Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive647

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

Noticeboard archives


MickMacNee unblocking[edit]

First of all, apologies to Sandstein for not discussing it with him first, but I've unblocked MickMacNee.

I have no reason to dispute the initial block. Indeed when I saw it reported here, my reaction was "well, he had that coming". Mick has a troubled editing history, and he and I have clashed and there's no love lost. I note the initial block was endorsed, but I also noted that people didn't rule out an unblock, if conditions were met, and if there was some expectation that Mick would change his ways. Initially there seemed little chance of that. Indeed after some of his responses on the talk page, I locked the page, and took that as the end of the matter. Throw the key away and forget him. The story looked inevitable.

However, pushed by Giano, I thought I'd make a final attempt to mediate something. Asking any Wikipedian to eat humble pie, admit their sins and promise to be good, is unrealistic. Yet that's what the earlier negotiations with Mick were attempting to get him to do. Has ANYONE ever done that? In the end, we don't need anyone to confess guilt, we just need them to recognise the behaviour that makes it impossible for them to continue with Wikipedia, and indicate a willingness to amend it/

Thus, I went as Nixon to China, and had this discussion with Mick. I had no desire to unblock him if there was no chance he'd avoid being reblocked for something pretty soon - but he did indicate he understood that. Please do read that discussion before commenting here. As a result of it, I unblocked him.

If I'm wrong, I'm a naive fool, and I'll be the first to block him. If, however, he does take "evasive action" to avoide the usual circle (of indef block - unblock - more drama - community endorsed ban) then we win. Anyway, if consensus is to reblock, then with a heavy-heart I'll admit my failure.--Scott Mac 17:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Given the discussion here[1] I believe you should have sought consensus for unblocking Scott. That said, I have not made up my mind either way as to whether I support this unblock or not. I recognize Mick's last comments as a step forward but not enough specifics were discussed for me to make my mind up immediately. As it stands I would support Sandstein's move to go to RfAr but if Mick can give concrete assurances I open to changing my mind--Cailil talk 18:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • He has indicated that he intends to edit in a way that will give no one cause to block. If he does that, great. If not, he'll be blocked. If the community wants a topic ban, let the community impose one. However, asking for "assurances" or him to suggest the sanctions is simply an attempt to demand contrition, that never works.--Scott Mac 18:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
      • No but I would have preferred a comment saying that he wont make anymore pointy afds and will avoid ad hominem remarks ie an acceptance of site policy not necessarily of wrong doing that's all--Cailil talk 18:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm all for second chances, and for second second chances, etc. But this... well, it may have been unwise. The fact that this was acknowledged in the discussion with Mickmacnee should probably give one pause. There is some support for the unblock in that discussion, though, so the thing to do would have been to bring it forward for discussion. I have no specific reason to object to the unblock, but the fact that I had no opportunity to do so before the unblock may be a source of drama. It may even be a source of DRAMA. But, as you say - if Mickmacnee edits in an acceptable manner, it's a net positive for the project. Ding. Woo. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • From my superficial reading of the situation the block seems to have been a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason, and the same applies to the ban block discussion. To quote Sandstein, "This is not a ban, but a block, intended to prevent recurring disruption until such time as another equally effective measure to prevent further disruption is found." This was not a community ban, and Scott MacDonald did exactly the right thing. Mick MacNee appears to be sober now. If he can stay that way, great. If he can't, reblocking him is not a big deal. Where is the problem? Hans Adler 18:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This discussion has moved into 3 venues now; I'd stopped one and directed people to the other venue at the exact same time as Scott put this here. Well, I don't mind where this particular discussion happens, but if it's happening here, could someone please stop that discussion and move it here, or vice versa if it's still going to happen there? Thanks in advance, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No socks, no block. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Speaking as one of the editors who endorsed the provisional block in the original discussion, I think the resolution of ScottMac and MickMacNee is worth a try – Mick may not acknowledge the problematic nature of his edits, but he seems to understand the practical constraints of his current situation. I only wish this had been proposed, subject to rational debate, and concluded on by disinterested editors instead of the personal call of one. This is another instance of the disheartening trend of one administrator after another unilaterally taking action and then being overruled, without any calm, adult interaction between them. These practices are corrosive to our principles of collective decision-making. Skomorokh 18:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • If some admins were not so unhelpfully territorial when they make a block in a certain way in certain circumstances, then the major part of the problem is addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
      • No, the major part of the problem would be addressed by not unblocking disruptive editors.  Sandstein  18:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I thank that is another significant issue, Ncmvocalist. If we could get away from "I've blocked X, no-one unblock without my say-so" and "I've unblocked X because I thought I should" to "let's, together, have a discussion on whether x should be blocked and come to a reasoned conclusion", dispute resolution would get a lot less dysfunctional and drama much reduced. Skomorokh 19:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I disagree with this approach. Preventative blocks are not suited to be the subject of a popularity contest, which is what any large community discussion of the sort you propose inevitably becomes. Blocks are the individual responsibility of administrators, and are only subject to community review after the fact. That is what admins are entrusted to do. That is why we do not have a long community discussion about every item on WP:AIV. The more discussions, the more opportunity for gaming and favoritism every which way.  Sandstein  19:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Except for elections, Wikipedia is not about popularity contests. I don't think I've ever interacted with MMN; if anything, one might think he's unpopular. The fact of the matter is you don't keep people blocked because they're unpopular (blocks which start out being preventative eventually become damaging). Similarly, you don't impose blocks as if you're getting a badge or trophy each time you do. Most admins are sensible and do the right thing; they aren't this alarmingly territorial over their actions and extend trust and good faith to their peers. You do nothing of the sort and assume that any block you make must be dealt with as if it was made at AE; reality check - that's not the way you interact with others on the project. The Community doesn't want to change what ALL administrators are entrusted with on the account of a few admins that act in this way; but if the few admins don't voluntarily adjust their approach after getting the hint, then we'll be stuck with less pleasant options for those admins. This is just one of the reasons why the Community is not going to endorse giving even more powers to admins - there's enough trouble with the use of existing "powers" or "tools". Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
            • As a non-admin, you may not have the experience to understand that admin actions do not work on the same wiki principles as editing articles, but briefly: We have policies that say:

              "Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion." (WP:MOP)

              "Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." (WP:BLOCK)

              I abide by these policies. Simply expecting other admins to do likewise, which Scott MacDonald failed to do here, is not being "territorial". I trust that Scott MacDonald acted in good faith, but that does not make up for his uncollegial conduct, not only with respect to me but also with respect to the several other admins that correctly declined to unblock MickMacNee until effective restrictions were agreed upon. Any continued disruption by MickMacNee is now Scott MacDonald's responsibility.  Sandstein  08:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

              • Firstly, I did not directly undo your block. Your block was discussed and those discussing it declined to lift it without assurances. At that point it becomes a community decision not to unblock. I interpreted that discussion to mean that the community required some assurance that unblocking wouldn't just take us back to square one, and the community was sceptical that such an assurance would be forthcoming. I have a history of animosity with Mick, but I thought I'd test that conclusion. If he'd told me to "fuck off" then that would have been that. To my surprise, Mick gave what I interpreted as appropriate reassurances that he understood what was required to remain an editor and had the intention to meet those requirements. I interpreted that as enough to satisfy the community's requirements. I'm not stupid, I knew that not everyone would agree - and I presumed you wouldn't. However, given concerns expressed over the original block, and this movement on Mick's part, I judged that the conditions that had endorsed the block no longer applied - and thus I could exercise my judgement. Had I asked you first, what difference would it have made? You say "any continued disruption by MickMacNee is now Scott MacDonald's responsibility". I have no idea what that means. If Mick doesn't make an effort to conform to the necessary norm, I'll be disappointed and I'll have egg on my face, certainly. I'll also support a reblock. But I've never offered any guarantee of anything - how could I? There is a risk here. If the consensus is that we shouldn't take that risk (and I don't see that consensus), then someone should reblock now and I'll not object. No editor can be "responsible" for another. It sounds good and dramatic, but what on earth would that actual mean in practice?--Scott Mac 09:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
                • What difference would it have made to ask me? Well, you would have displayed common courtesy, to begin with (but I seem to have been mistaken in believing that this might matter to you, so I'm sorry to bother you with such trivia). More importantly, we might have reached, in discussion, a better and more stable solution than the unclear and volatile situation we are at now.

                  As you say, there was a community decision not to unblock. This means that the community ought to have determined whether the assurances given by MickMacNee were sufficient – they are not – and not you acting on a whim and against admin policy.

