Noticeboard archives

## Ongoing personal attacks by Channarichan

Resolved: blocked

The User : Channarichan had been attacking me personally on my Userpage. I reported to the wiki administrator and he was warned not to do it again. He wrote this on my Userpage today:

"plz...like i cant report your ass you little worm....stop diggin up false irrelevant statements...it only makes you look bad for yourself.."

This needs to stop. --BobbyCtkr (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I only see the one incident on your user page and the warning to him, not a second one. When was the second incident after the warning, on what page? Was there an IP edit somewhere I'm missing?
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
(replying to myself) This ( Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#User:BobbyCtkr , diff) appears to be the issue. But does not appear to warrant further admin action at this point, IMHO. It was spurious, but not worth actioning, in my opinion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Presumably this edit is the one that triggered BobbyCtkr's report here. --Danger (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Looks like an edit war in slow motion on momo (food). However, Channarichan has made several insulting edits to BobbyCtkr's page, including ethnically based personal attacks [1] (most have been deleted). They have received a final warning regarding personal attacks. [2] I would block, but am theoretically involved. --Danger (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• I have blocked Channarichan for a short time. It was made very clear to him with a uw4im template [3] the previous time that personal attacks were not acceptable, and this time he replaced the other user's userpage with this. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

## User:SqueakBox and paid editing (again)

Thread timestamped per consensus. HeyMid (contribs) 10:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• The subthread is closed, but User:SqueakBox is now speaking up to acknowledge that he was wrong not to disclose his COI and to pledge to undertake no more paid work. See thread here. Does this represent sufficient clue, and is the community inclined to put faith in his pledge? He wants to know how this can "be resolved other than through [his] being blocked forever for a mistake that wont be repeated." Would a finite block be more appropriate? Some version of Wikipedia:Standard offer? Time served? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Enough already. Tell him to take a hike for a few months, and apply then for an unblock.
The discussion was open for weeks, which is the longest I have ever seen any such discussion kept open, and Squeakbox ignored repeated requests to come clean. Then as soon as it's closed, Squeakbox posts again to his talk ... but even then it takes a further poke from Moonriddengirl before Squeakbox starts to give a plausible explanation of what's been happening.
This is a blatantly bad faith exercise in trying to game the system. We bent over backwards to give SB time to provide a convincing explanation, and even after three weeks he still couldn't play it straight even when the door was closed. SB is just wasting everybody's time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
If we should set an expiry time of his block, say 6 months or so, I think it's better to keep the block indefinite, as it currently is. An indefinite block is not technically in place infinitely or permanently; there is a way for constructive editors to come back, but it requires that the editor addresses the reasons surrounding their block. My personal opinion: Keep the block indefinite, and point the user to WP:OFFER. If the user then shows a minimum 6 months of constructive editing at a sister project (such as Wikinews, Wikisource, etc), they can come back and file another unblock request referring to their contributions at that project. HeyMid (contribs) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

### Unblock proposal by Themfromspace

This is going nowhere fast but I still think SqueakBox can be a constructive contributor if we set up some clear and precise conditions for an unblock. I propose the following.

1. SqueakBox is restricted from carrying out any paid-editing requests that have originated on external sites such as freelancer.com.
2. SqueakBox is required to disclose any conflicts of interest he may have on article talk pages. This includes situations where he has a close personal connection with an article's subject and situations in which the article's subject has at any time requested him to edit.
3. SqueakBox is restricted to editing from a single account.

The last restriction is to make sure he doesn't sock around the other ones. Should he violate any of these conditions he can be reblocked indefinitely. If he agrees to these conditions I say unblock and move on with things.

• Support as proposer. Modifications to the above are welcome, such as time limits on the restrictions (6 mos? 1 year?) ThemFromSpace 04:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per my comments above. After three weeks of evasion by Squeakbox, followed by yet more weaseling when the 3 weeks was over, I see no reason to trust any assurances from SB about future disclosure. I think it would be more accurate to say that this is going nowhere very very slowly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose has demonstrated amply that they shouldn't be trusted. Any conditions built on trust are a waste of time with this person, and a slap in the face to the editors that haven't treated those around them with such contempt (shouldn't this proposal be at the bottom of this page?)Bali ultimate (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; good faith only goes so far. I'm slightly bewildered by the unblock proposal. He should disclose COIs, not edit for money, and ideally not sock. So the unblock restrictions are precisely the same rules that he submits to as an editor anyway?. Ironholds (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Paid editing is not against the rules. :) I believe that a greater level of restrictions have been proposed here as there is a perception that he is compromising Wikipedia's best interest in advancing those of contractors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• In which case we encounter the second problem - we have no reason to trust him. He may as well pledge not to undertake any paid editing he expects us to find out about for all the value it holds. (also, the paid editing guideline didn't go through? Sweet. Time to open up la bank account...) Ironholds (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Nope, didn't pass. And I'm inclined to agree with you and the two above you; he's been at best evasive at worst downright deceptive in this matter. I'm not really familiar with him as an editor overall. I don't know if there is reason to believe that there's been more of this than we know or if he has other contribs that might balance against these issues. That said, at some point we have to decide what conditions might apply to unblocking. Is WP:STANDARDOFFER a good approach? How will we know he'll stop then? Should we recommend that he come back after a certain time and request unblocking with certain conditions imposed at that time? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• If it helps, I've got 600 articles to my name (just over, actually). While I have no reason to trust him, the community (for some godawful reason) trusts in my judgment - I'm perfectly prepared to step up and go "I'll screen through everything he's done each day and check any articles created, edited or expanded are done so in a neutral fashion and pass WP:N and the associated guidelines". A warning to him that all my mentees tend to screw up and get banned within a month :P. Ironholds (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Had more than enough time to come clean, and refused to do so. -DJSasso (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not feel comfortable unblocking him. Eventually he should consider going with WP:OFFER. HeyMid (contribs) 16:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Suggestion Although there have been some problems with this user which have led to a loss of trust, Wikipedia is known for giving second chances. (And third and fourth and fifth chances too.) I suggest Squeakbox help out on some of the other Wikimedia projects for a while and then make another unblock request in a few months. That would give him a chance to keep involved in the overall project and to rebuild trust here.   Will Beback  talk

## Levineps in violation of his editing restrictions

Levineps (talk · contribs) is completely banned from, among other things, making any page moves, as described in his community sanctions visible on his user page. He violated this recently, as seen here. This is not the first time he has done so, though it has been several months since he was last blocked for a violation. AN discussions regarding previous violations and blocks can be found here. postdlf (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Considering it was an article he created less than 1 minute before he moved it, I think we can give this one a pass. I see no issue with his actions here at all. I don't see why, within mere seconds of screwing up the title of an article he himself just created, and which no one else has edited, he has to jump through any special hoops. If you have evidence of him moving other articles, which do not fit this pattern, please present them. This seems a purely technical and inconsequential violation, and not worth even mentioning, let alone warning or sanctioning for. --Jayron32 04:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC) ed: My bad --Jayron32 05:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not what I'm seeing in this article history, Jayron. Am I looking at it incorrectly? It looks to me like this is a violation of his restricitons. It's not a page he had created. LadyofShalott 05:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I totally read that wrong, looking at his contribs history I totally misread the sequence of events. This is, in fact, a literal violation of his restrictions. I have no idea what should be done about this, but if he is, in fact, not supposed to be moving articles, this is blatantly such a move. Given the millions of other editors at Wikipedia, one of them can move it instead of him, if it needs moving. --Jayron32 05:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• I blocked him for a week. His last block for this was a week, but that was 9 months ago, hence my decision not to escalate the duration. The restrictions have been in place for a year and may be slightly outdated so I'm not ever so keen about blocking him, but "no page moves" isn't difficult. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I notice that on his user page, in the collapsed box spelling out his restrictions, there is a section at the end for logging blocks and other enforcement actions. LadyofShalott 05:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I recall the multiple discussions leading up to the restrictions, and this is a good block. I understand, and agree with, the reason for not escalating the block length, but suggest that if he violates aqain in the next 3 months or so, the next block should be for a month, as if the current block was for 2 weeks. That might provide additional incentive for him to keep to his restrictions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Three weeks or a month certainly isn't unreasonable. Hopefully, though, if he's managed to keep his nose clean for 9 months, he'll be able to keep it clean for a good while longer and anything we can to encourage that is great (carrot and stick if you like). Unfortunately, this is a cut-and-dry violation. Oh, and I logged in the appropriate section, thanks for spotting that, m'Lady. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Asa side note, did anyone actually look at the article in question? It was created by a now-blocked user (sockpuppetry), and is a list of the final standings for two high school conferences (in two different states). It looks to me more like a candidate for deletion, and it's unfortunate that Levineps got blocked over such a sad excuse for an article. (I'm not saying that the block was bad; it was totally appropriate.) Horologium (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
AFAICS, 2010 high school football season in the United States is not actually a list, just a pile of headings which might some day be made into a list. Pointless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

