Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive678

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

My Kenken link repeatedly deleted[edit]

Copy & Paste from Myles325a

For some time I have been trying to insert a LEGITIMATE link to a site which simply lists other Kenken sites and variants. There are, at the moment, two bullies who keep repeatedly deleting that link as against WP:EL rules, and have yet to tell me WHY, even though I have asked them many times.

That link is: http://find-kenken-and-minuplu-puzzles.com/ (lists sites for kenken and its close variants. As you can see, there is nothing there out of the ordinary, or which is offensive, ideological, exploitational, vandalistic or illegal.

Quite simply, it provides a useful list of sites which fans of the game would appreciate. Of course, the Kenken WP article is a good start, but it would be impossible to dwell on the finer aspects of the game, or broach the different variants extant. I just CANNOT understand why the link keeps being deleted. I am taking this up with the Administrators as well. Here are the comments I have left with superbly named Bongomatic and Dreamguy.

___________________________________________________________

You have removed my link on the Ken Ken page to a site which presents Ken Ken puzzles which are larger and more difficult than the ones found at the official site.

I have read the characteristically verbose site WT:EL page. I cannot see ANYTHING there which would preclude the inclusion of this link. There is nothing in the “20 links normally to be avoided” which says that you can’t link to a site which contains advertising, as you maintained. In fact, the poster is advised that it is quite permissible to link to Youtube, which is a site solely maintained by advertising, at massively larger rates than the small site run by ONE person, Patrick Min. Why would it be OK to link to Youtube but not any other site which has some commercial input? To rigorously maintain such a position would be to cut Wikipedia off from most of the internet.

OTOH, my link conforms to all the criteria laid out in the WT:EL article for inclusion. It is a site that is assessable to the user, and which deals directly with subject at hand, i.e. Kenken. There is nothing malicious or controversial about it, and it does not violate copyright.

Commonsense should be used in this case. I would expect that less than 1% of the data stored by Wikipedia is in the form of articles. The rest is talk pages, user pages, and history. Of the 1% that is presented, a great deal is concerned with matters such as somebody’s side street in High Wycombe and is of no use to anyone. Ken Ken is a very popular game, and newspapers only present the simplest problems. The official Ken Ken site itself also presents only simple problems. I believe that simple commonsense would show that quite a few readers of this article, who had played the game in local media and were now finding those too easy, would be gratified to see that there is a site which provides them further challenges in this field. What possible harm can there be in that? Wikipedia is supposed to teach people things, and the best way of teaching them about some procedure is let them have a go at doing it! It is completely in keeping with the scope of the article.

I present this explanation for why I included this site, and hope for a reply. If you decide that you do not want it there, I would like some mediation on this matter, from higher sources. Myles325a (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you seek consensus on the article's talk page? Bongomatic 07:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

OP myles325a back live. In the first instance, you alleged that the link I made from the Kenken article to a site which has other Kenken material was "commercial", and thus against WP:EL rules. I examined those rules, I found that having some commercial element did NOT mean there could be no valid link between a WP article and that site, and that there were hundreds of sites with some commercial element, most visibly on Youtube, which have many such links to WP. When I pointed this out, you simply "forgot" your original complaint, and now asked that I take it up on Kenken's talk page. Even after I replaced the link in question with another one, you keep deleting it, and like your compatriot, Dreamboy, have never afforded me an explanation as to how EXACTLY that link contravenes WP:EL rules. The points I have made below pertain to his latest comments on that link, and I am reprinting them here as BOTH of you continue to exercise high-handed and bullying behaviour with me on this harmless and worthwhile link. Myles325a (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The following comments are the ones I posted just now to Dreamguy, your compatriot who keeps deleting the link in turns with you. And like you, he offers no explanation as to why. Dreamguy had written, FINALLY:

Between the behavior above and the fact that another person has agreed the link should be removed the rules you have broken are WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS, beyond just the putting up a link that violates WP:EL rules for being encyclopedic in tone. I also suspect you may have a WP:COI about this site. DreamGuy (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


And I replied:

OP myles325a back live. For someone who has, I am presuming, some sort of official role in WP, your English in the above is disgraceful. I make the following points:

1. This is the fourth time I have asked you to detail what WP:EL rule I have broken in linking the Kenken article to a site which merely provides other such sites, and near variants, and includes further educational material on this mathematical puzzle. You keep deleting the link, and you still have not afforded me the common courtesy of explaining how that link contravenes the WP:EL rules.

2. Re: WP: CIVIL If I have been in contravention of the WP:CIVIL rule, then so have you. A civil person would not just delete links that are plainly not vandalistic, without some explanation. I think that you are high-handed, and a WP bully. Moreover, the issue of “civility” is separate to the matter of whether the link is appropriate or not. Even if HAD been uncivil in the discourse associated with this business, that does not, ipso facto, invalidate my contributions to this article. Who the hell do you think you are? You think I’ve been impolite to you, so you think it is quite in order to slash my contributions. You have hardly been civil to me.

3. Re: WP: CONSENSUS. There are only TWO editors who keep deleting this link. And you keep doing it serially. Your idea of consensus could use an overhaul via a dictionary. There are many editors in WP: two means nothing. On top of that, I am very much of the view that both of you are in cahoots in this business.

4. WP: COI. I feel insulted by this baseless allegation. I have an interest in Kenken, and I have some correspondence with some other people who also do. There is no commercial or ideological angle in this, and nothing for anyone to gain. I think that you are way out of line to suggest it. I have nothing to gain from this matter, except in satisfaction of helping to design a good article and assist those who have an interest in this subject.

I have said before that WP is full of articles along the line of some side-street in High Wycombe which would be of interest to half a dozen people. The Kenken page involves a puzzle that appears in newspapers across the world and is played by hundreds of thousands of people. It is extensively used by teachers as the user needs to learn about primes and factors to play the game. The puzzle can be simple, or possess a complexity that would tax the most talented of mathematical minds. It is not a trivial computer nerd pastime, but a genuinely intelligent and challenging game, requiring both logical and mathematical skill.

Wikipedia, unlike other encyclopedias, does not publish the number of hits, but I would bet they would put the Kenken article in the top 10%. The Kenken page cannot begin to deal with the finer points of the game, or the variants which have sprung up, and the devotees of such a game would always be looking for more EDUCATIONAL material on these. The link provides nothing more than a series of sites which would allow the aficionado of the game to find sites where they could learn more about the game. What on Earth is wrong with that, and how could it possibly be non-encyclopedic?

I am re-inserting the link, and putting the contents of my comments here on the talk page of the Kenken article, the talk page of your compatriot Bongomatic, as well as taking it up with the Administrators. Myles325a (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


Could you assist me in this matter. I have notified both Dreamguy and Bongomatic that I am making a complaint. I have posted most of this material on their talkpages, and also the talk page of the Kenken article. Sorry if the way I have approached this is not the proper and official way, but it is the best I can do for the moment. I feel that I am being bullied by these editors, and I also believe that the link is entirely within the scope of what Wikipedia aims to do. Myles325a (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Unambiguously inconsistent with WP:EL. Don't know what all the fuss is. Bongomatic 03:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Content disputes should go to the talk page and or WP:ELN, but that one looks like link spam to me. If the further links eminating from there are useful, maybe they could be submitted to dmoz and the Wikipedia article could then link to dmoz. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Forum shopping. I wrote in my edit summary to use the talk page of the article plus I gave you the reasons why you were reverted and why the link was no good. I answered on the talk page but you ignored and headed here instead. So this is the 4th place you've decided to post all of this. Is English your second language? I ask this because of your post "You write like a moron" which has this wonderful followup. This user has civility problems which I picked up on from DreamGuy's talk page as well as Bongomatic's talk page. If anything is to be done here, it's Boomerang.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Notified DreamGuy of this thread.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Myles325a is also at this point subject to blocking under WP:3RR.[1][2][3] Myles, you absolutely have to stop edit warring like that. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Note:Checkuser has confirmed this was a sockpuppet but on AGF, he has been allowed to edit....Noose knot. Time to let the trap door fall.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The master account, Karmaisking, does not normally edit articles that Myles325a commonly edits. Kik is also pretty sophisticated with his knowledge of WP policies, and would have been unlikely to push a site that so obviously fails WP:EL. I wouldn't use the sock connection to add any weight against Myles325a. I think his own actions are more than enough though. Ravensfire (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I haven't read all of this tl;dr prose, but what does "back live" mean? Corvus cornixtalk 18:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible nationalistic content dispute[edit]

This was originally brought up at WP:AIV, but this is going to be the better venue. IP user 195.28.75.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was reported by Nmate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for changing cited information on several articles, including this and this. I glanced at the diffs, as well as a couple of other edits the IP user made, and it looks to me to be a nationalistic content dispute, but I'm not knowledgeable enough in the subject matter to tell what's what. The issue that worries me is that although the IP editor has cited sources, he/she has deleted cited sources in the process of making their edits, and I'm not convinced their new sources are considered reliable as a secondary source for use in a Wikipedia article. Can someone who's familiar with the topic look things over? I'm all for bold editing,, but this may cross the line. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right (Nmate also). This could have a nationalistic connotation. The primary state of the article (pre-IP) is definitely the correct one. This could be one of those edits 1 - I reverted it. Adrian (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It is not vandalism and you should not refer to it as such, but a content dispute. The only way to handle this is by using dispute resolution, bringing in additional editors. If the IP edit-wars, then you can apply to have them blocked for edit-warring. If the editor uses multiple IPs in order to evade a block, then you can apply for page protection. TFD (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that...the other two editors might not be. My concern was the issue of replacing one set of citations with another, and whether the new set was reliable. Again, I don't know enough about the subject matter to make a reasoned, informed decision, which is why I brought the matter here. The odds were much better that there's an admin floating around with more knowledge who could make that determination. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not think they can though. It is a content dispute and while the edits may seem extremely tendentious, that is not a call an administrator could make. TFD (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Userboxes[edit]