                  In practice, you being responsible means that if MickMacNee continues to disrupt Wikipedia (as he almost certainly will, given his record and his practice of editing while drunk) it is only your unblock that will have enabled him to do so. You took that unnecessary risk on your own, without consulting anybody, so you alone are responsible to the community (and possibly to the ArbCom) for any continued disruption, which it would have been your duty to help prevent instead. That, and respect for collegiality and process, not – to paraphrase your comment below – your pride in your "negotiation" skills ought to have been your priority.  Sandstein  12:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

                  • That we would have reached a "better and more stable solution than the unclear and volatile situation we are at now" is nonsense. Either Mick will edit within acceptable limits, or he will not. The only "more stable" situation is a permanent ban - which is obviously the only thing you'd have agreed to. (Other than a grovelling apology, which no Wikipedian ever gives.) I've no idea what the rest of this means. If there's a consensus to reblock, fine. If not, then we will see what Mick does. I've offered no guarantees as to his future behaviour - I have no more idea than anyone else. We're taking a gamble - you think arbcom will want to punish me, in some unspecified way, if the gamble doesn't pay off? You're posturing.--Scott Mac 14:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Skomorokh is correct. The problem, Hans Adler, is that we will almost certainly have at least one another superfluous 100KB ANI drama as a result of this unblock. As I said on Scott Mac's talk page, I believe that he was entirely mistaken to unilaterally undo a routine block that is still needed to prevent disruption, in the face of clear (if subsequent) community consensus for the block, and without discussing his action with the blocking admin first. The discussion that is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BISE/October 2010#MickMacNee clearly indicates that if MickMacNee should ever be unblocked, then only with stringent restrictions that effectively prevent continued disruption. But no such restrictions are currently in place, and MickMacNee has given no credible assurances for future good conduct or even that he understands why he was blocked. Indeed his contributions while blocked are limited to blaming others for his predicament ([2] et seq.) and he has continued to act disruptively while blocked (edit summary: "fuck off you idiotic moron. is that clear enough for you you fucking special retard?"). In the absence of any recognition that he even knows what his own misconduct was, any assurances on his part are not credible.
We are not in the business of negotiating with people who disrupt Wikipedia. We remove them from the project until they convince us that they comply with our norms and stop wasting our time. This applies to longtime contributors as well as to run-of-the-mill vandalism-only accounts. This ill-considered unblock has all but ensured that more valuable volunteer time will be wasted containing the disruption generated by MickMacNee.
Unless this discussion results in agreement that the unblock was worth a try after all under these conditions, I intend to request that the issue be resolved by arbitration, because it would then be clear that the community cannot handle the recurring disruption by MickMacNee on its own.  Sandstein  18:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
"The problem [...] is that we will almost certainly have at least one another superfluous 100KB ANI drama as a result of this unblock." Is that a threat? Do you think that's appropriate? You blocked an editor indefinitely, which means any admin can unblock after satisfying themselves that the reason for the block no longer applies. At the moment the only cause for disruption is your ill-considered opposition to the unblock. Hans Adler 20:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
No threat, just a prediction. About which I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not optimistic.  Sandstein  20:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
which means any admin can unblock after satisfying themselves that the reason for the block no longer applies - could you perhaps point out where the admin satisfied themselves? I've read Mick's Talk page - nothing there as far as I can see. Was another discussion carried out elsewhere? Private emails? --HighKing (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Realistically you can't expect much more than what Mick promised. The last sentence in this diff is pretty good as a promise, and he seems sincere. Also note the section heading in the diff and take into account that Scott is apparently not exactly a fan of Mick. In some sense this is a pro-forma unblock (because the previous ANI discussion had very much the character of a lynching, which makes it defective and could have led to a lot of drama), complete with an invitation to other admins to get the next block right. (And I don't understand one of Sandstein's comments. I don't think Scott would insist that he must be asked before the next independently justified block. But it should really have a more solid reason than an indefinite block for post-tempblock talk page venting.) In the unlikely event that Mick manages to avoid that, as he promised – everybody wins. So what is the problem? Hans Adler 21:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit like asking a smoker to go cold turkey, or an alcoholic to just stop drinking. Hard enough if a problem is acknowledged - nearly impossible if still in denial. Please dilute my melodramatic example to the appropriate concentration. The problem we now have is that Mick has no structure or terms of reference in which to self-moderate. I agree with Sandstein - there's a certain inevitability about what is most probable to happen in the future. Mick's interests would have been better served with a more structured (normal) approach. But hopefully that won't happen, and Mick will find the right balance, hopefully with a little help from his friends too. --HighKing (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sandstein, "We are not in the business of negotiating with people who disrupt Wikipedia" - I assume you are not using the royal "we", it's rather hard to know. Rather than focus your attentions on McNee perhaps you ought to look at the greater picture of establishing a more fair, logical and peaceful system of justice than is acheived amid the noise here on ANI. In my view, taking this to Arbitration before McNee has a chance to prove his newly found intent to improve looks like a fit of pique on your part.  Giacomo  19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sandstein, since when did "stringent restrictions" ever "effectively prevent continued disruption"? The only thing that prevents that it a user conforming to the necessary norms - or being physically prevented from disruption by banning. You say we are "not in the business of negotiating with people who disrupt Wikipedia". Yes, we bloody well are. If that negotiation means that the person understands what's expected then that's what it is all about. Now, it is quite clear, either Mick will wish to work as part of this project, in which case (whether he likes it or not) he'll modify his behaviour, or he won't and we'll reblock him. The simplest thing now is to take him at his word and hope for the best. Your wounded pride's vindication is not a priority.--Scott Mac 19:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I would absolutely agree with you that this would be the way to proceed if this was the first, or second, or even third block of MickMacNee. It is, however, not. "Hope for the best"? Yeah, sure.  Sandstein  19:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, all right, this is not worth our time. Let's try it your way - with the understanding that you will be available to reimpose the block in the event of any disruption whatsoever on the part of MickMacNee.  Sandstein  19:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I believe Mick's block was harsh and too wide in scope, but overall acceptable as it addressed a systematic problem that was getting worse. But also for the record, I disagree with the unblock. There was a *clear* consensus for the block. The community blocked Mick until we got to the point where Mick would recognize and address the concerns voiced by the community. He's now unblocked. Hmmmm. Could someone please point out to me where Mick has:
  1. Acknowledged the specific parts of his behaviour that are causing a problem
  2. Indicated if he agrees or disagrees that his behaviour is problematic
  3. Indicated which behaviour he intends to modify
The idea that Mick won't/can't/shouldn't admit mistakes (and that's acceptable?), or have a different code of behaviour when drunk (and that's acceptable? (if true?)), or that admitting anything is "climbing down" or "admitting defeat" is risible. In the absence of any acknowledgment or indications by Mick, he's effectively been given the green light to continue, and should he transgress again, there's nothing to indicate that the transgression falls within the scope of undesirable behaviour (since he's not acknowledged any wrongdoing, or indicated what behaviour changes we can expect). --HighKing (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The question of when we transition from problematic user to banned user is an open one and addressed variably in each case. I AGF on everyone's participation on this topic, and even on Mick, ultimately.
I think we're approaching the point that a community ban poll might ban Mick, rendering admin discussions about where we are in the grey area moot. I hope Mick understands that and really does reform this time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Poor unblock. The block had decent consensus, so there really should have been an unblock discussion regarding possible restrictions first. Now we have Mick on an effective one strike rule, with no restrictions. This did nether the community or Mick any favours. Courcelles 21:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I generally agree with Courcelles. This would have been better left untouched. There was no rush to unblock and an unblock undertaken with the knowledge that the original block was affirmed by the community (though not with any great vigor) is not a good step. That leaves some poor admin in the position of being the "third actor" which is the only person who can wheel war according to arbcom. However, what's done is done and i have no problem extending an nth chance, so long as everyone knows that is what is going on. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I endorsed the block, I tentatively endorse the unblock and the way it was done, and I recommend folks keep an eye on Mick for any further crossing of the line between emphatic and uncivil, which I accept is a difficult line to judge sometimes. I have a feeling that Mick will make more of an effort to fit in with our norms after this; if he doesn't, it is one click of a mouse to block him again. --John (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Unblocking an editor that was blocked by a different admin, without even apparently attempting to talk to that admin seems like a bad call to me.--Rockfang (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Bad unblock. Courcelles sums up my feelings on this nicely. AniMate 02:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Unilateral unblocking is a breach of etiquette but it's not a rules violation. The unblocking admin is being extraordinarily generous, and if the editor in question throws egg in the admin's face by letting him down, he can expect to have it thrown back at him along with a lengthy reblock that will likely stick for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse unblock as the reason for the block seems to have passed (and noting that MMN is walking on a tight rope). I just can't shake the feeling that a block isn't the best outcome for the project at this particular moment in time. (I neither endorsed nor opposed the original block). The Community was not ready to treat him as if he's banned when he's not. As Scott has said, the wounded pride of a blocking admin is really not the priority. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

copied from original discussion so we can keep the unblock discussion centralized

  • I never supported a block in the first place, and I'm glad to see it undone. My view was, and still is, that a block in this case seems to be more punitive than anything else. Like was noted by Scott, Mick doesn't always make it easy to see that his comments are in good faith, but they usually are, even if passionately worded. The original issue at ANI was a pretty blatant POINT violation, but that kind of disruption is the exception, not the rule. Gigs (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

copied from original discussion so we can keep the unblock discussion centralized

  • I came here to say that unless MMN was willing to try to change going forward, an indef was a good outcome for the project. But this is a better outcome. Endorse unblock. Don't make a fool of Scott, please. ++Lar: t/c 00:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

copied from original discussion so we can keep the unblock discussion centralized