## Proxy abusing editor

Today's featured article got edited via proxy a lot. Why can't we delete these proxies? Someone attacks the featured articles every time a new one come ups. Is there a filter to stop it? --Hinata talk 10:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Other than our pattern-based edit filters there's nothing that I'm aware of. Open proxies can be blocked on sight. Protecting the page is only done for short periods and in extreme circumstances because it goes against our entire open editing philosophy. On the plus side, TFA is generally one of the most watched pages on the site so vandalism doesn't remain for long. EyeSerenetalk 12:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been monitoring this vandal and TFAs are not the only target. Pages like Chinese American and Dallas City Hall were also targets. Many more pages continued to be targets after short protections were applied. I'd rather not go into details publicly how we're catching this vandal but what I can tell is that our first attempt was very successful. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 17:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

## Rev Dels for copyvio required

Done. IP has not edited in the hour or so since your warning, but if they come back someone should probably block. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

For future reference just place Template:Copyvio-revdel on the article, someone will get around to it sometime.--Misarxist 13:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sooner is better with regard to copyvio, but, yeah, that would work too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

## PayPlay.FM

Resolved: reverted

Hello. Does this diff constitute a legal threat?--v/r - TP 14:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really; legal threats is designed to protect the Foundation and its editors and employees - that doesn't appear to be targeted at us, per se. Ironholds (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
It's fairly uncited at this point, so I've reverted back to a cleaner version.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

## User:SqueakBox and paid editing (again)

Thread timestamped per consensus. HeyMid (contribs) 10:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• The subthread is closed, but User:SqueakBox is now speaking up to acknowledge that he was wrong not to disclose his COI and to pledge to undertake no more paid work. See thread here. Does this represent sufficient clue, and is the community inclined to put faith in his pledge? He wants to know how this can "be resolved other than through [his] being blocked forever for a mistake that wont be repeated." Would a finite block be more appropriate? Some version of Wikipedia:Standard offer? Time served? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Enough already. Tell him to take a hike for a few months, and apply then for an unblock.
The discussion was open for weeks, which is the longest I have ever seen any such discussion kept open, and Squeakbox ignored repeated requests to come clean. Then as soon as it's closed, Squeakbox posts again to his talk ... but even then it takes a further poke from Moonriddengirl before Squeakbox starts to give a plausible explanation of what's been happening.
This is a blatantly bad faith exercise in trying to game the system. We bent over backwards to give SB time to provide a convincing explanation, and even after three weeks he still couldn't play it straight even when the door was closed. SB is just wasting everybody's time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
If we should set an expiry time of his block, say 6 months or so, I think it's better to keep the block indefinite, as it currently is. An indefinite block is not technically in place infinitely or permanently; there is a way for constructive editors to come back, but it requires that the editor addresses the reasons surrounding their block. My personal opinion: Keep the block indefinite, and point the user to WP:OFFER. If the user then shows a minimum 6 months of constructive editing at a sister project (such as Wikinews, Wikisource, etc), they can come back and file another unblock request referring to their contributions at that project. HeyMid (contribs) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

### Unblock proposal by Themfromspace

This is going nowhere fast but I still think SqueakBox can be a constructive contributor if we set up some clear and precise conditions for an unblock. I propose the following.

1. SqueakBox is restricted from carrying out any paid-editing requests that have originated on external sites such as freelancer.com.
2. SqueakBox is required to disclose any conflicts of interest he may have on article talk pages. This includes situations where he has a close personal connection with an article's subject and situations in which the article's subject has at any time requested him to edit.
3. SqueakBox is restricted to editing from a single account.

The last restriction is to make sure he doesn't sock around the other ones. Should he violate any of these conditions he can be reblocked indefinitely. If he agrees to these conditions I say unblock and move on with things.

• Support as proposer. Modifications to the above are welcome, such as time limits on the restrictions (6 mos? 1 year?) ThemFromSpace 04:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per my comments above. After three weeks of evasion by Squeakbox, followed by yet more weaseling when the 3 weeks was over, I see no reason to trust any assurances from SB about future disclosure. I think it would be more accurate to say that this is going nowhere very very slowly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose has demonstrated amply that they shouldn't be trusted. Any conditions built on trust are a waste of time with this person, and a slap in the face to the editors that haven't treated those around them with such contempt (shouldn't this proposal be at the bottom of this page?)Bali ultimate (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; good faith only goes so far. I'm slightly bewildered by the unblock proposal. He should disclose COIs, not edit for money, and ideally not sock. So the unblock restrictions are precisely the same rules that he submits to as an editor anyway?. Ironholds (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Paid editing is not against the rules. :) I believe that a greater level of restrictions have been proposed here as there is a perception that he is compromising Wikipedia's best interest in advancing those of contractors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• In which case we encounter the second problem - we have no reason to trust him. He may as well pledge not to undertake any paid editing he expects us to find out about for all the value it holds. (also, the paid editing guideline didn't go through? Sweet. Time to open up la bank account...) Ironholds (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Nope, didn't pass. And I'm inclined to agree with you and the two above you; he's been at best evasive at worst downright deceptive in this matter. I'm not really familiar with him as an editor overall. I don't know if there is reason to believe that there's been more of this than we know or if he has other contribs that might balance against these issues. That said, at some point we have to decide what conditions might apply to unblocking. Is WP:STANDARDOFFER a good approach? How will we know he'll stop then? Should we recommend that he come back after a certain time and request unblocking with certain conditions imposed at that time? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• If it helps, I've got 600 articles to my name (just over, actually). While I have no reason to trust him, the community (for some godawful reason) trusts in my judgment - I'm perfectly prepared to step up and go "I'll screen through everything he's done each day and check any articles created, edited or expanded are done so in a neutral fashion and pass WP:N and the associated guidelines". A warning to him that all my mentees tend to screw up and get banned within a month :P. Ironholds (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Had more than enough time to come clean, and refused to do so. -DJSasso (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not feel comfortable unblocking him. Eventually he should consider going with WP:OFFER. HeyMid (contribs) 16:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Suggestion Although there have been some problems with this user which have led to a loss of trust, Wikipedia is known for giving second chances. (And third and fourth and fifth chances too.) I suggest Squeakbox help out on some of the other Wikimedia projects for a while and then make another unblock request in a few months. That would give him a chance to keep involved in the overall project and to rebuild trust here.   Will Beback  talk

Resolved: Tunisia has been covered in birthday cake. Rich Farmbrough, 19:27, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

The Tunisia article is an article about the country. There is no history at all in the article after World War II. This is a major flaw that makes Wikipedia laughable. Here we are in the internet era and our article is less up to date than a paper encyclopedia printed in the 1970's!