Hi, could someone have a look at this conversation. To me it looks like the meaning of the userboxes are being changed, but perhaps the change of the earlier template makes it the same. I am not good at templates plus I don't care much for userboxes. :) Garion96 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked over the changes made to the template, and there doesn't appear to be any real back-compatibility, so what used to be the right option number no longer is in many cases. I commented on Buaidh's Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
So basically user User:Hamrolly who "lives in Canada" also "lived in Canada" before the change. :) Thank you for checking it out. Garion96 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
More like someone who "is interested in Canada" now shows as "resident of Canada", or similar awkward and unmonitored changes. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
You're serious? That's what I thought. So the change does alter the userpages significantly! Garion96 (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

67.85.84.168 (talk · contribs) on Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 4[edit]

Whilst reading this article, I found that there was false information provided in this article. I have seen episodes of this series and found inconsistencies with the article and the episodes. I checked the edit history of the article and found out that 67.85.84.168 (talk · contribs) has been making these edits and the previous changes were correct (due to another user undoing 67.85.84.168 (talk · contribs)'s actions. In addition, this user has been warned for editing articles such as Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 2 and Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 3.

I'm not sure if I have addressed this correctly because I'm kind of reporting this user as well as content issues. 115.64.53.181 (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there some problem editor who specializes in adding hoaxes to articles on this series? I don't recall the name, but I know I've seen this editorial syndrome before. Gavia immer (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:149.4.115.3[edit]

This ip address is removing content from Ohio State University, that is against a consensus at the University Wkiproject to have consistency across all article. How do I maintain the integrity of that consistency and consensus, without violating WP:3RR, because a ransom ip doesn't care about wikipedia policy and will revert all day long.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You could request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Doubt I'll get it if its only one ip doing it. If the ip is not discussing, and is editing against a consensus, that would be disruptive. Yet I don't want to make too many reverts personally because I don't want to be perceived as edit warring, and I believe in the WP:3RR policy.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe a short semi to get the IP to either look elsewhere or try and gain consensus? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks as if the ip is from Queens College and has a history of vandalism and disruption. Here is the previous discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities/Archive 7#Article consistency--Jojhutton (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Jojhutton and the IP are both edit warring, with Jojhutton labelling an edit that looks reasonable on its face[4] as vandalism. The address itself is a shared school address that has templates piled up forever. There doesn't seem to have been any attempt to discuss the actual edit on either 149.4.115.3's talk page or the article talk page. I'll leave a note. Anyway, semi-protection is inappropriate if there's only one non-autoconfirmed user involved. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I think Jojhutton also got a bit over-excited in the earlier discussion about the article lede that's now being revert-warred.[5] Let's try to be a bit calmer; this isn't an emergency. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The unexplained removal of content is considered vandalism. Twinkle and Huggle both have tools that address removing content without explanation.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Jojhutton does not know what vandalism is. He repeatedly labels innocent edits as "vandalism", if they run counter to his POV. Regarding this case in particular, he keeps repeating that there's removal of content. Where? Enigmamsg 21:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
As I'm being attacked, please link where I Continuously label innocent edits as vandalism. As far as the removal of content goes. The ip was removing words fromthe schools official name.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This is the old dispute about "Ohio State University" (the common name) vs. "The Ohio State University" (the way the school likes to style itself). Whatever the current concensus is, should be honored. The IP's attempt to change it qualifies perhaps as edit warring, but not as vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
There were several huge debates on the article talk page regarding the lead. The edit you reverted multiple times was not vandalism and was not removal of content. The school's official name is still there. Enigmamsg 22:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I will accept that the edit is not being considered vandalism, although its a fine line, when an ip removes or changes content without any explanation. Remember that Twinkle and Huggle have warning templates that cover removing content without explanation. I do not however accept the unexplained attack on my character by Enigmann. I would hope that he/she would decide to retract that statement.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
How exactly is it a fine line? This is clear as day. A content dispute is not vandalism, and it certainly can not be called removal of content when no content was removed. Also, my name is not "Enigmann". Enigmamsg 22:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── (edit conflict) That Huggle and Twinkle have those buttons and that people keep misusing them is a perennial source of annoyance at ANI. I do see there is a lot of actual vandalism at that page (example), maybe enough for semi-protection to be ok, but that's not what I'm seeing here. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The page definitely gets its fair share of vandalism, as any big name school does. Looking at the history, though, it's not occurring frequently enough to typically merit semi-protection. Enigmamsg 22:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
usually as a rule, if an anon ip, with a history of vandalism and 4 previous blocks, shows up on a page that the ip hasn't edited before and removes or changes content without explanation, that edit will get reverted as vandalism, with a warningJojhutton (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
You have to judge the edit, not just the editor. Changing the school's name from their self-styled name to its common name IS IN NO WAY VANDALISM. It may be contentious editing, it may be edit warring, but it is not vandalism. Vandalism would be nonsensical blanking, or comments like "Hi, Mom!" Arguing over the school's name is not vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
So what are you saying? That you call IP edits vandalism regardless of what the edits actually are? Enigmamsg 23:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
If a given editor has been specifically and repeatedly warned not to defy consensus, then we're starting to get into something akin to vandalism, although it's really more to do with contentious editing and disruption. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Jojhutton, please see the big template at the top of User talk:149.4.115.3. There is no reason to think that all the edits from that address are coming from the same person, if they are reasonably separated from each other temporally. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Never said that it was the same person, only that the ip had a history of vandalism. That was pretty clear from the user page. Also, for you vandalism fighters out there, its not uncommon to have multiple people from a school ip vandalizing for years and years and years. I have accepted that the vast majority here have stated that the removal was not vandalism, and I concede on that.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of Underage users[edit]

...are these User:Ninjaman11221/Ethan_Wold_Cook allowed? Also, it seems this user is only here to promote himself and his web works. Phearson (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That whole page is a copy of an article that was deleted at Ethan Wold Cook already, and it is a terrible idea regardless of whether it is technically speedily deletable. Note that the image itself is on Commons, so deletion would have to happen there. Gavia immer (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the article slightly out of process. If anyone believes it should go through XfD, feel free to undelete and nominate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with your deletion. FWIW, let me report myself here for a possibly out-of-process perma-blocking of User:Munich357 who was an obvious sock trying to recreate the same material. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
That user is also the commons uploader, so I agree that they were the same person as the above account. Gavia immer (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe Kim to be acting appropriately in regards to the sock. We don't need to be overly bureaucratic when blocking obvious socks. Phearson (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Old Man Murray[edit]

Resolved: Page contents were restored by RockMFR (talk · contribs). --- Barek (talk) - 23:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin restore the talk page contents at Talk:Old Man Murray? (might need to restore some losts posts after un-deleting, as it was deleted a couple times). I had a request on my talk page requesting this - but I'm not currently using my admin account as I don't have a secure connection at the moment. --- Barek (talk) - 23:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

extra eyes[edit]

I would like some extra admin eyes on this case Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Copyrights_and_translation as I am uncertain of the copyright related issue regarding translated copyvio material. It is a possible largescale copyvio issue.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

ongoing WP:HUSH incident / User:Baseball_Bugs[edit]

Discussion closed. If further escalation a block will be required.

I have requested, on 8 separate occasions, User:Baseball_Bugs not post in my Userspace (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Felixhonecker&redirect=no#Comments). On the most recent occasion I could not have been more clear, stating unambiguously If you do not like the contents of my Discussion page you should empower yourself not to read it. Any reply to this comment, regardless of content, will be construed as an eighth WP:HUSH violation. In most instances Bugs has stated his continued posting is necessary for "pointing things out" to me. While I appreciate his aggressive policy of proactive user guidance I feel his, almost fanatical, insistence on continuing to proffer suggestions on the best use of Wikipedia - even in the face of repeated notices (initially polite, then firmer) that I prefer not to receive ongoing counseling from him has crossed the line to harassment.

I believe that, after 8 requests to desist, if Bugs still feels I am editing or participating in Wikipedia in a reckless way that is endangering the entire site, he should feel empowered to file a Noticeboard complaint rather than engage in vigilantism. While I AGF as to his suggestions I expect a corresponding AGF reciprocity in my desire not to have him flooding my userspace.

I do not own my Discussion page but it is, per WP:User pages, "associated with me" and WP:HUSH establishes "trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a ... form of harassment." After 8 friendly notices it should be clear to a reasonable person operating under reasonable circumstances that the continued posting on my Discussion page of "guidance" is material I find annoying. I have stated my annoyance eight times so there can be no ambiguity to this point.

I welcome anyone to post on my Discussion page, however, have a specific and very reasonable reason I have requested Bugs not to interact with me ("Maybe someone should report you somewhere" is a threat and as such is inappropriate. Crossing this out would be a good idea especially if you did not mean to make a threat as may reasonable people including myself would take it as such. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Felixhonecker&redirect=no#Comments), however, ultimately I believe any user is entitled to have their reasonable wishes respected with regards to their Discussion page if there is not a compelling reason to post content to it by another user. Bugs has yet to demonstrate a compelling reason to make unsolicited comments on it that are of such critical nature they override my 8 requests he stop attempting to interact with me.

