Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive644

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

Noticeboard archives


Walking With Dinosaurs Singapore[edit]


User:Powerlinux copied Walking With Dinosaurs as his user page, removed some paragraphs, and then moved it to Walking With Dinosaurs Singapore. The article should of course be speedy deleted (I removed some material before realizing this was the case). A side effect is that both his user and talk page are now redirects, and I can't even leave him a proper message. I left it at Talk:Walking With Dinosaurs Singapore which is in fact his talk page which was redirected. Please fix that as well. --Muhandes (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I am in the middle of cleaning this up, I think you may have recreated the Talk:Walking With Dinosaurs Singapore after I moved it back. I will check further. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. This was already corrected. You are too quick :) --Muhandes (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Phantomsteve has finished it off. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Threat against WalMart[edit]

Are we supposed to report stuff like this? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It geolocates to New York City, though that may not prove anything. For what it's worth, December 27 is the Monday following Christmas, when one might expect to see white sales. And FYI, Clark County contains Las Vegas. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm in contact with Clark County Law enforcement. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
They're probably laughing at you. They have more important things to worry about than some website. October First (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Last year, I reported this threat to police in Goshen County, Wyoming; they responded with a notice that they'd investigated and caught the threat-maker, and I even got an apology email from the kid who'd made the threat. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be oversighted? Buggie111 (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't think so, it's not offensive or anything, just dumb. It's already rev-deleted. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see it; it hasn't been revdelled. It should deleted as RD3 though. Oversight shouldn't be necessary though, it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:OVERSIGHT. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought revdell and Oversight were synonymus. Ok then, learning lesson for me. Buggie111 (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I couldn't see it the first time. I'll rev-del it. S.G.(GH) ping! 17:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I fried the edit summary, too. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
In these kinds of situations, things like this probably shouldn't be oversighted or revdeleted, in case whatever authorities have been notified would like to have a look at the edit themselves. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
They can contact the Foundation for that, I feel. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What I can't figure is why (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is not blocked. It's edited sporadically for 2 1/2 years, and every last one of them was useless. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sporadically in this case being an average of about 3-4 edits per year; it's most likely a dynamic IP address and has had some occasional vandalism. We shouldn't block it based on a total of about 10 edits, spread across 2-3 years; it could deter constructive users at the IP in future. This is why AIV insists on recent warnings + vandalism before blocking IPs. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Road Runner IPs are quite static. Elockid (Talk) 17:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way to check the contribs for a range of IP's all at once, to see if a pattern emerges? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is. Elockid (Talk) 17:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Here are contribs for Antandrus (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. And while it's only a 3-4 day sample, the topics for each IP suggest a degree of stability. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
You must be using a different type of road-runner ISP, because mine changes every time I'm forced to unplug the router for fluctuating internet(the wireless dies, so I have to unplug everything and plug everything back in).— dαlus Contribs 01:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I used to have RoadRunner in NYC...I kept the same IP address for two years. It only changed when I moved. (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I use RR in Rochester NY, and I don't think I have a static IP (whenever I reset the modem, anyway). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 11:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Should there be an automatic one year block for threats? Just blocking for a few days or weeks is too short. Anyone who threatens has a psychiatric problem but that can change in a year, but not in a few days. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In the case of an IP, we only block for longer periods when we are quite certain that the editor behind the IP remains the same. Many IPs are dynamic, and many others are used by many editors (schools, libraries, ...). Fram (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
And even if it's a stable IP, we might have reason not to block for very long; if the authorities are able to catch the threat-maker, as they did in the link I posted near the top of this section, there wouldn't be any need. Nyttend (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oversight needed[edit]


Can someone suppress this edit and block the user who made it? It's a blatant attack against EnDaLeCoMpLeX. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The first rule of Oversight is do not talk about Oversight. Skomorokh 14:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Oversight requests should be made in private using one of the methods listed at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Requests for oversight should not be posted on ANI, which is wide open to the public, and gets over 2,000 views each day. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that this edit needs to be oversighted, to be honest. Deletion seems sufficient in this case. TFOWR 15:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sock of banned user?[edit]

User:Bobsaget1qw and his dynamic ip army seem like sockpuppets of abanned user? Anyone know who this might be?Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 06:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In connection with this, I have semiprotected User talk:JamesBWatson for 6 hours. Otherwise, it doesn't look like anyone I recognize. The IP range looks too large to manage by rangeblock. --Jayron32 06:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
This is indefinitely blocked genre troll Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs), operating from a mobile device. Tagged as such. –MuZemike 14:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Grossly offensive user name[edit]

Resolved; socks blocked. WP:DENY.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Suarneduj, then Juden Raus, now 유태인 아웃 ("Jews out" in Korean), has returned. I did leave a note for Sandstein who did the original block. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВАTALK 15:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up re: John Donovan[edit]

From his blog: [1]. Anyone know his user account? His blog says he's pursuing legal action. Is this matter being addressed elsewhere? Are his concerns being addressed anywhere? Rklawton (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And no, it's not this user User:John Donovan. Rklawton (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd imagine it's Johnadonovan (talk) (already blocked), as the blog refers to this article. TFOWR 17:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
See User talk:Johnadonovan for the current status. As TFOWR notes, this editor was indefinitely blocked in September for making legal threats. I see him as a credible critic of Shell, but in practice he has not been easy to work with. (His COI editing was not quite blatant enough to deserve a block, but he wasn't very cooperative either). His editing of Wikipedia was first discussed at WP:COIN in early 2008. Other noticeboard discussions can be found through this search. The comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns show that his recent contributions are seriously lacking in neutrality. If the legal threat were to be withdrawn, I suggest we should have another discussion as to whether he belongs on Wikipedia at all, given the recent trend of his editing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Rklawton (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

User: Dweeby123 - misuse of both Twinkle and the term 'vandalism'[edit]

Dweeby123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
This user has been repeatedly asked to stop labelling edits that he disagrees with as 'vandalism', e. g., [2], [3], [4], [5]. He has been edit warring at Tony Curtis over the wikilinking of Curtis's birthplace, calling some of the reversions against his preferred version 'vandalism'. He refuses to stop, and does not respond to other editors' entreaties on his talk page. Radiopathy •talk• 23:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good-faith but inexperienced editor here; over the last month or so, I've seen the vast majority of his edits being constructive, at least in intent. Some advice as to the nature of "vandalism" would be in order, and maybe even adoption or mentorship, but I don't see it as being that destructive at present. Perhaps if you notify him of this discussion, that would focus his mind a tad. Rodhullandemu 23:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree in principle, Rod, but it's been spelt out on his talk page a few times already, and the behaviour continues. Radiopathy •talk• 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
He's done it again: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The user appears to neither heed nor read messages or warnings on his talk page. The only way to make him aware that anything is wrong will probably be a block.--Kudpung (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I've done so. I imagine it will get his attention. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps he will request for an unblock sooner or later. - Dwayne was here! 16:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Umm, isn't an indef a little strong for a first-time block? Radiopathy •talk• 16:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's an indefinite block, not an infinite one. It'll last only until he enters into some kind of reasonable dialogue. Usually this happens within 24 hours, sometimes the user never responds. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • My guess is that he just needs to slow it down. He's offered to stop using Twinkle, I'm thinking maybe we just add him to the Twinkle blacklist and require him to get an admin's permission to turn it back on once a reasonable amount of time has passed without a recurrence of this problem. I'm going to place his unblock request on hold pending the outcome of this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I really think you should give him a one more chance then, if he messes up then that's his problem, isn't really??, okay I don't know this person (at all), but it look's to me that he's passionate about Wikipedia, like we all should be -- (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
He is being given a chance - see Elen's comment above. TFOWR 15:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC) looks suspiciously like Dweeby123... AnemoneProjectors 16:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I was just about to comment on the same thing. The edit summaries from Dweeby123 ([6]) and the IP ([7]) are strikingly similar. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 17:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
And it started editing straight after Dweebly123 was blocked. Oh dear.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
"Emmerdale" is a dead giveaway. Could you block the IP as well? Radiopathy •talk• 21:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Looking at both Dweeby123's and's contribs, the (do'h) and (tweak) edit summaries sound a lot like quackery. Ishdarian 07:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You've got to wonder how an IP user who "doesn't know this person (at all)", who consistently misspells Homer's catchphrase "D'oh!" in the same way, and who persistently "tweaks" page, also came and found and then contributed to this discussion, and made a strong point of not knowing the person. It is an astonishing set of coincidences. More seriously and like Radiopathy, I thought the block was a little harsh as little chance had been given for him to respond to this discussion, he had done just a handful of clean edits apart from calling something good faith but writing "rvv", but that could simply be not understanding or a typo. But now that he appears to be sockpuppeting to sway a discussion about him, forget it. Disappointed. Halsteadk (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I've formally denied his unblock request and directed him to consider WP:OFFER. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Grundle and his IPs[edit]

