Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive683

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

Noticeboard archives


Persistent POV removal/edit warring by User:Sloopydrew[edit]

Sloopydrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user has repeatedly removed a section of criticism from The Shock Doctrine because he doesn't agree with it: [1], [2] and [3]. This is probably also him: [4].

He has ignored multiple notices: [5], [6] and in addition to this he is rude: [7] (These personal remarks was done by him any interactions between us had taken place, and hence can not be prompted by any behavior from my side).

As he ignores policy and notices and continues with the blatant POV removals in an edit warring fashion, some sort of administrator intervention here is needed, in my opinion. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Sloopydrew and OpenFuture were edit warring here; they both seem to have broached 3RR on first impression, though I am not going back to the page history again again to count it and justify blocking either or both at the moment.
I have full protected the page for 3 days to let this settle out without further disruption. Both parties are cautioned to talk first, find consensus, and not repeat this behavior.
Any admin who wishes to sanction either individually, or do something else with protection, can do so without any objections on my part. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I have not broached 3RR, I have attempted to talk, this has been ignored (until after I created the ANI). I don't object to the protection, it's good, but I have already done exactly what you now ask of me that I should do, so I fail to see how I should be cautioned in any way. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Neither of you has breached 3RR because the reverts were not within a 24 hour period. However, you were certainly both edit warring. Fainites barleyscribs 18:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I did not make more than three reverts in *total* and that was over 30 hours between the first and the last. I'm aware of Wikipedia rules and do my utmost to follow them, and I believe I have done nothing wrong here, and that includes edit-warring. I also play it safe, and make sure that I don't just follow the rules by the book by try to bend then by wiki-lawyering or anything, but follow both the book and the spirit of the rules. I reverted what was blatant POV removal of criticism. He, to his own admission, removed it because he doesn't agree with it. I explained what was wrong with his removal in the edit description. Second and third revert I tried to engage in discussion, this was ignored. After Sloopydrew made his fourth revert, I took it here, and the only response I've gotten from him was that he repeated is original insults (pre-intercation) where he claimed I should not edit the article.
Please explain to me might I did wrong in this process. Explain to me how any of this is edit warring. Also advice on how to handle non-responsive editors that doesn't engage in consensus building. Georgewilliamherbert gave some recommendations on what to do, things I had already done *before* he recommended them above. You now say that I made more than three reverts, which I did not, and you claim I engaged in edit warring, which I don't believe I did. Please advice on how to handle these situations. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Lighten up! How is this rude? Note also it is immediately below your post which says a claim by Klein is "bullshit". Moriori (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. But that still doesn't really answer my questions, especially in regards to how to make deal with disruptive editors in a way that Georgewilliamherbert likes. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes as you mentioned on the talk page, try WP:3O, then escalate to other steps in WP:DR from there. -- œ 11:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing ANI[edit]

This ANI (posting personal information about another editor) needs the attention of an admin. Consensus is that edits which violate BLP policy should be redacted, and it needs admin attention to follow through and close. Onthegogo (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No action is required. An anon porports to be Ralph Scurfield. IntrigueBlue repeats that the anon purports to be Ralph Scurfield. It isn't OUTING and the potential damage BLP-wise is negligible. I'd advise dropping it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Consensus suggests otherwise. Even the BLP violator seems to accept that the BLP/outing edits should be redacted. Onthegogo (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The archives are dark to google, and are for a reason. The information was posted where it was relevant to the discussion. The IP made the claim, the user reported they made the claim in a discussion of the IP's actions. This is not outing by any stretch. -- ۩ Mask 16:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, it is not an outing, it is a BLP concern, and therefore the policy of WP:BLP must be strictly adhered to. Policy says that "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page”, including talk pages. To suggest the a potentially harmful edit, which purports to repeat an anon's claim (which may very likely be a false claim) as being acceptable because an admin has the opinion that “potential damage BLP-wise is negligible” is contrary to the policy of WP:BLP which says that the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Potential harm currently exists as the edits remain in the edit history. No harm can be done by redacting those potentially harmful edits, so why is there any resistance to this action which has already achieved consensus in the previous ANI discussion? Onthegogo (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The diffs provided contain three instances of IntrigueBlue simply repeating what the IP porported without passing comment on it, and only one which made for a slightly stronger assertion. The likelihood that these diffs could be damaging to the subject is negligible. I am rather more concerned as to why you are so insistent on action being taken here, as the only reason this is a matter of public attention at the moment is that you've dragged it back up again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
My interest is because I have become involved in the BLP discussion, yet failed to see the appropriate action taken following the discussion. BLP violations are wrong and they must be taken seriously by administrators. The consensus has been reached and he violator has acquiesced. There is no further reason to disagree on the admin action that needs to be taken. Onthegogo (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be of the opinion that because an archived discussion leans one way that the decision has been set in stone. I'm an administrator interested in tying up loose ends, so I looked at the discussion and saw a pretty weak argument which petered out without fuss when the "violator" took on board the concerns raised about his actions. As such, I concluded that this is no longer an issue. Feel free to go on with your life as normal, ideally with less demands that the admin corps sees things your way in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted. I am interested to know if the majority of the "admin corps", which you refer to, agree that this example of a BLP violation is a case where it is proper to ignore WP:BLP policy. Onthegogo (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I think what you are being told is that this isn't a BLP violation. Restating than an IP claimed to be someone is not in anyway detrimental to the living person. Thus it is not a BLP violation. -DJSasso (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
There's no BLP issue. The editor who quotes the IP even hedges it by saying that he "claims" to be, and uses the term "if". Is this type of BLP-focus normal activity for the editor "Onthegogo", or is this a unique situation? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Onthegogo, this is the third time you have brought this up in the last couple of weeks. The answer has been the same each time - it is not outing to report that the IP claims to be Joe Bloe. If you bring it up again, there is the possibility that you might be blocked for disruptive behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I saw the title of this thread pop up on my watchlist, and my heart was filled with hope. But alas, it didn't mean what I thought it meant. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Ole was driving from Minneapolis to Duluth. He saw a sign near an exit, which read "Duluth Left". So he turned around and drove home. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin User:ErrantX noted here that this is a BLP issue, so forgive me if I am confused that now I am being told that it is not a BLP issue.

Hypothetical: Just to clarify Wikipedia policy on this issue, please advise me on the following hypothetical situation:
If User:Xyz has claimed on their user page to be “Joe Blow”; and if User:Xyz is making regular edits to Acme Association (a notable organization with a Wikipedia article); and if Joe Blow is the name of the leader of Acme Association – then in that situation it would be acceptable and proper to report on the Talk:Acme Association page that User:Xyz has claimed to be Joe Blow and is therefore potentially making COI edits. Is that a correct understanding of the policy? Or would that be a BLP or Outing violation? Onthegogo (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
If xyz claims to be joe blow, then it's not "outing" if someone quotes him. If xyz is telling the truth about being joe blow, then it could be COI. If xyz is lying about being joe blow, then xyz may be committing a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Nowhere in that diff above has ErrantX used the word "violation". He merely states that it is a "BLP concern" for someone to claim to be an article's subject. If such a claim were a BLP violation, how would it ever be possible to declare a COI without it getting redacted? Anyway, this thread is entirely counterproductive and should be archived.--Atlan (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, along with an admonition to the OP not to bring this up again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User: Demiurge1000[edit]

Resolved: Please see Vanna for some lovely parting gifts. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User: Demiurge1000 is a repeated Wikiharasser. Please feel free to read his talk page and read about him. Many have accused him of it. Read his talk page and now hes harassing using a talk page with other users. Pls assist. --Billybruns (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide perhaps 3 diffs that show specific instances of this behavior. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm just guessing here, but I'd say this probably stems from Demiurge's completely understandable SPI report [8] here, and the return of lots of SPA and promotional users to the 5W Public Relations article. Dayewalker (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Billybruns. Perhaps you are not aware that you are required to notify any users that you mention on this board. I have taken care of it for you. --Diannaa (Talk) 03:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Original poster is a confirmed sock. Other accusers mentioned above were in fact this user. The Interior (Talk) 03:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't the Billybruns account need blocking for block evasion since its a CU confirmed sock? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
And the sockmaster is indef blocked. They should all be blocked for evasion, correct? Dayewalker (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: Original poster has been blocked as a sock, thanks to Diannaa. Looks like we can wrap this one up. Dayewalker (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Jonathangluck should actually be considered the sock master as that is the oldest account. Eyeserene blocked that one and the IP and I got the other two. This is one guy who should not play poker; too many "tells". --Diannaa (Talk) 04:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be noted that Jonathangluck has admitted to being the same user as User:Jonathanglick13 and, if memory serves, there's at least one more admitted sock in that farm. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I should've known better to file an SPI then go to sleep - now I've missed all the excitement :) Many thanks to everyone involved in sorting this out. The other thing is, Vanna (disambiguation) doesn't make me any clearer on who or what Vanna is? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
That would be Vanna White. :) "Parting gifts" is code for "consolation prize". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we should send the sockmaster a year's supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco Treat. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
And don't forget the Turtle Wax. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Dave Snowden[edit]


