk page (reason here User talk:LevenBoy#"At the risk of being snipped". Cailil knew about this but did not open the talk page.

Cailil claims consensus on the expansion of sanctions. I see no consensus whatsoever, and given that the targets of the sanctions were effectively banned from commenting on them, the idea of consensus is somewhat lacking. The majority of those in favour of the imposition are protagonists in the British Isles debates themselves and can be identified as being related to the Irish nationalist side. Nevertheless, Cailil has imposed the sanctions on Triton Rocker and LevenBoy, as per this notice; User talk:Triton Rocker#Civility parole. When TR tried to comment on the sanctions on his talk page [16] and [17] he was instantly blocked from editing his talk page (and his edits were reverted) by User:SarekOfVulcan.

I suggest the above actions by two admins fall short of numerous policies such as WP:AGF. While both LB and TR have arguably been aggressive in the pro-BI stance, the impositions which they now face are clearly far in excess of what's required. Both TR and LB have also been the subject of a series of unfounded SPIs. TR is the only editor currently banned from editing British Isles terminology and is now serving a month-long block with no talk page access for what was clearly a minor and technical transgression of the sanctions [18], if indeed it was a transgression at all.

Note that sanctions were agreed against User:HighKing, one of the main editors, perhaps THE main editor, opposed to British Isles usage, but never enacted.

I have raised the issue at the above AN/I thread of the need for independent oversight of the British Isles-related problems. I drew attention to the fact that Cailil is from Ireland (see his user page) and as such, and with no disrespect to him, should not be talking up the position or arbitrator in this matter. I likened the situation to that of a referee at a rugby match and it drew the following bizarre response from another admin keen to arbitrate the matter [19].

In summary I believe the sanctions imposed Triton Rocker and LevenBoy are far too severe, they do not have consensus, and the whole issue should be overseen by impeccably independent editors and admins (which would exclude all those currently involved). I also believe there is a strong case for Triton Rocker's sanctions to be reviewed. There appears to be a definite attempt (implicitly and explicitly) to silence those editors who take a pro-British stance on relevant matters. LemonMonday Talk 15:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

comment British Isles naming dispute needs to be destroyed - this topic could be easily dealt with using a note in the lead of British Isles stating that "the term british isles is not commonly used in the republic of ireland,(refs) and is a politically contentious term in some(clarify) circles(ref) and in UK-repubRIE diplomatic relations(ref)" (or something). Or an article "British Isles (naming conventions)", to call it a dispute is overblown. That's all. Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The matter at issue with the Giant's Causeway is not a "British Isles" dispute. It's much, much more amusing than that. We have "Irish editors" taking the position usually adopted by "British nationalist" editors: excluding a "constituent country" of the UK from an article lead or infobox and insisting on including only the UK appearing there. And to double the fun we see "British nationalists" trying to add a "constituent country" when they'd normally oppose doing so. I rather object to any editors being blocked or sanctioned when they were putting on such wholesome and family-friendly entertainment. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Support the blocks made by Cailil far to much time is being wasted dealing with editors who wont "get with the program". Mo ainm~Talk 18:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

  • This matter has already been discussed and consensus for the above sanctions on LevenBoy and Triton_Rocker was reached here on ANi[20]. In that last ANi thread I warned the LemonMonday account to stop conflating users' nationality with content position (as it happens I have not edited in this topic at all and am not involved except to enforce sanctions).
    The LemonMonday account has less that 150 edits[21] but has been active as a single purpose account involved in the British Isles naming dispute since late July 2008[22]. In fact an ANi thread in August 2010[23] resulted in a topic ban for LemonMonday being discussed but not implemented.
    This topic has wasted too much of the community's time already and pointy threads like this are not helpful--Cailil talk 18:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    Also for the record I blocked LevenBoy for incivility but not Triton Rocker. I brought the expansion of sanctions for the British isles probationary topic area here so that uninvolved admins could impose lesser sanctions where useful, and a harsher sanction of a full topic ban if necessary not just to 'punish' these two editors. Furthermore there is an increasingly disruptive level of sock and meat puppetry in the Troubles and British Isles dispute areas--Cailil talk 18:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I am a little startled by Lemon Monday's statement above that "imposing a version of civility on the debate, which, due to the nature of that debate, is arguably inappropriate. " -- when this apparently refers to imposing a high level of civility. Where higher levels are most needed is precisely for disputes like this--the more intractable the dispute, the greater need for a very high standard of polite behavior, because of the ease at which they can escalate. I certainly endorse Cahill's actions. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Concur with the blocks and DGG's comment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment IIRC Triton Rocker is currently blocked for violating his topic ban, and access to his talkpage revoked due to extreme incivility/attacks. LevenBoy's block is based purely on incivility/attacks. Both blocks are valid to protect the project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Tiiischiii and Talk:Lovejoy[edit]

User:Tiiischiii has added a list to Lovejoy, that is basically a trivia list, consisting of ... well trivialities based on either synth or no sources. User:MarnetteD has (in my opinion) correctly objected to this, and a discussion ensued on the talk page of the article. I only noticed this issue a few minutes ago, and added my opinion. However reading the discussion and checking the history, it seems that some refactoring of other editors talk comments has ocurred. I warned user:Tiischiii and in the process noticed user:MarnetteD has warned him once before. So I returned to the talk page of Lovejoy and it seems the refactoring has been part of a longer process of back and forth and perhaps because it is too late in the evening for me I have lost the overview of what really happened here. Some fresh eyes would be appreciated. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Tiiischiii has re-factored my talk page entries on at least three occasions and, in spite of three editors explaining why this trivia section does not belong in the article, has reentered it as both an IP and a registered account. I am trying to step away from this for the rest of the weekend but am posting here per the notice from Saddhiyama. I know that the content dispute does not need resolution here but the moving and changing of my talk page edits is bothersome, especially since the editor does not want to acknowledge that this should not be done. MarnetteD | Talk 22:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This [24] was the 1st time my edits were re-factored. If you look at the edit history here [25] it is hard for me to believe that this was a cross posting as the change came more than 20 minutes after my entry. Also, the comment claiming that it was a cross post came more than 10 minutes after that. I am sorry that I do not have to time post more examples but I am headed out the door in the next few minutes. MarnetteD | Talk 23:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
For clarity, I User:Tiiischiii reinstated some content provided by users User:Toyokuni3 and User:Timrollpickering on the page Lovejoy because I found it interesting and relevant. Under the guideline WP:TRIVIA it states: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all" as a central tenant, however the user User:Marnette keeps spamming me with this article, along with threats to revoke my account, and refuses to enter into dialogue. The page Lovejoy contains no in-line citations, so have tried to improve the page by adding a References section, improving layout, and re-prioritised ordering. I have found it difficult to make edits to the article, as any changes have been immediately reversed by user:MarnetteD and immediately posted multiple spurious spams to my talk page. Refactoring occurred genuinely in error, as user:MarnetteD has routinely ghosted and removed any contributions I have made to main articles or policed any contributions I have made to talk pages. I am new to editing wiki pages, is there any guidelines around systematic targeting/removal of my contributions by another user? I have suggested working collaboratively towards the improvement of the article Lovejoy, however the user concerned does not wish to enter into constructive dialogue and wishes only to make wholesale deletes to my attempts at improving wiki pages - while sending "account removal" scripts. Is there a point at which removal of my contributions without reading and refusal to enter into constructive dialogue is considered threatening or bullying behaviour? I am disappointed to find this entry here as I have continually referred to the Dispute Resolution process, and particularly wished to be treated with respect and in accordance to the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement (top three boxes) as suggested, and as I have behaved. Tiiischiii 23.33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The section quoted in WP:TRIVIA suggests that we don't remove existing ones in some cases - we most certainly no longer add them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalizer blanking pages[edit]