User:Grundle2600 has been community-banned for disruption and has a huge list of sockpuppets, as seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600/Archive. Most recent was October 7. Now more often he pops up with IPs, mainly in 71. and 72. range, and today a 96 (all Verizon, Pittsburgh). Some IPs are [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. For those of us familiar with Grundle, it's easy to tell when it's him. Is there anything that can be done other than revert on site? Is it even worth reporting for a short block? Grsz11 14:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The ranges you mention are too busy and dynamic for IP blocks to work. Two possibilities: 1) WP:RBI, or 2) WP:Abuse report.
Amalthea 16:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Has there ever been a single situation in which filing an abuse report has accomplished anything beyond the server going "That's nice; go away now."? HalfShadow 01:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Amalthea, what about a rangeblock or would there be too much collateral damage? - NeutralhomerTalk • 16:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
That's what I meant with "too busy". Amalthea 18:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought so, but my brain wasn't quite working up to speed yet (not enough coffee). - NeutralhomerTalk • 21:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps User:Grundle2600/Sandbox should be deleted (along with history) since he enjoys linking to old versions of it that reproduce the contents of deleted articles. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, people have legitimate grievances but they did something the wrong way. For some people, not all, the opportunity for the banned to explain their original grievance is a way to reflect and help the situation. I don't know if this is the case with Grundle.

People say "banned is banned" but I have seen many bans in ANI that were just railroaded through. Most of the time, I said nothing because the people were bad. But there is merit in having fair processes.

In the USA, there was a debate about Bush being bad for letting terrorist suspect rot in Cuba. With Wikipedia, banned is banned would mean that the Bush actions are to be praised. Without dragging more Bush into the question, we should allow banned people to make a statement once every 12 months, which would not result in repeated messages but just open the door to appeal. There are those that say secret appeal by e-mail exist. Likewise, the people in Guantanamo can appeal secretly. Yeah, right. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Grundle certainly has that right. It most certainly wouldn't be accepted given his history of socking. But he isn't coming back to try and appeal, he's coming back to continue to disrupt. Grsz11 00:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:STANDARDOFFER applies for Grundle as much as anyone else. If he stopped trying to edit Wikipedia for an extended period of time (6 months-1 year) and returned under an agreement to avoid all editing regarding topics of a political nature, as broadly construed as possible, then he would be more welcome here. The fact that he refuses to play by the rules, and egregiously so, is why he is a persona non grata. --Jayron32 05:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
@Suomi: It's certainly possible that some bans have been railroaded in, but Grundle's most certainly was not. It was a very long process, with three or four withdrawn indefs before the end.
A problem is that Grundle doesn't see himself as a disruptor; he sees himself as Robin Hood. He's totally convinced that his badly-cited synthesis is necessary to defend wikipedia from the liberals. He's proud of his socks, and rarely if ever tries to hide them. And he's actually quite likable. Any ideas about anything to do beyond silent reversion till he gets bored? PhGustaf (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Not really. He's familiar enough with Wikipedia to know how to be maximally disruptive when he wants to be, and his IP range is impossible to block. Just revert, block, and ignore is all we have. Rinse, repeat. --Jayron32 05:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
StandardOffer is an essay, not a guideline or policy. There are a number of banned editors where I wouldn't support an unban even if they meet the standard offer. Fram (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe anyone said it was a policy, and in the case of any community sanction only another community discussion can overturn it. The standard offer is meant as a "road map" for those that honestly want to reform. At this point Grundle has shown no sign of that, he would have to quit with the socking before overturning his ban would even be considered. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: "any ideas"...we should all chip in and get him a Netflix membership so he can find some more usable usernames. Seems like it's been a cavalcade of IPs for awhile now. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible legal threat[edit]

Here [16] from ReformAmericaNewYork‎ (talk · contribs). I can confirm that the previous whois info posted by Wookieinheat was accurate at the time and has since been updated to the value posted by the user. However, the talk page refactoring and legal threats are definitely not kosher. Notifying user now. User notified. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked ReformAmericaNewYork (talk · contribs) for making a legal threat but there seems to be a bigger WP:BLP issue going on here. Toddst1 (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you please clarify what possible BLP issue there might be? Is the posting of whois records with contact information when sorting out spam sites not allowed on talk pages? I don't see any problem with the article itself. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Ouch, yes, disclosing contact details like that is a huge BLP issue. Although, I suppose it is public Whois details. So not that huge, I'd suggest just removing them to be on the safe side (Wikipedia is search engine indexed while Whois records are not) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any legal threats here, yea, he's posting a whois, and some legal language from the whois site, and yes, he's refactoring comments, so yes, the block is fine, but not on NLT (just my two cents KoshVorlon' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 16:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Is this article really worth all the trouble it seems to be causing? It's apparently giving the subject grief, and notability is marginal at best. Deletion may be an option here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, looking back now i see why my posting of the article subject's personal data is a no no. i wasn't thinking of it in that light when i did it, i was mainly focused on the creation dates of the websites which supported my conclusions about the wikipedia article(s) being discussed. i simply copy-pasted the whole record into my comment, the personal data was really irrelevant to the main point on the dates; i'll be more careful in the future. with that said, i would take the legal threats from the new account pretty lightly, after looking over their edits they bear the hallmarks of the COI editor who was the root of the issue. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

User:A Radish for Boris[edit]

Resolved: No further action needed; duck-block reinforced by checkuser and IP also blocked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor as a WP:DUCK sock of User:Otto4711. Behavioral evidence:

No further administrative action anticipated, posting here for notification. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  •  Confirmed, and  IP blocked. Tiptoety talk 17:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, pretty obvious. I'd preserve that Doctor Who trivia AfD though, it was a good spot even if they're banned. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I haven't closed the other AfD he started, either. He took care to start pretty reasonable AfDs, but the contributions in other fictional AfDs were pretty obvious. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I noticed; it was just in case someone took it upon themselves to revert everything they'd done. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of automatic revert tool, Twinkle, reverting good faith edits[edit]