Could an admin pop over to above article were confirmed sock puppet is edit warring. Basil Stauner is the sock confirmed here. Mo ainm~Talk 16:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

New sock on article now also User talk:Cedric Stauner Mo ainm~Talk 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I have requested that the page be semiprotected due to the excessive sockpuppetry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Page protected and socks blocked by SarekOfVulcan. Mo ainm~Talk 16:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A range block should be considered, too. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User:GoetheFromm reported by User:Biosketch[edit]


Incidents of WP:HOUND:

User:GoetheFromm and I were engaged in a dispute at Miral, subsequent to which the user reverted my edit at Hind Husseini here, without addressing the reasons I articulated in the Discussion page for the edit. Then User:GoetheFromm partially reverted my edit at Mayors for Peace here, again with no accompanying explanation in the Discussion page. Then User:GoetheFromm made a minor edit at Nahum Barnea here, and then reverted an edit by another user at Victoria Affair here. It should be noted that User:GoetheFromm had never edited those pages before and I suspect his sole reason for doing so was to aggravate an already tense situation and provoke me into edit warring.—Biosketch (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please look into and address Biosketch's behavior!
Starting yesterday, I have had interactions and accusations with Biosketch that have increasingly become more uncivil and false.
First, Biosketch disagrees with edits on the Miral page, a genre (the Israeli-Palestinian confllict) that I have no vested interested in, other than to insure the inclusion of useful information on the film Miral. i brought up my edits to the Miral talk page and followed protocol on the edits.
He then reports me (without informing me) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warringWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, with accusations that I violated 3RR. This doesn't fly on the page and it is ruled as a non-vio.
In his reports at the Edit Warring notice boards, he directly refers to me as "borderline paranoid frame of mind" accusing me of "suspicion and uncooperativeness" stating that I am "harrassing" other users (User:Plot Spoiler at Victoria Affair) and that I am stalking BioSketch "purely for spite." Other terms such as "aggressive, uncivil, unjustly suspecting, stubborn, disruptive, and obsessive" have been used openly by BioSketch. Despite my numerous warnings on that page that his language and tone is a violation of wiki standards, he remains unapologetic and in fact seems to be amping up his rhetoric. I brought up his behavior at and the investigation is pending.
BioSketch has has been warned about his uncivil behavior. See here: User_talk:Biosketch#March_2011 GoetheFromm (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I also addressed his accusations that my edits to other pages were not explained, providing the original explanation that I had given and an updated explanation.
Now, Biosketch has brought me up on this page, citing WP:HOUND, in what I believe is a retaliatory action that has no merit. If you look at the edits brought up by Biosketch that purportedly indicate hounding, one will see that my edits were constructive and well within boundary. It has been my experience, as well as other users i am sure, to bounce off of other users' contributions and make edits. A great many users and admins have done so with my contributions.
Interestingly, user Biosketch and Plot Spoiler seems to equate their edits as if they were one person. They also curiously have similar edits on the same pages. In addition, both users have a history of edit warring and warnings in the past, indicating a past inability to work with those they perceive as interfering.
I believe that all of my points can be corroborated based on what I mentioned and what has been bought up by BioSketch. Thanks for your help, GoetheFromm (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In as much as any of the above is even true, it does not alter the fact that edits were made by the user in rapid succession at FOUR articles to which I had recently contributed and with which the user had never expressed the slightest interest as an editor. Given the context of the four edits, i.e. the editing dispute at Miral that preceded them, the pattern is consistent with the the formal definition of Wikihounding as articulated at WP:HOUND: "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."—Biosketch (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

BioSketch, you've already been warned just a day ago on your talkpage about WP:CIVIL with regards to the manner that you've handled issues.User_talk:Biosketch#March_2011 I'll reiterate that I believe that you are misusing this noticeboard and misrepresenting trying to create controversy. Please see comments directly above that address your allegations. GoetheFromm (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Referring conduct perceived as being inappropriate to AN/I is not uncivil. That is what the noticeboard is for. I would appreciate if you allowed the Admins to calmly examine the case and determine for themselves whether the diffs cited constitute WP:HOUND.—Biosketch (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
@BioSketch: The admins will certainly calmly examine the case, that is irrespective of either you or me. Your uncivil behavior towards me, however, has been really a downer in editing and I really don't appreciate it. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
My uncivil behavior where? What are you talking about? And what does "uncivil behavior" have to do with editing four articles where I had recently contributed that never interested you before?—Biosketch (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this seems to be going in circles. You were already warned about uncivil behavior on your talk page and on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Uncivility_by_user_Biosketch.3F and now you are denying it. And I'll reiterate that I believe you are misusing this noticeboard for retaliatory reasons. GoetheFromm (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
That uncivil behavior was at AN3 and doesn't have anything to do with this incident. I have restricted my comments here to being exclusively about the diffs and not about you and would appreciate if you would kindly regard me with the same courtesy. Thank you.—Biosketch (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, THIS NEEDS TO STOP. You've now filed another report at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts trying a different angle on a different noticeboard. As I've done in every instance, I've addressed you point-by-point. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Admin noticeboards exist so that Wikipedia contributors can turn to Admins when they feel their own efforts at resolving a dispute are not working. Every contributor against whom a charge has been brought at AN certainly has the right to defend themselves, and it is even expected they will do so; however, it is not okay to turn a contributor's charge at AN against them and make them its victim – which is what is happening here. It interferes with the evaluation process, intimidates the user making the charge by putting him on the defensive – and defeats the AN's very purpose. If there is a reasonable explanation for the four diffs above, it is sufficient to state it once clearly. If an Admin is convinced the diffs are inconsequential, he'll dismiss the charge and that'll be the end of it. But there was never an opportunity for that to happen here. From the moment the diffs were listed, the discussion became not about them but about Biosketch. This is not the place to discuss grievances against Biosketch. It is the place to discuss the diffs.Biosketch (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The diffs have been addressed quite thoroughly. My position is that I believe that your behavior is simply retaliatory, especially in the manner in which you've been warned about being civil and the what seems to be noticeboard shopping. Your overall approach has been very difficult for me as an editor, it really grates my skin and I DO think it is unfair. GoetheFromm (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way, comments like "V for victim" in the edit summary of your last edit on this page is another example of what feels to me to be uncivil behavior and an example of emotionality in your approach to me. I've cut and pasted where and when this happened.: 12:21, 2011 March 28 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→User:GoetheFromm reported by User:Biosketch: V for Victim.) This is a request that you refrain from doing this as well. GoetheFromm (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I genuinely regret that you are experiencing anxiety over this. That was not my intention at all. My reason for alerting AN/I was never to retaliate but to seek input from an Admin on what I perceived to be a violation of Wikipedia policy against me. Remember that the Admin at EW dismissed my charge because there was no violation of RR3. That was fine and it doesn't even matter to me at this point. But the EW Admin did not read the body of my message because of its excessive length, and the charge being made here was in that message. So there is nothing new, nothing retaliatory in this Incident – it has just been relocated to its appropriate forum from where it was originally.
And about the "V for victim" edit summary, I'm not sure how it could be considered uncivil. But in the event that you took it as an emotional outburst directed against you, then I can assure you that it was just the first thing that came to my mind when I had to fill in the summary box, and there was never any hostile intent behind it.—Biosketch (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your apology on this matter. These incidents have spanned over 4 different sections on 3 different noticeboards and, as you have stated, have taken on excessive lengths. I am sure that you realize now that it is very common for editors to "spring off" of other editors' contributions to make useful contributions of their own. If you felt that there was something awry, then you could've use my talk page to discuss with me. I would've been happy to oblige (as I indicated on your talkpage). I request that you extend that courtesy to me next time, instead of us getting mired on noticeboards. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for admin attention re: proposed deletion of multiple electronics components articles[edit]

A slightly unusual request here since there is no allegation of misconduct, I just feel this issue would benefit from some administrative coordination.

Over the last couple of days multiple articles on individual electronic components have been proposed for deletion. I do not propose to debate the merits of those proposals here since obviously consensus needs to be established. However the method in which these proposals have been made - a separate proposal for each request - has fragmented discussion over many individual pages, making it difficult for contributors to see the issue in its entirety and even more difficult to ascertain what the true consensus is. Attempts within the community to focus debate in to a single place have failed since there have been competing proposals advanced as to what is the appropriate place to centralise discussion around. As such I feel admin action is warranted to close down these discussions in favour of a single unified forum for discussion before things get too out of control.