I appreciate and am honored with Bugs' intense interest in me, however, am starting to get a little creeped out, quite frankly. I am not asking Bugs be blocked or penalized, only strongly cautioned against WP:HUSH as my own pleas have proved futile and he has stated he will continue posting in my userspace at his leisure unless cautioned by an admin. Thank you.Felixhonecker (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you still believe that his comment that he'd report you was meant in the context of "to police" rather than "to Wikipedia administrators", and that it constituted a legal threat of some sort?
If Bugs is bothering you, then he should stop, but it's not clear to me that you understand Wikipedia enough to safely participate here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
On the basis of his whole statement, that the reason I should be "reported" was because "Qadaffi is an enemy of the United States", yes, as I think it's unusual to report people for subversion or whatever was his intent in "reporting" to Wikipedia admins. However, I have chosen not to file a Legal Threats report against Bugs, despite the fact Doc James and other admins say they took his statement as a threat, because I AGF. Because of the potential for ill will and WP:DRAMA, however, I have made the simple request he choose not to interact with me. I made this request 8 times. He continues to imply his ongoing counseling is mandatory and I must accept it. Again, I am honored by his intense interest in me but would simply like to be left alone so as to prevent the possibility of WP:DRAMA owing to his past history of interaction with me (whether jocular or not). This seems like a reasonable attempt at mitigation of future unrest to me. Felixhonecker (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Per this diff[6], there's a certain amount of pot calling kettle here in respect of unnecessary input on others' user pages. My own opinion is that Bugs has gone beyond what was sensible in continually posting on this user talk page. However Felix would not have made many friends during the exchanges at Talk:Libya and has shown little effort at collegiality here and is to some extent reaping what he has sown. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I have never posted to anyone's discussion page after being requested not to do so, let alone after receiving eight successive requests. My hope is that everyone here can be judged fairly and equally without regard to how many friends they may or may not have. I am - as I have often stated - aware that the position I present in the Libya discussion page is not a popular one and is, in fact, decidedly unpopular given current events. I hope, in a spirit of intellectual honesty, that is a non-factor in any request I make for judicial and fair treatment. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that diffs such as this or this strike me as particularly intellectual or fostering a spirit of open minded, source-based editing. Unfortunately your complaints against others will be judged in the context of your own behaviour here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
That was not article editing, it was discussion taking place in Libya. I hope people can feel free to be frank and open in the discussion page of an entry to foster greater forward movement on edit consensus. My actual editing of the Libya page has been fairly incidental. IIRC, I don't believe I've made more than 6 edits in my Wikihistory to that entry and 4 of those were reverts that were supported by community consensus. I have intentionally - recognizing I have a minority viewpoint on the subject - restrained my participation to the discussion page. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Bugs made some reasonable attempts to help with DR on Felixhonecker's talk page, combined with making an ill-advised wisecrack that Felixhonecker then ran with. Felixhonecker is being quite tendentious but I don't think Bugs' continued participation on the usertalk page is helping much at this point. Felixhonecker: really, don't worry about the first-class/second-class editor thing, it doesn't make any difference. Good editor/bad editor is the only thing that matters. Just do your best to be a good editor and everything will be fine. The advice you got from Maunus, Doc James, Fut Perf, and (mostly) even from Bugs was all worth listening to. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I have tried to give him good advice (for example, that his user page demand for an apology for an SPI is out of bounds), and he won't listen. I've made it clear that I made no legal threat (after he distorted the wording to make a false claim), and he won't listen. Admins have advised him that he does not own his talk page, and he won't listen. I detect a trend. At the advice of an admin, I will refrain from posting on his talk page unless absolutely necessary (for example, if I mention his name at ANI). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, 71.141.88.54. I appreciate your support. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Bugs - you and he crossed swords and the issue is unresolved. The last person anyone wants good advice from is someone with whom they have unresolved issues. Just leave it. Plenty of other editors watching the situation on the Libya pages. Fainites barleyscribs 23:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
He's not taking anyone's good advice. I expect his wikipedia lifetime to be short. But maybe he'll surprise us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
But you do seem to have a knack of inflaming things (mainly on this noticeboard), so please take heed and try to avoid antagonising other editors you've been in an editing dispute with. Fences&Windows 23:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
What I have a knack for is getting to the truth of the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Bugs - multiple admins have disagreed with your position that you did not post a Legal Threat. The reason I don't listen to you is because your worlview is out of step with admins on some of these basic issues such as that one. Ergo, I feel it may not be the best advise for me to follow. I would appreciate you terminating your active involvement on my userspace. I'm confident that, if something truly aggregious occurs, there are others with whom I do not have a history who can handle the matter. You could even draw it to their attention if you feel very passionate about it. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Felixhonecker - Bugs did not post a legal threat. You are misreading the other admins' responses to you. Please stop making this acusation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Your first sentence is a distortion of the truth. Otherwise, I've already told you I'll stay off your userpage unless the rules require it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe User:Doc_James is being honest when he said "may reasonable people including myself would take it as such" in reference to your Legal Threat. I hope you can choose to AGF and respect the honesty of admins moving forward. Thank you for agreeing to respect my userspace. I regret it was necessary for me to file this ANI to get that to happen. Best Regards - Felixhonecker (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have given this user the same advice as Bugs. Felix needs to drop the stick and become a constructive editor. I closed the previous issues and unblocked Felix with the understanding that this issue would remain closed. That it continues to be opened here makes me doubt the wisdom of my actions.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope it would have remained closed as well. However, within 24 hours after our understanding, Bugs began editing my userspace again. I also wish all parties had honored the agreement of respect and mutuality. It would have been very easy to avoid this ANI had the user in question simply not edited my userspace. There was no mechanism of compulsion that forced Bugs to edit my userspace and he was free to refrain from that by the exercise of willpower and restraint. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
You completely (and I suspect purposely) distorted my original statement. At no point did I ever threaten to take any kind of action against you. The reason I posted today had to do, not with that, but solely with your continual insistence on violating WP:POINT by demanding that an admin "apologize" for filing an SPI about you. You need to remove that nonsense from your user page, as it betrays your ignorance (willful or otherwise) about how these things work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Felix, you have had your answer - Bugs is now off your talk page. Leave it there. Bugs, for goodness sake do you really think Felix is ever going to be persuaded by your arguments? Do you think it's just possible he is enjoying yanking your chain? So why continue giving him the satisfaction? I suggest to both of you that you let someone else have the last word, per WP:STICK. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Bugs, a single and polite request posted to a userspace is not "insistence" and "demanding" and is specifically allowed by WP:CIVIL. I outlined this in my own userspace. I hope we can continue this discussion at ANI when you are able to interact with me in a more tempered and civil manner. However, I do not believe there is much point in continuing this interaction as you seem intent upon creating WP:DRAMA here. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The OP here has indeed removed that item from his user page,[7] so I think we're done here. (The self-awarded "Martyr Barnstar" is rather silly, but harmless.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Hm...combative user, relatively "new", ANI drama, hostility at political articles, picking a fight with Bugs? I hear a drawer creaking open. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think he's a sock. The OP picked the fight not with me as such, but by posting a userbox threatening to report other editors that he considers to be anti-Gadaffi. The admins were willing to let that go, as he pretty much recanted that threat and has not re-posted that userbox. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The OP's statement here[8] is a bit of a distortion or an oversimplification. There are situations where the rules require notification. Let's hope that need does not come up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, I Need Help[edit]

I am not filing an ANI against any specific user. I am just earnestly requesting some kind of help. I have just been informed I will be subject to a second sock investigation in four days and this one will take place in private once a "trusted admin" can be identified to conduct it, I will not be "tipped off" it is occurring and it will take place offline.

Last week, after a six month unblemished edit history on Wikipedia, I made a Legal Threat. I deleted it within four minutes - without being asked - before the person at whom it was directed saw it, and apologized. I was blocked for several days. I have repeatedly acknowledged and apologized for this lapse in judgment and taken full responsibility for it.

However, I am now being subject to repeated lobbying of admins by one user for various punishments and new investigations of me. I have offered this user that I will quit Wikipedia at the end of this week but that hasn't seemed to call off the dogs. I know that, eventually, if enough complaints are thrown against the wall one will stick because at some point I'll slip-up and won't devote enough time to defending myself from everything that's being thrown at me, though that is almost my exclusive focus on Wikipedia now. Every minute of time here I have to spend defending myself against complaints being made by one user.

I just need some help in getting the dogs called off for a few days. I promised this user I'd delete my WP account once I finished Drakkar Noir entry and I will. I'm at a complete loss and at my wits end. I know this is not appropriate use of ANI but I don't know what else to do at this point. Detailed background is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmh649#Felix_again.

In an attempt to defuse Drama I asked him repeatedly to stop posting on my Talk page so we would not have to interact. He refused and I requested (see above) an Admin admonish him to stop, which they did. I specifically said I didn't want him blocked or punished, I just wanted him to stop posting on my Talk page because it was likely to inflame things. That backfired and it has inflamed things even more and he's now coming at me with both barrels.