I was making edits to the Leonard McCoy (Star Trek) article and the next day my two good faith edits had been reverted by editor User:EEMIV and I noticed the (TW) after the edit synopsis. This was my first experience with someone using this tool. I read the tool's article and noticed that users have to be careful of it automatically reverting good faith edits. I wrote to the editor on his/her talk page, and mentioned the tool had done this. I received no explanation or apology. Yesterday while editing the Data (Star Trek) page, I noticed an anonymous user made an edit. It may not have been the greatest placement of the information, but it was true, wasn't mentioned anywhere else in the article, and looked like a good faith edit to me. Editor EEMIV's TW tool came in and reverted it. Now, I respect this editor because they are obviously a Star Trek fan :) but I am losing all respect for this automated tool. These are dits that a human needs to look at and decide if it is vandalism or good faith. Akuvar (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there are three incidents of this, the first was on Jean-Luc Picard. Akuvar (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Just because twinkle has been used doesn't mean a person hasn't looked into it. You need to talk to EEMIV, but as far as I can see, he has a point: You're asserting a fact (sawbones is no longer common slang for a surgeon) that he believes needs a citation. Talk to him, see what you can find... but WP:BURDEN applies to your addition. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with you. I don't know how to do this (I'm sure there is an easier way) but look at this edit I made at Jean-Luc Picard I added a wiki link to what enterprise he commanded and corrected syntax by adding the word "the" Twinkle reverted that edit. It was after that revert that I contacted EEMIV on his/her talk page and received no answer or explanation. You may be right, perhaps I am assuming that they are not looking into it and that the twinkle isn't doing this indiscriminately and automatically, but the evidence says otherwise. Akuvar (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

EEMIV should be answering your questions, though I don't think these are the most controversial of reverts. I can see a case for the Picard one, because the sentence refers to the Enterprise in general (i.e. E as well as D) and has most likely already been wikilinked earlier in the article. The 'the' is neither here nor there. I would advise seeing if EEMIV will get back to you now they have been notified of this thread. Star Trek is awesome S.G.(GH) ping! 16:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify for Akuvar - in case he hasn't realised it yet - but Twinkle isn't an automated tool as he seems to think - certainly his posts imply that's how he sees Twinkle. As well as talking to EEMIV, I suggest he also pops along to The Twinkle page, for better understanding of that too. a_man_alone (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Akuvar left a message on my talk page that I just haven't replied to yet. [My contributions that last couple of days have been minor, my time spent mostly doing rote chores; probably tomorrow I'll have time to give him a thorough response.] The conversation should continue on my talk page, and it will; I don't see any need for an ANI thread, and will not be watchlisting ANI for subsequent responses. --EEMIV (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds good. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle isn't a bot; a user is still behind the helm manning the controls. All Twinkle does is make certain tasks easier.— dαlus Contribs 04:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

POV tag in Nair article[edit]

Background: mention of what academics call polyandry in nair article. this is the third thread. User:EdJohnston and User:DGG had commented on the previous discussion. I have listed their comments here. User:DGG said, "I do have an opinion on that. I think covering it in the main article, both with respect to any current and also to historical practices is required by NPOV"

In the mean time, some users Robynhood.Pandey (talk · contribs · count), Pichaiyan Nadar (talk · contribs · count), Bhattathirippadu (talk · contribs · count) and (talk · contribs · count) have been blocked as socks.

Current issue: I added a POV tag and suggested we resolve what needs to be added in the talk page (as recommended by User:EdJohnston). Shannon1488 (talk · contribs · count) who has no edits outside Nair related topics removed the tag for a reason i dont think appropriate. --CarTick 14:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am simply stating that some one who is neutral and having a good knowledge of India-related topics should oversee the tagging and related issues. The problem here is-

  • Polyandry was practiced as a mandatory form of marriage by only the Kammalan and related castes in Kerala.
  • For other castes (including Nairs), single marriage was the preferred form of marriage, but in rare instances polyandry was practiced along with polygamy.
  • Therefore, the over-emphasizing of polyandry in the Nair article is outright confusing. This question was asked to Cartick many times, but he refused to answer.
  • Polyandry of whatever type fell out of use in Kerala during the 19th century and not many people even remember it now.
  • The language used in the Polyandry in India article is deeply offensive.
  • The relevance of the type of marriage in Nair article should be reviewed by an admin who is having good knowledge about Indian ethnic groups.

Please look in to these facts. I will abide by any decision the admin takes on this. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not content dispute, this is about removal of maintenance template.
even a casual search in google books or google scholar or jstor gives so many references.
I have access to all the academic references which discuss in detail about nair polyandry and can send it to Shannon if he wants (through an administrator, dont want to reveal my e-mail to him). The only issue is, in what form the information has to be included which will be discussed through WP:NPOV notice board and WP:RFC. whether polyandry existed in Kammalan and other castes are irrelevant here and User Shannon can raise the issues in relevant articles.
In the mean time, the POV tag needs to stay in place to alert the readers. --CarTick 15:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You are again running away from the questions asked to you. I am not talking about searches and other things. I am asking you what is the special relationship between Nairs and polyandry. I can give you hundreds of examples for instances of polyandry practiced in Europe, Middle East and North America. Similarly, you might also be able to provide some references about polyandry among Nairs. But as long as you are not able to prove that polyandry was unique in someway among the Nairs, I am not going to agree with you. How can you add a link to polyandry in the Nair article, when it was practiced primarily by someone else? This is like saying that Turks are the major population group in Germany, when they are just 3% of the population. I will make it a bit more simple. Say, there are 100 instances of polyandry in Kerala. Out of these 25 were Nair, 25 were Thiyya, 25 were Kammalan and 25 were other. Now here it seems that Nairs are one of the major practitioners of polyandry. But if you look at the per-capita rate, then it will be something like this: 2% of Nairs practiced polyandry, 2% of Thiyyas practiced polyandry, 100% of Kammalans practiced polyandry, 2% of others practiced polyandry. Now, to which group is polyandry relevant?

And if admins feels that the removal of POV tag is wrong, then they can revert my edits. Shannon1488 (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

pls familiarise yourself with wikipedia policies first. relevance not uniqueness is the criteria for inclusion. --CarTick 16:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about relevance. It might be relevant in the Polyandry in India article or the Marriage Ceremonies of Keralites article. But what is the relevance of some obsolete marriage custom last practiced many centuries ago, which even at it's peak had no more than 2% or 3% of Nairs practicing it in the Nair article? If 100%, or at least one-third of the Nairs practiced polyandry during the 1500s, then it might have been important enough to get an inclusion in the article. But this is going way overboard. If you want to malign someone you don't like, then you better find some good tactics to do that. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry if this information is offensive to you. I am afraid i could not find any wikipedia policy or guideline which discourages inclusion because it offends somebody. There is also no policy which dictates your "percentage calculation" or "many centuries ago practice" as a criteria for exclusion. If an arbitrary one-third participation is a criteria, lot of information in the article and very many articles should go. --CarTick 16:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline which discourages inclusion because it offends somebody. But there is also no policy which says that irrelevant and disputed views should be added to an article just because another user doesn't like the ethnic group. Let me see if the admins agree with your views or not. I am just remembering you, the answers for my questions are still not here. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand how Polyandry among Nairs is not relevant in Nairs. but, that is your view and i dispute that and User:DGG agrees with me that not including it is violation of WP:NPOV. so the POV tag needs to go back. we will sort the issue out in article talk page. --CarTick 16:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am saying if admins feel like POV tag is needed, then they can add it. A minor dispute should not be used to tag an entire article as neutrality-disputed. Just wait till we get more comments here. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