The fragmented nature of the discussion makes it difficult to ensure that I have even found everything myself yet, but it includes among others: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Crispmuncher (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Crispmuncher is right, opening all those separate AfD's about old transistors and diodes is pretty disruptive and it's better that there be a centralized discussion about what to do with the articles. The AFD nominator seems to be on some crusade to get rid of the articles too, which isn't good (crusades are rarely good). IMHO the info in the articles is obviously encyclopedic and should be kept, but the usefulness of having separate articles per device isn't so clear. One obvious outcome is a big merge. (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
From user contribs, it looks like Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is rather aggressively removing uncontentious and reasonable-looking info from the encyclopedia that he says is unverifiable, in addition to making these afd's. The first example I looked at[26] was wrong: Free Radio Berkeley is perhaps the most famous pirate station in the US. We have an article about its founder, Stephen Dunifer. Could someone speak to Wtshymanski about WP:PRESERVE? (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I am sympathetic with Wtshymanski's goals, but I think mass nominations are reaching the level of presenting a fiat accompli. It's always easier to nominate than find sources and some of these noms were undoubtedly over-reaching and ill-thought-out. This needs to be a policy-level discussion, not an afd-level discussion, otherwise we run the risk of having unequal standards depending on the outcome of individual AFD !votes. In addition, some of the AfDs have become more about Wtshymanski and his noms than the article under discussion. Surely ALL his noms aren't bad but that's the effect copy-paste noms and keep votes tend to have, leaving an all or nothing state. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
All of his noms are bad in the sense that the info in the articles he is nominating is perfectly valid reference material that should stay in the encyclopedia. I tend to agree that it should mostly not stay as separate articles; but the way to implement that is with a merge discussion, not afd's. And I have a separate problem, with the pattern of Wtshymanski's editing outside the afd's, as described above. (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wtshymanski is now the topic of an Administrators' Noticeboard Incident ( ). Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

USER: Orangemarlin[edit]

Resolved: The edit in question was either a joke, or such a minor comment that it requires no administrator intervention. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Orangemarlin (talk · contribs)
Overseer19XX (talk · contribs)

Orangemarlin is rude and discourteous. His posts on peoples talk page as well as his own, shows his bias, and uncouth attitude. His edits should be reviewed to check for NPOV as well as any additional harassment. Overseer19XX (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you're not going to get very far with this unless you provide diffs of what you are talking about. DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't even know Orangemarlin was back. I looked and I can't find anywhere that these two users have come into contact ... at least not with Overseer19XX's current name. --B (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I see, from looking at the user's talk page and the deleted Wikipedia:Administrator review/Orangemarlin. It's this that Overseer19XX is complaining about. I think we can close this. --B (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Marking as resolved. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect Noleander of anti-Semitic editing[edit]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Noleander Nothing else ANI can do The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 05:26, 29 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.


Topic ban conversation and surrounding issues moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Noleander per request at WP:AN. Moonriddengirl (talk)


I'd like to ask that an uninvolved admin close this discussion when the time comes, along with an opinion as to whether there's sufficient consensus for a topic ban. If there isn't, I suggest we take this straight to ArbCom. Taking it to a user RfC is likely to attract the same people who commented here, possibly with the same opinions. I see the case for a topic ban as pretty straightforward, but the clarity of the case seems to be getting lost amid the number of opinions being expressed; and perhaps there's too much reading to expect people to do. This is the kind of situation ArbCom handles well.

By suggesting this, I'm not trying to cut short or bypass this discussion. I'm still hopeful that an uninvolved admin will see sufficient consensus and strong-enough arguments for a topic ban. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Having just spent two hours examining one of the charges against Noleander, I found that the case was far from being as straightforward as SlimVirgin claims; in the instance I examined, the Anti-Defamation League's own publication provides a clear justification for an article title for which Noleander was denounced.
I examined only one point of the evidence, and more than a dozen have been posted. Given the serious nature of the charge against Noleander, I hope that a closing admin will accept the need for more detailed scrutiny of rest of the evidence.
At this point, I suggest that the matter should go to straight to Arbcom, which provides a structured format for presenting and scrutinising evidence, as well as a neutral assessment of it. I also hope that Arbcom will consider some of the issues of conduct which have arisen in the course of this discussion, such as the allegations of anti-semitism which have been made at those who have expressed concerns at the way the matter was being addressed at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Noleander. --JN466 03:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Commercial/sales links used as footnotes[edit]

Hop (film)#References is a lengthy list that contains a large number of links to Amazon, Wal-Mart and other commercial sites that confirm the existence of certain products but are also sales pages where one can buy those products.

I understand that under WP:ELNO, we cannot point External links to pages that primarily exist to sell a product. However, I've been told by a colleague editor (not involved with the Hop page in any way) that he reads WP:EL to say that since that page only refers to ELs, that commercial sales links are perfectly usable as footnote references. It seems anti-intuitive to me that links not allowed as "further reading" ELs would be allowed for the more stringent References. It also seems as if it would open the door to abuse to have the fifth-most-visited Internet site readily available to point to one's sales page.

Is there any consensus on commercial/sales sites being used for References? Thanks for any information. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If the sales links in queston come from the retailers responsible for the sales (as they do here) then they're primary sources and ideally should be replaced. Nevertheless, they're reliable enough (assuming the retailer is assumed to be, as Amazon is), and so are fine on a temporary basis. Facts worth noting are worth secondary sources, though. This probably belongs on WP:RSN rather than ANI as not admin action is required. Best following up there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
That section is borderline spam. For the most part, if the notability of those products can't be documented from secondary sources, they shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Also, if the amazon links stay even temporarily, they should be cleaned up (remove the session numbers). Note: I fixed a typo in your link, so it works now. (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both. I'm still a little confused — the "temporary basis" thing in particular, since we don't have a little bracketed thing like <nowik>[citation needed]</nowiki> for that. My impression is that a site we shouldn't link to is a site we shouldn't link to, for any length of time. Any thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Dead issue. I've replaced all the retailer links (I hope) to articles about the merchandise, or (in one case) a PR release announcing the product. It's very, very rarely appropriate to use retailer links as sources -- I'd be tempted to say never, but I suppose sometimes they may turn out to be the most useful way to demonstrate a product's existence or a market price. Now for the question that jumps out at me: Why is there a scary Patti Smith on the soundtrack to this film? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


DiehardNFFLbarnone (talk · contribs) is most likely a troll who should be blocked. Besides one bizarre edit from October,[27] he has only been active in the past three days, in which he:

  1. undid multiple edits of an established user and accused him of sockpuppetry in the edit summaries.[28]
  2. called somebody "trash"[29] in a biography and claims that it was appropriate "in the context".[30]
  3. wrote in another biography "It's was a proven fact that he was awsome. Wikipedia decided not to take this down because it is true."[31] and claims the statement was re-inserted in accordance with community consensus on "the article's talk page".[32] That talk page has been empty for almost a year.

LOL T/C 01:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I blocked them indef. This has to be someone's sockpuppet... Grandmasterka 01:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

PROD abuse[edit]

Is there any way we can tighten the PROD procedures? They are becoming a back door way to avoid the scrutiny supplied by an AFD. A PROD was designed to remove rubbish, but as more people have discovered the process, it is becoming a way to avoid the scrutiny of an AFD to delete what you do not like. Please look at Ruggles Prize PRODed by User:RGTraynor. I only noticed it because I had scrolled way down my list that it had become a red link. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

First article I ever wrote got PROD'ed and deleted while I was away from Wikipedia. Pretty irritating. Then again, it's easy enough to get a PROD'ed article restored. Why do you think this particular PROD was abusive? 28bytes (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm rather curious myself. For one thing, perhaps you're unfamiliar with WP:PROD. There is nothing in the policy mentioning, or discussing, "rubbish." The lead text is "Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate, but that it does not meet the more stringent criteria for speedy deletion." To imply that no user can file a PROD except out of malice and/or sloth is a poor way to uphold AGF. For my part, I presume that people filing PRODs do so on articles the deletion of which they genuinely do believe would prove uncontroversial, and that they apply this to articles they find fail of notability or sourcing in one fashion or another. I'm sure you would yourself prefer to be treated as if you didn't have ulterior motives or hidden agendas in your own edits.

For another, were you more familiar with PROD, instead of running to the admin who deleted the expired PROD and get him to reverse it, you would have done so through WP:UND, the proper avenue for attempting to reverse a deleted PROD.