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:AIV: This should be taken to WP:AIV if the vandalism persists after warnings. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • If it continues, issue further warnings and if it continues after a final warning, report to WP:AIV. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Welcome-vandal also given. How does the user follow the rules if he has never been given access to them? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
But I dont think a user would ever need a rule to decide whether its a good thing or a bad thing to blank pages, its obviously bad. Thanks for the help! I'll be sure to send it to WP:AIV if the user continues.--TwelveOz (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It's always best to assume good faith and ignorance, as BWilkins pointed out: before leaving a warning, you should leave a general note indicating the rule and why their edit was reverted, unless it's absolutely blatant bad-faith like libel or a personal attack etc. A template such as {{uw-delete1}} is an easy way to give the user a general note about blanking pages or sections, and you can continue sequentially through the templates until a final if the behaviour persists. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Though personally given that they had blanked sections and been reverted three times and that didn't give them pause for thought, I would probably start at a level 2 (no assumption of faith). The note you left was essentially equivalent to a level 3 template though (see {{uw-delete3}} for example), which shouldn't be a first warning. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hungry generation[edit]

There appears to be a long-running content dispute starting to get a bit heated between two editors, Maharshi Balmiki and Tridib Mitra, with IP 115.187.38.171 now joining in. The two registered editors seem to have a bit of an ownership problem, and each of them adds meta-comment to the article itself - "I've fixed this now", "The other guy's version is nonsense", etc. I'm sorry I really haven't got time to look into this myself and try to get the combatants to talk, but I thought I'd better at least let people know it's happening as it seems to be hotting up a bit. (Just off to inform the editors involved). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

All three participants now informed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page disruption by Darkstar1st[edit]

Darkstar1st has started to engage in deliberate and uncalled for talk page disruption at Talk:Libertarianism. I replied to the OP of a thread agreeing with his comment with the words "Just so". Darkstar1st collapsed it without explanation. I reverted, and he collapsed it again with the edit comment ""just so" has no relevance to libertarianism.". This appears to be a WP:POINT violation and possible retaliation for my having reported him for edit-warring on the article Libertarianism several days ago. Could some admin follow up with him please? Yworo (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

We really need to have a list of his other disruptive behaviors regarding the topic of libertarianism. Like his creation of a WP:POV fork by at this diff turning a common redirect Libertarian to Libertarianism into a whole article reflecting the narrow view he has been trying to impose on Libertarianism for the last six months, most recently through continuing WP:Soapbox on his POV, ignoring of RfCs rejecting his POV, displaying obstreperous WP:Refusal to get the point. I can provide lots of diffs if people think it's relevant to expand this complaint. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
the whole section has now been closed and hidden by an uninvolved editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Turning a re-direct page into a POV fork is disruptive. After three RfCs confirming that left libertarianism should be in the article, all of which supported inclusion, Darkstar1st created a new discussion thread, "left libertarian is the lessor well known, thus a minority and according to WP:NPOV should not be given as detailed a description or as much".[26] This discussion thread presented no sources and I and another editor removed it for soapboxing. Soapboxing has been an ongoing problems in the this article. Editors discuss what libertarianism means to them and refuse to use sources. TFD (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the redirect and distinguished the proper noun Libertarian, from the political philosophy libertarianism. This seemed to fix the problem as all 3 Websters definitions had their own page:

  • 1. an advocate of the doctrine of free will, libertarianism (metaphysics)
  • 2a a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action, libertarianism
  • 2b capitalized a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles, Libertarian

Listing the suffix and redirecting the root, is opposite the dictionary. members of a Libertarian political party have very different beliefs than the current form of the article dedicated to the political philosophy. the article on "Libertarian" is #1 on google for the term "libertarianism" is is 2nd. my edit was reverted and the page now locked. ex: "green party: and "Green party" (from wp) There are distinctions between "green parties" (lower-case letters) and "Green Parties" (capital letters). Any party, faction, or politician may be labeled "green" if it emphasises environmental causes. Indeed, the term may even be used as a verb: it is not uncommon to hear of "greening" a party or a candidate. In contrast, formally organised "Green Parties" follow a coherent ideology that includes not only environmentalism, but also other concerns such as social justice, consensus decision-making, and pacifism. Greens believe that these issues are inherently related to one another as a foundation for world peace. The best-known statement of the above Green values is the Four Pillars of the Green Party, adopted by the German Greens since their founding in 1979-1980. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia cannot distinguish between upper and lower-case letters in the first letter of an article title. Therefore Wikpedia articles use the primary meaning for the article with a hatnote or disambiguation to the other meanings. All -ists are redirected to their -isms, which are either disambiguations or have hatnotes. This case is no different. The articles 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism' should not have different subjects. Yworo (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Now we must remember that the article covers both of those words. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This is nothing new, libertarian has been a redirect to libertarianism since September 2004. Yworo (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
yet that would contradict your statement here: "Because Libertarian political parties are covered by the disambiguation page. This article is about libertarianism (little 'l'). Yworo (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)" since you also support merging the disambiguation page, do you still object to my adding the full Websters definition? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Libertarian political parties are also covered in the hatnote at the top of libertarianism. No need for the definition in the article. Yworo (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI. Libertarian now protected indefinitely, after another editor put redirect back in place. At this diff. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) of the references is justified[edit]

10:07, 3 October 2010 Anikingos (talk | contribs) m (20,002 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 89.191.104.43 identified as vandalism to last revision by 24.121.143.146. (TW)) ???