  • I've spent some time reviewing some of MickMacNee's recent contributions. I see three types of edit: contributions to article development; discussion related to article development; and some WP:pointed actions. The pointed actions are fairly few, but clearly unacceptable. The discussion ranges from the civil and reasonable, through the assertive and forthright, to the aggressive and confrontational. At the latter end, there are swearwords aplenty, but more importantly things that come across as insults and attacks. His original point may well be correct in many cases, but this fact is typically lost in the resulting drama. I am left overall with the impression of someone with a great passion for building an encyclopedia, and some skill in doing so, but who has trouble stepping back and walking away when that passion overwhelms good sense and becomes self-defeating.
  • There's been a bit of drama about the way this block took place. It had the appearance of soliciting a community ban, but the timescale was short and the thread dying down. I'd classify it as a unilateral block with some attempt to solicit community feedback in advance, presumably in anticipation of controversy. Communication regarding the block could have been better, but that's true in most cases, and I think we should move on.
  • As I'd hope we'd all agree, when considering blocks or other restrictions on editing, we must balance the goal of preventing disruption with that of building an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Being a valuable contributor does not give licence to poison the well for others, but we must take potential future productivity into account in dealing with all but the most recidivist vandal, and let people have a little rope.
  • I'm glad to see that MickMacNee is now unblocked. I hope we can make this situation work out for the best for all of us, but I think it will require effort on both MickMacNee's part, and on ours. I think two maxims are relevant here: If it's the right thing to do, then someone else will do it. and There is no deadline. When things get heated, when you find yourself about to post a comment in anger, take a break. Sleep on it. Let someone else edit for a while. Don't think of every point as a battle you have to win. It's better to leave an article with a minor deficiency for a few days than to escalate to disruption. Seek consensus and third opinions.
  • That's my take on the situation. I hope it's helpful. Bovlb (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for moving my comment. I find it rather difficult to chase these threads across all the places they're happening. Bovlb (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Ronald Wenonah and edits to War of 1812[edit]

I warned on 31 October 2010 User:Ronald Wenonah over his/her editing of the article War of 1812. But since that request and warning Ronald Wenonah has continued to edit in similar text with no attempt to use the article talk page to discuss his/her difference of opinion over content with other editors of that article. It would be helpful if another administrator who has not edited the article would take a look at User:Ronald Wenonah and initiate some action. -- PBS (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User should have had a block for violating 3RR edit-warring in mid-October, is close to receiving one now. Edit warring final warning given, advised to use consensus and discussion before editing. S.G.(GH) ping! 00:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I misread the times, warning and/or blocks would be applicable for editing warring still, though not an actual 3RR violation yet S.G.(GH) ping! 00:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem is not the frequency of the edits it is the persistence, with the total lack of discussion. -- PBS (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hence how the edit warring warning was still appropriate. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Two article that is not proper for Wikipedia[edit]

Wrong venue. Please move to Talk:Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah: No admin attention needed; content dispute. Fix it and/or discuss on talk page, please. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I redirected the list of characters to the main article, because the main article contains a list of characters. I've got no real comment otherwise, though Max Viwe is right that there is a large amount of in-universe detail in the article. Gavia immer (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Abused child?[edit]


Secret account 14:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not certain what to do about this edit [3], so I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to discuss it. Cluebot NG reverted it as potential vandalism, but the "vandal" is complaining about being an abused child, so I have no clue what to do. These are his other edits [4] and [5], which both appear to be editing tests. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I have my doubts that any abused child would seek help by editing Werewolf to leave a message. The IP's next edit, a few minutes later, was reverted as vandalism, which also reduces my faith in the validity of the claim. BencherliteTalk 12:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
That was my feeling too, I was just unsure. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:RBI, considering the first edit from the IP was vandalism ten minutes before that post. Yelling is not abuse either really and I'd beat my brother up to if he were and epic failure at Halo: Reach. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "please help me because i am abused child and everybody in my family is always yelling at me i also get bashed by my brother because i am not good at halo reach. PLEASE HELP ME." sounds to me like a typical irritating kid brother. Wait and see if he keeps the claims up and see if they get worse - then reconsider.  Giacomo  12:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I continue to see the abused child edit when I go to Werewolf, although it was reverted. I've refreshed the page several times and I still see it. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the Pending Changes; that edit wasn't reverted by a user with Reviewer status (I don't think the bot has it). I went ahead and undid it. –MuZemike 14:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I no longer see the vandalism in the page, but I don't see you in the history of the page. Is there some bug in the system? It seems strange that a user would need some special status in order to be able to revert vandalism from an IP. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I suppose it's the wonders of the flagged revisions, What I gather happened he untagged the edit as reviewed so it shows up unreviewed and so removed from public view, an action that doesn't appear in edit histories and someone else saw it and removed it. I personally am surprised that theres still some articles that have it as the trial was supposed to have ended in August. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism, resolved. Secret account 14:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
This is in the same category as the old one about opening a fortune cookie and finding, "Help! I'm a prisoner in a Chinese bakery!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Time to pull the plug on User:My9dreamkey[edit]


This, this and this are grossly unacceptable for BLP articles. This user should have been blocked months ago.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, indefinite block, plenty of warnings have been given and behaviour continues. I have also notified the user of this thread. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
That's a case where both of us former admin tools would have been acceptable, indef needed. Secret account 14:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I've also looked back and found other BLP violations and some disruptive, slightly abusive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT talk page messages. The onus is now on the user to prove his or her worth to the 'pedia with an unblock message. S.G.(GH) ping! 14:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
His unblock request amused me. Almost wished I hadn't been the blocking admin so I could answer it! S.G.(GH) ping! 15:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
And My9dreamkey (talk · contribs)'s unblock request has been declined by someone else, with talk page access revoked. We're done here. BencherliteTalk 15:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


This account-holder has repeatedly and in a considered way trashed the page Halifax Explosion (check the history) he also trashed the Oxymoron page, again check the history of that page. This person could be mentally ill or have some kind of grudge against wikipedia, but he has vandalised the wiki repeatedly. This IP address needs to be banned, at least for a cool-off period of a week.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a school account. I have blocked for a short period and we can reevaluate the block if needed. The Oxymoron vandalism was almost three years ago (January 2007). JodyB talk 17:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User:TigreTiger blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

I seem to recall this sort of strange, idiosyncratic and rapid-fire redirecting from the puppetmaster some time ago. I blocked him for edit warring, he cut loose with this bizarre, anti-American rant and I lowered the boom on him. Would someone with Twinkle please revert this user's edits and redirects? Back to my wikibreak, or so I dearly hope. Thanks, all. PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

  • He performed a shitload of page moves, too. I undid one, but because he edited the pages afterwards, the easy revert links aren't showing up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • What a mess! We now have, for examples, Rimachi Lake and Rimachi Lake (2) which used to be Lago Rimachi and Lake Rimachi. Clearly that wasn't improvement upon what was there before. Uncle G (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    • They are the same man! Please merge! TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I've been going through using a "rollback all" script. I'm doing anout 30 at a time so FireFox doesn't crash. Access Denied (400: Bad Request) 15:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Take care with that, see below.
    Thank you; he was creating massive amounts of one-sentence, unreferenced stubs on Portuguese towns a few days ago, and I had to break out an atlas to verify these places even existed. Although mass-creation of these isn't in and of itself a problem, doing it with no references was very disruptive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    At User:TigreTiger you didn't call em "very disruptive", not even "disruptive". And on that talk page, some users pointed out that it is fine to have stubs on towns. TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    Well, at the time I thought you were actually a new user, and I was trying to be encouraging; however, you're almost certainly not, in which case you should know better. It's disruptive when you create a shitload of unreferenced, one sentence sub-stubs, and it's almost worse when you do that on subjects that are inherently notable, because they're harder to delete and we have to be sure they aren't hoaxes. I had to get out an atlas and verify the existence of every single one of those towns, because there were no references for any of them. Fortunately for you I love geography, and I have the patience to do that; most people would have gotten extremely frustrated very quickly. But because I thought you were a new user, I cut you some slack; understand the attitude shift? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    Are you judging based on contribution or on whether OTHER people tell you TigreTiger=Schwyz? If TigreTiger=Schwyz what does that make the contributions worse? Why don't you check List of towns of Portugal? You seem to not have a problem with that one. Sorry I don't understand the usefulness of the attitude shift to improve Wikipedia. TTtertiary (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    No, I'm judging based on the incredibly loud quacking I'm hearing, now that I compare TigreTiger's and Schwyz's contributions. If you don't understand why I say what I'm saying, I'd have to seriously question your competence level. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    In this case, should the master account Schwyz, be blocked? He claims to have left the project, but I see on his block log he was already blocked once, for sockpuppeteering, back in August. Seth Kellerman (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    The SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Schwyz reveals that he socked once during his block, but he's off his block for 2 months now, so I don't see how he can be blocked for "block evasion" at present. This looks like a technical mistake that needs to be corrected, as you indicate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    It does not. Only one person decided that User:TakakaCounty = User:Schwyz. But even if run by the same person, Schwyz was abandoned before. TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    Actually, he was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, but again, his main account's block expired a week later. Typically a sockmaster would be blocked indefinitely, regardless of his claim that he has "retired". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    Where was the abuse BY User:Schwyz? TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    Now blocked indef. He hadn't edited since 30 August, but Bugs is right that the sockmaster account should be blocked until the user addresses the socking issue. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    He did not edit since 13 August, see [[6]] - and he was never blocked during his active time. TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Note from TTsecondary[edit]

It's RBI henceforth. Looie496 (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I would like to inform you about the following: This is a secondary account of User:TigreTiger. I know creating this is against the rules, but I think you can understand from the following why I do it. Also: I cannot edit my talk page, despite the fact that the box there says a means for appeal would be to do that.


First: User:TigreTiger is not User:Schwyz! I don't know what people see to think otherwise. Since I don't know on what the claim is based, I cannot defend/bring arguments to show otherwise. Anyway, I reviewed some of the Schwyz stuff and found Schwyz got never blocked during the time he edited. So even if User:TigreTiger = User:Schwyz, there is not block evasion or so. Anyway, if Wikipedia Admins want to have blocked TigreTiger indefinitely, because of his last edit on his talk, then this is fine.