User:DGG is an administrator and he said not including it violates NPOV. --CarTick 16:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Any admin (including DGG) can add the tag. But it will be better to wait till some one with more knowledge on this issue comment here. Shannon1488 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Lot of time is getting wasted on this non-issue. This is a very minor dispute and users like Cartick are hell bent on inflating it to their own needs. How else can anyone explain a dispute to add a link going on for two weeks now? If the admins were willing to spend a few minutes on this, the disruption caused could have been easily averted. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks to me like two admins have spent time on this issue. Accepting what they said would seem, to me, to be the best way to end further disruption. TFOWR 17:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. I had earlier stated that I'll abide by whatever decision the admins take. Therefore I have added the link back in. But I don't believe it is relevant in the article. Also, the comments by the two admins were vague and inconclusive. I hope the remainder of the discussion, whether to keep the link or remove it, can be done in the Nair talk page. It will be better if someone with a good knowledge on this issue can help out on this matter. Shannon1488 (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Admins aren't going to settle a content dispute. What they will do (and, indeed, have done) is recommend how to solve a content dispute. For example, EdJohnston (talk) recommended a "request for comment" ("RfC"):

The degree to which Nair ought to link to articles which discuss polyandry is a valid question that could be discussed in an RfC at Talk:Nair. If 'polyandry' is not the right way to describe the former customs, as an IP argues above, this could be worked out (with sources) on the talk page.

Likewise, DGG (talk) recommeded—if at all possible—compromise and moderate coverage, and if that fails then raising it at the neutral point of view noticeboard ("NPOV noticeboard"):

I think covering it in the main article, both with respect to any current and also to historical practices is required by NPOV. When I saw the subhead of this section it immediately came to mind that it must be about this particular topic, & I was right--those who know only a very little about the Nairs, know about this. There has been frequent efforts to include disproportionate coverage of the past or present customs of various groups--usually religious groups-- that are different from the common Western norm and might seem disreputable; reciprocally, there have been frequent efforts to give these aspects as little coverage as possible. Both are gross violations of the principle of NPOV, which is arguably a matter that does concern administrators. But if the discussion is to be continued, I 'd suggest the NPOV noticeboard as the appropriate place. I do not recommend it; I recommend compromise and a moderate degree of coverage.

Both these suggestions are sensible. I'd suggest you strive for compromise and a moderate degree of coverage. If you remain unable to reach a compromise consider either an RFC or taking it to the NPOV noticeboard. TFOWR 17:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
i will try to get a compromise with these editors, if not i will open an RFC. i will be happy if some responsible users keep an eye on the talk page. Thanks. --CarTick 18:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Impostor alert[edit]

Resolved: Boomerang took out both the sock/impersonator and the OP. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello community. Apologies if I'm interrupting the more serious discussions that are the norm of this noticeboard, but there's an impostor here that needs to be blocked: PirateCrackK (talk · contribs). Thank you. --GoogleUnderscore (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Imposter of whom, any similar usernames? –BuickCenturyDriver 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Notified user, as the page requires you to do. Hasteur (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd guess that he's referring to PirateSmackK, who's banned. Don't know anything about said user (I'll have to look on the list to see why), but I think that's who GoogleUnderscore is getting at. I'll move this to WP:UAA, which is where this should have gone in the first place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't really know if it's PirateSmackK, seems more like an impostor to me, perhaps Pickbothmanlol (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), who has had a history of reporting himself to ANI just to cause a fuss ... trolling in its purest form, really. GoogleUnderscore was the creator of the userpage for PirateCrackK, as well as the creator of this thread, so it seems obvious to me that the two accounts are at least working together and quite likely actually the same person. They are now both blocked (one by me, one by another admin). Soap 16:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it seemed way too easy to be a legit sock... marking resolved. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

PirateCrackK (talk · contribs) and Hole Puncher (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed. CU investigation continuing. –MuZemike 17:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

All three are confirmed. Also blocked the open proxy this person (whomever he is) is using. –MuZemike 17:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:V and WP:Before[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no administrative action needed here, from what I can see. This is nothing but a content dispute/meta-discussion which is more suited for Talk:Charles Kuralt, WT:V, WT:DEL, one of the village pumps, or other forms of dispute resolution. –MuZemike 22:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

at Talk:Charles Kuralt, User:Cresix states:

Regardless of the accuracy of the information, it is more than a little serious (and possibly libelous) that there is nothing to back up this information. I know that Kuralt is deceased, which limits the applicability of WP:BLP, but he was a major public figure in recent times. I've placed a tag specific to that section. If there is no sourcing and no comments here within two weeks, I plan to remove the section. If anyone thinks he/she can find some sources within a reasonable period of time but you need more than two weeks, please leave a message. This can wait, but not for months.


  1. does WP:V apply?
  2. does WP:before apply?
  3. does WP:GRAPEVINE, or WP:BDP apply?
  4. is questioning a proposed section removal, a personal attack?