10:03, 3 October 2010 89.191.104.43 (talk) (19,898 bytes) (In references #26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) no words Crop Circles, crop, circle, plants, fraud .) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

In references # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) no words Crop Circles, crop, circle, plants, fraud. Article "Joe Nickell" in the Wiki has not of confirms or has not denied the content of article "Crop Circles" in the Wiki. Therefore, # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) should be removed from references. Removing # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) of the references is justified and not an act of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.104.43 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're saying that your edit being called vandalism is the incident here, I would propose that your edit (which removed a reference) appeared to be vandalism. I'm not sure, I don't use Twinkle. It appears the source you removed was actually the article by Joe Nickell, not the Wikipedia article on Joe Nickell. I see you have posted to the article talk page. That is probably the optimum course for you to follow. Regards Tiderolls 14:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I've notified User:Anikingos of this discussion as well. Tiderolls 15:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the IP looked at our article and thought that was the source being used - it wasn't, Joe Nickell's name was just wikilinked. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
sorry for the revert, but as it was explained, the edit appeared to be vandalism. But why would a revert come this far, if it was not vandalism, then you could just explain me about that and tell me why it is not vandalism and then i myself will put things back. It happens to me quite a lot of times. Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
After the clicking on Joe Nickell (at # 26) appears an article Joe Nickell (at Wiki), the contents of which are not linked to an article "Crop Circles" in the Wiki. A wiki invites all users to edit any page, but I deprived of this possibility and charged with vandalism. If the reference to # 26 is principally important, this the reference should be putted in due order and probably should be take away my unfounded accusations. Thanks for discussion, IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.104.43 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:98.85.5.251[edit]

This editor has just been given a block for inserting false information into film articles. The problem though is that he operates under a range of IPs. The vandalism isn't immediately obvious: for instance he will alter the running time of the film, or change the name of the writer of Shrek 2. Virtually all of his edits under the various IP have had to be reverted by other editors, and it's nearly all the same kind, focusing on running times, films composers and screenwriters.

One of the other IP numbers has similarly received a block: Special:Contributions/98.85.15.134

There are other IPs though that have slipped the net, all making the same types of edits that were reverted by a mutlitude of editors:

Special:Contributions/98.85.5.180
Special:Contributions/98.85.6.163
Special:Contributions/98.85.15.85
Special:Contributions/98.85.79.132
Special:Contributions/98.85.96.24

Is there any mileage in a range block here or is the IP scope too wide? I wouldn't be surprised if there are other IPs out there I've missed, but would appreciate it if an admin could look into this case. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be Bambifan101. I will place long softblocks on all these addresses. If someone could update the LTA page, and any SPI page, in the meantime? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
SPI report filed, and noted ip's blocked.LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Missile article[edit]

User:Victory in Germany has changed long standing images on the missile article without consensus and is edit warring in an attempt to force their unilateral changes upon the article despite opposition to these changes. The user has been informed of WP:BRD but continues to edit war rather than seek a consensus. Unionin (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You want to bring this up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Revdel review[edit]

This deletion I did does not really follow any of the criteria for redaction however I felt that this was an appropriate case, so I did it under WP:IAR. Because it doesn't fall under any of the criteria, I'm just posting here for a review of the deletion by any other uninvolved admin in the interest of transparency. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Good action, well within admin discretion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, however it doesn't really make any sense to delete the block log entry but leave the user with an intact talk page and an entry in ListUsers. See also this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sinbad Barron sock yet again[edit]

He even admits it [27]. Causing major disruption, please block right away. Athenean (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged by someone else. I have declined an unblock request on the parent account (User talk:Sinbad Barron) due to the evasion, but people more familiar with the user can review by all means. --S.G.(GH) ping! 19:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page disruption by Darkstar1st[edit]

Darkstar1st has started to engage in deliberate and uncalled for talk page disruption at Talk:Libertarianism. I replied to the OP of a thread agreeing with his comment with the words "Just so". Darkstar1st collapsed it without explanation. I reverted, and he collapsed it again with the edit comment ""just so" has no relevance to libertarianism.". This appears to be a WP:POINT violation and possible retaliation for my having reported him for edit-warring on the article Libertarianism several days ago. Could some admin follow up with him please? Yworo (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

We really need to have a list of his other disruptive behaviors regarding the topic of libertarianism. Like his creation of a WP:POV fork by at this diff turning a common redirect Libertarian to Libertarianism into a whole article reflecting the narrow view he has been trying to impose on Libertarianism for the last six months, most recently through continuing WP:Soapbox on his POV, ignoring of RfCs rejecting his POV, displaying obstreperous WP:Refusal to get the point. I can provide lots of diffs if people think it's relevant to expand this complaint. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
the whole section has now been closed and hidden by an uninvolved editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Turning a re-direct page into a POV fork is disruptive. After three RfCs confirming that left libertarianism should be in the article, all of which supported inclusion, Darkstar1st created a new discussion thread, "left libertarian is the lessor well known, thus a minority and according to WP:NPOV should not be given as detailed a description or as much".[28] This discussion thread presented no sources and I and another editor removed it for soapboxing. Soapboxing has been an ongoing problems in the this article. Editors discuss what libertarianism means to them and refuse to use sources. TFD (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the redirect and distinguished the proper noun Libertarian, from the political philosophy libertarianism. This seemed to fix the problem as all 3 Websters definitions had their own page:

  • 1. an advocate of the doctrine of free will, libertarianism (metaphysics)
  • 2a a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action, libertarianism
  • 2b capitalized a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles, Libertarian

Listing the suffix and redirecting the root, is opposite the dictionary. members of a Libertarian political party have very different beliefs than the current form of the article dedicated to the political philosophy. the article on "Libertarian" is #1 on google for the term "libertarianism" is is 2nd. my edit was reverted and the page now locked. ex: "green party: and "Green party" (from wp) There are distinctions between "green parties" (lower-case letters) and "Green Parties" (capital letters). Any party, faction, or politician may be labeled "green" if it emphasises environmental causes. Indeed, the term may even be used as a verb: it is not uncommon to hear of "greening" a party or a candidate. In contrast, formally organised "Green Parties" follow a coherent ideology that includes not only environmentalism, but also other concerns such as social justice, consensus decision-making, and pacifism. Greens believe that these issues are inherently related to one another as a foundation for world peace. The best-known statement of the above Green values is the Four Pillars of the Green Party, adopted by the German Greens since their founding in 1979-1980. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia cannot distinguish between upper and lower-case letters in the first letter of an article title. Therefore Wikpedia articles use the primary meaning for the article with a hatnote or disambiguation to the other meanings. All -ists are redirected to their -isms, which are either disambiguations or have hatnotes. This case is no different. The articles 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism' should not have different subjects. Yworo (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Now we must remember that the article covers both of those words. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This is nothing new, libertarian has been a redirect to libertarianism since September 2004. Yworo (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
yet that would contradict your statement here: "Because Libertarian political parties are covered by the disambiguation page. This article is about libertarianism (little 'l'). Yworo (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)" since you also support merging the disambiguation page, do you still object to my adding the full Websters definition? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Libertarian political parties are also covered in the hatnote at the top of libertarianism. No need for the definition in the article. Yworo (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI. Libertarian now protected indefinitely, after another editor put redirect back in place. At this diff. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) of the references is justified[edit]

10:07, 3 October 2010 Anikingos (talk | contribs) m (20,002 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 89.191.104.43 identified as vandalism to last revision by 24.121.143.146. (TW)) ???