I know ANI is usually the forum to complain about bad editors but this is a major flaw that needs help. If you are an administrator and like to block people or talk about administrative stuff, change for a while and go directly to that article and help add maybe two paragraphs. Madrid 2020 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not add whatever you think is missing from the article? Why expect someone else to do it? Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The most likely explanation for there being no information about Tunisia's history after 1956 is that there ceased to be ongoing coverage of it. It seems likely that none of the 10 million or so Tunisians cared enough to write anything about their country from about 1957 onwards. Google searches for "Tunisia after 1956" returned only 44 results (ie. barely any) and nothing in GNews. Probably we should delete Tunisia per WP:NOTNEWS, on the basis that coverage of the nation is limited to a short burst between the 10th century BC and 1956 and there is no evidence of ongoing real-world significance or wide geographic impact. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd be against any sort of AfD, everyone has heard of Tunisia! It's a really brilliant country and I went there on holiday once. I've worked really hard on the article and it would be really horrible if you nasty deletionists came and removed all my hard work. As a compromise, perhaps we could suggest a merge with Algeria in a section on neighbours? - ManicSpider (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Could that have possibly been a really, really bad attempt at irony, DustFormsWords? You do recognize that you just insulted a nation's entire population, right? Breathes there a man with soul so dead, who never to himself hath said, "This is my own, my native land!"?  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was intended ironically. Probably not as amusing unless you've argued a bunch of AfDs that take the format, "This organisation has verfiably distributed over a billion dollars in aid money throughout Africa but does not appear to have coverage in English-speaking newspapers and is therefore not notable." Apologies to any who didn't catch the (intended) funny. Apologies also for bringing humour to ANI, which I realise per policy is a dull and humourless place where hope goes to wither, die, and be indefinitely blocked. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry; I have a cold and seem to have exchanged my head/intellect for an anvil. I hope it's temporary. Perhaps I'll one day understand sophisticated humor again. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
That was humorous? I'd better go and undo my A7 then. I'm really only here because I like to block people. EyeSerenetalk 14:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Quite sadly, I got it ... --Epeefleche (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
No, it wasn't really. Obviously it was intended to be, but it's the kind of joke that would be funny in Germany. Egg Centric (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
As with, "Our dog's nose doesn't work", etc. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the reason that there has been no recent coverage is because in the 1970's the region was renamed to Tatooine... >.> -- 18:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

## User:Mactruth

Resolved: User blocked, "battlefield" material removed. Rich Farmbrough, 19:29, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

I'm rather concerned about the user page of Mactruth (talk · contribs). While I think it can be good to describe one's nationality, ethnicity, etc (it helps to show the diversity of Wikipedians), I think this is going too far into battlefield territory and is being used to attack Greeks. I nominated it for CSD:A10 (attack page), and that was declined - correctly, I think, as it is not "wholly" attacking. But I do think there are sections which overstep the line. User:Mactruth#How propaganda works is attacking Greece and Greek Wikipedia editors. User:Mactruth#Articles of irresponsible treatment of Macedonians by Greece is another attack on Greece, and can really only be seen as deliberate WP:BATTLE mentality. I'm not sure what needs to be done, but I think something does - maybe just the removal of some sections of that page? Maybe a warning that this battlefield approach to Wikipedia is not acceptable? I'll leave it to you folks to decide - and I'll go inform User:Mactruth of this discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

He has also recently done this. Granted he might have felt provoked, but changing someone's signature to call them "A Christian refugee wishing he was Macedonian" seems out of order. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Mactruth has a long history of battleground mentality and related sanctions. One of the most unproductive agenda editors I've met in this field, and that's saying a lot. WP:ARBMAC exists to deal with users like this. Fut.Perf. 12:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
While that may be true in the greater scheme of things, I know nothing of any long term issues and am not trying to address them - I'd just like some action on a couple of provocative/attacking/battlefield User page sections, and I don't think ArbCom is necessary for that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
While the page might not be eligible for a speedy deletion, it certainly comes under principle 1 of Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Final_decision: "Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited." I note that as recently as this morning the page was updated with this, and this was also posted today. I concur with Future Perfect that this editor is not here to build neutral content. Because they have previously been notified of WP:ARBMAC and sanctioned a number of times I've blocked them indefinitely. Review welcome, as always. Incidentally, although I haven't deleted the user page due to the earlier-declined speedy, I think under the ARBMAC principle I've quoted it probably should be. EyeSerenetalk 19:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I've reviewed and declined the user's unblock request - it dealt mainly with the larger conflict with Bulgarians and Greeks, and did very little to demonstrate how unblocking would benefit the project. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the block and have removed the ethno-nationalist soapboxing from the user page.  Sandstein  23:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I reviewed and declined another unblock request. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes but the statemant of User:A Macedonian's user page that Gjorgje Ivanov speaks modern modern Bulgaro-Serbian Slavic language has battlefield approach as well as offensive. first of all, Gjorgje Ivanov is a president of Republic of Macedonia, second, Slavic languages originated from Ohrid Macedonia. User:Eddie1kanobi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.226.44 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing near the same. And it's bad form to fake a signature. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite

## Levineps in violation of his editing restrictions

Levineps (talk · contribs) is completely banned from, among other things, making any page moves, as described in his community sanctions visible on his user page. He violated this recently, as seen here. This is not the first time he has done so, though it has been several months since he was last blocked for a violation. AN discussions regarding previous violations and blocks can be found here. postdlf (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Considering it was an article he created less than 1 minute before he moved it, I think we can give this one a pass. I see no issue with his actions here at all. I don't see why, within mere seconds of screwing up the title of an article he himself just created, and which no one else has edited, he has to jump through any special hoops. If you have evidence of him moving other articles, which do not fit this pattern, please present them. This seems a purely technical and inconsequential violation, and not worth even mentioning, let alone warning or sanctioning for. --Jayron32 04:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC) ed: My bad --Jayron32 05:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not what I'm seeing in this article history, Jayron. Am I looking at it incorrectly? It looks to me like this is a violation of his restricitons. It's not a page he had created. LadyofShalott 05:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I totally read that wrong, looking at his contribs history I totally misread the sequence of events. This is, in fact, a literal violation of his restrictions. I have no idea what should be done about this, but if he is, in fact, not supposed to be moving articles, this is blatantly such a move. Given the millions of other editors at Wikipedia, one of them can move it instead of him, if it needs moving. --Jayron32 05:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• I blocked him for a week. His last block for this was a week, but that was 9 months ago, hence my decision not to escalate the duration. The restrictions have been in place for a year and may be slightly outdated so I'm not ever so keen about blocking him, but "no page moves" isn't difficult. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I notice that on his user page, in the collapsed box spelling out his restrictions, there is a section at the end for logging blocks and other enforcement actions. LadyofShalott 05:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I recall the multiple discussions leading up to the restrictions, and this is a good block. I understand, and agree with, the reason for not escalating the block length, but suggest that if he violates aqain in the next 3 months or so, the next block should be for a month, as if the current block was for 2 weeks. That might provide additional incentive for him to keep to his restrictions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Three weeks or a month certainly isn't unreasonable. Hopefully, though, if he's managed to keep his nose clean for 9 months, he'll be able to keep it clean for a good while longer and anything we can to encourage that is great (carrot and stick if you like). Unfortunately, this is a cut-and-dry violation. Oh, and I logged in the appropriate section, thanks for spotting that, m'Lady. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Asa side note, did anyone actually look at the article in question? It was created by a now-blocked user (sockpuppetry), and is a list of the final standings for two high school conferences (in two different states). It looks to me more like a candidate for deletion, and it's unfortunate that Levineps got blocked over such a sad excuse for an article. (I'm not saying that the block was bad; it was totally appropriate.) Horologium (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
AFAICS, 2010 high school football season in the United States is not actually a list, just a pile of headings which might some day be made into a list. Pointless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