Finally, if your purpose is to tighten up the PROD procedures, what are you doing here on the admin noticeboard? WP:PROD has a talk page, and that is the proper venue to discuss changes to the policy. Wouldn't you think?  RGTraynor  05:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:DEL#Proposed_deletion "If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking." So going to the deleting admin is totally appropriate. Monty845 05:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Uh, I find PROD a great process because it doesn't allow deleting rubbish in the case that any single Wikipedia user disagrees. No bureucracy, no extra rules - just "I think this should be deleted because..." and "Well I think that's a lousy reason to delete this." It's like AfD where a single keep !vote is enough to keep the article - until AfD that is. Zakhalesh (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Screaming abuse when it's used exactly the way it's supposed to be is odd. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. PROD doesn't mean avoiding scrutiny, it's a softer version of DB that anyone can contest if they disagree. Zakhalesh (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • If anything, the Prod process needs to be tightened in the opposite direction of what Norton suggests. Tags shouldn't be removed willy-nilly without a valid reason or doing anything to address the reason it was prodded in the first place. Tarc (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree. PRODs are mostly used in good faith to maintain the encyclopedia; messing with or obstructing that process for no good reason should be discouraged. Reyk YO! 20:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Never mind that Norton gave no reason for removing the PROD other than he thinks it should be at AfD instead, which strikes me as rather pointy. Certainly, if it has indeed been on his watchlist, he has made no improvements, nor attempted to provide reliable sources discussing it in the "significant detail" required, nor made any stab at defending the subject's notability.  RGTraynor  02:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Not surprised. Prod removals should need a reason, because this nonsense is allowed otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm a bit divided on this one. People who contest PROD don't always provide rationale for that, and it angers me a bit when they don't. However, one of the reasons I love PROD is that it has no special criteria to observe, and if we restrict contesting to those who can provide reason for removing the PROD, then there must be acceptable reasons and bad reasons. And if the line between these two must be drawn, guidelines are needed and someone neutral is needed to make the decision on whether the reason was bad enough to warrant restoration of the PROD. And if all this is implemented, PROD is no longer the nimble process for no-frills deletion, but just AfD where things are done differently. PROD is good the way it is. If the contester can't reason for keeping the article, well, that's only their loss when it goes to AfD. Zakhalesh (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • And ... there's the AfD Norton fought to see filed. I'm positively eager to see upon what grounds he defends the article's notability.  RGTraynor  11:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • What I never understood is why some editors act so put out and bewildered when their PRODs are removed by an article's creator or primary editor. I mean DUH, if someone came to me and told me that he was going to take away something that I worked hard on and/or cared about unless I tell them not to then dammit I'm going to tell them not to. Why is this so hard for people to understand? This is why if I see an article that I think needs deleted, I'll go straight to AFD if it has recent edit activity. PROD is for articles that nobody gives a damn about. (though that in itself is not a deletion rationale) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    What I never understand is why certain notorious contributors to WP's eternal notability war keep heading back to the boomerang shop for more ammunition. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Norton caused this to be undeleted, for some unknown reason, and then came here with claims of abuse of the PROD. If you're going to do this, why not express the reason at the AfD page. This sounds more like a way to be anti-PROD than anything else. That said, the PROD process does seem to as if it could be improved, and the Admin who undeleted this article had several suggestions to make it better User_talk:SchuminWeb#Ruggles_Prize. But asking for a reversal of PROD without any reason sounds as bad as the condemnation of PROD itself. (filed under Automated-Time-Wasters) -- Avanu (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


I would like the documentation on prods made a bit clearer. I tagged a couple of articles for a prod, waited a week to see if they were deleted, then came here, perhaps impatiently, to "demand" their deletion... I thought I was doing the right thing but clearly wasn't.... could someone look into stopping people like me in the future :D

Oh, and while I'm at it, the process for nominating an article for AFD atm is ridiculously laborious, and also mistake prone for the careless (read the edit summaries of my recent contributions - I copied and pasted without realising I needed to edit the darn things till it was too late, and you can't edit an edit summary! (maybe we should make it so you can edit an edit summary, although this maybe leads to infinite recursion...)). I appreciate it couldn't be built into mediawiki easily so... how about having a bot to do it? You could go to a specific page monitored by the bot, type the article and the reason for deletion, and the bot would do the rest. Should be a piece of piss for any decent progammer! Egg Centric 21:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

One word - Twinkle. It does AfD simply by menu - just click, type your reason, and it does it all for you :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
DOH! And I already have Twinkle as well, just didn't know about the functionality! Cheers Bud :) Egg Centric 21:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

PROD duration?[edit]

While I, as I said in my previous comments, like PROD and find it very useful, I've seen quite a lot of articles getting deleted within hours of getting PRODded. Not only cases that are eligible for speedy or have been previously deleted via XfD, but other articles as well. A common scenario seems to be not notable article that is outside the scope of CSD A7. I'm a bit confused on this one - should A7 be expanded to cover a wider range of topics so they get speedied instead of prematurely deleted after PRODding or the "grace period" before PROD deletion reduced, or should we retain the current time period and not let admins rush in before it has passed? Zakhalesh (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If there are specific areas where CSD should be expanded then so be it, but PROD is specifically designed for areas where a) the subjetc matter isn't obviously a speedy candidate and b) nobody cares enough that it can go seven days without anyone arguing against deletion. Admins shouldn't be violating that at will, just as inclusionists should not be hovering over category: proposed deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I too agree that policy shouldn't be violated, but on the other hand, policies change. I still think a few hours grace period is way too short, but that some hopeless articles just amange to get through speedy too easily. Events, for example. There cwas an article about some scavenger hunt held by citizens of a county. I couldn't find any hits on Google, sources listed by the creator were two specific citizens, the tone was off, but still, it couldn't be deleted by A7 because it doesn't cover events. Another case today was an article about a book that got "speedy prodded" possibly by error - the deletion was accompanied by the reasons of lacking notability (even though books aren't eligible under A7) and previous AfD that was actually speedy closed because the author deleted the article. I didn't contact the admins behind these because I wanted them gone as well, but I would still like some way to prevent actual PROD abuse, or a policy change that increases scope of A7 and other criteria. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion is there so that we don't need to carry complete no-brainers (pure vandalism, serious attacks, articles with utterly no context with which to evaluate them) around for that whole time; things which don't fit that category but which are still useless will be easily picked up by PROD. So long as we don't have editors reflexively removing PRODs from article they wouldn't otherwise be interested in for ideological reasons, PROD works fine in removing inappropriate content which is not total garbage. As I say, I'm more than happy for discussion over whether we can wipe out more rubbish through CSD if we can agree on extensions to the existing criteria. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you missed the point. PROD is great the way it is, but admins are taking too much liberty when deleting articles after they've been PRODded - mainly, deleting way too fast, as the policy clearly states that 7 days should be waited instead of just a few hours. This seems to happen quite often when the concern is notability, while CSD puts strict limits on what subjects may be speedied per notability, and PRODded articles are usually outside these limits. Examples include non-notable events, gameguides and fiction. The question is whether they should be speedyable via the actual speedy deletion process, deleted by an accelerated PROD with grace period of 1 day or less instead of a week, or should the admins have the patience to wait 7 days. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
My appreciation that that point was apparently lost somewhere in my pre-post editing. :) I agree that PROD should have a strict seven-day duration, and that I don't see any reason for admins to circumvent that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I totally disagree with that. What if somebody created an attack page and a cohort of theirs sticks a PROD on it to keep it around for seven days? Speedy deletion criteria are specific. Even if a PROD is on an article, if the article should have had a db tag on it instead of a PROD, then the speedy criteria should be applied whether there's a PROD on it or not. Corvus cornixtalk 17:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
In that instance, remove the PROD tag and apply a CSD instead. That has no bearing on how long a PROD lasts for. GiantSnowman 17:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
None of the deletion templates are mutually exclusive (and in the situation you describe, WP:COMMONSENSE would apply as well). PROD/AfD does not mean that it can't be speedied, and in fact, speedy deletion is not uncommon in AfD discussions as people more experienced/deletionist note that the page meets the DB criteria. But, if an article is not eligible for speedy deletion, it should not be speedy deleted - 7 days grace until decided otherwise. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, if the issue is something that doesn't match an existing criteria, but really needs to be deleted right now, we still have {{db|some reason}} (and various redirects). Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Attack pages should be speedied regardless of any prod. WP: IAR works well in that situation. (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Even better, no rules have to be ignored. Nowhere is it forbidden to override "lesser" deletion with speedy, and I think some of our policies even mentions this explicitly. (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

An incident for resolution[edit]

Resolved: No tool use needed except "the power of reason", which is outside the scope of AN/I. 28bytes (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am involved in an incident I would like to have answered without ambiguity. This edit served destructive to my comprise upon seeing it. I can demonstrate that it was an unprovoked response, and that it had potential to negatively impact my good character, although not based on fact. My first attempt, and preferred venue, was to discuss on the users talk page to hopefully reach clarity. I did post this message in hopes of a reply. I also posted this comment to mark my objection.