10:03, 3 October 2010 89.191.104.43 (talk) (19,898 bytes) (In references #26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) no words Crop Circles, crop, circle, plants, fraud .) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

In references # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) no words Crop Circles, crop, circle, plants, fraud. Article "Joe Nickell" in the Wiki has not of confirms or has not denied the content of article "Crop Circles" in the Wiki. Therefore, # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) should be removed from references. Removing # 26 (Joe Nickell, Wiki) of the references is justified and not an act of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.104.43 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're saying that your edit being called vandalism is the incident here, I would propose that your edit (which removed a reference) appeared to be vandalism. I'm not sure, I don't use Twinkle. It appears the source you removed was actually the article by Joe Nickell, not the Wikipedia article on Joe Nickell. I see you have posted to the article talk page. That is probably the optimum course for you to follow. Regards Tiderolls 14:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I've notified User:Anikingos of this discussion as well. Tiderolls 15:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the IP looked at our article and thought that was the source being used - it wasn't, Joe Nickell's name was just wikilinked. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
sorry for the revert, but as it was explained, the edit appeared to be vandalism. But why would a revert come this far, if it was not vandalism, then you could just explain me about that and tell me why it is not vandalism and then i myself will put things back. It happens to me quite a lot of times. Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
After the clicking on Joe Nickell (at # 26) appears an article Joe Nickell (at Wiki), the contents of which are not linked to an article "Crop Circles" in the Wiki. A wiki invites all users to edit any page, but I deprived of this possibility and charged with vandalism. If the reference to # 26 is principally important, this the reference should be putted in due order and probably should be take away my unfounded accusations. Thanks for discussion, IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.104.43 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:98.85.5.251[edit]

This editor has just been given a block for inserting false information into film articles. The problem though is that he operates under a range of IPs. The vandalism isn't immediately obvious: for instance he will alter the running time of the film, or change the name of the writer of Shrek 2. Virtually all of his edits under the various IP have had to be reverted by other editors, and it's nearly all the same kind, focusing on running times, films composers and screenwriters.

One of the other IP numbers has similarly received a block: Special:Contributions/98.85.15.134

There are other IPs though that have slipped the net, all making the same types of edits that were reverted by a mutlitude of editors:

Special:Contributions/98.85.5.180
Special:Contributions/98.85.6.163
Special:Contributions/98.85.15.85
Special:Contributions/98.85.79.132
Special:Contributions/98.85.96.24

Is there any mileage in a range block here or is the IP scope too wide? I wouldn't be surprised if there are other IPs out there I've missed, but would appreciate it if an admin could look into this case. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be Bambifan101. I will place long softblocks on all these addresses. If someone could update the LTA page, and any SPI page, in the meantime? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
SPI report filed, and noted ip's blocked.LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Missile article[edit]

User:Victory in Germany has changed long standing images on the missile article without consensus and is edit warring in an attempt to force their unilateral changes upon the article despite opposition to these changes. The user has been informed of WP:BRD but continues to edit war rather than seek a consensus. Unionin (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You want to bring this up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Revdel review[edit]

This deletion I did does not really follow any of the criteria for redaction however I felt that this was an appropriate case, so I did it under WP:IAR. Because it doesn't fall under any of the criteria, I'm just posting here for a review of the deletion by any other uninvolved admin in the interest of transparency. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Good action, well within admin discretion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, however it doesn't really make any sense to delete the block log entry but leave the user with an intact talk page and an entry in ListUsers. See also this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of editing tool twinkle, edit warring, civility issues, etc.[edit]

Resolved: User has already been blocked 48hrs for violating 3RR and attempted IP socking Tommy! 19:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Unresolved: His edit warring has been appropriately dealt with on its board and taken care of there. This post is about his abuse of the WP:Twinkle, and a request to get his use of the tools blocked. If this is not the appropriate board for this post, please redirect as necessary, but don't close this because a different issue on a different board was resolved. Disruptive editors aren't limited to one type of disruption, neither are they limited to one type of block. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Resolved: User warned for Twinkle use. Everybody's happy. I hope. Tommy! 00:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Alacante45 is currently edit warring to protect his inappropriate edits to the Algae article.[29]

This user made an addition to the article of a number of tags and text that I felt were inappropriate.[30] I reverted his edits as the tags were not used appropriately. If the entire article is confusing, this should be discussed on the talk page in addition to placing the tag. I waited a while to see if he would discuss this situation, meanwhile editing one of his other tagging abominations. The "too long" tag is also not helpful on a high level article about a large topic. His additional text was added to a random sentence, but did not incorporate the remainder of the article and was unsourced. The article clarifies that cyanobacteria are an excluded group.

The user put a single warning vandalism tag on my talk page for removing his edits, rather than assuming good faith.[31] I will not be blocked for making an appropriate and good faith edit, and an only warning vandal tag is grossly inappropriate for my edit.

This user gave another single warning vandalism tag by mistake,[32] this time to a user who was actually reverting vandalism.[33]

All in all, it appears that User:Alacante45 does not have sufficient knowledge of wikipedia editing tools to be qualified to use WP:Twinkle, and I hereby request that he/she be blocked from continuing to use it. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrators can't revoke Twinkle rights; unlike rollback, which is a tool granted and revoked by administrators, Twinkle is a gadget that is activated by going to Special:Preferences, selecting "gadgets", and then selecting Twinkle. The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions 17:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a twinkle blacklist in User:AzaToth/morebits.js. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 17:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I see. The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions 17:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, probably appropriate under the circumstances to have blocked both. Thanks for posting the information here. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems he is just a vandal, but adding subtle nonsense, rather than doing the sort of vandalism designed to attract quick notice and blocking.[34][35] --184.99.172.218 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well he's twice attempted to evade his block, resulting in it being extended, so it seems his remaining time here may be brief. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I assume he's going to hoist himself on his own petard soon enough, but do want to include sufficient details to get his twinkle use taken away asap to make it easier to revert him until he gets to his explosive finish. Assuming he gets back. Not looking good for this user name. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle use[edit]