Accotink2 talk 16:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:V always applies on Wikipedia, especially for disputed material, and even more especially for unsourced, potentially libelous information about a public figure's personal life. Even if the information is true, asking for sources is far from unreasonable; it is supported by clear policy.
The "personal attack" to which Accotink2 refers has nothing to do with questioning the policies. It refers to his/her repeated false accusations that I made threats, and especially Accotink2's false accusation that I threatened to nominate the article for deletion here. Apparently Accotink2 didn't like it that I asked for sources instead of adding them myself, and decided to personalize this content issue. Cresix (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
questioning an editor's statements is not a personal attack. i consider the "ticking time bomb" method of directing other editors, to be a "threat". i understand that this method is in use in the BLP Prod process, but now we have an example for WP:BDP where there can be no libel. i understand that WP:before is widely flouted. does it apply to contentious material deletion? if not, then should we not do away with wp:before, since noone follows it? it's unclear to me, that the "ticking time bomb" method increases the quality of the wiki, is it really policy for contentious material for non-BLP's? Accotink2 talk 17:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Falsely accusing an editor of making threats is a personal attack. You weren't just questioning which policy applies; you were accusing me of making threats, including a threat to AfD the article. You're use of the phrase "ticking time bomb" is a straw man that you have contrived to portray me as using threats to edit. I simply placed a statement on the talk page that unsourced and sensitive information about the private life of a very public figure needs sourcing, that I didn't think the unsourced information should remain in the article for months (and it had already been in the article unsourced for over four years), and that I would wait a couple of weeks to see if anyone wanted to add sources. I stated that if anyone felt he/she needed more than a couple of weeks, there would be no problem if I knew that someone had the intent to add the sources. My so-called "tinking time bomb" was simply a statement that the information did not need to remain in the article indefinitely with no one even attempting to source it. Even if I did delete it, the information is still available to be sourced in the article's history, and my comments on the talk page serve as a reminder for editors to be aware that the information is available. Here's the bottom line, Accotink2: You didn't like it that I suggested adding sources without adding them myself, as seen in your edit here, telling me I should edit the article instead of the talk page. And because you didn't like that, you decided to personalize this matter by accusing me of making "threats" and setting up "ticking time bombs". I have no problem with your questioning which policies apply, even if I disagree with you. It's your innuendo and false accusations that are the personal attacks. Cresix (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Nothing that Cresix said (as presented here in this thread) is inappropriate or a misconstruction of policy. While the "ticking time bomb" metaphor may have been misunderstood, it's not an inappropriate description of the potential damage that unsourced allegations in a biography (even of the deceased) can cause. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Without deciding between one side or the other here (they both look equally as bad, though for different reasons), I have to note that a) Material a resonable person may find questionable or controversial should be sourced or removed from the article until reliable sources are found. b) Nothing here that has been said could be construed as a personal attack. Nothing at all. --Jayron32 05:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Jayron32. So I assume that you consider it acceptable if I repeatedly accuse you with no basis of threatening to AfD an article simply because you disagree with me, that is acceptable to you. Similarly, if I assume that every citation-needed tag that you place in an article without taking the time to find a source is a threat to delete with no justification, and I announce that as your intent -- that you consider that acceptable behavior. I respectfully disagree. Cresix (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Cresix. I said none of that. You have placed additional meanings into my statements which did not exist. My statements mean exactly what they say, no more or no less. Your additional interpretation of them, as they are applied above, have nothing to do with my assessment of the situation. I would only say that if YOU did those things TO ME, then I would find them annoying. However, this has no bearing on the current situation, that is any hypothetical set of events between YOU and ME. I only stated that I didn't see anything in the statements made which indicated a personal attack. I also didn't say they were justified or right. There are lots of shades between "acceptable" and "personal attack". Something can be inappropriate or incorrect and not a personal attack. --Jayron32 20:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Unless one harbours extreme WP:OWN issues (or maybe is the subject of an article), a "threat" to AFD an article is a threat to an article, and not to a person/editor. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
1 wp:V applies
3 wp:grapevine applies
4 no
2 given the silence - WP:Before is a dead letter, i was wrong to mourn it, or be upset; this pattern of behavior of setting timetables for deletion will continue to be a widespread practice. (agreeing with user:DGG), "For old articles, a procedure of summary deletion is particularly reckless."[17] (in whole or in part).Accotink2 talk 14:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
A false accusation toward an editor of making threats is more than a threat to an article. It is making false statements about what an editor has done, has said, or intends to do. By your line of reasoning, I could repeatedly announce on talk pages that you are a chronic vandal on Wikipedia articles, and that would be OK as long as you didn't vandalize. I would like to see someone's rationale for making repeated false statements about an editor as being appropriate behavior on Wikipedia. So far that hasn't been provided. Cresix (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
BEFORE is not a dead letter, BEFORE applies to article deletion discussions, not discussions of individual elements of content, where WP:BURDEN is more applicable. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
if you don't like the "threat" characterization, how about: "stern warning with consequences"; "offer the world can't refuse"; "negative feedback"; "deadline enforcement" i understand your interpretation that WP:before applies to AfD only (i didn't mention it) you've taken a rationale used at BLP and used it at BDP where there is no urgency by slander. how long until "all unreferenced contentious material PROD deleted" + contentious in the eye of beholder?
what i object to is not you, but the pervasive behavior. you are above average, i note we have an ocean of admins who edit "article space" less than 50% of the time, choosing to issue warnings and tags. i wonder how we're going to improve "article space", by writing in "talk space", ANI and at AfD? it seems a very indirect approach.
Before: Ignore at Leisure, i have my answer, i had hoped that deletion was a process that included inquiry. the problem with wp:burden is that it applies to new material. we're talking about old articles that are not improved fast enough for some. quality improvement is going to require a process of editing articles, not stern warnings with consequences Accotink2 talk 17:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It is your false presentation of my intent that is a serious problem here, regardless of whether you call it a "threat" or some other term. Read all of my comments above. The unsourced and potentially libelous information was in the article for over four years. How long do you think is a reasonable time to wait before removing it? Another four years? Or maybe just another year? As I have already said, the information is always, ALWAYS in the article's history waiting to be restored as soon as someone is ready to provide some sources. And my talk page comments would be a reminder that it would be there. But I suppose you think I should have simply said, "Could someone . . . please . . . maybe . . . if you don't mind . . . add a source before Wikipedia is sued for libel? Please . . . if it's not too much trouble." I'll repeat what I said earlier: you weren't reacting to any "threat". You were simply pissed off that I didn't add the sources myself. That's how all of this got started. That's obvious in your own comments on the talk page (already linked above) telling me I should edit the article instead of the talk page. Now, I've beaten this dead horse enough. Unless other editors have new comments, I'm finished here. Cresix (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
BDP = can't libel the dead + it was verifiable, but unverified - but the "four years" is the same excuse as for the BLP. the fact that the inline reference standard was rolled out without any process of implementation, doesn't validate acting out of frustration, that articles haven't improved. i'm not "pissed off", i'm profoundly disappointed, that people imagine that articles can be improved by "persuasion", (threats) rather than editing articles. as i said before, i really meant the "edit the article" for the, but if the shoe fits wear it.
this is not a personal attack: it is a philosophical attack upon the dysfunctional mindset. how's it working for you wikipedia: are you tired of the vituperation and edit wars yet, are you capable of showing some leadership? are you tired of fixing problems, will you start fixing the system? i don't see it, and without leaders, the inline reference problem will continue. Accotink2 talk 22:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
You may be frustrated, which is your right to feel, but that never justifies making false accusations, which you clearly did. And you have no idea what I have and haven't done to "fix the system" by simply looking at my request for sources on one talk page. I don't consider that question a personal attack, but I do consider it arrogantly presumptuous, as if you know what other editors do to improve Wikipedia. How many problems have you fixed on Wikipedia? How many articles have I added sources to? How many has every editor on this discussion page fixed? Have you done more or less than everyone else on this discussion page? The answer is that you don't know.

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying: An anon makes a comment more than one year ago, and you pick the very same time that I commented, immediately after my comment, in the very same statement in which you said you added the sources that I requested, and without naming a specific editor that you're responding to -- and you say it's a response to the anon? For anyone who believes that, I have some really cheap beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.

You never answered my very simple and straightforward question about how long the information should have remained in the article unsourced. Three weeks? Three months? Three years? Or do you think it should remain there indefinitely? I doubt that you will ever give us a specific answer. My guess is you'll talk all around that question without ever giving a very specific time period, or give a cop-out answer such as "I would have sourced it", which of course isn't really an answer. If that's your tactic, how long in any bio article should unsourced, sensitive, and potentially libelous information about a public figure remain in an article, because I doubt seriously you plan to fix that problem in all of Wikipedia. How long? Cresix (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