During the interim I discussed some things with a user I have great respect for their opinion. Their good counsel, along with points I enunciated, well summarize the motivation for my bringing this matter here. Considering this discussion can give proper insight to context. When Townlake did reply, the answer left no regards to consider. Unless the lack of regard should be sufficient in itself. So I bring the question here, where I trust the best answer can be known. Should a Wikipedia user be subjected to such an assault that encroaches on liable. And should a statement with such potential be retracted? I answer no and yes respectively. My76Strat (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be no attack in that edit, but a comment on a debate about process in which your RfA was first brought up by others and the user was noting he thought it was a poor choice for reasons he stated. It was civil and germane to a policy discussion. His 'noted' response to your comment is likewise civil. What I do see is your statement "Should a Wikipedia user be subjected to such an assault that encroaches on liable", which seems borderline WP:NLT territory. -- ۩ Mask 04:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think "Strat was as pugnacious as it gets at RFA" is very appropriate. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
But pugnacious is not an insult, its a commonly used descriptive. Just this week the Financial Times and the Guardian have both used it in news, not opinion coverage. It describes a fighter, feisty, not willing to back down. These are things some are proud of, others dislike, and nobody claims is abusive. -- ۩ Mask 05:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)c
Just realized 'appropriate' could have a second meaning, so if i addressed the wrong one I'll point out that a long discussion of fixing RfA was set off with Strat's RfA as an example of one that should have passed. If the user disagrees with that central premise I'd expect him to address it in a way thats not a personal attack by still explains why they think this is incorrect. The user described, in neutral terms, what he had issues with in that regard. And then moved on. -- ۩ Mask 05:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)My76Strat, in regards to your "encroaches on liable" statement above, please choose your words carefully, especially when dealing with issues such as these. I'm sickened to see all of the jabs taken at your writing, which I find a refreshing divergence from the usual writing styles I see here. I find it to make prolific use of metaphors, which many don't feel like decoding or simply don't make the same connection as you. That being said, the first diff you link, [33], can be interpreted in two ways. AKMask provides one view directly above. However, upon my first reading it, I found it to be insensitive and therefore having the potential to be found offensive. Saying "Jimbo sacrificed a little credibility" by using your RfA as an example for how the process was broken shows that Townlake didn't take your well-being into consideration in that edit. He goes on to state reasons for why he thinks it was justifiable that your RfA did not pass (stating his opinion on your handling of the RfA which in turn led him to interpret your character in that event not fit for adminship) and uses that reasoning to prove his first point on why Jimbo picking your RfA as evidence for the process being broken was not a good choice. However, in the process, he said you were "as pugnacious as it gets" as well as "obvious temperament" which demonstrates gross insensitivity. Whatever opinions one may hold on a matter, statements like those are not going to cut it.
Because we are restrained (I could go further and say "cursed") to communicating in text, many if not all of our intended feelings are often lost in the stages of typing and saving an edit, which is then read and interpreted at face value by the reader. The same can be said to Townlake's second, curt response, "Noted". This was also a poor decision on Townlake's part, which was insensitive at the least and intentionally hurtful at the most. He could have diffused the situation by (sensitively) explaining the edit in question, thereby allaying any fears My76Strat may have had about his intentions when he posted the comment on Jimbo's talk page. Instead, he left much to be desired. I echo RexxS's response to the conversation on his talk page linked above.
I have tried to explain this unambiguously while not elaborating in excessive length; if you would like further clarification, please ask. In conclusion, I urge you, My76Strat, to not take every potentially negative comment personally. It wears you out and doesn't help you in real life, which is more important than the wild place that is the internet. However, this isn't the first time I've seen comments from Townlake that have been insensitive in nature. I urge you, Townlake, to consider others' feelings (yep, we're [well, most of us at least] human editors that have feelings—yes, feeelings!) when posting comments on others. It's basic etiquette that can be easily forgotten and ignored and must be adhered to particularly closely on the internet where text allows for broader interpretation. Airplaneman 05:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
My76Strat, please clarify: What admin action are you requesting?
Alternatively: If - upon reconsideration, and particularly re. the notice at the top here, "Are you in the right place?" - if you decide another venue is more appropriate, please state that here. Best,  Chzz  ►  11:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Stopping by to note I'm aware of this thread. I've stricken the comment, and I see no benefit to discussing this "incident" further. If y'all feel like punishing me, I guess go for it. Townlake (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested in seeing anyone punished. I would have preferred to resolve this matter on the talk page where I did make an attempt. And perhaps a lessor venue such as RfC could have been better. My only interest is to mark the effects as they occurred to me. And I think it is well worth noting that my RfA was never mentioned as an example until Townlake made the comparison. Otherwise it was merely focusing on a comment Jimbo had made "RfA is a horrible and broken process" which happened to be posted to my talk page. Never was there a foundation that my RfA was to serve as an example for any purpose. Until Townlake chose to advise against the dangers of lost credibility for the slightest alignment with my name. And to then present as fact, "Strat was" instead of "to me Strat was" as well as the fights I was said to pick. I just felt it was an offensive that professional conduct would not warrant. And I did notice the comment was stricken within short order of filing this ANI which almost gave me cause to withdraw it all together. The reason I decided to allow it to go forward, to hear these good replies based on policy and reasoned empathy, is because the retraction itself states a desire to avoid drama without giving indication as to proper conduct, and correcting an error. I am otherwise fully satisfied with the manner which this ANI has addressed the incident, and in full agreement that its purpose can be said to have been served. And I thank, wholeheartedly, those who have given of their time to provide valuable insight with their comments. I am very appreciative. My76Strat (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
To further clarify, I had overlooked the link to resolve issues of civility which indicate WP:WQA as a better venue. And I did intend with choosing "encroaching" to avoid any appearance of of a threat. To the extent my actions are not congruent with my intentions, I apologize. My76Strat (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Please excuse that I wish to clarify this additional item. The result of my RfA was never an issue! There exists no platform, explicit or inferred, that it should have passed! The only issue raised is whether or not failing to achieve the criteria for success at RfA has any benefit by diminishing the value of the "person" who had tried. These are the very points being discussed under the thread. How could that context be sufficient to invite such a comment as Townlake was moved to append? And how could, not drawing a clear answer be looked upon as an option? These are the feelings which motivated me to ask for this single incident to be answered. Thanks for also considering these. My76Strat (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The result of my RfA was never an issue! This is simply factually incorrect. The first post in the section contains, in prominence, a link to Jimbo commenting about your RfA, speaking about why the result is a problem and what RfA is now. -- ۩ Mask 00:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The prominent result, was a misconception that my value as a contributor was diminished. Not that the RfA had reached the "wrong result". The wrongs that intend to be considered are those which relate to humiliating a candidate for having tried. There simply is no reflection that I should have emerged as SYSOP. Only repeated sentiment that the destructive tendencies had no place. I suggest further that the comment from Townlake is an extension of punitive intent related solely to an attempt at RfA, I had endeavored.
When considering the negative innuendo that might contribute to the loss of an otherwise good contributor, is it impossible not to see that, exactly, this kind of conduct can contribute. Furthermore it is not unreasonable to expect the participants at RfA should be held exemplary in all regards. I approached the RfA as an encounter with an element functioning as cadre to the institutional purpose, which was to identify the kinds of people who could best serve the position being considered. I expected to return to a position of respect with regard to all manners of forward conduct, without accusations based upon RfA interactions. I have in fact interacted with administrators who gave stern admonition for conduct which constituted failure during the RfA. The subsequent interactions outside RfA reinforced however that I was valued at the contributor level.
And then the Townlake comment brings the question to full fruition. Even to the point that I should extend this effort hoping you might see fit to agree. This is exactly the conduct which should curtail if the desire to reduce the exodus associated with RfA is to anticipate success. To the extent I should be admonished further, please advise, because I must also endeavor to correct my own deficiencies, which first must become known. A final thought in this regard is that I miss the opinion of Townlake here, which is the unknown, I most wish I could have known. To the secondary concerns, I am keen, and compelled, but not unambiguously clear, as I would otherwise liked to have been. My76Strat (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Your comments are difficult to understand. Can you make clear what administrator tools you wish to be used here? (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The tool I wish to be used is the power of reason. And I don't want a false premise to govern its application. There have been statements here that somewhere it was suggested my RfA should have passed. This is not the facts I understand, and if you can show where that has been said please provide a diff. The only thing to my knowledge that has ever been said is that there is no need to destroy the candidates credibility because they didn't achieve SYSOP. Because if those things had happened, I suppose Townlake would have been justified. But that doesn't answer my allegation that it was unprovoked. Other than that close the thread as resolved. My76Strat (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Would it be best to copy this information to the more proper venue WP:WQA, or is it best advised to let it close here? If there was even a way me and Townlake could have a conversation it would be great. but if this is the extent of the matter, I thank each for the time they have shared with helping understang this incident. My76Strat (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Ya it's probably best to just let it go here Strat.. -- œ 09:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Then that is exactly what I will do, No hard feelings, and much appreciation for the help. My76Strat (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Seeker02421 disruption at Yahweh[edit]