I'm making this a subsection for clarity. Just want to comment that misusing Twinke to warn you heavily is not actionable to make him blacklisted. I am typing this because you undid my resolved above (and per my talk page). He's been warned accordingly, by me, and is now blocked anyway so any action now is not appropriate. In the future, however, yes. Dragging this on feels like beating a dead horse to me though. Tommy! 23:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, he didn't just misuse it once. He misused it a number of times, in a very short edit history, by inappropriately warning users that their article edits were vandalism, when they weren't,[36][37] by calling other edits vandalism that weren't,[38] and while edit warring on the algae article.
Twinkle isn't a granted. It's a tool that requires proper usage:
"Be advised that you take full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk losing access to the tool or being blocked."
This user clearly doesn't understand wikipedia policies well enough to be using this tool, and it is pretty straight-forward to ask that the tool be taken away. It doesn't impact his editing, other than to slow him/her down, and this may be sufficient to make him think a bit while making the edits. This is WP:AN/I, and I would like administrator action and/or input. Your comments are adding nothing to the eventual resolution of the problem that I raised. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I was not aware of that misuse. However, he is still already blocked. I will warn him again on Twinkle misuse and that continuing to misuse it in the future will result in a blacklisting. Cheers Tommy! 00:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
That sounds sufficient for marking this resolved, in my opinion. Thanks. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 Done Glad I was able to help. Tommy! 00:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sinbad Barron sock yet again[edit]

He even admits it [39]. Causing major disruption, please block right away. Athenean (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged by someone else. I have declined an unblock request on the parent account (User talk:Sinbad Barron) due to the evasion, but people more familiar with the user can review by all means. --S.G.(GH) ping! 19:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt[edit]

Wrong venue. Please move to the article's talk page: No issue here requiring administrators' intervention. Yet. Don't push it. Incredibly lame issue to be coming close to editwarring over.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There has been an issue with three editors at the Theodore Roosevelt article concerning the coats of arms, with User:Beyond My Ken, User:Roux and User:DrKiernan. A fourth editor, User:Dmcq, agreed to their position with the requirement that all heraldic images should be historical, though this is not the policy found on Wikipedia nor the stance taken by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Opposed to there side is myself and User:Seven Letters, which we based our opinions upon quotes from heraldry book, visual images showing similar composition and heraldic traditions. I would like to also note that User:Beyond My Ken has stated he knows nothing of ehraldry, and that the other two editors have stated they are only slightly familiar.

The image is this, x95px. There opposition is against the smaller shields at the bottom of the image because they are embellishments and ornature not part of the coat of arms itself. I have explained that there are many examples of coats of arms painted and drawn surrounded by corporate arms and other embellishments not part of the actual coat of arms itself, artistic license added to the painting or drawing. I have also explained that even if there are minor additions in an image (I used an example of a turtle sitting in grass, where the inclusion of grass does not mean the image could not be used in an article on turtles), that it does not exclude the use of an image when the major focal point is of the subject to be presented. For examples where embellishments are added are this 1893 example [File:Captain_Cook.jpg here], and more modern examples are here, here and here. With a composition more similar to the image in question, where smaller shields are used, are the works of Anthony Wood, a British artist who painted arms for the U.K Government, here and the Niagara Herald of the Canadian Government here, here and here. A heraldic author, Fox-Davies, writing in the early part of the 20th century, said of embellishments to heraldic displays, "Later came the era of gilded embellishments, of flowing palms, of borders decorated with grinning heads, festoons of ribbon, and fruit and flowers in abundance... The external decoration of the shield was carried to great lengths...." To counter these points, the opposing editors gave no sources or references. Apparently, all of these examples are dismissed by some measure or point, and that the real truth was theirs, and that there was no need or way to prove that with sources.

This seems to be mostly a case of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT and Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, with the editors also refusing to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability by refusing to reference their claims which are in dispute, especially in the face of the evidence I have provided in support of my claim. They have also continued to edit the article in spite of the ongoing discussion. Is there any way to resolve this issue, give weight to the references provided and require counter points to be equally referenced?