I believe I have contributed to WP - not as much as some - through my edits to Wikileaks, Paul Akers, Samsung Galaxy Tab, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, etc. and should not be treated like yesterday's trash. I don't know why this is happening to me, all for a four-minute lapse in judgment last week. I've been told I have no choice and he is entitled to file as many charges against me as he likes, even if they're not being upheld, but I'm not sure that seems right. Anything that anyone can do, even just words of encouragement, would be appreciated. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're subject to a sock investigation, just be cooperative and truthful and everything will be fine. Don't worry about Baseball Bugs. He's not going to report you to the police or the government; he made a joke and has already apologized for it. Just forget all of this and focus on constructive article contributions. The more time you spend improving articles and the less time you spend on this noticeboard, the happier your stay here will be, I guarantee it. 28bytes (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
As I indicated on Viriditas' talk page, there are some odd timing coincidences, but I am not yet persuaded that Felix and Berber are socks of each other. That burden-of-proof ball is in Viriditas' court at this point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing stopping you from editing Drakkar Noir right now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

incident / user:SchuminWeb - abuse of admin privileges[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Administrator SchuminWeb needs to be reviewed for displaying COI, as discussed in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old_Man_Murray_(2nd_nomination)#Old_Man_Murray. This kind of behavior compromises the integrity of Wikipedia policy. Examples of admin privilege abuse was nomination of deletion of articles where had subjects in articles have interacted with him in the past, resulting in a personal vendetta: Portal of Evil and Old Man Murray. Old Man Murray was restored due to COI and personal abuse of admin privileges. A gaming news/blogging article also gives coverage of the incident: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/02/old-man-murray-deleted-from-wikipedia/ --67.184.48.221 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Administrators should bear in mind that the Portal of Evil guys who are currently chasing SchuminWeb around the Internet have managed to get their beef posted to Slashdot (thread), so there are likely to be many more posts like this. I'm not commenting specifically on SchuminWeb himself, just pointing out that a sudden large volume of IP posts on this topic doesn't mean very much, since it's externally solicited. Gavia immer (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, they're cute when they're upset. Of course, eventually they get too big and you have to flush them and the kids start crying and you have to promise to buy them another pet, also ice cream... HalfShadow 00:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd be AWESOME if we could go through this discussion without tossing around invective. It gets hard to defend what happens here to outsiders when you act like this. Protonk (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Why? How are you now? HalfShadow 02:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Fuck it. Just keep doing whatever you want. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
'kay. ...will you still be awesome? HalfShadow 02:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to throw this question out there (not taking sides here at the moment): is proposing deletion of an article, as an administrator (i.e. as opposed to a non-administrator), considered abuse of administrative privileges? I ask because I thought admins were also editors and, while I understand admins are held to higher standards than regular editors, that doesn't prohibit them from engaging in regular activities non-admins do. Basically what I am getting at is, if the user in question (who has not actually deleted anything here but, instead, went through the normal deletion process like everyone else) was not an admin, would we still be having this discussion, or is it because of the status itself? –MuZemike 00:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it seems to be problematical when editors who are also administrators do almost anything. Any editor should be able to nominate an article for deletion, but only admins can perform the deletion. When it comes to WP:CSD, I have deleted articles that are complete no-hopers, but on the borderline, I have nominated rather than take the decision myself. That's seeking to rely upon independent input. A PROD can be disputed and is open to any editor, and to do so to give a chance for the article to be fixed is assuming good faith, unless it is an obvious libel or copyright violation. That's what admins are meant to do, but if they are in doubt, there are other avenues. Humility predicates that doubt should be deferred to the community. Rodhullandemu 00:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
is proposing deletion of an article, as an administrator ... considered abuse of administrative privileges? No. Tonywalton Talk 01:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
SchuminWeb is connected to the article in a personal matter with the subjects discussed in the article. The conflict of interest involved is a serious matter. The admin deciding to pick on these particular articles is no coincidence. Also, let it be known that User:HalfShadow has a negative bias towards Portal of Evil (and as seen in his comments in this section of the article): [9], [10] & [11]. I am indifferent with these articles and the parties involved. This kind of behavior can, sadly, happen to other articles, but I am personally a fan of video game history that had this issue brought to my attention the Rock Paper Shotgun article regarding the deletion of Old Man Murray. My agenda is to participate in pointing out the abuse that is occurring in the processes that are typically mundane. In this case, it is the nomination for deletion of articles. Even as small of an effect I may have (and how terrible my writing is), I am hopeful that I will some kind of effect that will raise awareness of this kind of behavior. Thanks! --67.184.48.221 (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment When I saw the /. article I figured there would be a great deal of fecal turbulence (hey, I'm trying to keep it at least PG-13 here!) regarding the AfD. Looking through the histories of the AfDs and the DRV discussion, I don't think anyone's going to be able to convince most people that there wasn't a WP:COI involved. But this editor, for one, is going to have serious issues with jerking the mop away when the mop wasn't used in getting the article deleted. Adminship is no big deal, I keep hearing. But given the hoops RfA candidates go through right now to GET the mop, taking it away from someone SHOULD be a big deal, especially when it wasn't the mop that got the editor into the spotlight. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. If I had speedied an article or otherwise deleted something out of process, then everyone crowing about what a horrible person I am might have a case. But I followed process by taking it through AFD, despite how painful that turned out to be (the whole thing lasted more than a month - the original nomination was on January 29). SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I honestly think this would have gone better for you if you had WP:MERGE'd the OMM article's important bits into another article. I for one have never understood in all these years, why it seems like so many people prefer to delete instead of merge and clarify. In the case of what happened here, I would suggest it be considered that WP have a policy prohibiting anyone from nominating an article for deletion more than once. The fact that SchuminWeb nominated the article *twice* is what makes it seem like an attack and why the greater nerdcore decided to raise arms against him. So it is known, I am generally against destruction of information, which is what I see deletion as being in cases like this. --Omnitographer (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • comment Everyone is allowed to nominate an article for deletion. The COI policy doesn't apply to that issue because AfD's are decided by consensus and no one person's COI can affect the outcome - it is the community that makes the decision to delete. If the closing admin had a COI and the afd was a closerun it would be a different case. There is also no basis for even discussing desysopping here since no sysop privileges have been abused (or even used) in this case. I would suggest closing as frivolous baseless. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
frivolous is much too strong a word. It's a complaint from a relatively inexperienced editor about what they see as overbearing behavior by an admin. It may be a unjustified, it may not be the right place for it, but I wouldn't call it frivolous. It's not unreasonable for editors to think (incorrectly) that we admins have great power in general; it's certainly not unreasonable for them to think that experienced editors have greater power than the newcomers. Though COI may nor may not apply--I can not say I am familiar with the situation--if someone associated with one enterprise nominates competitor's articles for deletion, I would call that at best ill-advised. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • comment I concur that there has been no actual abuse of admin privileges. That said, as enforcers of WP rules, admins are generally expected to hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior than the average editor - that means assuming good faith, no namecalling, scrupulously steering clear of COI situations, etc. It would have been best to make the initial nomination to AfD and then not post anything further on the subject, positive or negative. Stan (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    I don't agree. If I take an interest in an issue someone shouldn't be able disarm me by calling me names and then claiming that extended participation on my part is a COI. That entirely the wrong incentives. We also don't want to encourage the Wikipedians to instead participate by proxy by asking other community members to comment on their behalf. Rather, we should hold all editors to a standard of professionalism such that even when a COI is alleged that their arguments are clear, reasoned, and unemotional enough that even people who disagree should accept that they are well reasoned and not the pure product of a vendetta. I think Schumin has held himself to just that high of standard here (though I haven't read he wrote beyond his comments on the wiki). I also think the Wikipedia community needs to do more to protect its contributors from mobs which inevitable turn these events into personal attacks when there really is nothing personal about it. No WP admin can make a lasting deletion on their own, even if they're completely 'rogue', and yet these mobs are _always_ lobbing personal attacks either due to dishonesty or simple confusion about the Wikipedia process. --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The treatment that SchuminWeb has been getting for this was uncalled for. The whole world is not going to come to an end because we don't have an Old Man Murray article. That being said, from strictly a common sense point of view, he was probably the wrong editor to nominate that article (and Portal of Evil) for deletion if for any reason then to avoid even the appearance of a COI and not to give that mob extra ammunition. If those 2 articles really needed to be deleted, then some other "evil deletionist nazi scum" would have eventually gotten around to it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "The appearance of a COI", huh? http://twitter.com/SchuminWeb/status/43143325208948736 Gmaxwell, though, is pretty sure that Schumin is 'the kind of person who is immune to this kind of stupidity and not the sort of person who would really bother with grudges'. I can understand that you want to be willfully blind on this; the alternative is that one of your own is an embarrassment, and surely that can't be the case. I see you put the nazi accusation in quotes; do you want to WP:CITE that, or is it just how you guys circle the wagons around here? --meatpuppet 184.164.3.165 (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Should he have mentioned the COI in the nomination? Yes; the appearance of proper behavior is almost as important as proper behavior. Is this a big deal in this case? Not particularly. Did he ever abuse his admin tools? No. No admin tool has been used by him in any way associated with this matter. Can we now move on please? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Eyes, please[edit]

Resolved: Edit warrior is already blocked. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to take off and read this great book I picked up today. In the meantime, a clever editor is using us to make some point about a business conflict involving CFX Bank. In the two edits I reverted here, they first added what look like OK sources, but in actuality these are just partisan posts, and in the second instance they changed the link to the bank's website (from .co.zw to .com) to instead redirect to some partisan site. Clever indeed. Oh, they just did it again. I leave it all to you; somehow I expect to find the Chief indef blocked tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

TurkYusuf1 (talk · contribs)[edit]

There has been, for quite some time, a slow edit-war over the population-figure of Turkey. The above user keeps changing the number back without ever having used the article's talk page. Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) started a section on the talk page to no avail; I have contacted the user on their talk page, where s/he did reply, but keeps going as before. This is becoming silly and tedious. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion either way on this one, in terms of which source should be used. I would like to note however that this has been a very slowmoving edit war on a FA, and TurkYusuf1 has as stated not posted his position on the talk page. I think there should be some warning about further reverting without discussion, they may have a point, but unless they use the talkpage we don't know what it is. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User pratullobo[edit]

pratullobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in a pattern of wide ranging bad behavior including canvassing, copyvio, coi, vandalism and my little brother defense. Brianhe (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Add possible sockpuppetry -- editing CoI article as 114.143.166.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). — Brianhe (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I know I'm arguing above about what constitutes OUTING, but Brianhe posted a link to an external website in this diff connecting Pratullobo with a real world identity. Admins may want to consider if that should be oversighted. Also, if you look at the various claims Brianhe is making on the talk page, they may look a little odd to you, like reporting the user for vandalism done over 2 years ago. I don't know what's going on here, but it worries me a little. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I second Qwyrxian opinion. Neither am I sure what Brianhe is upto. --Pratul (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