Resolved: indefblocked by --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeker02421 (talk · contribs) is an interesting character who has shown a longterm patter of introducing commentary into the Yahweh. The locus of the of the disruption is the user feels the common transliteration of "Yahweh" is incorrect in Hebrew as it "does not exist in any hebrew manuscript." This user is famous at Talk:Yahweh for producing largely semi-coherent rants Sample 1Sample 2 The most trouble some aspect is introducing rants in the article space and has been the most frustating to try and get the user stop. The editor either ignores this or asks us to disprove the point in his commentary. I am listing all recent examples here

Thier talk page reveals this has been going on for quite a while and no amount talking or warning is getting the message through. I dont know if topic ban is appropriate or straigh out indefinite block but nothing seems to be working. The editor only drops in for maybe an edit or two month so anything and its almost always to insert this material in Yaweh. I cant find one constructive contribution to the article space in awhile. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 17:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Leaving aside the content of his contributions, he's basically putting talk-page commentary on the content directly into the article. Assuming he's been warned not to do that, it ought to be treated as deliberate vandalism and be met with reversion and accelerating blocks. That's probably enough for now.--Scott Mac 18:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Repeated pattern repeated warnings hist talk page indicates the pattern of warning rather well. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 18:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
      • OK. You've issued a final warning. Block him next time. His contributions are all to that article, so an indef block is likely to result in him simply creating a new account. Better to try to teach compliance by escalating blocks.--Scott Mac 18:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Facepalm Facepalm That "final warning" was last month the last time he added it. He did again today that why I bought it here The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 20:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I read that warnings are proposed. However, this issue has been going on for at least two full years now. Seeker02421 comes up with his rubbish every few months, then he gets warned and sometimes banned for a few days. But he always comes back. I have conducted lengthy discussions with him but even after all this time the point of his argument still escaped me. His position seems to be that the identification of the biblical god depends on the usage of the "right" spelling. He seems to claim that if the name is different then another deity is meant. I think permanent ban would be the right procedure (there have been numerous "final" warnings already) ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Enough. There is no excuse for Seeker's behaviour. This is pure disruption; and as people have noted above, just the latest in an endless stream of disruption on this page from this user. The article takes account of his concern in sentence 2, which I thought he was happy with. Yet we're back to this nonsense again. This is not an attempt to enhance the encylopedia. It's gone on long enough; he's been warned enough. He's not some wet-behind-the-ears newbie editor. He knows full well what he's doing, and it needs to end. At the very least, we need to be looking at an indefinite topic ban from the community here. But given (as ScottMac points out above) that this is the only article he seems to show any interest in, perhaps the simplest thing just to do what Cush says and go straight to a permanent ban. I'm usually pretty liberal, and would usually argue for as low level approach as possible. But in this case enough is enough. Jheald (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
              • It could very well be a month or two before Seeker signs in agian their edit are infrequent at best. I suggest blocking indefinitely (but hopefully not permanently) and only allow an unblock if Seeker agrees to not repeat this behavior of inserting this commentary in the article. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 05:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be enough warnings on the talkpage. Given his hit and run tendencies, I have indefblocked - any admin is free to lift block as soon as user shows some kind of CLUE that adding this kind of material directly into the article is disruptive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hope fully this whack with the Cluebat will do the trick The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Dirty socks[edit]

Resolved: Returning troll blocked. TNXMan 14:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A new account has started up just tagging numerous editors of being socks here. I have no idea if their assertions are correct...or they're self-tagging (admitting to socking). Would someone please resolve this. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Man. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It's started up again as User:Barry from New England. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


Could someone with more experience than me have a quick look at Mustafa Hijri? There's a seemingly incomplete AfD nom, a page blanking with request for speedy (declined as multiple editors) and possibly other issues. I've replaced the text from the last reasonable version, requested the blanker/nominator to use edit summaries and told him of my declining speedy. I'm offline for a bit, so could someone else take over? Thanks. Peridon (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the PROD he placed on the article and used its reason to complete the AfD nomination. I also left him a message on his talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Igny and "Occupation of the Baltic states"[edit]

Could an admin please look over the recent activity of Igny (talk · contribs)? He seems to me to be more of a disruptive influence then a constructive one at the somewhat contentious and long-winded discussions occurring at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states. Maybe if someone could talk him down, that discussion could stand a chance of reaching some sort of conclusion.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I did[34]. Although, frankly speaking, I see no disruption here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
You do not think that moving an article without consensus is disruptive? Or making spurious 3RR reports? Or breaking 3r himself to war a POV tag into the article? He is being very disruptive. Tentontunic (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Physician, heal thyself...--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Paul, are congratulations in order, are you an admin now? But thanks for your intervention with Igny. The sooner editors stay off admin talk pages and away from "reporting" each other, the sooner we can discuss whatever editorially irks us. Really, if things don't improve I'm going to request a six month ban on soliciting admin intervention and "reporting" editors on all EE topics and widely construed. Or, we could try it ourselves and stick to debating the issues at hand, and without reasoning which, after all is peeled away, resolves itself to: "My sources are impeccable, therefore editor X is 'disruptive' because they don't agree." PЄTЄRS J VTALK 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't want to get any more involved in this, but I just wanted to leave one last comment here. I wanted to state that the WP:RM is the only thing that brought me to the page. Once I landed there and read through the reams of comments in the actual "Requested move" section, I started looking around at the rest of the page and surrounding events. The two EW reports (to date) are symptomatic of the combative environment which currently exists here, and I see the RM as a precursor symptom of that environmental problem. As Peters (User:Vecrumba) notes above, the "occupation" page at the center of this is an Eastern European topic. I'm only vaguely aware of the fact that an arbcom case took place surrounding the topic, so I'll leave it to those of you who actually know what's up with that to draw your own conclusions about all of this. It looks to me as though several people here need something said to them, though. It might be good for everyone to simply step away from that article for a week or so, and come back to the issues with a fresh perspective. Other then that, I wish everyone the best, and hope you all can work it out. Regards,
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing a "deletion discussion" box and blanking out the article[edit]

There's an article on Malia Ann Obama. I know Obama is hated by some but that is no reason for Cunard to keep blanking out the article and making it a redirect. The article is long and has many references. There is an AFD debate. The AFD warning box says not to remove it but Cunard keeps removing it and blanking the page.

The basic problem was that it used to be a redirect 3 years ago when Malia was an unknown. Since then, several people have written the article. All of gets blanked out. There is an AFD. Discuss it there, I would think, not keep blanking the article. Kewlarticle (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've looked around and I thing the sensible thing to do would be to have a discussion on the WP:redirects for discussion. But the article should be kept, not blanked, until that discussion is completed. Otherwise, people can't see what they are discussing.

What we should NOT do is to let people blank the page and try to shove the discussion in some obscure discussion page of ANOTHER article (and they themselves don't discuss, just blank it out).

My teacher said that there are a lot of hot heads in Wikipedia and people don't discuss things like they should. I will tell her what I did and see if she is right. Because I will inform her, I will cease to post anymore in Wikipedia. I hope Wikipedia proves her wrong (by discussing thinks and not having people blank out articles). Kewlarticle (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Kewlarticle started, with his eighth edit, a completely meritless AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (3rd nomination) involving an article he did not want redirected and an unrelated article. He is probably a sockpuppet given his bizarrely selective knowledge of Wikipedia terminology and procedures (i.e., he had no problem posting a third AFD nomination for an article but expressed ignorance at the use of talk pages to resolve editing disputes), but in any event it is clear from the AFD nom and his escalating rants there that this is pure disruption. postdlf (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
See how nasty this accusation is. In school, we are allowed to see Wikipedia but we cannot write it. So I've read Wikipedia for several years. My teacher says people are much nastier here and that when someone gets a job, they mustn't act like they see in Wikipedia.
I saw in the AFD board that a few people vote "merge and redirect". This is a valid vote so I can't see while those who blank the page don't just discuss it like rational people. But as I said, I will present this to my teacher to see if her "hothead" theory is true. So as not to contaminate the results, I will stop commenting in about 2 minutes. Kewlarticle (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the history, the problem is that you are trying to override a previous decision to keep the article as a redirect. Using the AFD in this type of situation is procedurally wrong - hence the reason it is being reverted to a redirect and why Cunard is free to ignore that message. As has been stated on the AFD discussion (which really doesn't mean anything) you should first start a discussion on the Family of Barack Obama page to expand the redirect into a full article, instead of doing what you are doing now - revert warring - to override established consensus. --MASEM (t) 04:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

BUT I see your point Masem but I did not override any decision. The article was there so I did more editing. Then when someone goes BOOM, blank it out, that is wrong. They should discuss it and only redirect after there is consensus. Since this is a vote in AFDs called "merge and redirect", I thought that's the best way.