forever. since it was a true statement, and a verifiable statement, but temporarily unreferenced, three years is the blink of an eye. i don't share the widespread fear of libel. this is the nightmare of lawyers. repeating: he's dead already - there is no libel. i may even go to Colbert's "keep fear alive" march. while i may respond to your "offer i can't refuse", or even source some BLP's, i don't find the process functional, hence the statement. are you really defending the functionality of "stern warnings" on talk pages? how is it working for you? i am disappointed, not frustrated. we agree that we need to reference all the old articles. will you join in a referencing effort similar to the BLP = Category:Articles lacking sources only 279,000 articles to go, or Category:Delisted good articles only 1973. we'll give out a "RefCup" for edits in article space, and you will do well. Accotink2 talk 02:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Whether libel or some other legal action, it is clearly a legal risk. So you think potentially legally damaging, unsourced, personal information in a bio article can stay forever, as long as there are sources floating around somewhere but not in the article. I think it's a very safe bet that 95% of serious editors here disagree with you, and that number would be very close to 100% for administrators; Jimbo would probably have a stroke if he knew you are editing with that attitude. But that attitude explains a lot about your behavior. No futher comments. I prefer to discuss matters with editors who are actually concerned about the protection of Wikipedia rather than entertaining their pet theories about legal action at Wikipedia's expense. Have a good life. Hope we never cross paths again. Cresix (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
actually it's the lawyers on Arbcom not Jimbo. they were already coddling the mass deleters in the name of "libel prevention". however, Defamation: "Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism". Truth is always a defense." this kind of fear mongering is why i take such a radical iconoclastic eventualist approach - all the hyperventilating doesn't fix the problem. when is wikipedia gonna stop the crisis management, and start the preventative leadership? "editors who are actually concerned about the protection of Wikipedia" - p-l-ease. this is an attitude that will kill wikipedia: you will protect it to death. all the firewalls, and legalistic policies will not deter the plaintiff's bar, they go where the money is, regardless of the facts. reductio ad absurdum: lets delete all 279,000 unsourced articles, since they may contain false statements someone may sue over. Accotink2 talk 03:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I almost agree that you're an extremist. A more precise descriptor would be a dangerous, reckless extremist. Fortunately for Wikipedia, there are enough reasonable people (even some of the worst editors fall into that category) who are here to rein people like you in from time to time. I won't say any more of what deserves to be said because I don't want to violate WP:NPA. As I said, I hope I never cross paths with you again. Cresix (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
You speak as one who obviously never heard of Charles Kuralt nor of the litigation that already occurred. There was no question that this woman was Kuralt's "other wife". There is no possibility of "libel" against wikipedia on this already widely-covered story. The question to be decided in court was strictly about the intent of Kuralt's will, and the handling of the estate. Deleting something that's widely known, just because you're too lazy to look for a source, makes wikipedia look stupid. So don't call others "extremists" when it's your own perspective that's out of whack. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "Before" is just some guy's essay. Ignore it at leisure. "Verifiability" is a policy, though not enforced sufficiently.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:BEFORE is a restatement of WP:Deletion policy, and is part of the instructions at WP:Articles for Deletion. Some people still choose to take it as a recommendation only, which is allowed by the wording, so it is high time that the wording be revised to make it an explicit requirement. This change has been discussed every half year or so, and gets nearer and nearer to consensus. Opinions like the above about it being an essay only are to be discounted as ignorance or, worse, as the persistent refusal to participate in improving articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Nearer and nearer to consensus? That's not my impression. And nothing in it is enforceable anyway. Are you going to make it an explicit resuirement that people "consider applying a tag" and "consider sharing your reservations with the article creator [...]"? Or do you intend to change the "considers" into "you must"? The first is a list of advices, not requirements: the second will never get consensus. In many cases, first applying tags, talking to the article creator or related wikiprojects, ... is a completely unnecessary intermediate step. Share your concerns with the wider community in an AfD, and let them decide whether you were correct or whether the article can stay. But don't start "voting" "keep: nominator has not first tagged the article for notability before nominating it for deletion" or "keep: nominator has not checked all interwiki links"... Fram (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • That said, it does not literally apply to the removal of content from an article, but even here, an effort should always be made to source it. Everyone shares the responsibility--at least those who want to improve Wikipedia. With respect to the particular material here, CNN seems to be like a perfectly good source. If this were a BLP, the question would be whether it was negative and unrelated to his career, but this is considerably relaxsd subsequently. I don't see what all the fuss is about--is the source disputed? The transcript seems perfectly clear to me, and supports the material DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm confused. How was DGG able to shift the focus of the discussion? Both of the policies/procedures DGG is referring to have to do with deletions of whole articles. The governing rule for content within an article is this line from WP:V: "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately" (emphasis added). Even if it doesn't fall under BLP as a recently deceased person, it sure seems to fall under the first part allowing removal. It looks to me that the OP was actually being extremely generous in giving some amount of time for others to add the source; xe could have, per clear policy and standard editing behaviors, removed the source and required it to stay out until it was sourced. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
        • "Anything challenged or likely to be challenged..." So who's likely to challenge the widely-circulated and unrefuted news stories about Kuralt's once-secret life? The idea that this could be "libelous" is silly. It's also extremely lazy to take a few minutes to threaten to delete something that's a well-known fact, rather than taking a few minutes to find a source... as another editor noted in the Kuralt talk page... and then taking parts of several days arguing over it just because he felt stung by the accurate word "threat" (maybe he should have said "promise"?). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • DGG is beating the WP:BEFORE drum again? Color me surprised. As I recall, you have had this suggestion soundly rejected in various venues. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The WP:BEFORE item seems to be about entire articles, not about specific text within articles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
      • i'm sorry, his views strike me as common sense, so i invoked them. if we require a minimum amount of work and sourcing before adding material, should we not also require a minimum inquiry before deleting? Accotink2 talk 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
        • But we don't require a minimum amount of work of sourcing before adding material, everyone is free to create completely unsourced articles or to add unsourced material. It may be removed, it may be sourced by someone else, it may stay unsourced for years and years: but there is no minimum requirement for the moment. 14:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
          • That's not quite true, as there is an ongoing effort (last I heard) to blank out BLP articles that lack sourcing. The Kuralt article is obviously not a BLP situation, and Cresix's threat to delete the well-known story about the "other woman" wreaks of fanatical deletionism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
            • That's also not quite true, we only delete BLP articles that lack sources, that are created after somewhere in March this year, and that have been tagged as a BLPprod for seven days without any improvements. But even these exceptions happen after the fact: nothing has stopped the creation of these articles.Fram (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
              • In any case, that's about BLP's, and there is no BLP issue with the Kuralt article, and no possibility of wikipedia being sued over reporting this old-news story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there an admin needed here, or are we just having a community discussion for the sake of having one? –MuZemike 17:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Bugs, what about his paramour? She's still alive, isn't she? Anything we say about her is clearly covered by the BLP policy. Anyway, the info is in the article and sourced, now, so I'd say problem solved. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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


Resolved: Reverted and warned GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

an user posts non-English comment which appears to be offensive and unhelpful. --CarTick 17:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please let users know when you raise issues concerning them.
I've warned the user, and I see you've already reverted them. I'd suggest that this could be marked resolved. TFOWR 17:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
i will next time. thanks. --CarTick 17:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

user Disranter[edit]

The context of this is a series of edits made by Narwhal2 (talk · contribs) on the 8th and 9th where he added several references to the fringe self-published author Ralph Ellis, and when I removed them went off to various forums complaining about me. Note that he has uploaded File:Baalbek- largest stone.jpg where he identifies himself as Ralph Ellis. 4 days later along comes Disranter (talk · contribs) reinstating an edit Narwhal2 had made (as an aside, the edit was basically redundant as the material is elsewhere in the article). He's been edit-warring to get it back and attacking me at Talk:Joseph of Arimathea, eg "Your fame is spreading though the blogsphere as an opponent of historical research, and there are many who are not impressed." (very ironic) and at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. This is pretty clearly WP:DUCK *as well as WP:COI. I'm too involved to block him myself. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  •  Confirmed the following are socks of one another:
Tiptoety talk 18:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd wondered about Hoogson but hadn't connected him with Ellis. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • All blocked and tagged. TFOWR 18:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Forceful intervention in an on-going discussion[edit]