I just want to tell you that running a revert script on all my edits can have bad side effects

Disambiguation, three example edits, not all these edits are marked with the prefix "Disambiguated"
Article duplication under variant names, when converting to English and to standard naming, I found this duplicate

I had no time yet to go into the merge process. Now the name standardization on what is common for lakes in South America and WP:UE was reverted. Now it will be harder for others to spot that they are the same. The "(2)" marker was not best but I used it as intermediary solution until I would have found out which one to merge into the other. See "What a mess! We now have, for examples, Rimachi Lake and Rimachi Lake (2) which used to be Lago Rimachi and Lake Rimachi. Clearly that wasn't improvement upon what was there before. Uncle G (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)" - He seems to have no clue that they are the same.

There are people with good knowledge of geography and they are driven out of the project. Portugal geography is partly covered worse in en WP than in other WPs, apart from pt WP. There is little work only. Wikipedia will have a hard time to get experts editing in Wikipedia if they are badly administered by people that have no clue at all of the topic at hand AND are unfair.

Fixing typo, adding new dab target - new targets are needed for dab solver

User:JaGa educated me about the dab solver tool, This is a great tool. But it only works if the undabbed target is on the dab page. So to have things on the dab page is really important.

Fixing a link to point to the district article linked to from the template. The other one in fact should have no district content.
applying naming convention
ONE DE-DISAMBIGUATION, already performed

I did disambiguation work on country subdivisions in Portugal and was just starting with lakes and rivers in South America. Since I know the naming schemes I can improve links like to Cundinamarca as a drive by product. I am also able to communicate in Spanish and Portuguese and I have seen lots of geographic names, so spotting Gocha and converting to Cocha (Quechua for lake/water) is easy for me (see If you revert that you will just make WP containing more bad stuff again.

Just wanted to make you aware of possible problems, with running a revert script on all my edits.

I think, technically even if you block me forever for my last edit on my talk page, then - technically - you would not need to revert all edits? Would you? Imagine I had edited for 10 years and then you see one "rant" - block me forever and revert all via a script?

Also, can you please tell PMDrive1061 to respect 10min threshold on new articles, like on Tuma River? CSD A3 says so. At least the expanded version got deleted below 10min. And that is what he blocked me for in the first place - for adding the expanded version. He also did not even add a reference to Tuma River in his first post on my page about short articles.

His actions should be reviewed. He is too hardcore-right-wing. He reminded me on the Apache shooters in Iraq. He has the power (admin can delete pages, and block users) and uses his power. Wikileaks leaked war crime. And PMD is criminal too. If it was edit warring what I did, as he claimed, then he was a involved party - and used his admin rights to further his position. This is an abuse of admin rights.


TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason you posted this same rant to User talk:Newyorkbrad? Are you expecting him to be higher up on some sort of hierarchy that the rest of us are not aware of?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought it would be good an ArbCom member would know, because ArbCom can lift indef blocks. I have no other way. Unblock request on my own talk was immediately disabled by User:PMDrive1061, who didn't like my last Tuma River stub and killed it within seconds.

Your new account has been blocked. Your message is here for everyone to read. If you want to formally request unblock, do it on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Oop. Just noticed your talk page is blocked as well. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for acknowledging. User:PMDrive1061 knocked out an account that created a valid stub on Tuma River. I did make lot of valuable contributions to what I think. But User:PMDrive1061's block for creating an article on a river I received as highly unfair. TTtertiary (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, here's the rant he left on his original page:

You are lieing, I did create a stub. But as I said, I guess you are ill. I think lieing is ill. If you think lieing is ok, then block me. I also think that blocking other people with false claims of "edit warring" is ill. You showed that you are ill already when you deleted the stub the first time and when you wrote on my talk without any reference to the deleted page. Sorry for you. But also people with limited brain can have a nice life, seems your life is nice with blocking and deleting. Mister PMDrive1061. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Tuma River will survive without you!!!!!!!!!!!! VENCEREMOS. LOS YANKEES hahaha. USA is ill. YOU ARE GOOD EXAMPLE OF USA-ILLNESS. ONE DAY WIKILEAKS WILL NOT ONLY LEAK IRAQ CRIME, BUT ALSO WIKIPEDIA ADMIN ILLNESS. 07:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

He then went and created another rant on this "secondary account." Jeez, it was a 24-hour edit war block; he reposted that sentence as quickly as it could be deleted. All he had to do was use that print reference of his to maybe tell where the headwaters and mouth are, what towns it passes through, economic importance, etc. He put more effort into screaming obscenities at me than he did in writing content. I patently refuse to let someone like this insult me and my country in this manner. PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Rant? I did explain the situation and pointed out problems with the roll back. To call my opposition to your abusive behavior "rant" does show you know you were out of line with your acts. You abused your admin power to further your opinion on my last Tuma River, which did not met A3 and even if, 10min threshold was not respected by you.
You complain I did not put more effort into the Tuma River page? I expanded it and you blocked me!!! And then you indef blocked me!!! TTtertiary (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did. You were blocked for (a) edit warring for only 24 hours at which time you began that "illness" rant, (b) gross incivility and (c) being a sockpuppet of a blocked user, both of which earned you the indef ban. Your anti-American rants have no place here; this is the only nation on earth where we have to patrol the borders to try and keep people from coming in! I am proud to be an American and I daresay that the majority of users on this site are just as proud given the fact this site is based here in the USA. You have put more effort in screaming and trolling than you did in anything in your edit history. You created a huge amount of unnecessary work for other users, you continue to scream "admin abuse" and to troll this discussion. Couple that with your less-than-perfect grasp of the language, let alone what this site is about, and it should come as little if any surprise that you've been blocked. PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say something like that, but you put it better than I possibly could have (and yes, I'm American myself). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The root cause of a great deal of anti-Americanism is envy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
@PMDrive1061: 1) Are you hallucinating? - Which account shall TigreTiger be a sockpuppet of? Schwyz? But Schwyz was not blocked. He was never during his active time. 2) I made no anti-American rants. I only named the illness. Double speak, false claims, rights abuses etc. Shoot first then ask etc. Why did you block me for 24h? For creating a valid stub on Tuma River? Read CSD A3 and how YOU failed to respect WP policies. 3) Naming people with other opinion troll, shows the weakness of your position. 4) "I am proud to be an American and I daresay that the majority of users on this site are just as proud given the fact this site is based here in the USA." - Brain limits again: Google is "based" in the US. Do you think the majority of its users from all over the world is proud US-American? Let alone your usage of "American" - this is ignorant. Since America is much bigger than the US. 5) I created a huge amount of unnecessary work for other users? Really? By adding Tuma River? By doing disambiguation? But applying naming conventions? Etc etc. ... 6) "You have put more effort in screaming and trolling than you did in anything in your edit history." - How can you judge on my efforts - only thing you see is results. 7) also users with less-than-perfect grasp of the language can have more grasp of geography than you. 8) "let alone what this site is about" - Once I thought it is a nice way to create an high quality encyclopedia. But I am not sure anymore. Admins that abuse their rights drive valuable editors a way. Disrespect of other cultures and US-centrism reduce growth potential. It's more and more like a big blogging site, playground for wannabe importants with "perfect grasp of the language" - but not of geography related content. 9) "this is the only nation on earth where we have to patrol the borders to try and keep people from coming in!" - how limited you are viewing the world. First: Other countries have border patrols too that are there to prevent people from coming in. Second: Do you have to? Really? Why? Why not let everybody in that wants to? Why did you / your parents moved in, and now don't give the same right to others? Why don't you let all editors be admins? BECAUSE YOU ARE ILL. USA IS ILL. ...
@The Blade of the Northern Lights: "and yes, I'm American myself" - and similar ill. Jumping on the bandwagon of calling my edits disruptive after I got blocked. Clapping hands with your corrupt friends.

Just properly catching up on this after being on holiday for a bit. I was wondering whether, given the extra inconvenience in undoing moves, it was worth setting up an edit filter to catch users (ignoring say bots and admins) doing a lot of moves in a short space of time as there are relatively few circumstances where this would be appropriate behaviour. Obviously it would have to be set to log only but if we kept an eye on it we may be able to catch people being disruptive like this (or this user returning) before they disrupt too much. Dpmuk (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that. Mr. Schwyz inspired me to create this tool, which does just that. Primitive, but does the job. --JaGatalk 11:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Well that will do it instead, cheers. Really should get more involved in doing stuff like that myself. Dpmuk (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I've talked to this user a few times. The user seems either very incompetent or is just putting that on to look like a newcomer. Has there been a checkuser investigation? Inka888ContribsTalk 01:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Using JaGa's tool I think I've found another one, although this one is much more suspect - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Schwyz. Dpmuk (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow s/he has a whole sock drawer. Inka888ContribsTalk 01:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The socks were  Confirmed. Inka888ContribsTalk 04:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Loose ends[edit]