## Demographics of Brazil

Resolved: Disruptive editor blocked for socking

I invite a previously uninvolved person wielding a big stick to take a look at the recent edit history of Demographics of Brazil, in combination with the last screenful or so of its talk page. Maybe PoV-pushing (perhaps by me!), maybe 3RR: the usual mishmash. -- Hoary (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The claims by User:Seethakathi that there has to be an English language source, that a foreign language source must be verifiable by him personally, and that foreign language sources are only allowed after being verified by a "seasoned admin", are utter nonsense. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
And the figures he wants to reinstate at the expense of a scientific paper in Portuguese are clearly absurd, incompatible with the actual Arab immigration to Brazil and with the figures for people of Arab descent in other countries. Ninguém (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted once more, and have issued a warning. He'll be in breach of 3RR if he does it again, and is editing against consensus anyway, so I see a block in his future if he continues -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Lecen (talk · contribs) has written several FAs on Brazilian history, speaks Portuguese, knows correct sourcing, has sources in that area, and is knowledgeable on the topic-- you might want to ping him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Great idea, thanks, I'll do that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Pinged at User_talk:Lecen#Demographics_of_Brazil -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. There aren't 10 million Arabs in Brazil. The person who wrote that probably meant "10 million Arab-descendants" in Brazil. So, someone could have three Portuguese-descendant grandparents and one Arab-descendant grandparent. That is, it would be the same as to say that all whites in the United States are Germans simply because most, if not all White Americans must have at least one Anglo-Saxon ancestor.
Why I'm saying this? Well, because according to IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), between 1808 and 1883, 500,000 immigrants settled in Brazil. The numbers after that are: 1884-1893 (883,668 immigrants); 1894-1903 (862,100); 1904-1913 (1,006,617); 1914-1923 (503,981); 1924-1933 (737,223); 1934-1943 (197,238); 1944-1953 (348,443); 1954-1963 (446,752); 1964-1973 (86,457); 1974-1983 (61,302). Source: Vianna, Hélio (1994). História do Brasil: período colonial, monarquia e república (15 ed.). São Paulo: Melhoramentos, p.633 ISBN 8506019990
According to the author: "In all, from 1808 to 1983 entered 4,5 million [immigrants], not counted the Africans brought as slaves." (Vianna, p.633)
The vast majority of these immigrants were Portuguese and Italians, followed by Germans and Spanish, and then by Japanese. Other nationalities, such as Russians, Polish and Arabs were counted in the few thousands. It's simply impossible to exist 10 million Arabs in Brazil. Regards to all, --Lecen (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Ow, and before I forget: be careful with American sources. According to the CIA factbook [4], Brazil is divided between whites, mulattoes and blacks. They simply translated "pardo" as "brown" and thought that it meant someone who is descendant of a white and a black. The pardos are mulattoes, but also caboclos (and in smaller numbers, cafusos). Caboclos are the Brazilian equivalent to Hispanic American "mestizos" and in the United States "latinos". --Lecen (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
That's brilliant, thanks - it fits with my own conclusions on the Talk page after having had a look at several sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
You owe me \$2 or a box of chocolates. For future reference Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs) can also contribute on Brazil and Portuguese-language topics, but he is very busy, so don't go pinging him if Lecen is around. My experience with Portuguese is limited to one month-long stint with strategic planning in Sao Paulo and the gardeners in my "deteriorating house with a leaky basement" (according to one prolific sockmaster), so I'm forced to rely on the cadre of "loyal followers on wiki who [I try] to control through FAC"! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll leave the chocs on account and hope to get the chance to hand them over some day, if that's OK ;-) My own experience of Brazil is limited to a two-week trip to Rio one December (great place, great people), though I also have a friend in Portugal. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
<grumble> OK, keep your darn chocolates, then! I'll just have to buy my own with my "deteriorating" funds. I'll give you two new choices: you can join my "loyal" [Myspacey-group] of "followers on wiki" to address my lack of a "social life beyond the wiki", or you can add to the growing ranks of those who keep an eye on that sockmaster-- she still gets around, and is quite taken with my life! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, it's a deal, I'll consider it an honour to join your list of stalkers - do I get a special badge or membership card? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
If I told you of my secret powers, the special badge, and the Super-Sekret Cabal I control, I'd have to kill 'ya. Remember, I have legions of admins following me around, at my beck and call. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Understood - I shall seal up my lips and give no words but mum. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Mums the word. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but have you tried arranging them in a vase? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

## Proxy abusing editor

Today's featured article got edited via proxy a lot. Why can't we delete these proxies? Someone attacks the featured articles every time a new one come ups. Is there a filter to stop it? --Hinata talk 10:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Other than our pattern-based edit filters there's nothing that I'm aware of. Open proxies can be blocked on sight. Protecting the page is only done for short periods and in extreme circumstances because it goes against our entire open editing philosophy. On the plus side, TFA is generally one of the most watched pages on the site so vandalism doesn't remain for long. EyeSerenetalk 12:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been monitoring this vandal and TFAs are not the only target. Pages like Chinese American and Dallas City Hall were also targets. Many more pages continued to be targets after short protections were applied. I'd rather not go into details publicly how we're catching this vandal but what I can tell is that our first attempt was very successful. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 17:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

## Rev Dels for copyvio required

Done. IP has not edited in the hour or so since your warning, but if they come back someone should probably block. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

For future reference just place Template:Copyvio-revdel on the article, someone will get around to it sometime.--Misarxist 13:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sooner is better with regard to copyvio, but, yeah, that would work too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

## PayPlay.FM

Resolved: reverted

Hello. Does this diff constitute a legal threat?--v/r - TP 14:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really; legal threats is designed to protect the Foundation and its editors and employees - that doesn't appear to be targeted at us, per se. Ironholds (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
It's fairly uncited at this point, so I've reverted back to a cleaner version.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

## Since this is the only central location people pay attention to....

Resolved: 15 January 2011 is over!!! HeyMid (contribs) 09:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Happy Birthday to this Collaborative Project We Call Wikipedia!!!!!

### Sign Here!!!!!

1. Phearson (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
2. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
3. FASTILY (TALK) 09:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
4. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC) - Almost over here though!
5. Reyk YO! 10:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
6. It's a good thing to step back for a break, in particular here! Happy Birthday! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
7. SilverserenC 10:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
9. HeyMid (contribs) 10:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Pint!!!
10. 220.101 talk\Contribs 10:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
11. Merbabu (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
12. Happy Birthday to us. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
13. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
14. Many happy returns! Favonian (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
15. Mirokado (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
16. Here's to another ten years. MER-C 14:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
17. --Hinata talk 14:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
18. Ten years? Ain't it done yet? ;-) Congrats all round AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
19. Blow 'em out! Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
20. Ah, internet old age. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
21. What I would give to be ten again.... Dusti*poke* 15:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
22. Support Ten more years! Ten more years! Ten more years!... Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
23. Where has the time gone. Remember when there were less than 500,000 articles? MarnetteD | Talk 16:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
24. Does anyone remember those heady days when there were only 3,528,629 articles? It seems like only yesterday. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
25. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
26. Baseball Watcher Lets Chat 19:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
27. HAPPY TENTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Perseus, Son of Zeus 19:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
28. - Dwayne was here! 19:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
29. WAYNESLAM 20:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
30. Afraid I'm at a loss for something witty to say here, though. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
31. Happy Birthday, Wikipedia! ~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 20:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
32. Am I too late for cake? ThemFromSpace 22:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
33. *Kat* (meow?) 22:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
34. Don't worry guys, I brought the cake. →GƒoleyFour← 22:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Yum.......Cake!!!!
35. ${\displaystyle sin}$ Tonywalton Talk 01:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
36. happy birthday to us--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
37. WikiPedia is a wide-open encyclopedia project. Who knows where it will go? [5] The same goes for the next ten years.   Will Beback  talk  11:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
38. FREE AS IN FREEDOM!!!! WIKIPEDIA FOREVER!!!!--  Novus  Orator  11:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
39. --Meno25 (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
40. Fashionably late. -- œ 17:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy B-day Wikipedia!S.V.Taylor (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)S.V.Taylor