It is very destructive to blank out an article.

It is also bizarre to be discussing an article on another article's discussion page. Boy, the way people act are not systematic and logical, I'll have to ask my teacher that in the morning. Bye. Kewlarticle (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


  • article written in 2009.
  • article redirected but there is no talk page discussion.
  • article re-written on March 10.
  • 17 days of it being re-written. The status quo is now an article.
  • Boom, article blanked out. If they didn't want it, then since any discussion is 2 years ago, they should start discussing it on the talk page but they did not. That's where we should pick up. Or have an AFD where you can vote "merge and redirect". Blanking an article and calling for a discussion on ANOTHER talk page is bizarre.
  • I also see that NONE of the people who blanked the article discussed it on the talk page or on the talk page of another article (some Family article)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewlarticle (talkcontribs) 04:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

One final comment. I think I have the good solution. I will run this by my teacher to see if I am fair and neutral.

I have voted "keep" in the AFD. Since I nominated the AFD, an administrator can close it as "speedy keep". Some administrator can then make sure the article is kept BUT, in the mean time, start a discussion in the WP:Redirects for discussion. They shouldn't blank it out because that would taint the redirect discussion. The alternative is to continue the AFD and have people vote either "keep", "delete" (probably not), or "merge, redirect". Kewlarticle (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

First, WP:Redirects for discussion does not serve the purpose you're asking for - that's meant to delete or rename redirects, not to instantiate a article over a redirect. That's what talk pages of the pages that redirects point to should be used for.
As to your "history", the fact that the article has been a redirect for several months doesn't get "overruled" by the fact it was edited on March 10 and only reverted back to a redirect recently. There is discussion on Talk:Family of Barack Obama about the need (or lack thereof) for the article on his children, and there appears to be no recent discussion to counter the use of redirects at this time. You need to gain consensus there before creating something against consensus. --MASEM (t) 04:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

← May I remind everyone that this is covered under the Obama-related article probation and this disruption is subject to ArbCom's sanctions. There is long-standing consensus to not have stand-alone articles for Malia or Sasha Obama, and instead redirect them to Family of Barack Obama. This has been discussed more than once, and the specific (and irrelevant) tieing of the Obama children to Patrick Bouvier Kennedy has also been discussed. I suspect that there is heavy-duty socking going on here, and I would ask that this be looked into. The "I'm going to ask my teacher" narrative also has been used here before, and I believe is misdirection and utter nonsense. Tvoz/talk 06:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In which case, why not fully protect the redirect. Such a move would not prevent discussion of the issue on the redirect's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Tvoz/talk 07:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. Redirect fully protected. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Well done. John lilburne (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I've fully protected the Sasha Obama redirect per this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

To the OP: Children of celebs ought to be afforded privacy, particularly they are in the public eye simply because of who there parents are, and ought to be allowed to grow up just like any other kid. Almost everything that is written about them is gossip, trivia, and ephemera. It will hardly ever have an long term relevance and will almost always be unencyclopaedic. John lilburne (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not to say that they will stay as redirects forever. It may be that at some point in the future Obama's children will attain notability in their own right. At which point, the issue of whether or not an article can be sustained may be addressed again. Mjroots (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Chris. John lilburne and Mjroots, exactly right. Those are precisely the conclusions reached by consensus of the editors over there, several times. Hopefully this action will get the disruptor(s?) to move on. We appreciate the back-up here. Tvoz/talk 16:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I just edited another issue but the problem is the same here. When people disagree in Wikipedia, they very often stop discussing and just accuse the other side of being a sock. As far as I'm concerned, this is a sign that the person has a weak position.

I can see both sides. Actually there are 3 sides. One says kids should not be covered. Another says this is a public figure. A third side is that President Obama has an opinion and some support that whether or not it meets Wikipedia standards.

It seems that there has been an AFD, a proposed redirect noticeboard discussion, and ANI. Seems like one side (the redirect side) is being heavy handed trying to force discussion into a somewhat obscure article talk page. A good way to resolve this would be to decide on the proper forum. Based on comments, it seems like AFD is the correct forum. Those are supposed to last 7 days.

I know, as is the custom, that people will be unable to disgree with me civilly and call me a sock. This is an insult as I am more articulate than the OP. Besides, I don't have an opinion on keep or not, just that this hasn't been handled well. When things are not handled well, it prolongs the problem, not resolves it. Ksuoaas (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, this has been handled exactly right. I forgot to mention here that you'd be coming back in complaining about people calling you a sock, under a brand new account, and that you'd pepper other places with the same nonsense. You've done it so many times before, I thought maybe you'd have gotten bored. Tvoz/talk 23:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Am I the only one who is thinking about a certain prolific sockpuppeteer obsessed with Obama? {{checkuser needed}} - Kewlarticle (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) and Ksuoaas (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)), please. T. Canens (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Nope, you are not the only one at all. See here. Kewlarticle has been blocked as a sock of the banned user, as have a bunch of others via checkuser. Ksuoaas "appears" unrelated, but as the veterans of the Derek wars know, this happens sometimes, but does not necessarily mean it's not him. Means we have to watch behavior. At this point, eyes are on, and we'll see what happens. Tvoz/talk 20:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Heh, thanks. T. Canens (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User Seank100 involved in multiple mass disruptions.[edit]

Seank100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is refusing to listen to reason. As well as an open SPI investigation here, Seank100 has spent the last few days removing sourced content from The X Factor (U.S.) without explaination. He left a feable attempt on the article's talk page to justify his actions, saying that he works for Simon Cowell and that Cowell asked him to modify the article. Despite being reverted by multiple editors the user has blanked their talk page numerous times. Rather than clog this page up with all the revisions that have happened, I'll put the most recent removals of songs, here (4 edits removing stuff). Intervention is required as there is a clear reluctance to co-operate with others. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 20:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I also am replacing content of his edits. As stated, he removes content with no reason. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And the user is now persisting in the removal of discussions on the article's talk page... — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 17:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
As well as removing a warning for same from his own Talk page (which, of course, is allowed...but, IMO, should be frowned upon.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Rude, uncooperative, not-neutral, edit warring, etc.[edit]

Some admin, please check the contributions of Jane his wife (talk · contribs). Their edit summaries are especially charming. I smell the sock of a blocked user, esp. given the admission of not being a new user. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, that's an overwhelming response. I've also just been told to "shut it". Drmies (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • User:Jane his wife is completely off the charts. He's been reported for 3RR at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and doesn't seem to care — he's at about 5 or 6RR now. His press puffery, WP:PEACOCK terms, insistence on violating WP:DATED and other guidelines culminate in one of the most severe cases of WP:OWN I've ever seen. Plus, if you read his edit summaries on the Nicole Kidman history page, you'll see language and attitude that goes far beyond simple incivility. He also threatens to disrupt the page to make his "point." I haven't seen a rogue editor like this in many months. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
This editor was blocked for 72 hrs, I believe for the edit warring. I am seriously concerned with this admission of not being a new account (see edit summary). The editor needs to explain why they have a new account and the name of the old account to show it's not sock puppetry going on here. I think socking is something that needs closure and proof that this is not a blocked or banned user. Thanks, T. Canens for your response to the edit warring but we need some other things taken care of which can be seen in the edit summaries of the Nicole Kidman article. For example, other than saying they are using a new account, they also admit to not using talk pages which is an important part of collaborations to articles. So why won't this editor use talk pages? I can't think of any good reasons for this attitude. I was editing in good faith as were the others. Something just feels seriously wrong now. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
72 hours is quite generous considering this dif. It's one thing to be new and not know how to use talk pages, it's quite another to say "I don't do talk pages". One of the core concepts here is collaborative editing and that means "talk pages" and this user is only willing to communicate through snide edit summaries. In my view, if you don't "do talk pages", then you don't do Wikipedia.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Jane his wife (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock account of DeadSend4 (talk · contribs). TNXMan 14:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Tnxman--thanxman. I love your blocks. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    • How odd. I was expecting his other socks to be names like "Daughter Judy", "His Boy Elroy", etc. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
      • You're showing your, umm, maturity. But since I'm admitting to recognizing the references, so am I. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to RevDelete those disruptive edit summaries, as other editors should not be following that example. –MuZemike 20:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:RosinaR and problems with WP:OWN and WP:COI[edit]

RosinaR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is continually acting disruptively at Chado Ralph Rucci (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). So far, xe has mainly been removing content without explanation (see [35][36][37][38][39][40][41] and many more, see page history/contribs), and whenever xe are reverted, they redo the edit, often with an edit summary like this:
"I am the public relations director at Chado Ralph Rucci. This is OUR page and we decide its contents. PERIOD. Rosina Rucci, NYC" ([42][43][44][45])
RosinaR has not once ever tried to explain the content removal/disruptive edits, only shouting loudly that it is his/her page, and that no one else can change it - which is a clear violation of WP:OWN. Multiple attemps have been made to contact the editor, but all have failed. Due to her decleration that xe is a PR director, then a COI is likely. Acather96 (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User clearly doesn't understand what a wiki is. Blocked 1 week, if disruption continues suggest indef block. I don't see much good coming from this account. -- œ 08:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think they fully understand that "public relations" is supposed to a way of cultivating positive responses, if that is the way they communicate; it is, of course, entirely possible that they are not telling the truth... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe Jayne Cobb is their PR man? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


Not something for ANI. Seriously, you're dragging this here, while chastizing SV for commenting on a user on a policy Talk page? Take it up directly with her first. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:54, 29 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.