Why does the master still have autoreviewer access? Shouldn't all userrights be revoked from the socks?— dαlus Contribs 05:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If the master is indeffed, does it make a difference? I genuinely don't know, just wondering. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The User:Tiraios-of-Characene sock has just been blocked, I've rolled back and deleted a bunch of his stuff, but the damage is massive, dating back months. Anyone with Twinkle want to take a whack at this? BTW, s/he was online while I was working, reverting my message on the talk page as "vandalism." Apparently, this person is simply not getting the message. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is a bit early, but I think a community ban may eventually be in order. I can only speak for myself as a New Page Patroller, but it severely disrupts NPP when people do what he's been doing; I almost missed a couple of truly libelous creations from sifting through the shitload of pages he created. I've about had it, and going off on vitriolic, semi-coherent anti-American rants pushed me over the edge. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Point of clarifiaction; while in the process of patrolling all of TigreTiger's "pages" (in the loosest sense of the term), I almost missed a couple attack pages created by other people, not TigreTiger. Sorry if that caused confusion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:DNFTT(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Schwyz)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Which "truly libelous creations" you refer to? Where are semi-coherent anti-American rants? Is there anything anti-American in TigreTiger's or Tiraios-of-Characene's words? TerraCognita (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
You don't see anything anti-American in what was said? Well you're either another sock (likely) or have extremely selective reading skills, and the two may not be mutually exclusive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I requested assistance for legality check of the deletions of Russian country subdivision articles performed by User:PMDrive1061 at Talk:Subdivisions of the Russian Empire. TerraCognita (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
And you didn't even have the decency to let him know; fortunately, I've done that for you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I might have done it after posting here.
  • Please provide a diff for each of your claims 1) "truly libelous creations" 2) "anti-American rants". TerraCognita (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • As to the first point, I'll have to pour over my CSD taggings; I don't have the time right now. My point of clarification above, if you missed it, should suffice. The second point; the rant PMDrive1061 copied over (currently in the hatnote) speaks for itself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clarifying that you have no prove for "truly libelous creations". What do you mean by hatnote? I don't see any edit of Tiraios-of-Characene referring to "American". You mean because he was interested in Arab history? I would not regard that as anti-American. And for User:Schwyz neither. But I see TigreTiger's last edit, shortly after he got blocked for expanding a stub on a river in Nicaragua, Tuma River. [7] There he wrote "LOS YANKEES hahaha. USA is ill." Do you mean that? And for "USA is ill." you call him anti-American? He could even be an American patriot, only stating that he perceives something goes wrong. Same for PMDrive1061. He is not anti-PMDrive1061, but he seemed to not have liked out-of-policy deletion and blocking. And perceived out-of-policy deletion and blocking as "ill". TerraCognita (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The collapsed box above being the hatnote, which you seem to have figured out. You're misconstruing my words. Read my point of clarification again; I never accused TigreTiger of creating attack pages, I said that because he created so many pages so quickly I almost missed a couple attack pages created by other people. You're missing what I'm saying. And no American would ever write about the US like that; don't play me for a fool. But now, real life beckons, and I have to leave for a few hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
You wrote "As to the first point, I'll have to pour over my CSD taggings" which seemed as if you have something supporting "truly libelous creations" by TigreTiger in mind but cannot find it right now. "no American would ever write about the US like that" - not sure. Most not. But that was not the core. TigreTiger never claimed to be (US)-American. But I think he could not prove his statement of illness. I think he could not prove that any statement made by User:PMDrive1061 was a lie, nor that lies are ill. So he might have made a false claim. I think he was very angry about the out-of-policy deletion and out-of-policy block by Admin User:PMDrive1061. Maybe you as admin cannot understand how "normal" users feel if treated incorrectly and against the written WP policies. TerraCognita (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
For the record, lest anyone be left wondering, I joined in March; I'm most certainly not an admin, just a New Page Patroller, which is how I inadvertantly got tangled in this mess. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Good luck in the future, these are some of the worst messes to be tangled in, as they just keep coming back in a never-ending harassment pattern.— dαlus Contribs 00:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not as if it's particularly hard to spot; I just didn't know to look for it. Now I do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

We should not be proud of ourselves. We should be ashamed of ourselves. First there was a page move dispute. This should have be handled diplomatically and politely. Instead, we have a mad customer who creates socks. We then pat ourselves on the back for finding the socks. This is the Wikipedia way; don't like them, accuse them of sockpuppetry.

We still have a mad editor. This has been handled in the classic Wikipedia way but not the best way. The best way might have be an ombudsman to explain the correct way to page move and block if necessary. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, the user edit-warred and was blocked to stop the move-war. People did try to explain, but the user became irate and started socking instead. That's not something Wikipedia can fix. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, actually it is and it has been, if you know what I mean... HalfShadow 17:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Given that your first edit was October 20th, and none of your edits involved any contact with Schwyz and his myriad socks, how did you come across this? I'm not assuming anything but good faith, I just don't know how you happened upon this discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Father Athanasios Henein[edit]

Realcopt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has submitted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Father Athanasios Henein multiple times, and the submission has been rejected every time due to POV, tone, and the fact the subject fails WP:N. Every time we reject the submission, he relists within hours or minutes without really doing anything to address the issues (primarially statements that cannot reasonably be backed up at all, or could be but don't have references that satisfy WP:V). Contributors at AFC, myself and several other editors included have made clear attempts to explain what he needs to do, but he continues to relist... most recently, he not only cleared the decline notice [8] but also added [9] [10] two other AFC submission tags, whereas nobody had edited the page since he removed the decline notice.

His talk page seriously makes me wonder if there's a conflict of interest, that or he simply feels very strongly about the individual from a religious standpoint, and is using a Wikipedia article to advance his views regardless of whether the article meets WP:N, WP:V, or our other standards. Would appreciate some input on the matter. Thanks! 14:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Now deleted as a copyvio. I'd be inclined to see what happens next. BencherliteTalk 15:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
for now, I guess. I've watch listed his talk page and I'll keep an eye out for him at Articles for Creation. 2 says you, says two 18:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Move request needs closing[edit]


Not sure if I should post here or at WP:AN but a requested move about New York and NYC has been open for two weeks now, and it's probably time to close. DC TC 18:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It was closed by John. Please note that WP:AN is the right place for reuests like this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. DC TC 19:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann has engaged in WP:OWN and violating WP:ARBMAC2[edit]

Resolved: Content dispute. Use WP:DR.  Sandstein  20:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would really appreciate some help with Albanian nationalism page as a number of editors are not allowed to edit there. The page could be considered POV by any standards as it is offensive to an entire ethnicity.

- This is an actual line from the article: These ideologies and Greater Albania have proponents and patrons who are not only nationalists but criminals[56] and terrorists[57][58][59][60][61] involved[62] in drug trafficking, human trafficking and other activities motivated by profit.[63]

On his side (and as administrator) User:Dbachmann does not allow any edits by editors who are Albanians as according to him they are redneck nationalists.

Here are some of his lasts comments and edits:

  • Edit: Removing POV tags. 09:24, 3 November 2010
  • Edit: Making his own edit while supporting another RV. 09:26, 3 November 2010
  • Comment: Pushing his own ideas. 10:19, 30 October 2010
  • Comment: More suggestions based on his own ideas Albanian nationalism attaches the greatest importance to the Illyrian scenario, while it couldn't care less about the Thracian one—where did he find this. 10:13, 3 November 2010
  • Comment: What you guys are doing here is not helping to improve the article, on the contrary it is distracting people from sitting down and working on it. 09:22, 3 November 2010

The article clearly needs to be viewed by other editors as, it seems, two contrary groups of editors cannot reach an agreement. RfC was called for the article, and User:Askari Mark offered help. But his suggestions were not taken into consideration.

Moreover, the article is not based on it's own references. Some reference are misinterpreted while others are false completely. For example this one: Pan-Albanianism: How Big a Threat to Balkan Stability (Central and Eastern European) by Miranda Vickers, 2004 such book does not exist. There is a similar document that is in total contradiction as it claims there is no threat from pan-Albanianism.

It would be very helpful if someone would read the article and check for these issues. Also, it would be helpful if someone could check User:Dbachmann and have a look at his behaviors toward Albanian related articles. I understand that he is a very valuable editor, but in certain ethnic issues (especially Albanian) he seems to be holding an agenda. Thanks! —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This report is misplaced. For assistance with ethno-nationalist conflicts please use WP:CCN, for arbitration enforcement WP:AE.

The report also appears to be without foundation. You not only misquote but also falsely represent the words "backward redneck ideologists" as Dbachmann's opinion at [11], while it seems he was characterizing your own opinion as having the effect of (falsely) branding Albanians as such. I see nothing immediately wrong with the other diffs you cite. As such, I see no need for admin action here.  Sandstein  19:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, Dbachmann has acted only as an editor and not as an administrator, and has expressly stated that as an involved editor he would not act administratively, so this is really just an ordinary content dispute at this point. Looie496 (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The Pan Albanianism edit was made over a year ago by another editor [12]. I have no idea why there is an ISBN number, it is an article at [13]. Before attacking people you really need to check that your facts are right. Dougweller (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I am glad that you responded so quickly. I asked you to look closely at all this. I claim that User:Dbachmann was WP:OWNing. It could be that the report is misplaced.
As for backward redneck ideologists, please read the entire comment carefully. Also read what did that respond to. The Pan Albanianism edit was made over a year ago by another editor, but he is defending the article as sourced The article is based on decent sources and stays on topic while the Pan-Albanian source clearly shows that is not so. It would really be very helpful if you would check everything once again with more care. Also, I am aware that User:Dbachmann stated his edits were made as an editor, not as an administrator. But, what am I supposed to do, edit-war? Talking does not seem to work, as what we guys are doing here is not helping to improve the article. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, Dougweller I would beg you to read my comment carefully. There IS such a report, I have read it. The report clearly states there is no such thing as Pan-Albanianism contrary to the Albanian nationalism article. And it is not written by Miranda Vickers as cited in the article. And that served only as an illustration to what is happening. There are other sources that are misleading. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: Hammersoft's olive branch results in total silence