System gaming harassment of User: SchuminWeb incoming.[edit]

See here. HalfShadow 18:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. 1995 called, they want their top-down bbs thread back. Tarc (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyone want to block the new account NotSchuminWeb (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (created 16:37, March 3, 2011) preemptively? — Scientizzle 19:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This all seems very WP:POINTy to me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
There are some people out there who really need some new hobbies. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
New hobby? HalfShadow would disagree: [12], [13] & [14]. That troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.48.221 (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sock Hearing Occuring in Userspace[edit]

A sockpuppet hearing against me is currently occurring in userspace. I would prefer it occurs in ANI, as the last two sockpuppet hearings against me this week did, but I obviously don't want to levy sock charges against myself. It's also getting a little out of control and has descended into name-calling between me and the person charging me. I'm as guilty of this as he is (my nerves are a bit raw at the moment). I apologize if I don't know the proper etiquette for sock hearings in userspace, I learned about this when the filer notified an admin a hearing would happen against me "offline" so I wouldn't be "tipped off" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmh649#Is_it_okay_to_post_in_ANI.3F) so accept my advance apology if this request cannot be actualized or is in any other way inappropriate. Can an admin review and handle as appropriate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Viriditas#Felix Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no "hearing" going on. You're simply arguing with people on multiple user talk pages. I recommend you stop. 28bytes (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, 28, I may have been misled. Bugs has been telling people they are gathering evidence against me to post "offline" (here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tonywalton#Help and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmh649#Is_it_okay_to_post_in_ANI.3F). Is there another way I can have an opportunity to defend myself in an "offline" complaint? I'm not familiar with these terms or the concept of "offline" complaints, or complaints anywhere outside of ANI. It's possible no such thing exists and they're just trying to get a rise out of me, if that's the case I apologize for my naivete. I admit I don't know as much about Wikipedia policies as I should. Up until last week I had never had to deal with the political side of WP and had simply edited in peace for the preceding many months. I just don't want to get banned out of the blue without a chance to defend myself. I guess I don't understand the process by which one "gathers evidence" to file a complaint "offline." I'm hoping I have a chance to respond to Bugs daily accusations against me in a transparent manner.Felixhonecker (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about Baseball Bugs. I expect if you disengage from debating him on user talk pages and this noticeboard, and instead focus on article improvements, the "political side" will fade away. I notice that of your last 150 edits, zero have been to articles and all 150 have been to user talk pages, user pages, noticeboards, etc. I suspect if you reverse that trend and return to article work you will find the Wikipedia experience more peaceful. 28bytes (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I would like nothing better! I generally spend 20-30 minutes a week on Wikipedia editing entries and that's it. Today I spent 5 hours editing 0 entries; it was all playing Law & Order. Unfortunately, if I ignore complaints being made about me - especially when they contain factual inaccuracies that are being repeated with knowledge of their inaccuracy - I face the very real possibility of being blocked. In the last 3 days Bugs has posted 19 messages of complaint on admin Talk pages about me, all for the same issue that was adjudicated by admins last week and concluded in a way in with which he, apparently, did not agree. If I'm having dozens of complaints lodged against me, and don't respond to any, eventually one will "stick" just by sheer volume of the noise machine. Then it's lights out for me. Is there a way I can seek an admin to use methods of compulsion to require Bugs stop registering complaints about me multiple times each day? Perhaps he can be required to condense all his complaints into a single mega-complaint once per day? This would solve all my problems and put me back into my modest 20 minute/week editing footprint I used to enjoy.
Also, I'm still unclear if the "evidence they're gathering to use against" me "offline" is something about which I should be concerned? I'm not sure exactly what this is about and would appreciate some clarification. I'm still learning how to defend myself against complaints as it's nothing I've ever had to deal with until a few days ago and now I've just got a kind of baptism by fire with so many hitting me from Bugs at once. I guess I'm just concerned I'll wake up tomorrow blocked. None of this is enjoyable for me but getting blocked is even less enjoyable. I really just want to edit articles. I don't know how I can get Bugs to lose interest in me. Felixhonecker (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
You just need to shut up. Seriously, continue in this vein and you're blocked again. Fut.Perf. 07:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I wouldn't be concerned about the "evidence-gathering". Baseball Bugs has agreed not to post to your talk page, and if he says something elsewhere you take exception to, I suggest ignoring it. If you're editing articles constructively, not acting controversially or against policy, and not posting to the admin noticeboards all the time (hint), I am confident you will be able to edit in peace. 28bytes (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
You will not be judged by the number of complaints against you and there is no need to challenge any factual inaccuracies in them. You will be blocked (if at all) for what you have actually done, not what someone else says you have done (even if they say so multiple times). For example, if you are not socking you will not be blocked for it - no matter how often someone accuses you. So stop reacting to every post made by someone else, get on with editing the encyclopaedia and everything will calm down. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 07:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed.  Sandstein  14:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Fut. Perf. above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement over Eurovision content[edit]

Hi, I have a concern User Parishan has removed a huge part of text on the Armenia-Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest article see here. Claiming its not sourced and that it doesnt belong on the article, I have tried to reason with the user and stated that we needed a third party opinion. Instead the user reverted it back to his version and basically said that because he has been on Wikipedia longer he is right and I am wrong,and he/she did this in a very patronising tone overall. Also referring to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball which isnt any reason for removing the content as that guideline says that speculations and unsourced material arent welcome, this section are neither speculations or neither unsourced or not good sourced. Quite the opposit. The material removed by Parishan were sourced, and my personal main concern is my feeling that the user sometimes edits with a Azerbaijan bias. I have noticed that his edits often are pro-Azerbaijan and not Armenia. He has also been blocked twice way back for editing with a pro-Azerbaijan bias. I would request that the content removed are restored and that the user are told not to remove it again. Its up to you.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the page history and the talk page exchange between you, it appears that Parishan was making a very reasonable point, while you were just reverting him for the sake of it, avoiding substantial debate of the content issue and instead engaging in procedural lawyering and ad hominems. If anybody is not looking too good in this incident, I'm afraid it's you. Fut.Perf. 13:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to disagree ofcourse, first let me remind you that I was the one who wanted a third party opinion while Parishan didnt listen at all reverting back. But now this isnt a who is right who is wrong discussion, it is a discussion about if the content removed should be restored or not. I have nothing personally against Parishan. And you are ofcourse entitled to your opinion but I have to disagree I felt personally that Parishan were unwilling to even wait for a third party opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
If a user is that confident of his own edit then it doesnt hurt to have a third party opinion. Especially when another user specifically says that, that is what he/she wants to feel confident about the removed content.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I also have to question if the content had been removed had it been Azerbaijan that complained about Armenia. As the user has in fact edited alot of Azeri articles in a pro-Azerbaijan manor. That is no insult is a fact when looking trough hes/hers edits. I think the obvious answer to that question is that the content had not bene removed had it been Armenia turning off its airing of the JESC.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't see a need for a third opinion, as long as nobody has bothered to present a second opinion. You have not, as far as I can see, presented any coherent argument, based on the merits of the content, why you would want to the content to stay. In the absence of such an argument, I don't see why he shouldn't have gone ahead and made the edit. Fut.Perf. 13:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
By your response I can see that you dont give any good reason at all for your decision/opinion. You totally ignoring my very very mutch so detailed explanation to why it should be reverted back. I am not interested in having any argument or meta-discussion with you, but let me just say it like this, I think you are not seeing the very good reasons for reversal just because you simply dont want to. And to say that I didnt give a reason when you dont give even a reason at all for your opinion...hmmm.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I also has to ask if you actually has read trough my original message? I really wonder, because if you had you wouldnt say that a second opinion hasnt been raised.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

RevDel needed at North Shore High School (New York)[edit]

 Done --Diannaa (Talk) 17:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Another bored and unimaginative high school kid inserting crudely derogatory comments about private persons, presumably classmates he dislikes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

TheLostHero2012[edit]

This user edits against consensus. He/She also has never even tried to explain their actions. This user has never edited a talk page or even leaves an edit summary, He/She doesn't understand that Wikipedia is a community. JDDJS (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sure TheLostHero2012 won't care, and won't respond here, thereby maintaining a record of not having a single talk page edit in the contribution history. For the most part, edits don't seem to be disruptive, and there isn't much I see that demands discussion. Failure to give edit summaries is a problem (because it increases workload for others who have to check the edits), but isn't really a blockable offense. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
He edits against consensus. Like on Generator Rex. He keeps on adding characters that other editors have found not necessary. I feel he needs to be blocked, thereby forcing him to learn how Wikipedia works. JDDJS (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


He needs to communicate, full stop. I've told him that and said he'll be blocked if he won't communicate and work with others. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Dougweller. I 100% agree with what you said above and left on his talk page. JDDJS (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, he edited without consensus. JDDJS (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Improper posting to my talk page[edit]