I started a discussion on Talk:Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games regarding how the article was emphasizing low-priority concerns while neglecting the severe adverse impact of the Games on the city hosting it. Perhaps it was my frustration which made me cross the line of civility while starting that discussion. Anyways, the point is that User:Lucy-marie has forcefully intervened twice in the discussion: first blatantly deleting my comments and then archiving it. According to her, the comments raised by me were not "related to the content of the article". I'm still learning how to have a meaningful discussion with other Wikipedians (I admit that I cannot give diplomatic replies) and this experience definitely didn't help. Not that I'm keen to participate in the discussion but "closing" or "archiving" it was rather too extreme and deeming my concerns as "inappropriate" and "irrelevant" was uncalled for. I'm pretty sure that Lucy would archive the discussion again as it doesn't serve her point of view. Therefore, I would like to seek administrators' intervention in this issue. --King Zebu (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't notify the user about talking here, as the page's rules mandate. I have corrected this for you. Hasteur (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I have previous with Lucy-marie so won't take any action either way here, but as far as I can see, with comments like "Some people have twisted brains. It is absolutely disgusting to see that some Wikipedians here are rather too keen to highlight "clogged toilets", "empty seats" and "Delhi Belly" but the article barely mentions the fact that India (home to the world's largest concentration of poor people) spent billions of dollars on a 12-day sporting event. For any sane person, the latter is the biggest controversy related to the 2010 CWG.", "I will just strive to improve the article and not bother much about starting discussions because they will ultimately be "deemed irrelevant" without any logical explanation" and "Ah, I see that you are not an administrator. Interesting." (and editwarring with one of our most experienced sports writers, with an edit summary of "It seems that some people do not understand the difference between an encyclopedia and news outlet") the only one heading for any kind of block or warning here looks to be you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not your personal soapbox. – iridescent 18:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is not a forum and that was made abundantly clear in the original edit summary, It seemed appropriate to then close the discussions when it was restarted in an identical vein by the same user who has now reported this to the ANI. The user was given a full explanation as to the reasons why the discussion was closed and the language used by the user in their comments were incendiary and inappropriate to the talk page and Wikipedia as a whole, as demonstrated above by Iridescent. The user appears to be someone who is pushing an agenda and a specific POV and someone who is unfamiliar with the rules and procedures of Wikipedia. I request that the user be either warned or blocked for a short period of time for being deliberately disruptive, rude and incendiary. Users cannot post incendiary language and then complain bitterly when someone says it is inappropriate. The user also seems to fail to realise all users are the same regardless of weather they are an Admin or not. I have been on Wikipedia for a few years now and understand what I am doing. I may though make mistakes from time to time but believe this is not one of those cases. This user believes Wikipedia is a place to discuss anything, anywhere, which it is not. Wikipedia is here to discuss article content and not POV push. I would also request this user be warned as they have made malicious claims against me such as making a "forceful intervention" and making personal attacks and POV pushing which are unfounded and cannot be allowed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lucy-marie's action of archiving that particular discussion. It was starting to get heated and personal, with approaching borderline NPA infringements. It would have worked as a cool-down measure if it had remained, but since the archive/cooldown-measure was undone/unapprecuated, we'll just have to monitor the situation more closely.
Oh as a final note to this post, the discussion that King Zebu started and Lucy Marie deleted was originally titled "Some people have twisted brains" before it was renamed as "My two cents". Though the title was since changed, the discussion remains the same. But with that sort of original title setting the stage for a discussion .... Zhanzhao (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Heavydata being uncivil[edit]

Resolved: At least let's all pretend like it is. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've warned Heavydata multiple times, and he will not stop being uncivil to other editors. I made a report at Wikiquette alerts. He said that he'd stop being rude. But right after he said that he made an attack page. I've requested directly to the user, Nyttend, who deleted Heavydata's user page, that he'll show what was on the user page. This is getting really annoying, so please help me out on this. Endofskull (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

See the userpage, which I've now restored. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hm, turns out someone else made it. Nevermind that. But other than that, Heavydata been uncivil lots of times. He's gone over what I think should be allowed. Endofskull (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
If I read the WQA discussion correctly, he agreed to change his communication methods; your misinterpretation of the vandalism on his user page seems to be the cause of the most recent comments directed at you. I tend to agree with his comments; he's agreed to moderate his actions, and you need to now give him the space to do so. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it best to delete the userpage again, especially in light of Tony Fox's comment. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Could probably just blank it, it's not really worth having visible. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
DUDE, would you knock it off already?! I said I'd stop, and all you're doing now is making things worse. I have no idea what you have against me, I'd appreciate it if you simple left me alone and stopped posting these ridiculous messages on the notice board. I have one question for you:
What do you want from me? Heavydata (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Here, look at the second paragraph (The first one was the one that started this in the first place, so ignore that): [18]. Is that OK with you? Heavydata (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm sorry about that Heavydata. I guess you really have changed. Good job. Please keep doing that, and you'll be absolutely fine. So, I'm going to mark this as resolved! :) Endofskull (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Explosion of IP attacks[edit]

AIV is getting buried at an rapid pace by bot reported attacks from IPs such as this. Not sure what to do about this. Toddst1 (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Reported the IP. Could you list the other ones, please? Endofskull (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
See WP:AIV. Toddst1 (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Does it really matter? Their posts literally never get seen. HalfShadow 23:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, they're all being reported at AIV. Endofskull (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for repeating what I said above. Now, what to do about this seemingly coordinated bot attack? Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
RBI, deny and DNFTT. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
See the history. It's changing rapidly [[19]. It looks like MaterialScientist figured out a rangeblock or 2. Toddst1 (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I still fail to see this as an issue; if the vandalism isn't actually making to the page, I simply don't care. HalfShadow 23:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the targeted article should be semi-protected immediately so that AIV won't get flooded with more reports relating to the same vandal; I've already requested the page protection at RPP. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
This has stopped, hasn't it? I declined the RFPP because the article has moved off the main page, but that's easy enough to change if the problem persists. Looie496 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Violations of Talk page guidelines[edit]

The Universe Is Cool (talk · contribs · logs)

As can be seen from the history of the user's Talk page, he has removed a series of warnings posted by other editors about his editing and his behavior in violation of WP:TPO. I would have reverted his changes. However, because of the number of edits and intervening undos or blanking, it would be difficult for me to do. My request is that the user's Talk page be reconstructed and he be counseled appropriately.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to blank warnings, however it is taken as de facto evidence they understand the issue and have read it. If his editing behavior is a problem, then he has no quarter or excuse since he's been receiving the notes (whether they remain or not. ) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a long list of items that an editor can do to his own Talk page at WP:TPO, but as far as I can see, it doesn't include blanking warnings. Wouldn't it be helpful to add this item to the guidelines, along with your description of the implications of the blanking?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
See the very bottom of that section: "On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but archiving is preferred. Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history. Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it." In practice people are allowed wide latitude in blanking (even if it's uncouth or just bad mannered) but it means you're responsible for reading it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
That page is mainly about article talk pages. The relevant policy is at WP:REMOVED. Looie496 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both, that resolves the issue for me (and I'm glad I didn't revert anything).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes well they shouldn't be allowed to blank warnings. The only people that tend to blank warnings are the ones who seem to be attempting to hide their behaviour. All it does is disrupt the flow of communication and many times we've ended up having disputes or disruptive users carrying on because they have busy talk pages and no one has the time or patience to piece together their fractured talk pages. Unless there is evidence the warning was given in bad faith it should be archived after a normal period of time like everything else. Blanking talk does not serve the community.--Crossmr (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

sock block needed immed pls, & CU for underlying range[edit]