Saruha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Today, I removed a number of non-free content violations from Rudolf-Harbig-Stadium. Non-free images were being used as icons (failing WP:NFCC) #8, being used in galleries (failing WP:NFG), and being used without rationales (failing WP:NFCC #10c). In the process, I discovered that the person responsible for much of this work, User:Saruha, had uploaded a large number of problematic images and used them in problematic ways. For example, claiming that this image was his, when it clearly was not. I went through his contributions cleaning up a great many of these problems, and notified him on his talk page of all of these problems, along with giving him a general warning regarding image uploads and usage (see User_talk:Saruha#Image_upload_problems). He has made the decision to undo all of my edits, and his work to do so is proceeding. He continues to remove warning templates for messages without fixing the underlying problems (example), and continues to push galleries of non-free images onto articles (example). I've attempted to get him to stop, warning him multiple times without effect. I even placed a great big whopping stop hand on his talk page (User_talk:Saruha#STOP). It's all fallen on deaf ears, and he refuses to cooperate or discuss in any manner, instead choosing to edit war. Help, please. Editor has been notified of this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have shown this user the door until he expresses a willingness to comply with image policy. Some help reverting would be appreciated. Rodhullandemu 20:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Everything he's done today has been reverted. Thanks everyone. Now, to attempt to engage him in discussion (again). --Hammersoft (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ian Somerhalder article; blocking/ (semi) protection of the article requested[edit]

I would like to request a block for anonymous user This anonymous user keeps adding a website to this article, which, on itself, isn't reason to be alarmed. This website, however, is represented as Ian Somerhalder's personal website (being put in the lead-in of the article). It is not. It is a Spanish-language fan site (the user has refered to it him/herself, see: . Ian Somerhalder seems in no way affiliated with this website. Perhaps some people would include these sites as a source, but I highly doubt there is anyone on Wikipedia who might reckon a fansite a site of a celebrity (unless specifically affiliated with the relevant person). If a blocking of anonymous user is not reachable, then I would like to request a (semi-)protection. Best regards, Robster1983 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Strange behaviour regarding photo at Nicola Blackwood[edit]

Resolved: Image has been replaced by a high resolution version, with proper cropping to remove the random unidentified person from the photo. SnottyWong babble 23:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC) added a photo to Nicola Blackwood: [14], which was uploaed on Commons a high-res pic called "Nicola Blackwood MP with young person.jpg" by a new commons user 'Tysteele'.

The IP has now replaced this with the same photo, re-uploaded as a poor-quality png (but with no content removed) by new Commons user ' James1234'. He is warring to include the poor-quality image 'Nicola Blackwood MP in Westminister Hall.png', rather than the high-res 'Nicola Blackwood MP with young person.jpg', saying 'Tysteele did not want to be identified with the article any longer'. I reverted this, and a brand new 'Tysteele' user reverted it. I can't quite understand what's going on, anyone care to investigate, I think the user is a bit clueless? Sumbuddi (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The new image isn't "low resolution" or "poor quality". It is the same image, just cropped a bit tighter. Same resolution, same quality, different cropping. Tysteele (talk · contribs) apparently doesn't want to be linked to the article anymore for some reason. Why that is, I have no idea and don't really care. Exactly what administrative action were you looking to have happen? If you have a problem with the photo, discuss it with the user or on the talk page of the article. Also, you didn't notify either User:Tysteele or User: of this discussion, which is required. Anyone who is accusing other users of being clueless should know that. I will notify them now. SnottyWong chat 22:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
And you've gotten pretty damn close to breaking the 3rr over an 'almost identical' photo... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
So? There's no reason to link to the low-res image, and there's no reason to take the word for all these different anon IPs/user as gospel. A good image was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which the uploader on Commons hasn't repudiated, but somebody else, who may or may not be the same person, claims that an image with identical content but low-res, and a slightly different name should be replaced. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Stupid question. Why doesn't someone just crop out the other person and reupload it? Courcelles 23:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure. That would be reasonable, the other person in the picture doesn't add anything. But note that the anon IPs are not trying to remove the other person, they are trying to change to a low-res image with a different name, so that really wasn't the point here, the point is the anon IPs are determined to change to a crappy low-res image when the high-res image is still there. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I cropped the image and re-uploaded, but it doesn't change the fact that whatever this person/people is trying to achieve/hide/whatever, I don't think it's happened. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Uh, image 1 is 4,416 × 3,312 pixels, image 2 is 558 × 575 pixels. That's a big difference. The colour is also out of whack on the downscaled image. You seriously can't see the difference?
Also 'Tysteele' doesn't exist, except for uploading this image. Debasing the image and reuploading it under a different name achieves nothing.
BTW, I have contacted Tysteele, as you would have seen. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
You contacted Tysteele, but didn't inform him/her of this discussion about them (which is required). You're right that the images are of different resolutions, I missed that. I don't see any difference in the colors though. Also, since the images are being scaled down to thumbnail size on the article, it hardly makes a difference if the original is 600x600 or 6 million x 6 million. The thumbnail is not going to appear any different. Again, you brought this issue to the Administrators' Noticeboard, what administrative action would you like to see with regard to this issue? It appears that you're edit warring with Tysteele and you're looking for someone to revert him/her again so that you don't cross the line into 3RR. From the talk page of this article, it's clear that you're not a stranger to edit wars. I'd suggest you discuss the issue with Tysteele and figure out why s/he no longer wants to be identified with the article, and perhaps you'll find an easier way to sort it out. You started this ANI thread at 19:00 UTC, and then started trying to engage Tysteele in a discussion 3.5 hours later. It should have been the other way around. SnottyWong gossip 23:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Eraserhead1 left a warning template on my talkpage just before I was due to go out at 19:00UTC complaining that I was reverting from the crappy low-res image to the substantively identical high-res one. So I started a thread here, having been threatened for (entirely reasonably IMO) reverting from the debased image to the original one, primarily as a response to the the threat by eraserhead1, but also with a hope that someone here would be able to address what this anon(s) is trying to achieve by doing this. I certainly didn't have time to work out which of these new accounts and IPs I was supposed to be dealing with here (yes I know, I could have identified all of them, like I said, I was due at my destination at 19:00 UTC, so I was late leaving, let alone arriving, so I wasn't exactly able to resolve all of this.)
It's ridiculous to say that it doesn't make any difference because the thumbnail is the same, when the loss of detail is quite apparent to my eyes in the thumbnail, in colour, shadows, and other aspects, and besides this, linking to the high-resolution image is useful for those that might require a high-res image, for publication, or whatever.
As you note, there have been some disruptive anons warring on this page before, I don't think it's unreasonable therefore for me to flag this issue up. There is no link that can be made between these new accounts without checkuser or similar administrative input, so all that I can see here is an attempt to link to a debased image over a high-quality one, or in plain Wikipedish 'vandalism', which I'm entitled to revert without being threatened (I'm only too aware of the effects of wikilawyering, so I'll make no apologies for explaining my behaviour in advance of someone blocking me (I was previously blocked for reverting spam, and I have no intention of going through the tedious process again, in fact I'd sooner leave, than repeat that tedious nonsense)Sumbuddi (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Air Rhodesia Flight 825[edit]


Martinvl (talk · contribs) manufactured a rape allegation that he added to the Air Rhodesia Flight 825 article. The content was removed by others, but he immediately re-added it. The (real-world) author who he claimed to quote was outraged enough to contact Wikipedia (OTRS 2010102910008463) to have the content taken down. I feel that this incident is serious enough to attract some sort of sanction. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary to bring this here. The discussion occurred 8 hours previously on the article talk page where Martinvl apologizes for the problem. The article itself is locked. There was no "edit war" and no problem requiring ANI attention. The OTRS notation is also on the article talk page.JodyB talk 11:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

foul language[edit]

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

Thank fiddledy-dee for that. It's been hecky-darn resolved. -TS 18:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved: Doesn't appear to be a WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL violation; "bad language" in itself isn't an issue. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 18:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for an admin to use foul language? Factocop (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be acceptable. No doubt administrators (rightly/wrongly) get alot of foul language thrown at them. Besides, colourful honesty is better then polite dishonesty. Furthermore, the f-word was used on that administrator's talkpage; so no probs. GoodDay (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
^^ this. Wikipedia is not censored. He didn't call you a fucker or a whiner directly. Syrthiss (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agree. Furthermore, it seems that a raised voice is required to get the attention of the combatants. Favonian (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Duty obliges me to look sternly in the virtual direction of Bwilkins for using colorful language towards editors in connection with possible administrative actions by him. Naughty! That said, he is entirely correct in the substance of his admonition, so you are well advised to heed it.  Sandstein  12:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