### Neutral

1. Being a somewhat wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastie, I'll sign just after Uncle G does :-) Back to the backlogs, for the noo. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• You're either ten days too early or ten months too early. If you feel such a bout of Scottishness coming on, mate, then you can remedy it by helping to decide what to do with Linburn (AfD discussion). Talking of Scots: I see that one has already done what is traditional and necessary, and eliminated the need for my doing it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Too lang, dinae reid!--Shirt58 (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
1. That cake worries me.--Misarxist 16:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
2. I'm a little concerned that someone appears to have set fire to Dougal from The Magic Roundabout. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
3. I think Wikipedia should lie about its age. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
4. Cake might be a lie. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

### Oppose

1. Because m:poles are evil.--Scott Mac 15:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
But will it last for another ten? Or will it be inevitably superceeded by ineffably superior and sublime NAMELESS POWERS? Just a thought. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
2. The rationales for the supports are not clearly explained in policy. Some of them appear to be incompatible with WP:XYZ. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
3. This isn't an incident. Minimac (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
4. I am signing here because I am an undisclosed member of the evil Doc Glasgow's cabal. Better not to ask. Mathsci (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
5. Lack of contributions to articlespace.-Atmoz (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
6. Perma Ban Cake? There's no cake in Wikipedia! - Burpelson AFB 13:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

### Signing is evil

1. Being evil is fun. --Dorsal Axe 16:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
2. Off to play Dungeon Keeper. Protonk (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

### Confused

1. How do you flush this damned thing? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
It's called the Coriolis effect. Clockwise above the equator and counterclockwise below the equator. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
2. How do I get out of this chickens*** outfit?Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 00:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• "How do you get a transfer out of this chicken-shit outfit?" Harry demanded.

"Well, you have to fuck up —"

"Fuck up. That's my problem. All this time I tried to fuck off."

Footfall, Larry Niven, 1985

No, we don't seem to mention Russell C. Geist anywhere in either Wikipedia or Wikiquote. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

3. So where can I buy this? RadManCF open frequency 00:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

1. ~~
2. ~
3.

### Couldn't get to a meetup only 20 minutes away because of life

1. Dammit. Meh, I think less than 10 people actually showed up anyway :P. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
2. I was sick! But on the bright side, I got 500 edits in yesterday... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

### Late to the party, but who cares?

1. The Thing T/C 01:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
2. The cake is a lie! - Amog | Talkcontribs 09:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

### Cake division method discussion

I suggest we use the Brams–Taylor procedure. Count Iblis (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

nom nom nom - Amog | Talkcontribs 17:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Divide per nom nom nom--Shirt58 (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This

is in dispute at commons because of copyright concerns. A similar fate could befall the cake above. Bevare! Bevare! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

## Antisemitic/pro Nazi edits from an IP

Just reverted this pro-Nazi edit, then I took a look at recent edits and found this and this, both antisemitic in that they seek to suggest that there is something less than British about Jewish people from Britain. I gave a warning for the Kershaw vandalism. The IP resolves to Hampshire County Council (so may be a school, a library, or a council office). The three edits came over five days. I think it would be worth keeping a very close eye on any further edits from this IP 86.12.167.6. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Its clear looking at many of the other edits, edits such as this [[6]] and this [[7]], the IP has made that this is just petty vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I blocked the IP for a month for vandalism. Its Talk: page must have at least 20 warnings for vandalism in the past 8 months. I was tempted to block for longer. Jayjg (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

## Improper move closer by non-admin User:macr86 at Talk:Ann Arbor

User:Macr86, who has no user page and a history of controversy on his or her talk page particularly in regard to moves, just closed a controversial WP:RM proposal at Talk:Ann Arbor#Revert_move (now Talk:Ann Arbor, Michigan#Revert_move). I request that an uninvolved admin review this decision and move for the following reasons:

1. Performed by a non-admin in a discussion in which opinion was strong in both directions.
2. No reasoning/explanation given for deciding to move despite the apparent lack of consensus to move (this was an article that was moved with clear consensus support recently, and this was an attempt to move it back, but, although a slight majority in favor of moving back is there in terms of vote counts, there was no consensus support to move it back, especially when weighing the argument presented in terms of being well-argued statements based in policy and guidelines.

Experienced editors in good standing are allowed to close some requested move surveys.

Unanimous or nearly unanimous discussions after a full listing period (seven days);

Where there is no contentious debate among participants;

Which do not require a history merge or history swap; and

Which do not have large numbers of subpages that need to be moved along with the move of the project page, such as voluminous archives (administrators have the ability to move up to 100 pages in a single click).

Not only is this user not an admin, but I don't think he or she even meets the "Experienced editors in good standing" criteria.

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Got a better idea -- let's topic ban Born2cycle from naming discussions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Never mind.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I think your concerns are valid with the closes by this editor. Following your notice to me, I did leave a note on their talk page that their closes could be considered vandalism and they should not do any moves for a while. While I may agree with some of the moves, others are clearly wrong. But too may have questionable consensus or were against consensus. I'm not commenting on this particular close, just the actions of the closer that is being discussed here. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
As a participant in that discussion, I have to agree that was a highly inappropriate "drive-by, no comment or rationale" close. It needs to be reverted and properly closed by an uninvolved admin willing to analyze the arguments and explain the rationale for moving or not moving the page. 28bytes (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
We've discussed problems with him before, see [8] - a discussion which he didn't participate in and which involved what were felt to be disruptive moves of White Rabbit pages, perhaps also via an IP in the past. If he doesn't respond to this discussion I'm considering a block. Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you please also consider 28bytes' request for a revert and unclose of the discussion/decision in question to allow for an uninvolved admin "to analyze the arguments and explain the rationale for moving or not moving the page."? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Macr86 (talk · contribs · logs) has a short contribution history consisting almost exclusively of article titling work: redirects, page moves, and posts to move discussions, as well as a few AfD-related contributions. I'm posting to his talk page now.

I agree that it would be appropriate to revert the closure of the discussion. People were still making points, and it's a significant discussion, in the RM world, for what that's worth. I'm not going to do anything adminly, because I closed the previous discussion, so that would look funny. (My position on the move is in the discussion: I'm an observer.) -GTBacchus(talk) 22:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Ann Arbor-specific discussion is now taking place on Talk:Ann Arbor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The main article definitely needs to be Ann Arbor, Michigan. Whether it was a proper closure or not is another story, but it doesn't sound right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yea, you are probably correct. The first move had consensus from a small group. However there is no clear consensus to support the first move in the second discussion. Maybe that is what macr86 saw. So before an admin reverts that close, they really need to determine if the close was wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
For all we know Macr86 flipped a coin. 28bytes (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The situation appears to be that there was a close of the first move which some say was improper, which led to a discussion whose closure is also being described as improper. Maybe flipping a coin was the most rational way to decide this issue. ;)   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Heh. Well, then we'd need an RfC on who could call "heads". 28bytes (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• It's not fair to compare the first close by an admin where consensus among those participating was clear, to the second close by a disruptive non-admin editor who made a move decision without explanation despite there being no consensus in favor of the move established. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Sure it is. The first move discussion had a very small number of participants. The closing admin decided unilaterally that the naming convention is no longer valid and so discounted one of the comments entirely. A better solution would have been to relist it for more discussion.   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• No, I didn't. You can complain directly to me, if you're not happy with my earlier close. I can see that it may have been overly hasty, but I did not "decide unilaterally" anything. I was closing move discussions, as always, and this one seemed to be a case of a guideline in transition. There is ample discussion on many pages showing that the community is not of one mind regarding this state-names issue.