TungstenCarbide XXX (talk · contribs) again. → ROUX  05:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this Elsie? --Jayron32 05:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
All I know is it's the 30th incarnation of TungstenCarbide (talk · contribs), whoever that was originally. Can't we hardblock that username or something? → ROUX  05:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Temporarily forgot that one. I have blocked per quack, however a CU would have to look into a possible IP-level block or rangeblock. I should note, however, that according to several prior CUs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TungstenCarbide/Archive several have declined to block the underlying IP as either impractical (collateral damage) or ineffective (uses too large a range). --Jayron32 05:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Another rev del[edit]

Diff and edit summary please Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Does this really need to be revdeled? It just looks like harmless vandalism to me. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:RD2 mostly because of the edit summary. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
But I fail to see how it is grossly degrading and insulting. By your logic, if the aforementioned diff satisfied RD2, then just about one in every two incidents of vandalism would qualify for revdel. Honestly, somedays I feel like revdel is being unnecessarily overused. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
If I was Osama bin Laden, I would be appalled that such a degrading personal attack would ever be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. I mean, saying that he's Jimbo Wales is probably worse than saying that he's the pope. This is clearly a gross slur against Mr. Bin Laden, and must be removed immediately. Buddy431 (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I kid, I actually agree with Fastily, that Rev. Deletion is used far too frequently. Buddy431 (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I have a couple of questions about these rev/dels. First, does this edit summary qualify since it attacks another editor? Second, do we have (or are we going to start) a page like AIV rather than using this page? Thanks ahead of time for your time in answering these. MarnetteD | Talk 03:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This really doesn't qualify for RD, and it would be a stretch to delete it as such. The diff is in no way grossly degrading and insulting. And yes, there is a discussion in progress regarding the establishment of an RD noticeboard at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Time_for_WP:RFRD.3F. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I did not make myself clear - it was not the edit that was a problem it was the edit summary. It looks like another editor agreed with me and did find it (and the many that followed) to be a gross insult to a fellow editor. I hope that there are going to be a hard and fast set of criteria for these rev/dels so that we regular editors don't get confused over things. MarnetteD | Talk 17:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Note for any who are wondering what edit summary I was using as an example please take a look at the revision history here [20] since the specific edit summary in question has been deleted. MarnetteD | Talk 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • It's just run of the mill vandalism, WP:RBI and move on. Jimbo can take it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

New edit filter needed[edit]

Vandals have been using a new trick to get around the abusefilter:

Examples (possibly objectionable content)

Extended content

FU<nowiki />CK<nowiki /> YOU CU<nowiki />NT


this is becoming common and we need a new edit filterAccess Denied [FATAL ERROR] 06:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the above example be removed and hidden, in order not to give instructions to other possible vandals. RolandR (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This probably belongs here. —DoRD (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Kellie Pickler[edit]


High school kid using IP inserting nasty comments about girl who shot down his date offer or some such. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User attempting to ban and delete discussion on Jerry Brown talk page.[edit]

In the California gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown's article, over the last several months there has been many photos and portraits placed and/or removed by consensus. Naturally, these photos have been moved to the talk page for discussion. Some users think some photos are bad, some don't.

But User:Off2riorob has come along and began an edit war over a photo in the article.[21][22] And then this user began deleting all the images under discussion in the Jerry Brown talk page.[23] When the photos were placed back, he removed them again with the edit summary including the phrase "Discussion is over", [24], this despite this user being in an edit war over photos. This user continuously removed all or some of the photos. When I attempted to discuss this photo issue on the user's talk page, the user moved the photo to my talk page and stated:

"The picture I have posted here is unworthy of any discussion "[25]

When explaining that there is no content or photos "unworthy of discussion" on article talk pates, User:Off2riorob responded:

Yes, unworthy of discussion, there is nothing to discuss at all, the pic is close to attacking and never had or will have any chance of insertion in the article, so , nothing to discuss at all.[26]

Slanderous WP:BLP issues aside, I strongly believe there should ALWAYS be discussion of ANY content, particularly in something as important as a major candidate for governor of the most populous state in the United States. A user attempting to "ban" and delete discussion of anything should not be tolerated. This user needs to be reminded that they don't have the authority to deem a topic "unworthy of discussion." --Oakshade (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

am not attempting to ban or delete discussion at all. As for the pics, I did not delete them I replaced them with the links for access, the discussion about the infobox pic is imo over, the clearly best pic is in the infobox.there is no reason to have a picture farm on the talkpage, I was especially wanting to remove this pic as it has no chance of ever getting in the article and as such does not need to be on the talkpage, it makes the subject appear angry and imo is a negative portrayal, user Oakshade has reverted all my good faith edits and I don't see what more he wants. I am a complete neutral in the American current elections and there is some awful partisan editing occurring across multiple such articles. Like this, what is the insistence to keep negative pictures on the talkpage that will never ever have any chance of insertion in the article, this pic I would remove on sight, so what discussion is needed and why insist on keeping it on the talkpage.   Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • - Comment, I also object to the title of this section. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    I changed it. Hope that helps. --TS 20:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks. I removed the bizarre bit. It was attacking Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care much about this, but as far as I can tell this is an official gubernatorial portrait. What's the problem? Or is that some other edit war? --TS 20:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the image in dispute is File:Former Governor Jerry Brown.jpg. –xenotalk 20:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC) that one →
Near as I can figure, the odd painting size is the issue -- which is not really worthy of an ANI complaint at this point (indeed, the file name in 2008 was apparently a bone of contention - with two different pictures bearing the same file name?). I think the game of using ugly pictures and other political silly season work should be viewed with a jaundiced eye for all articles. It certainly does not appear that Brown has much negative material in his BLP, to be sure. Collect (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yea, I see that now in the hist of the article. –xenotalk 20:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
He may not be the cheshire-cat, but that's definitely a smile there. Most likely the picture was taken whilst he was speaking, but as Freudian as it may be, I don't see any anger in the picture. a_man_alone (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hang on - if we're actually talking about this picture - [27], why are we showing another one in the discussion? I'm confused now. a_man_alone (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
User Off2riorob attempted to remove both, one from the article (the official Governor portrait because Off2riorob didn't like it) and the other as well as all photos from the talk page so they couldn't even be discussed.--Oakshade (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The glob pic imo is a poor representation of a living person and I boldly removed it from the article, it was replaced as notable, although it has no citations to support that the picture is notable for inclusion even though it is a poor representation of a living person, I requested citations to prove it is notable. user Oakshade replaced it and in an effort to reduce the effect of the picture I then reduced the size, it was also imo quite large, user oaktree then reverted my edit and again made the picture bigger Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
If by "glob pic" you mean the Official Governor of California portrait, your opinion is noted but it is only your opinion. To clarify, it was a different user who reverted your removal of the Official Gove