ok great, ive been holding back on foul language, thinking it may be deemed offensive, so this is great news. I'll be swearing like a trooper from now on.Factocop (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just make sure your language fits the situation. If you're reverting vandalism and tell a new user that "their fucking edits are shit", you're probably going to end up with a WQA. Syrthiss (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
...or an immediate block for a personal attack, which is not how the naughty word was used in the diff above.  Frank  |  talk  13:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
ok, in the future, when I feel like swearing, Ill just ask Bwilkins, as he has a knack of when to use his colourful language at the right times.Factocop (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
"Would this be an appropriate time for a colorful metaphor?" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Factocop, if there's anything about the message that is unclear due to the language in which it is couched, I am sure BWilkins will explain it to you. If not, you should drop this.  pablo 13:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll drop it. Its just a shame, however that certain people are above the law.Factocop (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of "law", you need to notify someone you bring to AN/I. I have done this... Doc talk 13:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
No one's above the law; if you said the exact same thing, no one would blink an eye. --Golbez (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Factocop (talk · contribs) has now been blocked for 72 hours by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) for edit-warring. BencherliteTalk 13:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Profanity and crude jargon should be discouraged or banned. There is no need for it and it is quite unnecessary. The English language contains a rich vocabulary and it should be used if editors wish to express themselves. Unrefined rants and words which are deemed to be offensive should not be tolerated anywhere on Wikipedia. It lowers the tone and is quite frankly, immature behaviour. Chesdovi (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED. Fact is, what is considered "foul" or "vulgar" language varies from culture to culture. The only language that's going to get discouraged or banned is personal attacks or blatant incivility. Anything else is a non-starter. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather see more AN/I energy devoted to halting edit warriors and POV-pushing partisans than time spent acting like a bunch of Mary Whitehouse acolytes. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
A rich vocabulary indeed; and Bwilkins used his to good effect in the original message which was assertive, clear and unambiguous. Factocop is/was trolling here. pablo 15:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Three cheers for throwing AGF out the window. --William S. Saturn (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Who me? I don't consider it necessary to indefinitely assume that an editor is acting in good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary.  pablo 15:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Although I wouldn't advise this personally, if Factocop wanted to throw some humor into the situation he could always tell Bwilkins to "Watch your fucking God damn language! =)" (exactly as in the quotes, including the smiley face)...but that would go down best if followed immediately in the same post by an apology for whatever actions warrented the swearing in the first place. =) Ks0stm (TCG) 15:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose simple courtesy and respect for other people enter into the equation anywhere. Oops, I forgot. We're on the Internet. Never mind. Neutron (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever one's take on foul language, please do not quote WP:NOTCENSORED which has no relevance here whatsoever. WP:NOTCENSORED means that we won't limit proper encyclopaedic content out of regard for sensibilities, it also states that, since Wikipedia is open, we can't guarantee that you will not see improper things (vandalism) on wikipedia. It might serve as a warning to those who unreasonably expect they will never encounter foul language, but it is certainly not a shield for potty-mouths to hide behind. If we're a collaborative project, then without being over-sensitive, we should all do our bit to avoid vocabulary which is likely to give unnecessary offence. Besides which, an overuse of expletives tends to betray a lack of imagination, and a poor vocabularic range. But back to my main point, you may argue that admins using expletives are not a problem, you may not argue that WP:NOTCENSORED supports that contention in any way shape or form. Indeed, NOTCENSORED is perhaps the most misused of all wikipedia policies.--Scott Mac 15:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As a compromise, I recommend that Factocop confine any use of profanity to the Irish language equivalents. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Since Factocop has started this discussion, they are now no doubt aware of the issue of civility. Having ignored the advice being offered here, they have also ignored it here and the intention behind the advice which prompted this discussion. This discussion is going down hill fast and a civility check is called for. Another editor has already been blocked, based on Bwilkins advice, which should have acted as a wake up call, especially having just been unblocked --Domer48'fenian' 18:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Calling it "foul language" is a cop-out. The same kind that lets you get by with saying "crap" instead of "shit." Same meaning but, because one word is "dirty," we aren't supposed to use it. And yes, WP:NOTCENSORED technically only applies to articles, but it also gives newbies a good understanding of where Wikipedia stands. We aren't here to gloss over the (sometimes unpleasant) facts of the world. I'm fine with restricting our language when it's abusive, but no one is going to agree on what words are too "foul" to use in common conversation. Oh, and the "lack of imagination" is an insult. Choosing to use those words doesn't imply any such thing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
This is abject nonsense. Whatever one's view of the use of inarticulate scatology, it isn't that ""WP:NOTCENSORED technically only applies to articles" - it is that WP:NOTCEN has nothing to do with the issue of language in inter-user posts whatsoever. It simply doesn't address the issue in any way, shape, or form, technically, literally, or in spirit. It is about something else altogether different - and far, far, far, more important. No we are not here to "gloss over the (sometimes unpleasant) facts of the world", that indeed is the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED, but one does not advance that cause one iota by saying we're not going to "fucking gloss over the (sometimes fucking unpleasant) facts of the fucking bloody world". One then is simply misusing a fundamental principle to justify low-class cussing - and showing one is incapable of reading a key policy page to boot (inarticulacy and illiteracy are often connected). By all means make the case that we should avoid prudish moral witch-hunts over language - I tend to agree. But don't pretend that using such indicates some form of free-speech nobility, that advances human knowledge - that's a bit like using the Magna Carta to wipe your fucking arse.--Scott Mac 18:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's not forget that policies exist as a record of how the community defines that editors should act, not the other way round. The fact that so many mistakenly cite WP:NOTCENSORED is perhaps good indication that someone should propose expanding it to cover censorship of language outside of mainspace, as well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll ask you, Scott, to retract that blatant insult (seriously, "low-class" and "illiteracy"?). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Who on earth have I insulted. I described cussing as being in a "low class" of speech, and its over use as often revealing a poor grasp of literacy. Have I insulted cussing that I ought to retract?--Scott Mac 17:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, but he probably wouldn't mind. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
You've insulted anyone who chooses to "cuss" as being low-class and having poor literacy. If you don't see how that's an insult... well, given your other comments on this page, I'm sure you do, but just don't care. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe "cuss" is a corruption of "curse", referring to cursing at an individual. Scott seems to be suggesting that individuals who choose to resort to name-calling as opposed to other forms of arguing a point are often poorly educated; that seems accurate: see File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg. Even if you take it to mean that Scott is saying those who use what could be considered profanity are frequently poorly educated, that is simply making a statement about a particular editing style and the comment is not aimed at either an individual or a group. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't call people who use expletives anything at all. I've not even criticised swearing. If you actually read what i said, I said cussing is "low-class". It is. It isn't a classy use of language. I use it sometimes, and it generally is not me at my most fluent, and certainly not me demonstrating my full command of the English language. The "illiterate" I was applying to people who can't read a policy page and understand it, and I suggested that such a limitation may also go with an inarticulate use of the English language. That again is a fact, or at least a valid observation. Those who believe that they can understand a policy page need not feel insulted, and those who cannot probably can't parse my rhetoric anyway.--Scott Mac 18:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that's one hell of a spin. What, pray tell, is "classy" use of language? Miss Manners? Shakespeare? And disagreeing with the meaning of a policy does not make one "illiterate" or "inarticulate (in) use of the English language." And somehow, swearing is not showing "full command of the English language." I'd argue exactly the opposite, but I can see where this discussion is going.
Oh, and "those who cannot probably can't parse my rhetoric anyway," eh? Yeah. Real classy there. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Given that Factocop appeared to be asking a straight question "is it OK to use this sort of language?" and hasn't indicated what sort of admin action they feel is required here, I'm almost inclined to suggest this is actually more of a WP:Help desk question. Either way, it appears admin attention isn't required here since Bwilkins has made neither a personal attack nor an uncivil comment despite their choice of diction, so I'm marking as resolved since the question has been answered. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 18:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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



An error re. 'on this day' has been sitting there for nearly six hours now. Just letting you know. Arctic Night 13:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)



Repeated personal attacks on User_talk:JzG. [15], [16] & [17].The-Pope (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable prattism. 48 hour block. Possibly not any good contributions in entire edit history. S.G.(GH) ping! 14:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Continued tendentious editing by User:Communicat despite warnings and blocks[edit]

Communicat (talk · contribs) has a long history of tendentious editing which is forming a significant barrier to progressing articles. Admin User:Georgewilliamherbert has previously looked into this in August and gave Communicat a stern warning on 25 August for 'fringe POV-pushing' (see also Talk:World War II/Archive 41#Communicat and fringe-POV pushing and the subsequent discussion) which was followed by two blocks for uncivil comments over the next few weeks. In short, Communicat has a tendency to want to add information which is not correct in articles (even when the sources they provide demonstrate this to be wrong) and is pushing a fringe source which has repeatedly been found to be unreliable and is edit warring when other editors try to remove the dubious material they add. I will provide two recent examples that demonstrate that this behavior is continuing:

  • Communicat has been seeking for some time to include a claim in the World War II article that the United States was in charge of the civil administration of North Korea in the years after World War II, despite the country being occupied by the Soviet Union. This began with a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page on 9 September (see Talk:World War II#Arbitrary break onwards) in which there was no support for including such a claim in the article. Despite this on 17 September they added material to the article which strongly implied that the US was administering all of Korea and added some further questionable claims about how the division of the country took place (diff) which I reverted. This lead to further discussion of the topic on the article talk page in which the sources Communicat was providing to support their view were eventually demonstrated to say exactly the opposite (Eg, they stated that the USSR did in fact administer North Korea after the war) - see the posts from 1 October onwards (particularly the posts by Hohum and myself on 3 October) and other sources which demonstrate that the USSR was administering North Korea were provided. On 10 October Communicat edited the article again but did not include this claim about Korea (diff) - I reverted this again as there was no consensus to include the changes and it contained several other dubious claims (this reversion was supported by the other editors active on the article's talk page).
  • Despite this, on 24 October Communicat added what was pretty much the text on Korea which had been rejected in the World War II article to the Aftermath of World War II article (diffs), again implying that the US was administering all of Korea (along with lots of other changes). This was reverted by User:Edward321 (diffs), leading to an edit war between him and Communicat. The end result is that Communicat is still trying to include statement about the post-war administration of Korea which had no support from other editors and was proven to not be supported by the sources he or she was providing. I note that Communicat has a history of turning existing articles into POV forks (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II.
  • As the other example, Communicat has a long history of wanting to add dubious material sourced to someone named Stan Winer. Despite discussions at Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Industrial capacity and production, Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Link to, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#WW2 origins of Cold War, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#Link to, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45#User: Communicat and Talk:History of South Africa#new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities (and in passing in several other locations) which concluded that this author is not a reliable source, Communicate is still adding material referenced to self published works by this author to the History of South Africa article (diff: [18] on 17 October) and edit warring to restore it after it was removed by Edward321 (diffs: [19] (20 October) and [20] (21 October). Once again, he or she is ignoring a consensus which has arisen from extensive discussions and repeatedly adding dubious material.