Thank you for your time, [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

How is this not a content matter? This is not a matter with which I have great familiarity, but it seems to be being discussed at Dr.Kiernan's talk page and probably other places as well. I don't think it should be at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Wehwalt: there are actually some important behavioural problems at play here, though Xanderliptak would need a mirror in order to see what they are. → ROUX  20:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Factual error: I have never at any time said I was 'slightly familiar' with heraldry. Beyond that... this is pretty clear forumshopping. The consensus at the talkpage is clear, Xanderliptak has himself stated that Roosevelt never used these embellishments (the extra shields at the bottom of the image), and this really is all rather nonsensical. Xanderliptak has also failed to mention his editwarring at Theodore Roosevelt. → ROUX  20:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Like Roux, I have no recollection of ever stating that I am unfamiliar with heraldry. DrKiernan (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't really know much about heraldry; I didn't even know Americans had coats of arms. With my admin powers, I could block someone, delete something, or protect something- are you asking me to do any of those things? Which one, and why? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Some Americans have legitimate coats of arms (e.g. many members of the Kennedy family, Bill Clinton, etc), though most labour under the misapprehension that there is a 'family crest' they can use. Eh. You could block Xander for editwarring (he was blocked for that last week, too) if you want, or for just being generally disruptive and not understanding concepts like 'consensus' and 'no original research,' if you want. I don't really see the point in doing so, but you might; a clear directive from an uninvolved admin to him about what exactly he is doing wrong might be useful, though. → ROUX  20:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)It's also worth noting that Xander failed to notify me, BMK, or DrK about this post. → ROUX  20:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I'd like to note that none of the named editors, myself included, was notified by Xanderliptak about this posting. The discussions in which a clear consensus was established on this matter are here (Very long) and here. Those are content disputes, the only behaviorial question is a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and what is arguably becoming disruption from Xanderliptak. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with where to go to resolve issues. The opposing editors have objected to the painting in question because of the three small shields, claiming it against heraldic tradition based on their feelings and refusing to give references. I have met their objections with evidence and references, both in text and visually. However, they continue to ignore any and all facts presented to them in a reasonable manner, see ROUX's comment above. They are under the impression that as long as four editors vote against something without proof or evidence as to why, that it trumps two editors who have painstakingly sourced their position with more than ample facts. There surely must be a place where the facts could be considered, where the opposing editors can not simply hijack a discussion with endless ramblings and run-around until they tire out everyone and then claim victory. Please, go to the article over their concern over edit-warring. See the edit history where I have stated repeatedly to allow discussion to continue and run its course, where they make accusations without sources and edit without care. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"where the opposing editors can not simply hijack a discussion with endless ramblings and run-around until they tire out everyone and then claim victory" ...my irony meter just overloaded. Xander, simple question: have you got a reference supporting Roosevelt's use of these embellishments or not? → ROUX  20:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Heraldry. DrKiernan (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to accuse me of forum shopping when I am seeking to resovle a dispute, you may want to refrain from psoting to all of the forums you guys tried to shop. Stop making this about you and let an admin direct on where a content dispute may be resolved, where facts will determine the outcome, rather than impulsive comments like "my irony meter just overloaded". [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Xander, it sort of looks like you're here at WP:ANI to try to make sure you win your argument. We don't do that, I'm afraid. No one is ignoring you or hijacking the article by holding the opinion that a picture of Roosevelt's coat of arms should be documentably the coat of arms Roosevelt used. They're just disagreeing with you. They're allowed to disagree with you, and it doesn't make them bad people. You don't have to keep your picture in the article until 'the discussion has run its course,' by which I gather you mean, until everyone agrees with you. It isn't worth getting blocked for edit-warring over that. If consensus comes to agree with you, the picture will go back in and stay there, and no harm will have been done. If consensus does not agree with you, the picture will not go in, and no harm will have been done. Don't let this become something that gets added to WP:LAME; just make your best case, cite your sources, use WP:DISPUTE for advice if you need to, and when the time comes, either win graciously, or lose graciously, and move on with your life. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Posting to all what forums? BMK asked for input, neutrally, at several locations and asked for discussion to be centralized at Talk:Theodore Roosevelt. You, on the other hand, took the dispute to DrK's talkpage. And now you have brought it here in order to end-run around the consensus. You also failed to notify the users you were discussing, which is not an optional step when filing an AN/I. You have also been, well let us say flexible with the facts. And again, simple question: have you got a reference supporting Roosevelt's use of these embellishments or not? → ROUX  20:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
@ROUX, you found this within minutes of me posting it. Why do I have to notify you of something you already injected yourself into before I could find the template?
@FisherQueen, they are attempting to replace an image of mine with an image of mine. This is not about whether or not I have my image in the article, either way it was decided an image of mine would be in. The problem I have is the inaccuracies they are promoting, and doing so without providing sources for their opinion whilst at the same time ignoring any and all information presented to them. I am quite familiar with heraldry, and I spend much time correcting errors about heraldry, so I do not particularity like editors who admit to know little to nothing of the subject undo work without citing sources for their reason, but instead going off incorrect myths they have heard about heraldry. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay... so, since I'm not involved in this actual dispute, and don't have the knowledge to contribute anything useful... what administrative action are you requesting? Do you want me to block User:Roux from editing, restore your desired edit, and then protect the page for six months while you make your argument and persuade others to come to consensus with you? I do, technically, have the power to do that. I wonder if I'd be sysopped for it? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Dunno if you can be sysopped for doing that... because you have to have been sysopped to do the block in the first instance. Perhaps you mean you might block Roux, resign your bits and then restand for admin on the basis of those actions...? Seems to be bit of a palaver, if you ask me - and I am the bloke who stood for reconfirmation of adminship. I suggest that you don't... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. I mean desysopped, of course. I am already sysopped. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
If you could stop with the lie that anyone other than BMK has stated they know very little about heraldry, that would be just great. One notes you didn't mention User:Tamfang here, who has also pointed out that you cannot use the embellished version, and who arguably knows a hell of a lot more about heraldry than you do. We are promoting no inaccuracies. Indeed, we are trying to prevent inaccuracies--namely, the use of an unsourced image--from being included in the article. Third time, simple question: have you got a reference supporting Roosevelt's use of these embellishments or not? → ROUX  21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Xander, you have to notify someone because the ANI editnotice clearly says "You must notify any user that you discuss. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." Please don't tell me you didn't see the template listed right there.

In any case, I'm going to repeat what FisherQueen has said, which is for all of you to find somewhere else to argue (or just shut up altogether) as it seems no administrative action is necessary here.

My own view: consensus at the article talk page seems to lean in favor of excluding the embellished CoA. If someone wants, I can block everyone involved for edit warring and fully protect the pre-dispute version of the page. Otherwise, please keep discussion at the talk page as an admin isn't needed to jump into a content dispute here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, the discussion has run its course. Xanderliptak doesn't like the course it's taken, which is why this is here. → ROUX  21:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

@ROUX, I have been hired to create heraldic paintings by the American Heraldry Society to be presented to the U.S. Army's heraldry department, known as The Institute of Heraldry, which the director was "thrilled" to receive. I have also worked with individuals from Canada and England, where heraldic accuracy is an absolute necessity, and never have had an issue with my work. I have also had my work discussed on a few heraldry blogs, so I think my credentials are just fine when i speak on this matter. And no, I do not like the course you took on t other page; you demanded I povide source after source, which I did, then you refused to back up your claim with any source what so ever.

@FisherQueen, perhaps restoring the page as it was and protecting it would be a good decision, at least until they can provide references and sources to back up their position, and stop referring to their feelings on the matter. None of them needs to be blocked, though. I am sure they began this acting with the best of intentions, even if it has devolved since. Perhaps without the ability to edit the article, the discussion will calm down and return to civility

@ƒETCH, the notification is an issue? He found this in a matter of minutes, and posted the second reply. Notification is clearly not an issue when they got here that fast. And since when do facts not matter? Yeah, 4 v. 2, but those 4 have no sources and the 2 have many. It has also only been a day, usually discussions are allowed to take their natural course, not allow one side to call it ended because the numbers are suddenly in their favour. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You actually never provided the reference you were asked for. Again, do you or do you not have a reference showing that Roosevelt used those embellishments on his arms? Why do you refuse to answer the question? → ROUX  21:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be suffering from "expertisatiousness" - where your knowledge of a subject renders you unable to comprehend that the rules/policies of a different place apply to you in the same way as they apply to anyone else. If you want to contribute your knowledge to the project, and rest assured that the project wants you to just as much, then you need to do so within the limitations of that project. Appeals to authority do not work here, only reference to reliable third party sources. No ones unbuttressed opinion is more equal than that of any other, and referenced opinion - even if wrong - will prevail over uncited comment. Experts, however, do have one particular advantage; they should know where the best references are and be able to apply them.
As for letting other people know, regardless of the fact that they found out anyway, it is in the nature of participating on another site - their rules rule. You don't wish to abide the rules, then you cannot play. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, but please see my opening paragraph where I gave textual sources and visual sources. I can also direct you to some books to read. The opposing editors are the ones that provided nothing, just "I don't know anything about heraldry, but I don't think that's right." . I have adhered to the rules here, I have sourced everything. I asked the other editors to do the same, and they responded with a no, they don't have to, because they know they are right no matter what sources I give. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
For the last time: stop lying. Nobody has said anything of the sort. Your sources do not actually support what you say. Stop evading the question: do you or do you not have a source showing that Roosevelt used the embellishments you have added? → ROUX  22:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I note that you have explained why your references support your contentions. Other parties have explained why they believe the case is unproven. You do not seem to have provided a definitive authority in regard to this one matter, which is what Roux continues to request. Your expertise in being able to interpret your sources appears unsupported by independent third parties. I see only a content dispute, where the case for a change has not been made because the vital evidence supporting that change has not been presented. Should you supply that evidence, then the discussion may restart. Until then the status quo remains. (Roux, please would you stop with the use of the term "lying" - it degrades your position. Find a civil term, if you must make the implication,) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Um, no, I won't stop using the word that accurately describes what Xander is doing. He has been told multiple times that words he is attributing to others are factually incorrect. At this point, there are only two possible options for the behaviour: either he is simply not reading what is being written (clearly not the case) or he is lying about what other people have said. I will not be lied about, particularly when someone is doing so in order to sway a discussion which they have quite clearly come out on the minority end of. → ROUX  22:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources state and show (therefore is proven not hypothetical, but actually practiced) that external elements are fine, because they do not change a coat of arms. If I have a photo of a blue sky, I do not need a source that states the sky is blue in the photo. I have provided a source that states external elements do not alter a coat of arms. Then I showed visual examples of this practice, and ahve included images where shields are used to embellish a drawing, drawings doen by offical heralds mind you. The issue is whetehr or not shields may be used to embellish a coat of arms. The source says anything can be, and the images show shields are, in, fact used to embellsih drawings. So I am missing where there is a gap?