I was doing my best to reflect the community thinking that I believe I observe, in that discussion and in many others. I'll accept that I made a bad call, but I wasn't trying to "unilaterally" anything. I've got no dog in this fight. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, more input is certainly welcome at the discussion in question. Lots of people are questioning just where the line is regarding names of US cities (Los Angeles/"Los Angeles, California", versus Albuquerque, New Mexico/"Albuquerque"). The more people in the conversation, the clearer a consensus we'll obtain. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

We have naming conventions, one of the purposes of which is to avoid having to argue over the names of individual articles of the same type.   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Avoiding arguing might have been the intent of specific naming conventions that call for pre-emptive disambiguation, but probably just a presumed unintended but welcome consequence, but how has that actually worked out for the last 10 years? I suggest that we've seen the opposite. That is, enforcement of naming conventions, at least for topics that have obvious, clear and natural names (like cities but not like highways), has resulted in much more arguing. This is why arguing is drastically reduced whenever pre-emptive disambiguation is no longer required. That has been true not only for the U.S. cities on the AP lists, but for just about every naming convention that has "loosened up" in this respect. This is why even guidelines like WP:NC-TV and WP:NCROY now have provisions to allow those articles within their domains that have clear, obvious and natural unambiguous names to have those names as their titles. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It's worked out great. Although there are thousands of US places covered by that naming convention, page move discussions are relatively rare. What arguments there have been appear to have been instigated mostly by a small number of users. Anyway, I'm not going to engage in a another 10,000 word thread about naming conventions.   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Will, you've got that backwards. I suggest you look at the names of the users who propose most of these moves a little bit closer, and in particular pay attention to how rarely they are proposed by those of us in the small of group "regulars" who support concise names when possible. For example, you might start with this particular move at Talk:Ann Arbor which was initially proposed by a user who, as far as I know, was not involved in any of these discussions. I suggest that's typical, and contrast it with the proposed revert, which was started by one of the members of your small group of "regulars" who are dead set in their opposition to changing the U.S. city naming guideline. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted this entirely inappropriate move. If and when a consensus developed regarding moving the article, then an experienced and uninvolved admin can move it. Until then, the discussion should be allowed to continue, so a consensus develops. Jayjg (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, as an involved editor/admin it's not really optimal to have you deciding if the move was appropriate or premature. No uninvolved admin who saw this felt there was a need to undo the move.   Will Beback  talk  01:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree Jayjig was clearly involved and has voice support for the outside conventional usage of Ann Arbor. It was not appropriate for him to undo the move. AgneCheese/Wine 02:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it more profitable to direct energy into deciding the name, rather than deciding whether some previous action was appropriate or not? The name is not going to be decided based on a technicality of who messed up when. It's going to be decided based on what the community consensus favors.

Please remember that RM discussions are not AfDs, and "no consensus" does not default to "no move". We're going to choose the best title, based on arguments presented, so what's the point arguing about technicalities? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

We had a discussion, with a lot of input, and an uninvolved user judged the outcome. Then an involved editor/admin didn't like that outcome so he moved it back and re-opened the discussion. We wouldn't need to be having any more discussion if it hadn't been for that action.   Will Beback  talk  02:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd say that discussion was still ongoing. It appears that the earlier one I closed could have used more time as well. Why don't we let the conversation run its course? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The first thing that Jayjg did after re-opening the discussion was to argue with two editors who had previously posted opposing views.[9] That seems like taking a second bite at the apple.   Will Beback  talk  02:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, or picking up a conversation that had been interrupted. Why assume the worst? Let's just let the discussion run its course. Your side is probably going to be the one decided on, have you noticed? Just let it happen. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Interrupted? No new editors had commented in over 36 hours. I'm still trying to figure out on what authority Jayjg decided to move the article. If he wants to move it move he should start a fresh discussion, not shortcut the process by putting it back to where he wanted it.   Will Beback  talk  02:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I sometimes get away from the computer for a long time. I've spent longer than 36 hours on a single trip by airplane, during which I had no Internet. The point is, it's open now, and after a suitable and finite interval, someone uninvolved will close it based on the arguments people have made, and then all will be well. Right? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
In the previous move discussion, you closed it less than 12 hours after the last comment. As it happens, someone uninvolved already closed the discussion. Then some partisans reopened it. I realize that no decision on Wikipedia is ever final, but this is getting silly.   Will Beback  talk  03:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we've agreed that my initial close was overly hasty. I think a good reaction to that is to be very sure that we're not hasty again. I'm looking at this in the larger context of many move discussions, and there's a big conversation that people are having all over the major US cities. It's happening on any number of talk pages, and trying to rush it along on any one of them is not going to make it go away.

Let's be very thoughtful and deliberate, hear the best arguments on both sides, and allow a consensus to emerge. The state of the guideline right now is that it doesn't enjoy the strong consensus support that we like for our guidelines. If we allow this conversation to happen, it can be made stronger. That's good, no matter what side one may be on. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind "No new editors had commented in over 36 hours" because User:macr86 had improperly closed the discussion. As soon at it was re-opened, there was lots more discussion. Jayjg (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Will, the "uninvolved user" who close the discussion in this case is notorious for making controversial "decisions" - so there can be no confidence that that decision was thoughtful. Look, we all know this is an important decision, and we really it need it to be properly evaluated and closed by an experienced, knowledgable and uninvolved admin. If this user had closed it without moving, I admit I probably would not have bothered to file this AN/I, but I suspect someone would have, and that close would have been surely reversed just as this one was, and I would not have objected to that, even if it was unclosed by an involved admin who favors the pre-emptive disambiguation side. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
If there was a problem with the closure and move then an uninvolved admin could have fixed it. None thought it necessary.   Will Beback  talk  02:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
After this report, there will doubtless be more editors and administrators looking in. That can only be for the best, because we'll gauge a clearer consensus. Good work, us. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 03:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much support for Jayjg's move. Unless there's a consensus here that it was done in process I think the previous closure by an uninvolved editor should be restored.   Will Beback  talk  03:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It should really be closed by someone with more experience with the site. There is no need to rush anything here. The conversation is still happening, and it's a good conversation for us to have. Wikipedia is growing; let it happen. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
You're reversing the onus here. The conversation was on-going (and still is), and there was no support for the out-of-process move by User:macr86. You don't close discussions and move articles before a consensus has developed, and certainly not while the move discussion is still on-going. And do you seriously think an editor with under 250 edits, who has made a number of disputed moves already, should actually be making this decision, or closing this extremely active RFM? I can't imagine you would. Let's see where the discussion leads, and then an uninvolved and experienced admin can make the final determination. Jayjg (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I've got to agree that the close by Macr86 was so dubious that it should be undone. Yes, they may have been uninvolved but their other closes show that they do not properly understand how to close a requested move, which given their lack of experience is perhaps unsurprising. As such I think the close by Marc86 had no validity. I think the reason that it hadn't been reversed was that no admin had, so far, taken the time to read the discussion and possibly re-close and that people were waiting for that to happen rather than simply re-opening. In the absence of a re-close, re-opening is the best option so that eventually it will be re-closed by someone with more experienced. I would have reversed it myself had I noticed it before it arrived here but as it was already here before I noticed it I thought it best to leave to an admin to reverse. Yes I'd agree that it probably shouldn't have been reversed by Jayjg given their involvement but given that it was, in my opinion (and that of others here), the right decision lets not worry about it too much as we have the right end result. Dpmuk (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