As such, it appears that Communicat has not learned from their previous warnings and blocks, and is continuing to push POV claims using sources which have either been found to be unreliable or to not support their position. Responding to this clearly disruptive editing is wasting a lot of other editors' time and I ask that they be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what this issue is doing on this "incidents" notice board. This is a content dispute.
Responses to some points presented above:
  1. Quote: "forming a significant barrier to progressing articles". – The article Aftermath of World War II is or was unsourced crap. It was received absolutely no attention for many years. I have advised Communicat to work on that article instead of trying to tweak the limited space in the WW II article. I cannot see how Communicat's interest in the aftermath article could be a significant barrier to the article's progress!
  2. If Communicat's "text on Korea" had been rejected in the World War II, it was mainly because of the space constraints in the "aftermath" section of the WW II main article. There has been extensive discussion on the relative importance of topics on the talk page. There seems to be a consensus that the section needs to be pruned down, but no consensus on what is important.
  3. Stan Winer may not be a reliable source for WW II, but he is an respected South African journalist and a reliable source on the History of South Africa and apartheid.
  4. The issue of the "civil administration of North Korea" has been blown beyond all proportions. The sources seem to support Communicat's wording, but I do not know if the interpretations people are trying to make of this are correct.
  5. The last edit by Comminicat in the WW II article was on October 10 after extensive discussion and preparation on the talk page. This was blindly reverted by Nick-D two hours later. He made one edit in all of September with similar results. If any conclusions can be drawn from the edit history, it is more indicative of edit warring and stonewalling by Nick-D.
It seems that the content issues are mingled with some kind personal antipathy against Communicat. These dissenting editors are now extending the dispute to new articles they have never before been involved with. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Communicat has a record of making edits that are not supported or even contradicted by the sources he cites.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Communicat's most recent attempt to argue against this was to dismiss the sources that contradicted him as the product of McCarthy Era censorship.[35] This is in spite of Communicat previously arguing that some of these sources were reliable [36][37] and ignores the actual publication dates of most of the sources.[38]
Communicat's most recent edits to Aftermath of World War II involved him deleting a large section of sourced material as well as adding material that is not supported by the source he lists.[39] The source does not mention Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew [40] and does not say Churchill "virtually declared war" on the USSR in 1946.[41] Commincat's edits were also vague, so I clarified that Operation Dropshot was a contingency plan developed to counter of future attacks by the USSR if they occurred.[42] As the differences show, I clearly explained this in the edit summaries. Communicat blind reverted this and the rest of my edits.[43]
Communicat has also been trying against consensus to introduce a self-published fringe source, Stan Winer, into several articles for an extended period of time [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] as well as repeatedly advocating Winer on several talk pages.[ [68] Communiucat is the only editor to think this source is reliable. That's not why I listed Communicat on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I listed Communicat because he posted a (now deleted) file claiming to be to be the copyright holder, Stan Winer. The picture has since been reposted without Communicat making that claim. (Information provided by Petri Krohn leaves me with strong doubts that Winer is the actual copyright holder for the picture.)[69]) Even after all of this, Communicat continues to try to use Winer as a source.[70][71]
Communicat is often less than civil.[72] He has been blocked twice for lack of civility [73] and the statement that earned him his first block was left on his user page for 59 days[74], finally removing it 56 days after getting off the block he received for making the statement.[75] and three days after I reported it here.[76] Communicat has never apologized for his personal attacks.Edward321 (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You have repeatedly been making accusations that Communicat is falsificating sources. When you have been proven wrong, you have chosen new forums to make the same unfounded allegations.
The "large section of sourced material" communicat removed from the aftermath article was left-over material from the WW II article I had moved there – right before I asked Communicat to work on the article. I see little harm done if it is removed from the lede section, especially if corresponding material is added to the relevant sections.
The last reference by Stan Winer you have listed above was added on 1 September 2010, to the article History of South Africa. As I said earlier, Winer is a published authority on that topic.
As to the copyright issue, I have expressed no doubt that Winer is the copyright owner of the picture of prime minister B. J. Vorster. The only place where it appears uncut, apart from Wikipedia, is this article by Winer.
Overall, you seem to be arguing that Wikipedia should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view. Things look very different from the Southern hemisphere. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I have read and understood this thread. I refute all false allegations by Edward321 and Nick-D who appear to be working in tandem against me. I will not respond further in this forum to their allegations. These and other matters are currently the subject of an application to Arbcom, which application was formally lodged by me shortly before the apparent retaliatory posting of this incident notice. Communicat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
I don't think the crux of this issue is a content dispute. It's about disruptive behaviour. Communicat endlessly argues even when blatantly proven wrong, in the face of overwheling disagreement, when he has little to no support. He throws insults about bias and conspiracy, even accusing uninvolved administrator Georgewilliamherbert of bias when he tried to help. He has repeatedly pushed for Winers inclusion on WWII articles, and still refers to him on WWII talk pages, in the face of unanimous rejection by editors who voiced opinions there. Diffs to support this appear in earler posts in this thread, so I won't duplicate.
Communicat does, very occasionally, do something constructive, is suddenly polite, helpful, and engages in reasoned discussion. But it is sporadic and random. (Hohum @) 16:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Hohum on this. It's not about content. Sometimes, Communicat is pleasant and collegial, but mostly, he accuses everyone of belonging to a cabal that is out to get him. The simple truth of the matter is that Communicat typically is asserting a fringe position that no one else agrees is valid.
Contrary to what you assert, Petri Kohn, Communicat has quoted from sources that contradict him. He often cherry-picks quotes from various authors when the full context or other parts of the works contradict him explicitly. Two such instances are discussed at [77] and [78]. --Habap (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Petri, I am one of about 6 editors who has provided evidence that Communicat has added information that was not supported by the sources Communicat cited. Neither you nor Communicat have proven any of us wrong, or you would be able to provide differences supporting your claim. Of course, you should know that if you read the links I posted, just like you should know Communicat's last attempt at using Winer as a source occurred nearly two months after the date you list. I have never argued "that Wikipedia should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view" and am frankly baffled that you have claimed that I have done so. I don't even know what "a Northern point-of-view" is in terms of WWII. Finnish perhaps? Edward321 (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The issues here are already discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Edward321. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This Incident entry regards Communicat's behaviour, the Arb request is aimed at Edward321's, with no other involved party currently named by Communicat. (Hohum @) 17:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I can confirm that Arbcom has been requested to include Nick-D as an involved party. The relevant posting reads: Nick-D (like Edward321) has the peculiar and disruptive habit of reverting within minutes and without explanation material that I have laboriously contributed. He is apparently allergic to the courteous, customary and practical method of simply inserting a tag in submitted text, asking for correction, clarification, verification or whatever, with which I'd be perfectly willing to comply. Instead, he unilaterally deletes, undoes or reverts. I have repeatedly, consistently but unsuccessfuly attempted to engage Nick-D in thoughtful discussion, both on article talk page and on his user page. I repeat my request to have him joined as a third party in this application for arbitration, and I will then provide evidence of numerous previous attempts to resolve content disputes with him.
Interested parties may care to note that Nick-D earlier refused consent to open and decisive mediation in respect of his own conduct, including partisan editing and gross POV bias. Communicat (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that even a casual skim of Talk:World War II and its archives is enought to demstrate that I, and several other editors, have discussed Communicat's proposed changes with him or her in very great length over the last few months (including posting explanations when they're reverted). As noted in my original post, Communicat has generally ignored other editors' comments and keeps rehashing the same issues and repeating the same unacceptable behavior. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I have suggested some specific next steps that come from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution [79] as one or all of them may aid in resolving the current problems. --Habap (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Habap, I have no intention of withdrawing or otherwise backing down from my application to Arbcom, which is still under consideration by the committee.
Nick-D and interested parties, as regards Nick-D's recent posting above: no useful insight into the issues at stake can be gained by any "casual skim" of the current Talk:World War II "discussion" page or archived editions of the page as suggested by the filing party. Certain complex, important and perplexing matters were and still are at issue, and they also have a direct bearing on Nick-d's (and others') persistent violations of NPOV policy. Anyone sufficiently interested, and with the time and inclination to do so, should read the current and archived pages carefully, objectively and analytically, from top to bottom, before reaching any firm conclusions of their own. In particular, they should note my numerous, unsuccessful attempts to engage in constructive article content discussion with Nick-d, and his facetious replies or absence of replies thereto. It's all there in the record.
Suffice it to say that a perceptive reading of the discussions will prove that I have engaged in sustained discussion and serious attempts at negotiation with Nick-d (and others), with the sole intention of trying to find a solution to content problems, in order to help improve the article. My efforts have conformed fully with the letter and spirit of wiki's stated dispute avoidance policy. In response to which, Nick-D is now falsely and self-righteously alleging "Tendentious editing despite warnings and blocks". As Petri Krohn has correctly observed above, there has been no tendentious editing on my part. I would suggest that the wording of this ANI notice lodged Nick-d is itself tendentious.
Misleading reference is made by Nick-d to "warnings and blocks". I was blocked for 24 hours by an "uninvolved" intervening administrator for remarking that some particularly disruptive and bellicose discussants were behaving like animals. Later, I was blocked for 48 hours for remarking that a certain editor was "boring" because he kept reviving a certain dead-horse issue that had already been terminated. These blocks had nothing whatsoever to do with so-called tendentious editing. Indeed, Nick-D's own reasoning is tendentious, and his lodging of this notice is riddled with lies and distortions.
As for Edward321