I am also confused as to how this even matters. No one claims the arms are painted with any error, just that the picture has the correct coat of arms and other things in the picture. So do a lot of other pictures, they have the subject photographed, and there are other elements that are likewise captured. We do not exclude those form use, nor do we spend unnecessary time to explain that. We do not take a photo of a building with crowds in front of it and post the caption, "The such and such building, with a blue sky in the background, and a scene of the city in the foreground, in line to enter the building is John, Jason, Mary, Joe, Jane..." [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What authority issued the letters patent for Theodore Roosevelt's coat of arms? Tiderolls 22:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Have you got a reference stating that Roosevelt used these embellishments or not? → ROUX  22:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
None, the Roosevelts are not British. Only British realms and those regions that take their influence from Britain (Australia, Canada and South Africa, for example) require letters patent. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me, then, that any alteration of the arms that Roosevelt represented as his would be a waste of time. Reporting that he used them, if supported by sources, might be notable but anything beyond that would appear to be speculation or synthesis. Tiderolls 23:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing that requires a patent, only British law (which includes a sort of 'processing fee' for the service), and is an Anglo-centric stance that any arms without patent are somehow invalid. More common families, noble families and royals have assumed arms without patent than have been granted arms. Even the Queen of Great Britain and the oldest noble titles of England and Scotland use arms that were never granted, and are quite proud to have used arms for so long they predate any law. The O'Donovans of Ireland, for example, take much pride displaying their supporters, much to the chagrin of the English heralds who often said they had no written right to use then, the O'Donovans countering that their arms were older than written right. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
File:Coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt by Alexander Liptak.png
Xanderlipak's original image, including the disputed three shields at the bottom

Convenience break[edit]

─────────────────────────I'm hesitant to post anything much, both because my knowledge about heraldry is, as I admitted, extremely limited, and also because this is a content dispute and should not have been brought here, but: it's my observation that Xanderliptak sees the three small shields, which we've been calling "embellishments" as, from a heraldic point of view, mere background, equivalent to additional ribbons or flourishes or other decorative items which it is within the heraldic artist's right to add to the image. He has proffered analogies comparing the shields to blades of grass in a picture of a turtle, or random people on the street in a photograph of a building. From a heraldic or artistic perpective, he may well be correct, I don't know, but the problem is that from the perspective of the coat of arms viewed as purely a visual image, those small shields do not in any way appear to be mere background, they appear, to the naive viewer such as myself and the vast majority of our readers, to be content, and therefore meaningful.

This is why, from the standpoint of Wikipedia policy, those particular embellishments need to be referenced, whereas the red and white flowers, or whatever they're called in heraldry, to the right and left of the shield don't have to be. Those appear, visually speaking, to be extraneous background, and it's unlikely that a naive viewer will think that they're a significant part of the coat of arms. The shields, however, with the stars and stripes and other visual allusion to TR's life, look (despite their size) important and significant, and Joe Q. Sixpack is likely to come away with the impression that the American flag is part of TR's coat of arms.

So it is is, I think, this clash between the heraldic thinking thaty Xanderliptak is committed to, and the more literal visual thinking of those concerned that Wikipedia be accurate and contain appropriate information, that seems to be the core of the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

But that would be akin to asking for sources that says lines form outside of a particular building, or that turtles will stand in grass. Part of the problem is heraldry is little understood, which has caused this problem. We can dumb it all down and make everything match people's preconceived (and often incorrect) notions, but that is not encyclopedic either. If anything, an image that people do not recognize initially as a coat of arms due to their googling of their "family crest" would incite curiosity and cause a person to investigate what they are seeing. That would lead them to the Heraldry and Coat of arms articles, where their knowledge would be expanded. The same reason we don't just say that stars are fireflies stuck in the sky, or rain is caused from angels crying, we do not conform to myths and legends we are told, we put forth truth, even if it is uncomfortable and unfamiliar to us. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I have the same experience- as a person with limited knowledge of heraldry, I know it often appears on shield shapes- so when I see the shield shapes on that picture, I assume that they are the coat of arms, and that the flowers growing out of the top of them are the embellishment. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Xanderliptak; simply provide the source for your changes. If you could provde a source for the stars/fireflies analogy-that-doesn't-fit, you could make a case for adding that content. Do you have a source? That question is very familiar... Tiderolls 23:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

24.236.248.179[edit]