I have repeatedly requested that User:Ronz not post to my talk page. She/he has ignored my request. Is there a way to block her/him from posting to my talk page? History: On Feb. 25th, after s/he templated my talk page [15] and that of two other editors with whom she is involved in a dispute, s/he edited my talk page to restore an unpleasant message from her/him that I had deleted: [16]. I responded that the template was inappropriate: [17]. On February 28th, after many more unpleasant postings to my talk page, I asked him/her not to post on my talk page any more in this edit summary. S/he then immediately posted again, so I explicitly asked, on my talk page, that she stop posting to my talk page: [18]. Since then, she/he as continued posting to my talk page: [19], [20], [21]. Please note that in a 3rr warning on Ronz's talk page yesterday, admin. Beeblebrox concludes: "You are way beyond 3RR already. Discussion is what we do instead of edit warring, it is not a free pass to continue warring behavior". In declining Ronz's request for page protection at Musical theatre, Beeblebrox wrote: "So talk on the talk page and stop edit warring. This could easily have boomeranged on you, I would be completely justified in blocking you right now, so cut it out or you will leave no choice." You may also find the recent discussions at Talk:Musical theatre of interest. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll say that your reply to Ronz's apology was less than graceful. I've blocked Ssilvers for edit warring on Musical theatre. Toddst1 (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Was there any particular reason you blocked one participant but not the other? Shell babelfish 03:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Prompt block review requested[edit]

I'd like this block reviewed, please. The diff cited is three days ago, and blaming Ssilvers for this edit-war (no one else was blocked or even warned) seems bizarre. I also note that Ssilvers has been editing for five years, has 70,000 edits, has (had) no block record, and appears not even to have received a warning, which is certainly in order before blocking a good-faith user of this tenure. (Disclosure: I have met Ssilvers at meetups and at the Gilbert & Sullivan Society and cannot claim to be entirely disinterested.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

People are routinely blocked these days, while those who should be don't; it's no surprise. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Good-faith editors should rarely, if ever, be blocked without being warned first that their behavior is problematic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I support an immediate unblock. There doesn't seem to be any warnings and there was little harm being done to the encyclopedia. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Unblock Seriously? -FASTILY (TALK) 03:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Unblock
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support unblock, quickly. Dayewalker (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I should be clearer. I'm not saying he should be unblocked, I'm saying I did it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Unblock - Lulz. If Giano had said something as milquetoast as that, we'd be giving him barnstars for his improved tone and congeniality. Tarc (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
↑ -FASTILY (TALK) 04:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been unblocked, thanks to everyone! May I delete all that block stuff from my talk page? And, can it be cleared from my log? Also, in view of this, I'd like to broaden this ANI inquiry to request that someone review of the edits at Musical theatre since February 23 to see who has actually been edit warring there, and what the consensus actually is (as opposed to what involved editors say it is). For example, see these reverts, all within a 24 hour period that violated the 3rr rule: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Thanks for help and/or advice. BTW, I agree with the blocking admin that I handled my responses to Ronz poorly and hope to do better in the future. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it. It can't be "cleared" from your block log as in memory hole cleared, but my unblock rationale tried to make clear that I wasn't just unblocking to be nice, but that people actually thought it should not have been made to begin with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Much appreciated! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Note The dust seems to have settled while I was asleep, but I feel I should point out that I specifically warned Ronz [28] to stop edit warring and he simply removed [29] the warning and seemed to be saying that I don't understand the situation and need not be concerned. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    I removed the notice because I had already taken steps to resolve the problem (20:11, 2 Mar), and indicated it in my edit summary (21:17, 2 Mar). I followed up with Beeblebrox, explaining that I had already promised to stop editing the article for 24 hours and to observe 1RR thereafter (22:11, 2 Mar). I indicated this on the article talk page as well so others could find it more easily (21:23, 2 Mar) --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Ronz it seems does not like such evidence left on his talk page. His modus operandi is to spread the discussion around or to insist on placing the conversation on an opposing editor's talk page so people investigating have a harder time piecing things together and to shift blame onto the editor he is in dispute with by making it appear he is reasonably conversing with them on their talk page while simultaneously baiting them and planting diffs that support his view and disparage his opponent. It is surprising how effective his tactics are in bamboozling admins. The sophistication of it when one realizes what is really going on is troubling. I suggest admins wise up to it to avoid mistakes like the one committed in this case. Lambanog (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User Toddst1's blocking in general[edit]

As I was looking into this block by User Toddst1, I noticed another section about blocking for 3RR for a separate user on a separate issue, which you can find here. Going to the talk page of the user that was blocked, I found this section. I then proceeded to the article in question where the reverting took place, namely Thiruvananthapuram. I then looked at the history of the article, found here, and became instantly perplexed. User DileepKS69 had not violated 3RR as far as I can see. In fact, going back to the 22 at least, s/he hadn't reverted more than once within a 24 hour period. What the 3RR seems to be based on is the series of 4 edits made on February 25, which were, it seems, all reverts, but there were no intervening edits by other users. As far as I know, doesn't that mean that it qualifies as a single revert? A series of edits without any intervening edits by other users, I thought, counts as one edit or revert in terms of breaking policy. SilverserenC 04:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't count and isn't 3RR, but who cares if the worst that ever happens to you is a cute little trout on your talk page? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Your sarcasm is really not helpful. :/ SilverserenC 04:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hm. Un-sarcastic? What is this section for? You know that nothing is going to happen; the only thing people get desysopped for is when they go to someone's house and stick an iron rod up their ass. We can give a "warning" or a slap on the fictional wrist, so go ahead. Then what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Both blocks appear to be inappropriate. Are there further similar instances? N419BH 04:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I haven't checked. I'll take a look and report back. SilverserenC 04:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Just from his talk page for the past month, I don't see any other outstanding incidents, but I am relying on the blocked people to comment on his talk page, which isn't really all-encompassing. SilverserenC 05:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This might be better suited for a) a nice discussion with the admin or b) an RfC/U. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, I just wanted to bring this to people's attention. I am not opposed to either course of action. I was actually hoping that Toddst1 would respond here himself. SilverserenC 05:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
My next question is actually exactly that, has this been brought to the admin's attention previously. If it has, then we're likely looking at a RFC/U. If it hasn't, then we're likely looking at a discussion with the admin. N419BH 05:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean has he been informed of this section or has he been reported previously for similar actions? SilverserenC 05:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I informed him of this section. What I'm wondering is roughly how many incidents of questionable blocks we are dealing with, and has his general blocking behavior been the subject of previous discussions. If we're only dealing with a couple recent iffy blocks we don't really have that much of a problem; everyone screws up from time to time, including admins. If we're dealing with a longer-term problem then we have issues to discuss. If it's been discussed previously then we likely have a RFC/U on our hands. If it hasn't the first step in dispute resolution is to discuss the problem with the individual. So my question is really to determine the extent of the problem and where we are in the dispute resolution process. N419BH 05:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we're being a little to quick to light the torches and wield the pitchforks here. Two possibly bad calls on blocks does not a bad admin make. A quick perusal thru ANI archives for topics on him show one that apparently went nowhere and one that WP:BOOMERANGed on the reporter. Tarc (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I have always found Toddst to be an excellent admin, often in trying circumstances. We all make mistakes and I have more than one misjudged block on my own record, as I'm sure do the majority of admins who use the tools on a regualr basis. Let's back up a little bit and examine this in the context of his thousands of highly effective actions (including over 8,000 blocks). Maybe part of the reason good admins are so hard to find is that folks at ANI are so quick to turn things into a lynch mob? If there are genuine concerns about a particular admins' actions, the correct venue is their talk page and then a noticeboard iff and only if it can't be resolved amicably. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I also agree. This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to users getting the impression that there are witch-hunts. Give the guy a bit of good faith and chance to respond; it seems quite obvious that he went offline after blocking (possibly to sleep or work or whatever other engagements he has in real life). People can make big mistakes, even under great pressure, but can graciously address them, and in such instances, there's no need to jump at all. It would be a different story if there was already knowledge of several previous instances which show for poor judgement where the post-handling of those instances was also concerning. Given that there is no knowledge, and this isn't even at a point where we can determine if this particular incident is resolved or not, this subthread does seem to be unhelpful altogether. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
@N419BH: It's going to be rather difficult to determine that, considering that Toddst1 is an admin who is involved in a lot of blocks. As other people have put it before, he is the admin that is complained about the most on ANI. However, most, of these reports are entirely unfounded and the original poster gets reblocked or warned. If there are other cases of questionable blocks, one would have to wade through all these other discussions.
@Tarc: I'm not calling for him to be de-sysopped here or anything like that. I'm just wanting him to be more careful in his blocks and, especially, to be nicer to said people. I'm also noticing a significant amount of incivility on his part toward the people he blocks, whether they deserve the block or not. SilverserenC 05:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
So really what we're dealing with is a couple iffy recent blocks; nothing more. People screw up from time to time. Let's see what his response is in the morning and go from there. N419BH 05:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. SilverserenC 06:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
If you never do anything, you never make a mistake. Agreeing with Tarc in this thread. An active admin who makes many appropriate blocks will make a few in error, and regrettable as that is, the real test is if he is responsive when questioned on the mistakes. He has done a lot of good work as an administrator. Does he correct his errors and strive to improve performance? Civility is appropriate even when dealing with those needing a block. Edison (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Edison. I admire Toddst1's work on Wikipedia. I have not looked into the details of this report, but have seen a lot to like in the past. Jusdafax 09:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

From Toddst1[edit]

Hey folks. I’ve been out for a while. Just checked back in. I’m not going to try to defend my apparently ill-advised blocks today. Apparently I F-ed up. Apologies to all involved and no malice intended. Consider a trout (or maybe a salmon - they're bigger) - applied.