### Additional out-of-process move(s) by User:macr86

Note that User:macr86 also closed a discussion prematurely here: Talk: Rosalie. Then he/she moved the page prematurely. I think he needs to understand that these sorts of editorial operations are best done by more experienced editors and require consensus. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That's outrageous.
• The proposal was made 14:57, 14 January 2011,
• there was one Oppose at 17:56, 14 January 2011,
• a brief discussion,
• and User:macr86 closed it in favor of moving the next day at 23:25, 15 January 2011.
I have not looked into the underlying issues, but regardless of whether the decision happened to be "right" or "wrong", I suggest the move be reversed, and the discussion re-opened and re-listed.
Just how many of these blatantly disruptive closures and completely ignored warnings on his talk page have to be there before we can reasonably assume that this behavior is more about a lack of caring than a lack of understanding?
I wish I knew why sometimes quick action is taken by admins, and then there are cases like this where nobody does anything and the disruption is simply allowed to continue. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing the admins assumed this was still part of the Ann Arbor-specific discussion. I've created a subhead to clarify that additional, unrelated pages are being moved by this user. 28bytes (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked macr86 to make sure that the editor doesn't make any more moves against policy. As soon as they figure out what they did wrong, they can request an unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks SarekOfVulcan, much appreciated. 28bytes (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The user has a history of obsessive move requests dealing with the topic of white rabbits. (Talk:White Rabbit (disambiguation)) including ignoring consensus, and trying to bypass established consensuses through other processes. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way -- "nobody does anything and the disruption is simply allowed to continue" -- that's why you're still editing. So stop throwing stones before one of them hits your glass house. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Spot on, Sarek. I was going to write something similar myself, but you put it perfectly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Not doing anything about someone who is doing nothing wrong or disruptive is the appropriate response. That situation is not at all comparable to not doing anything about someone who refuses to even engage in discussion about his or her blatantly disruptive and inexplicable behavior questioned by multiple editors. I guess it might be fun and cathartic to take swipes at vocal people you disagree with, but both of these comments essentially comparing my expression of controversial opinions about naming guidelines and their applications to various articles to vandalism are completely out of line. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
As your continual efforts to impose European-conformism to American city names in defiance of common usage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Last I checked I was born in the USA and WP:TITLE applied to the naming of all articles in Wikipedia, not just to those about European cities. In any case any disagreement about that is not vandalism. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Since when do wikipedia guidelines override common usage? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Consistently overwhelming discussions with repeated posts of slightly-rephrased positions is pretty much as disruptive as not posting at all. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Is the fantastic definition of disruption you seem to be assuming documented anywhere? I don't mean to be pedantic, but you say this as if it's obvious that participating in a lot of discussions about related issues is wrong and disruptive. It's not like I'm just posting gibberish all over the place, though that's what you seem to be implying. I'm responding to posts and questions posed by other editors, just as I am here. I'm engaging in discussion trying to develop consensus. It might not be effective because people get tired of it, but to compare it to the obviously disruptive behavior of irresponsible RM discussion closures is out of line. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No, you're trying to force consensus, and refuse to listen to other people's ideas of consensus. If you were listening, you'd be typing a lot less and agreeing a lot more. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Anything there look familiar? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Force consensus? How in the heck does one do that? It's impossible, by definition! Even if I somehow managed to physically threaten people to get them to say they agree with me, that still wouldn't be "consensus", because the "agreement" would be a sham. You say I don't pay attention to what others say? How about paying attention to your own words?

IDHT? Oh, please. This is like throwing around cooked noodles and hoping something sticks.

In the unlikely event that you're serious about this, please be specific and clear about what "unsupportable allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it" you think I'm sticking to (I will consider no response to this as acknowledgment that you're not serious). Please consider that after the AP consensus decision I was pretty quiet about the whole U.S. city naming/guideline issue the entire time, for 3 1/2 years, until I opened the RFC a few weeks ago to see where consensus was. The suggestion that I continue to stick to a position and repeatedly discuss it after the community consensus has rejected it is proven to be dead wrong not only with respect to U.S. city naming, but also with respect to flora naming.

I admit to the mistake that I repeat a lot of what I say, that's definitely a weakness of mine, but that alone is not evidence of IDHT or disruption.

And there is no way that I refuse to "acknowledge others' input or their own error." (in fact, I just acknowledged my own error of repeating a lot of what I say). To the contrary, part of the reason I post so much is precisely because I pay so much attention to what others are saying, give it careful thought, and explain my perspective as clearly as I can when I respond (as I'm doing here, though in this case I'm paying close attention to the words to which you referred at IDHT, but it's my typical process). How can I respond so specifically to something I'm not acknowledging? That's absurd. You're not making any sense, just spewing nonsense irrationally.

I recognize your frustration with me is genuine, but you need to understand that it stems from a disagreement about something substantive, not my behavior, other than I'm vocal about stating an opinion with which you disagree. Isn't it curious that I'm mostly chastised by those who disagree with me... (I say "mostly" because there are some who agree with me who have advised me that I post too much, but it's done respectfully and with no irrational accusations of disruptiveness or anything else like that). So, I'm truly sorry about the frustration you feel, but that does not justify posting this kind of tripe about me, particularly in a forum like this where I naturally feel like I have to defend myself. If all my words are really the problem, you should know better than to post accusations like this to me.

To be thorough, I must also deny making statements as if they have community support when they don't. Again, I'm especially careful to avoid doing that. That's one of the reasons I so often quote specifically from policy and guideline (which presumably has community approval), but of course that's another noodle flung around to complain about me by those who disagree... as being legalistic.

Enough with the spurious accusations, please. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Or you ignore it if it suits you, such as not answering my question about why some "wikipedia guideline" should override common usage. As to how to "force" consensus, it's done by beating up the subject relentlessly until your opposition gets tired of it and goes away. A process which can take years, of course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
"(I will consider no response to this as acknowledgment that you're not serious)" -- sorry, no such acknowledgment is forthcoming. Go read the first three lines of WP:DE. Pattern of editing? Check. Number of articles? Check. "continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors" -- you know, the further I get in this, the more I'm convinced you fit the bill. Do you want to back off for a while and see what gets worked out without you, or do you want to follow this to its logical conclusion?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────So, um, you guys want to take this outside or something? I think one fight per ring is a good rule and this thread seems to have strayed. --Danger (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

## Very old AFD

Resolved: Closed as redirect. HeyMid (contribs) 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where to ask, but this deletion discussion has been going on for a long time. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 20:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This issue probably should've been raised at WP:AN, since it seems you were seeking for a closing administrator – but I've gone ahead anyway and closed it myself, since consensus seems pretty clear. HeyMid (contribs) 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

From Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nico di Angelo, it seems that this AfD is not listed on a daily log. If it was never listed, I suggest that it be reopened and relisted. There are other AfDs at User:DumbBOT/IncompleteAfD#Non-transcluded discussion pages that seem to need attention. Flatscan (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

## Deletion review of Mikie Da Poet

Resolved: Speedy closed for patently obvious disruption, socks blocked Toddst1 (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A newly registered user, User:PureSnipe, created the sixth (yes, sixth) deletion review of the article Mikie Da Poet; see the DRV log. Soon after I comment, another newly registered, User:Musiclover312, shows up in defense of the article (in what could more accurately be described as a long-winded rant). Seeing as how this is the sixth deletion review of this article, and both new users seem to know their way around this process very well (new users finding deletion review? not suspicious at all... hmm...), it is likely that they are not only sockpuppets of one another but a previous editor and/or DRVer of said article. Since I've already commented on the DRV and wouldn't feel right speedy closing it as disruption based on my hunch, I've brought it here in case it's worth doing a CU on these accounts. --Kinu t/c 02:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

## Jon Bakhshi

I just filed this at the BLP noticeboard, but the more I looked into it, the more it seems like sock- or meatpuppetry is involved. Rather than re-post it here, I'm just leaving this pointer, since BLPN is not as well trafficed as here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

## OneTonyCousins - incivility once again

The User:Onetonycousins has been blocked before (see here) for incivility towards other editors in his edit summaries. Despite this, he hasn't seemed to have learned to be civil. Recent examples include:

• Calling editors warnings/notices to him "usual nonsense." (see here)
• A personal attack at me in an edit summary (see here): "Way to ignore the explanation. Linking to that article is factually wrong. Nothing to do with your political bullsh*t, that's been resolved; you have your ROI. Now take your ignorance elsewhere." - this in response to me amending something to match an agreement made between other editors which he didn't even get involved in.
• The following edit summary (here) "Fixed page butchered by morons."
• Another edit summary tirade (see here): "Restored material deleted by antifootball man. Get a life, it's not wikipedia's fault that nobody gives a sh*t about gaelic games"

I believe a longer block than the previous 36 hour one should be imposed to try to get the message through to OneTonyCousins that such bad faith and snide personal attacks in his edit summaries aren't acceptable on Wikipedia. Mabuska (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Resposted. Mabuska (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