User:24.236.248.179 was making comments at the Gaza War article that were not constructive. They bordered on treating it like a forum and soapboxing while making accusations.[40] He was asked to raise specific issues but continued.[41] His response at an additional request was to make a comment in the middle of a stale conversation I had previousely started.[42] His response to another request on his talk page was to post a personal attack on my talk page.[43] His response to another editor explaining to him of this not being appropriate was dismissive. It would be appreciated if an administrator would provide him with notification of the arbitration case as detailed at Template:Palestine-Israel enforcement. I am under the impression that incivility is not blockable so doubt that is a possibility but a stronger warning seems necessary.Cptnono (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have issued a formal warning, and they have already received a friendlier one, and explained matters a bit. If they can provide concrete cited reasons for their concerns they can be addressed. If they continue to attack editors because they do not like the way the articles are presented then they can be finally warned and blocked if necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Response This is 24.236.248.179. You just left some stuff out. I did outline several issues, which you ignored. One of which was the massacre narrative section, which I said had only editorials and not concrete information like WHO reports, and I said it should have been deleted, not integrated into another section. You told me to go to the article issues page, which I did. You kept up bugging me. I ask for deletion of a section, outline why, and you ignored it. And it's not as if you're innocent of personal attacks either. On your own talk page I recall you saying "Who the f*** are you?" without the asterisks. I didn't put down or try to piss off the other editor either. I'm thankful for that editor's letter. It was a nice gesture. Of all the editors I've seen, so far you are the only one I've had an issue with. LessHeard vanU, please be sure to read this before you ban me, if that's what this response calls for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.248.179 (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did say "Who the fuck are you?" In response to one of your a comment. I didn't think it was that bad but if you took offense to it I apologize. It pails in comparison to your comments and ongoing disruption. And no one said anything about banning or blocking you unless you continue.Cptnono (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
And since you acknowledged being User:Jalusbrian, you have been warned multiple times about using the talk page as a forum. User talk:Jalusbrian#Please add to the discussionUser talk:Jalusbrian#See Talk:Coconut oilUser talk:Jalusbrian#Talk:MV Mavi Marmara‎.Cptnono (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Response All right, then who are you to complain? I'm not offended, I laugh at you. I'm not disrupting anything. You blew me off on one page and then jumped in on my conversation with another guy. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't care about anyone's politics here unless they leave important info out. That was the deal with my first comment. In the second I clearly outlined wanting that section gone and you blew me off. The third was thanking someone else for backing what they said with facts, hardly a disruption. So where do you get off saying who the fuck are you to me and then crying to an admin when you get flak back? This is between you and me. You brought it on yourself.

There is a difference between responding to "Who are you" after disregarding talk page warnings with a snide comment and calling someone retarded. So yes, I made a inappropriate comment. As I have shown above, you have been asked to not use the talk page as a forum on at least 4 occasions yest you continue to do it. Calling someone retarded is the least of my worries.Cptnono (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

First, I have no clue who Jalusbrian or coconutoil are, if you believe nothing else I say, believe that I have never heard those names and don't know what you're talking about. Second, asking for a section change isn't using a page as a forum. Don't know where you got 4 from, the last ones have been at your talk page and here. Sorry, SineBot, I can't get the 24.236.248.179 (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC) to work.

oops looks like it does 24.236.248.179 (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So you are not Jalusbrian? Then why do you care if I made a snide comment to him? It had nothing to do with you then. So back on topic, you were given suggestions on how to handle your concerns and where to address them. You then jumped into a conversation I had started that was not constructive. I posted on your user talk page why it was a concern and you responded by calling me retarded. So you have been given a warning by an admin. If you call editors retarded or anything similar or if you continue to misuse talk pages there will be a concern. Simply don't do those things and you should be fine. It is an easy fix.Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so the comment was to him and not me? Well then it looks like there's 3 people who can attest to you being a self-righteous hypocrite: Me, him, and Nableezy. I like how good you are in front of admins but nowhere else. Drop the act. You don't fool anyone. This is between us. 24.236.248.179 (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.248.179 (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"self-righteous hypocrite" I now believe a block is appropriate with continued personal attacks being made.Cptnono (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Meaning you don't deserve blocks for what you do but the people who respond do deserve them. I don't think admins should listen to you at all. 24.236.248.179 (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor asked who I was and I asked who "the fuck" he was. Inappropriate. If he would have expressed concern the last thing I would have done is continued with that behavior. It was a stupid comment and nothing more. You on the other hand have not headed warnings and made two personal attacks in the last 24 hrs: "you are so freaking retarded" (in a section titled "Screw off" and "self-righteous hypocrite" Cptnono (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • My impression of this is that neither party is entirely innocent, or guilty; collaborative editing here requires some understanding of the other point of view, especially on contentious articles and issues within those articles. In the absence of that, a third opinion can be sought, but meanwhile, insults don't help and I suggest that there is no reason for admin intervention here and both parties are advised to cool down. Rodhullandemu
I admit to being BITEY since I did not put forth the effort CordeliaNaismith did at the user's talk page[44] There was no harassment. I commented on a talk page I was previously involved in, a conversation that I originated, and the user's talk page. So can your advice to cool down be considered being "finally warned" as LessHeard vanU mentioned above? Calling another editor "retarded" and "a self righteous hypocrite" are in no way acceptable and this needs to be made clear. And a third opinion is not necessary since specific content has still not been addressed.Cptnono (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, warnings have already been issued for the incivility, by LessHeard vanU, and for the avoidance of doubt, this may be taken as a final warning by any involved editor that incivility is just not what we are supposed to be about. Arguments over content get heated, particularly in factional disputes, but it is fundamental that we have neutrality here. That depends on the sources you choose to support a particular position, but there is still room to accept differences of opinion from those sources, and seek outside opinion here where such differences exist; however, incivility and personal attacks remains unacceptable; that's why I advised cooling down, on both sides. Apart from that, remedies under dispute resolution remain if you really cannot get it together on the relevant Talk pages. Rodhullandemu 02:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There are more indirect ways of attacking, like edit warring or harassing a person anywhere they go to get them banned. Both Nableezy and I can attest to you doing that. You aren't innocent of anything. 24.236.248.179 (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So take it to WP:WQA or cite specific diffs; otherwise, my advice above stands. Rodhullandemu 02:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I did specify what needed to be changed, the entire paragraph massacre narrative needed to be deleted since the sources were irrelevant. The harassment is something both Nableezy and I can attest to. You seem to have followed the both of us all over the place. And cool down was to both of us not just me. I wasn't going to post until you did, so point being I'm willing to shut up if you do. That's what Rodhull wants I think. 24.236.248.179 (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no horse in the race of middle eastern disputes; what I would like to see is that participants in the various articles in this topic realise that there are bound to be differences of opinion, and we should report those differences fairly and neutrally, without favouring one side or another. That's perhaps a counsel of perfection, but it cannot be without the knowledge and experience of involved editors that differences exist. However, pushing one side or the other has traditionally been castigated here as unencyclopedic. When it comes to content disputes, even severely polarised disputes, my personal preference is that editors would set aside their local perspective and realise that there is another point of view, and that needs to be dealt with constructively rather than argumentatively. That's why we have dispute resolution, and other venues. Rodhullandemu 02:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you completely understand the dispute. There is no difference of opinion on the content. I have been one of the leading advocates from fixing the "massacre" issue. I was the one who mentioned adjusting the section before the IPs comments and when another editor opened up a second discussion. I supported the move suggested by that editor and then adjusted it even further. So it appears that the IP and I agree to a large extent on content. Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)