SlimVirgin, an administrator who should know better, is making personal attacks on another editor.[46] Is there anything that can be done by administrator intervention about this and discouraging more attacks in the future? Thnx. (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I notified the editor.[47] (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Administrators take action against one of their own? That's rather too optimistic I think, knowing how this place works... But these unfounded personal criticisms have been going on now on and off for several weeks; I've learned to laugh them off, but they are becoming disruptive on what are already overcrowded talk pages, so I would encourage anyone wishing to make any more of them to make them on my user talk page where they won't get in the way of constructive discussion of the policy issues. (And the same should apply to personal criticisms of SlimVirgin, which have also been made by several people, including me, in the same period.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
These are not personal attacks; it's civil criticism, which may be wrong or right, but does not require admin action. Marking as resolved.  Sandstein  19:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Whatever you want to call it, it's personal and it is disrupting the talk page. I note that you did not refer to the personal aspect in your characterization of the remarks. Here's some excerpts,
"It's like pissing on a lamp post just because someone asked you not to, to be honest." (civil criticism?)
"The way you've been approaching this for the last few weeks feels like pointless male aggression..." (personal and sexist)
And remember, this is an administrator.
Your response has essentially sanctioned continued episodes like this by SlimVirgin. Do you feel similarly about other editors if they make similar remarks on policy talk pages? (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Violation of WP:CIVIL on the talk page for 2011 Libyan civil war[edit]

Sayerslle (talk · contribs) has severely breached WP:CIVIL on the 2011 Libyan civil war talk page - (diff [48]) and they have apparently been warned before (diff [49]). Can this be looked at? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. -- King of ♠ 18:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)



This user continues to insert inappropriate BLP violating content into Meghnad_Desai,_Baron_Desai article. The issue was discussed on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Meghnad_Desai.2C_Baron_Desai. However Ajaxyz continues to add his/her "critisism", edit-warring with multiple editors. I am afraid, an administrative action is necessary here. (Ajaxyz has been warned multiple times.) Ruslik_Zero 19:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ajaxyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely for being a WP:SPA dedicated to adding badly written WP:COATRACK criticism to Meghnad Desai, Baron Desai via edit-warring. Can be unblocked via the normal process if they understand the various problems with their editing.  Sandstein  19:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

MZMcBride- insults, uncivil[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Resolved: MZMcBride should not have insulted Basket of Puppies. Making that statement is the only thing that will be done at this time. No further action is needed here. This is already past the optimal heat/light ratio. Closing this thread down before it descends into further wastes of time. If anyone wishes to actually effect change, the proper venues to fix this problem are WP:WQA and WP:RFC/U. This is not the complaints department. --Jayron32 22:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

note - user basket of puppies has escalated to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#MzMcBride_3

While attempting to use Edwards Bot as part of my duties as a Wikipedia:Campus Ambassador for Prof Weil's course at Boston University and running into technical problems, I three times asked for help from the bot operator (MzMcBride). Instead, he called/alluded to me as insane and a moron and stupid. None of these insults were necessary and only added to unnecessary drama, something which MzMcBride doesn't seem to avoid while violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:EQ. I am bringing the matter here in hopes of sending MzMcBride a clear and unambiguous message that insulting fellow editors who are seeking technical assistance is entirely unacceptable and extremely disruptive. I request sanctions be placed on MzMcBride for his unsolicited insults and egregious violation of policy. Basket of Puppies 21:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I find bringing something like this to ANI overkill. MZMcBride has a certain way that he edits, and he's usually quite protective about bots. You obviously didn't know what you were doing when you were changing the code, he probably didn't have to call you a moron... but you're basically asking to be inside a bubble. Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Then what is the appropriate venue to go to when someone refuses to offer technical help and instead replies with three unsolicited insults? Basket of Puppies 21:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
What Coffee said. He did offer technical help. He told you to stop removing the <source> tag. And really, pointing you at the Rita Mae Brown quote was more of a gentle hint than a personal attack. I find "Stop making the same bad edit again and again" to be a much more plausible interpretation than "You are insane." 28bytes (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you going to ignore his "moron" and "stupidity" insults, that clearly violated WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ? Shall I simply give up here and bring the matter to ArbCom? Basket of Puppies 21:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You don't need to cite "WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ" in every reply. We get it. Anyway, he shouldn't have used the word "stupidity", or "moron" (even though "moron" did come with a smiley face.) We're just asking you to forgive him and WP:let it go instead of escalating matters. 28bytes (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I refuse to let this go as it is part of MzMcBride's long term behavior. He regularly insults, degrades, disrupts and damages this project. I am attempt to carryout a function in an official capacity as a Campus Ambassador, only to be subjected to insults and uncivil talk. This makes it very difficult to work in this environment. Don't you see the issue? Basket of Puppies 22:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you quite sure that edit warring over the broken version of the page is an appropriate way of asking for help? vvvt 21:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring? I was attempting to figure out and fix the problem while simultaneously asking for help. The error message was Error: Key is invalid, so I attempted to use a different key every time. This failed time after time, so I asked the botoperator for help. Instead he violated WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ immediately. Basket of Puppies 21:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You appear to be carrying on making the same (or very similar) changes that started this in the first place - you really should just leave it alone as you are clearly causing problems with it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Now wait just a second- are you saying that I caused MzMcBride to personally insult me and violate WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ? How is this logical at all? Basket of Puppies 21:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, McBride had to revert you every single time (six times? seven?) because what you were doing wasn't working, and then Boing had to do it once more. Come on now. 28bytes is correct--being referred to a Brown quote is hardly the same as being called "insane", and this "moron" comment was totally taken out of context. So calling this some foul against CIVIL and the other acronyms is way overblown. I'm no expert on bots, but from those edit summaries of yours I could not possibly figure out what you needed help with, and what I don't understand is why you went for communication via edit summary instead of just dropping a note on McBride's talk page the first time.

Can I make a suggestion? Close this. No administrative action will be taken against McBride, and rightly so, and this is just prolonging the agony.Drmies (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This is incredible, in a very bad way. I'll take the matter up with ArbCom. Basket of Puppies 22:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Basket of Puppies, are you listening to what you are being told? Actually, why is it that people come here expecting sanctions at the drop of a hat? It seems like it was only a few hours ago that I was talking about how ridiculous this is becoming...oh actually has been a few hours, just a different dispute this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I honestly think you'll be wasting your time (=the request will be resoundingly rejected) if you bring the matter to ArbCom because the ANI admins aren't interested. It's not the kind of reason they like. Bishonen | talk 22:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC).
I think he's already started.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, because it's clear this isn't being taken seriously and earnestly. Basket of Puppies 22:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Right, right. I don't think you're following me closely. What you say there isn't the kind of reason ArbCom likes. See? Bishonen | talk 22:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC).
(ec) BoP, please drop this. Arbcom are not going to ban a bot operator just because he got frustrated and made a slightly sarcastic comment when someone repeatedly stopped his bot working correctly. The much-vaunted civility policy does not say "nobody must ever say anything, ever, which anyone could ever find offensive". – iridescent 22:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I find the most concerning thing here is that someone as "sensitive" and "delicate" as Basket of Puppies is a Wikipedia:Campus Ambassador; was that a wise apointment one wonders? Giacomo Returned 22:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec)Indeed. I also once used the "definition of insanity" quote during the course of a discussion, only to have a user have a massive hissy fit over it, claiming I called him insane. This is much ado about nothing, really. Tarc (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Users Epeeflech and Wjemather[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing per request; there is clear support for an interaction ban. MRG raises an important point, and given tnat Epeeflech agreed with her suggestion (and no one really disagreed) I am adding the caveat that Wjemather can raise CCI concerns privately with MRG for her to resolve if needed. -Errant (chat!) 23:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

{t|{unresolved|waiting for admin close Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)}} Wjemather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Epeefleche (talk · contribs ·