## Off topic discussion in Talk page

A few editors have started a discussion in a Talk page, about whether another editor is biased and should be blocked from the page: Talk:Allegations_of_Jewish_control_of_the_media#Straw_Poll:_Carolmooredc. My understanding is that WP:Talk limits the Talk page to discussions on how to improve the article, and that discussions of blocking should instead be at a forum such as ANI. More importantly, it appears the editors are using this discussion to derail (or avoid) a substantive discussion about improvements to the article. In other words, the discussion is not civil and is disruptive. --Noleander (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI. I just put up a detailed Wikiettiquette alert here about Harassment about the user who keeps bringing up this issue, previous rejected even at this noticeboard. I wasn't sure if I should bring it here, and needed advice. Perhaps I should have. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
[Late correction insert: Because I was upset by this latest attack, I mistakenly thought Jehochman originated the section, instead of merely agreeing with it, which I did correct on the harassment complaint above. I also missed the allusion to User:Spaceclerk directly below, whose attacks I complained about in November on Wikiquette alerts. He has been warned about it again. Sorry for any confusion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It does seem that the talk page is an inappropriate forum. I don't see any need for punitive measures here though. User:Spaceclerk should just be warned and we should move on. NickCT (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I collapsed it, and pointed them at WP:RFC/U. That is atrocious behaviour, even done in good faith. --Errant (chat!) 15:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
What is atrocious is an editor coming to Wikipedia to push an anti-semitic POV by diddling with an article about anti-semitism. Folks, don't buy the rhetoric that is being presented here. We have a real problem going on at Talk:Allegations of Jewish control of the media. I've been asking for help for quite some time now. The participation of more uninvolved editors would help. There is an open request to rename the page that needs to be sorted. Jehochman Talk 15:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
So, open and RFC/U. And if I see that bloody email mentioned one more time in an effort to attack and brand Carol then I intend to take it to WP:WQA, not acceptable and it totally invalidates any issues you have :( also, accusations of anti-semitism are very serious and you need to provide evidence or retract them, I feel. --Errant (chat!) 16:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that RFC/U would be a good way to proceed. Somebody already took it to WP:WQA. I have posted my evidence there, and will not cross post it here. Jehochman Talk 16:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── FYI, as I mention in the Wikiettiquette alert, a couple weeks ago User:Jehochman brought his complaints to WP:ANI and was soundly told both by other editors to stop it. As the closer wrote: An admin should know better than to come to ANI with what amounts to "I don't like this user's POV". Especially as within this topic any ANI thread is likely to be unpleasantly conflictual. Yes, we could continue talking here until the cows come home and accuse each other of POV-pushing... but let's not. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

All of this demonstrates the risk of editing articles that are "personal" to the editors. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see what's off topic about discussing problems with the editing of an article on the article's talk page. Jehochman Talk 18:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• "WP:Talk limits the Talk page to discussions on how to improve the article." By implication, barring a POV-pushing editor from an article could lead to improvement of the article, yes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Bugs, while I agree with your comment at one level, I think, in context, such a discussion was more appropriate to other venues, such as WP:WQA. I'll also note that I do find anti-semitism abhorrent, but I lack insight into this situation, having never edited the article in question or any of those edited by the editors being discussed. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Except that an editor can't be unilaterally barred by a straw poll on an article's Talk page. So, that wasn't a discussion about improving the article at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the straw poll was an attempt to determine if editors of the page felt that CarolMooreDC's participation was helping or hindering the development of the article. If the goal was to determine what other editors thought, and what the next step should be, I do not think that was a misuse of the talk page. Of course she could not be banned by those editors there, but they could have decided that further steps were needed. Or Carol could have addressed the substance of the concerns and resolved them. There could have been productive outcomes. Concerns cannot be eliminated by suppression; the best medicine is sunshine. If Carol has been editing properly, she should be willing to hear concerns and address them. Jehochman Talk 20:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Who created the straw poll? The article talk page is not the place to discus topic bans, not do such Kangaroo courts seem appropriate. Any ban would not have been enforceable and seems to be not a discussion about the article but an attempt to remove a user by standing in a circle and shouting “you smell”.Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── User Jehochman is continuing to disrupt the Talk page (here) with comments unrelated to the article (see WP:Talk). These latest disruptions are after notification of the ANI (and after J partricipated in the ANI above). Jehochman's behavior is disruptive, and belligerent, and amounts to bullying. J has not yet gotten the message that he should be taking his concerns about bias to another forum (such as RFC/U or ANI) rather than disrupting the article's Talk page. I suggest that Jehochman be blocked from that article. --Noleander (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Noleander, you are a well known partisan in this dispute. Would you please give it a rest and let the uninvolved provide feedback. It's not helpful for the same crew of editors to keep restating their wikilegal interpretations. Wherever I go with concerns, the same editors keep popping up with the same wikilawyerish objections to the venue, to the form, etc. But nobody wants to address the merits of the matter. This is not helpful.
Noleander, your remark is pretty disingenous. Carolmooredc asked me a question, asked me to explain my actions. So I did, as plainly and truthfully as I could. There's nothing wrong with that. When editors are challenged, they have the right to explain what they did. [10]
Please see WP:COIN#CarolMooreDC where I have raised my concerns, at the suggestion of several uninvolved editors. Jehochman Talk 21:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me (and I have been in this situation my self) that both ar at fault. Taking what is a content dispute to numerous boards in order to out ban each other. As Jehochman is an admin he should have steped back and not escalated a situation he is clarly involved in. I think that the 7 days avouding each otehr solution might be a good one.Slatersteven (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the editor who started this also has a problem with Jehochman's edits, so perhaps mediation is the best solution. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I starter neither the current ANI threat nor the current WQA thread. Please don't accuse me of doing somebody else's actions. I started a COIN thread after an uninvolved editor suggested that I do so. What the heck? There's a content dispute and behavioral concerns. Attempting to get those matters resolved is not a wikicrime. Also, Slatersteven, would you please declare whether you are an involved or uninvolved editor. That will help others to understand what's going on. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 00:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I edited the Jewish control of the media page some time ago (or a similar page at least). I also seem to recall having run ins with you in the past. But as I beleive I have blaimed the pair of you I don't see the relevance. Unless you are saying that your actions are wholey in keeping wiht good editing and adminship I fail to see why I am showing bias (and if I am not why do I need to declare an interest?). Ahh here we are ::[[11]] over a month ago, and hardly a great indicator for a strong point view one way or the other. I can’t find any other examples of involvement in this area, but I have only gone back a couple of months. So I would have to say based on this that no I am not an involved user. If I have missed any involvement please post the diffs.I take it then you reject the idea of a volantary disengagment from each otther for 7 days?Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This ANI filed by Noleander is about Spaceclerk creating, and two involved editors (Brewcrewer and Jehochman) signing on to, an attack against an editor instead of responding to concerns about a Jehochman edit Noleander and I had expressed over several days. Since Noleander and I do not coordinate, he put this up at pretty much the same time I put my complaint on Wikiettiquette about Jehochman who I mistakenly thought had created, instead of just signing on to, the attack. So recommendations about me and Jehochman belong at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#WP:Harassment_by_User:Jehochman. I do wish people would stick to the real issue here: three involved editors launching personal attacks instead of dealing with issues brought up by two other editors. Thanks! :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

### Too many places

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. This is now being discussed here, on COI/N and WQA. It'd be nice if we could get all involved to stop constantly opening discussions on different fora about each other. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

## Requesting Mohamed Bouazizi snowball close

This article, the subject of intense current interest due to the situation in Tunisia, has been marred with a spurious AfD notice for some time. The rationale is two words long and there has not been a single vote to delete. Please put this one out of its misery and allow Wikipedia's readers to find what they are looking for without needless deletion notices to distract them. TiC (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just checked this article, it's not a candidate for snow close as there are keep and oppose votes. But yes, the rationale is "Recentism" just as you said. I'd say let it run it's course.