I will say that I had a RL incident earlier in the day that I’d rather not get into that probably contributed to a lapse of judgment.

If folks want to conduct a broader review of my many blocks, please do so. I've been a particularly active admin and there's a lot to review and probably a lot to improve upon. I will say I've always tried to act at least in good faith and to defend the principles of the project. I'm sure there are many opportunities for improvement in my history.

I think it’s time for a wikibreak for me. If my peers are amenable, I hope to be back in good form soon. Thanks for your patience. Toddst1 (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose there's no real point in responding to this, since you left on a Wiki-break, but I suppose I will anyway in the hopes that you'll read it when you get back. First off, you are an amazing editor Toddst1 and I know situations like this are few and far between in terms of your editing and your active work as a blocking admin. The one thing, however, that I would ask that you work on is your attitude toward the people you block. I've noticed that you are generally quite curt, if not outright rude, toward them when they come to you seeking answers. Even if some of them are obviously not on your talk page for the proper reasons, that doesn't mean that you should respond badly to them. If you could just work on this when you get back and also be a tad more careful and less impulsive in how you block, I think events like this will stop happening, for the most part. SilverserenC 16:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ritual Decalogue[edit]

The situation at Ritual Decalogue has gotten ridiculous. The article had been stable since July; now a group of editors who work together at Ten Commandments and who once accepted that version have been deleting sourced material, adding info they know to be inaccurate, and making the lede about the name of the article rather than about the subject.

On stable articles they work on (such as recently with myself and Jay at Holocaust Denial), they quite rightly require refs for any changes, and do not expect refs to revert unref'd changes. However, they have a long history (over a year) of making changes to other articles without references, and then demanding that refs be supplied to restore the stable version.

In this case, they have deleted the well-sourced statement that the laws in Exodus 34 are called the "Ten Commandments" in the Bible, and have added the inaccurate claim that the better-known Ten Commandments are thought to have been composed at a later date, ref'ing a discussion of 19th-century scholarship to justify that, and replacing a more accurate statement summarizing three common scholarly interpretations. The also use the wording "The Ritual Decalogue is a term used in Biblical criticism for a list of commandments given in Exodus 34". That violates the MOS, in that articles are supposed to be about their subject, not their title. And they've deleted various alternate names used in the scholarly literature.

We've edit warred over this; they insist that I cannot revert to the stable version without references. Well, more refs are a good thing, so I recently listed nine references on the talk page that Exodus 34 is called the "Ten Commandments" in the Bible: not that biblical critics think it is, but that it simply is, and that biblical critics debate why it is. The refs I supplied are Jewish and Christian, liberal and conservative; they include refs that are used on multiple biblical articles on WP, as well as such obvious sources as the Oxford Annotated NVSV Bible. One ref is from an evangelical publishing house that finds this a difficult passage, as it doesn't square with their understanding of the Ten Commandments. They are not engaging in biblical criticism, but nonetheless state that the Bible calls the laws in Exodus 34 the "Ten Commandments". I've also supplied references for the alternate names. All of this was just reverted.[30]

I don't assume good faith any more: Well-referenced material is deleted, along with the references (with no indication that the refs are in any way inadequate), while a knowingly inaccurate definition is added. The literal reading of the Bible is not the traditional understanding of what the Ten Commandments are, and we say that in the article (perhaps we could go into more detail, if they like), but there is a concerted attempt here to censor the Bible itself, to deny that it says what it's so easy to demonstrate that it says; and also (I don't know why) to misrepresent what scholarship says about it. Variations of this argument have gone on for years, with these same editors, and numerous scholarly interpretations have been discussed in addition to the single old view they keep adding to the lede, a view which one of the editors says is anti-Jewish, but nonetheless seems to prefer.

They succeeded in getting all mention of this third version of "Ten Commandments" removed from the lede of the Ten Commandments article, and I long ago gave up on trying to fight them on that, but now they've brought the fight to the one remaining article that covers this material.

I'm going on vacation and don't know when I'll next have an internet connection, but this really is ridiculous. Please help! — kwami (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are in the right place for this request. It is a content dispute. Try the religion project, or NPOV/N or even perhaps the FT/N if you think they are pushing a fringe view. I'll have a look see myself, but I'm not sure what an administrator is going to do about any of this.Griswaldo (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Something strange going on here[edit]

I've been seeing a series of one-line articles created on possibly NN books. Each article is from a different new editor. There are definite parallels in the editing and edit comment style, so I think it's a WP:DUCK case that there is a sock parade in progress. None of the articles are really speedyable, as books do not fall under A7. This whole thing is just really strange to me. I'm really not sure what the point of it all is. SPAM? They seem to be from different authors and different publishers. Anyway, so far I have been tagging and/or PRODing the sub-stubs. Not sure what else could/should be done here. Articles found so far include: Bang !, Beige (novel), True Believer (novel), Viking Warrior, Love Sick (novel), Ask Me No Questions (novel), and maybe Crescendo (novel). The last breaks the SPA pattern, but there are edit comment similarities. Maybe just coincidence of timing, though.

I'll next work through notifying the different accounts of this thread... - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Judging from this, it's part of Wikipedia:School and university projects#Durham School of the Arts YA Novels Project (Spring 2011)... — Scientizzle 20:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
More info here: User:Roseclearfield/Durham School of the Arts YA Project PageScientizzle 20:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you should probably remove your PRODs and give these new editors time to sort out how to improve the articles. Their teacher will likely help them. I doubt a teacher would have assigned these books without them being notable. SilverserenC 20:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Already done. I'll leave the tags for now, with the hope that they will guide the students towards key areas of needed improvement. Anyway, thank you, Scientizzle, for your help identifying what was actually going on. I had my mind so set on "Sock Parade" that "School project" never entered my mind. But even "Sock Parade" really made little sense, because I could not think of a "Why" for someone doing that. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
And "School Project" explains the one that broke the new editor pattern. That one was from the one student who happened to already be a WP editor. :) (I'm guessing, but it fits. :) ) - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
In terms of the last article that broke the pattern, it might have helped clear things up before having to file this report if you had looked at said user's userpage, since it explains this school project thing. SilverserenC 20:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:TROUT accepted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't mean to be mean. :P I was just pointing it out. SilverserenC 20:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm all for getting new accounts to create new articles, but wikipedia shouldn't be used as a test project for a class. If the teacher wanted the students to experiment with wikipedia, they could have created sandboxes in their user space. --Jojhutton (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid your opinion is at odds with the common consensus and foundation stance that supports collaboration with school and university projects that are done as such. SilverserenC 20:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Asking them to start on userspace would be a good start indeed. Although this shouldn't be a test ground, basically that's what it is basically for all new users. Whether or not a teacher has them do it, or they do it on their own, it's only going to be our help, guidance, and helpful criticism that will improve the editors and their articles. I just spent like an hour doing one of these books which really did seem like it should have been speedy del, but turned out she was quite notable, just not well known. Who (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
From the project director: Students are starting userspaces, not to fear. But in order to put the Educational assignment tag up we just needed to create a few stubs (less than 10). For these books I will follow a different procedure next year. Again, not to fear, students are not experimenting on Wikipedia. Not to fear, not to fear. Best, Roseclearfield (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
So...what happens to your student's projects if other Wikipedia editors end up improving their pages tremendously? Because I am severely tempted to help out with these book articles. o_o SilverserenC 20:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Very good question, since I seriously updated Ask Me No Questions (novel). Oh well Who (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't comment on the particular case, but in general I don't think that should ever be a big problem, since it is relatively easy for the teacher to examine the user contribution history or the article history to get an overall idea of how much input the student has had into the end result. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
But if we (WP regular editors) do all the work, and leave little available work left for the students to do... - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
May not be an issue. Looking at how the page for the school project has developed over the last few hours, many students are selecting books that already have robust articles to "improve". If a student is going to find enough to improve on one of the "Twilight" articles, I don't think we need to worry about us leaving them with no work on brand new articles. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The critical reception section could certainly improved on that one, at least. There has to be tons of articles reviewing the book out there, more than the four reviews that are currently listed. And Meyer has gone on extensively in interviews about her development of the books, which can be used to expand that section. So, yeah, there is actually quite a bit that can be done, considering each of the Twilight books should have more than enough info out there for them to be raised to featured article status. SilverserenC 21:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec) If it's a new/stubby article then it can indeed be a difficult balance. An approach I take is to focus more on making recommendations and suggestions on talk pages (user or article) of what needs to be changed, rather than just fixing it myself as I would normally do on other articles. Of course this doesn't mean avoiding editing the article at all. And it can take (a lot) more effort for the same immediate result. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. How Wikipedia has changed over the years. I remember giving a presentation on WP back in 2004, which included me demonstrating how to create an article. (Last I checked, that article hasn't been deleted. Probably hasn't been worked on since then, but that's another issue entirely.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the WP:Online Ambassadors to monitor the articles which the students have tagged as educational assignments. I am also one of the major contributers at WP:Novels and will help keep an eye on the student's contributions, Sadads (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Highspeedrailguy[edit]

Resolved: Blocked, and thank heavens for it. Kids need to get off WP and focus on school. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone any clue what User:Highspeedrailguy is up to at his user page? I know he's caused trouble before - is any action needed? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by NuclearWarfare. 28bytes (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I was skeptical of the WP:GOTHACKED explanation the first time around, but this is just getting tiresome. This is the 8th (!) account or IP he has edited under due to clean starts, renames, compromised accounts, etc., and despite the efforts of a number of editors to guide him in the right direction, he just can't seem to avoid the drama. I think a short-term ban is in order. 28bytes (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I find it hard to believe the "hacked" story, especially as he seems to claim he was online at the same time as the hack - there are only so many times we should fall for "The sky is falling". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Left a final warning. T. Canens (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I support Tim's warning and thought process behind it. Killiondude (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Concur with all of the above. Editor has rebutted the presumption of good faith, and is no longer entitled to AgF.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Further warning requested[edit]

Enough is enough. This user started as User:Perseus, Son of Zeus, then User:Perseus8235, then User:Highspeedrailguy. Now editing as User:173.49.140.141. Only the Highspeedrailguy account is blocked. This user has repeatedly requested deletes of talk pages and user pages, and is a highly disruptive user. Further examples include SPI accusations, cleanstart attempts, odd village pump requests, revealing personal information inappropriately, bad CSD tagging, Wikipedia account being hacked at least twice...the list goes on. I ran CU and found an additional linked account, User:Sheep Say Baa, which I blocked, and which he later claimed was "his brother".

This user seems to believe that only editing from one account at a time is within policy, and does not seem to get that disruption is a blockable - and bannable - offense. I would warn him myself but that would be poor form, as I've tried to engage, and have expressed some frustration myself. Having run a CU (and blocking an account as a result) definitely makes me involved. Would someone take a look and put him on a very short leash? I am thinking of something along the lines of one account, period, and further disruption will result in a ban, not a block.  Frank  |  talk  22:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: User is aware of this renewed discussion.  Frank  |  talk  22:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I would absolutely support a one-account restriction. The question is, which account? I believe both User:Perseus, Son of Zeus and User:Highspeedrailguy are permanently blocked as compromised, and him editing under an IP or IPs is not ideal given the obvious need to keep an eye on his edits. Does he get a new account, or should he resume editing as User:Perseus8235? Whatever account he chooses, I think we definitely need to proceed with the understanding that it's the last account he gets: if it gets either compromised or "compromised", that's it. 28bytes (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No. He's had, what, eight chances? He needs to, as he said, focus on grades, and not let hackers distract him from RL. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
What did you have in mind? A 3-month block? Indef? 28bytes (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd think a reasonably lengthy ban would be in his own interest as well as that of the encyclopedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I know this was marked as resolved, however the Perseus8235 account is not blocked... --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not sure what got resolved exactly... the IP he's been using is unblocked, as is the Perseus8235 account. We also need to decide what his main account will be, for the purposes of the inevitable unblock request. My suggestion would be to consider Perseus8235 to be the main account, block both it and the IP for 3 months for disruption, and make clear that (1) Perseus8235 is to be the only account used, and (2) further disruption either from that account when it is unblocked in 3 months, or from any socks during or after the block, will extend the block to indef, and will likely lead to a ban discussion. The other accounts are indef-blocked at the moment, and should stay that way. I think a permanent ban is premature, but a 3-month block/ban of any editing would be appropriate. 28bytes (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaving the Perseus8235 account unblocked, if he chooses to come back, he should not make any new accounts. I don't think restrictions are necessary; if something happens again, block indef. Eight chances is too many. He's already stated he will not return, though, so hopefully this is not needed. In reality, this is just an editor who needs to focus on life now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny story...[edit]

User:Secrets floating in the sea is a  Confirmed sock of Perseus. TNXMan 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Perseus8235; user is either displaying absolutely no control of any accounts or is playing games with us. –MuZemike 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Ugh. So much for not returning. This is just sad. I think "come back in three months and don't sock in the meantime" would have been the best thing for both him and the project, but I can't really argue with an indef either given the obvious not-getting-it. 28bytes (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I wonder why he came to my talk page asking to be adopted, other than to waste my time. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Suicide threat reported to WMF already. I think it's time to let them handle this now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He's just taking the piss - has been all along. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Almost certainly. But regardless, passing it up to WMF was the right thing to do. 28bytes (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, definitely -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User has been active on Simple under Highspeedrailguy in the last few days. Should some note of this be made there? I could just see him trying to hang around over there and cause trouble... -PrincessofLlyr royal court 17:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of his activities here, his first Simple edits appear to be edit-warring with an antivandalism bot, which isn't too encouraging. 28bytes (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. But is it advisable for me, or someone else, to make a note to active Simple editors to keep an eye out for him, or just leave it for them to figure out? I'm semi-active on Simple, and I know of at least a few cases recent cases where problem users from here just continued their problem behaviour on Simple, exhausting AGF until they were blocked. PrincessofLlyr royal court 18:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason not to give folks over there a heads-up. I note that he's registered simple:User:Perseus8235 in addition to simple:User:Highspeedrailguy; no idea what other accounts he may have over there. 28bytes (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed the Perseus account. I checked the latest one (Secrets...) and didn't find it registered. I have left a warning note on his talk page there and will post something on the noticeboards for the general community. PrincessofLlyr royal court 18:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm considerably active at Simple English, so I'll keep an eye on him. This whole incident has been ridiculous.
And I can't help thinking that there's something to do with Access Denied here...(unless the CU evidence can say otherwise), but that's another story. Goodvac (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia actually under the heel of this new regime?[edit]

Too much off-topic bashing going on here to actually consider the issue at hand any further. Besides which the original problem/question has been addressed: Edit warring is not acceptable. Edit warring is clearly defined at WP:EW, and this trumps any single editor's or admin's take on the matter, including Bwilkins'. No administrative action is required in this case, but Bwilkins and Epipelagic should both make more of an effort to assume good faith and remain civil. - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like confirmation from the community that the regime content editors are now under, according to Bwilkins, is in fact actually the case. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why Bwilkins felt the need to respond as he did; perhaps you and he have a history I don't know about? Or maybe just having a bad day? But your underlying question is too vague to really comment on; you said to Beeblebrox "You subsequently announced your campaign to block well established editors who attempt to protect articles on the grounds that they are edit warring. You indicated that you would do this unless content editors operated within certain highly circumscribed parameters, although you did not make it at all clear what those parameters are.". Could you point me to this conversation? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Holy crap. I have Beebebrox' talkpage on my watchlist, and I saw a vague yet extremely angry tirade against him. Without trying to clarify, I gave what I thought to be quite gentle, polite advice regarding 1RR. As a response to that, I was effectively called a Nazi and "one of the most problematic" admins on Wikipedia. I look back, I have called nobody names, and honestly thinking that Epipelagic has me mixed up with someone else, because becoming the target of wrath for politely helping makes no sense. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
That was not "quite gentle, polite advice". Every response the two of you made in that section on Beeblebrox's talk page is worse than the comment it is responding to. If you want to solve problems, de-escalation is more useful than escalation. But that's kind of a side issue. The question I have is, what is the background that lead to Epipelagic's first post? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
In response to Epipelagic's question, I can confirm that what Bwilkins wrote is correct: namely, edit warring is forbidden and certain articles may be subject to particular additional revert restrictions.  Sandstein  14:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
But is it true that any admin can unilaterally impose additional revert restrictions? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No, only where they are authorized to do so by explicit community or ArbCom decision. You are right, Bwilkins's response does not correctly represent policy in that regard.  Sandstein  14:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I was just gonna ask the same thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm just up for a moment, it's 4 am where I am. I'll see if I can find relevant difs latter. Thank you for your most "gentle, polite advice" Wilkins. It was you, not me, who called you a Nazi, I merely reflected back to you precisely what you said, which was that my position was "filth". I have no doubt that if anyone had said that to you, you would have blocked them for a long time, and that no other administrator would have challenged your block. But I am a powerless content editor, therefore dispensable and of no consequence. As you say, just filth. One rule for administrators, altogether another for dispensable content editors. Sandstein has endorsed your position of the draconian control admins can exert now, where content editors who try to protect Wikipedia may have little leeway, not even to make one revert. Why now would any any sane being choose to be a content editor on Wikipedia? Content editors are not posting much on this matter. Perhaps there is too much fear. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
My advice to you at the moment Epipelagic, would be to get some sleep, come back here when you're slightly more relaxed, re-read what users (Sandstein in particular) are saying, and try to take a less melodramatic approach to fixing this issue. - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Epipelagic, we forbid edit-warring because content editors may legitimately disagree with each other about how articles should read. The rules that restrict reverting are there to prevent such disagreements from being continued through reverting rather than resolved by discussion. Admins who enforce revert restrictions do not do so to penalize editors or to promote their own point of view (in fact they may not block editors with whom they are in a content disagreement), but to enable pacific discussion rather than confrontative reverting. In other words, revert restrictions are content-neutral, and they apply to all editors (including admins) in the same manner, no matter how much the editors believe that they are correct.  Sandstein  16:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • This is just to indicate that I have read and am aware of all this and basically have nothing to add except that WP:EDITWAR is a policy that applies to every single person who edits here. Period. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Question Who are these "content editors" & how are they different from the rest of us? Can I join this group, or is the fact my account has the Admin bit means I'm not supposed to edit at all? articles I can't think of the last time I put on my special Admin Sam Browne belt & armband, & repressed anyone for anything; I have kvetched (in a general sense, not at any specific person) about how my fellow Wikipedians don't understand what an encyclopedia is or how to do research -- but any Wikipedian can do that & I assume does. But in the last week weeks I started two different articles & improved a couple more from "Stub" to "Start" class or better, so I consider myself a creator of content. -- llywrch (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't work with content in articles where I am acting as an administrator, and I don't act as an administrator on articles where I am editing content. Up until recently that was what everyone expected an admin to do. Lately I seem to be running into an attitude that if an admin is not involved in the dispute they don't know enough about it to be able to tell who is edit warring and who isn't. I utterly reject that viewpoint as it is directly contradictory to the idea that admins use their tools dispassionately without taking sides.