Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive698

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Vandalism from the user Kevorkmail[edit]

The user Kevorkmail constantly enters war of editings on article Yerevan. War occurs because of the area and the population of Yerevan city. I give the area and the population given гоорода with fresh sources, that is the information of 2011. And Kevorkmail cancels my editing and spreads the version which is displayed in a following kind: At the city of Yerevan the population ostensibly 1,111,300, and the area 227 km2. That information and that source about area of Yerevan which gives Kevorkmail, concerns ten years' prescription. Logically even it is possible to understand that for 10 years the square of the city can increase several times. And its source into the population account concerns 2008. It is possible to understand that for 2 years some thousand children and the population because of it can be born can increase. And my source from National Statistical Service of Armenia for 2011, in which it is said that the population of Yerevan makes to 1 121 000, and a area of the city 300. Kevorkmail for similar infringements has repeatedly been blocked, but after its unblocking, it has again begun war of editings. We discussed it on page of discussion of article Yerevan, but it all the same continued to do vandalism. And even after him has warned Shadowjams, he continues to do war of editings from others IP 78.100.17.127, you can be convinced of it on the basis of last editing of article Yerevan. I ask to block Kevorkmail is termless and to make recoil of its editings to my version. ArmOvak (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The edits are not vandalism as Wikipedia defines it; this is a content dispute. What you need to do is discuss the matter with the other user on the talk page of the article and decide which sources are the best and the most up to date, and then use those sources to update the article. There have been no edits to the article talk page since January and I can find no record of a discussion. Please do that first before you come here asking to have someone permanently blocked from the site. Please note you are required to inform all parties that you mention on this discussion board. I have done it for you this time. --Diannaa (Talk) 14:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Just those sources which are inserted by me, are the freshest, and what inserts Kevorkmail, at these a source prescription of 10 years. I think not difficultly even logically it to look. On page of discussion of article Yerevan is available theme User ArmOvak, see them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmOvak (talkcontribs) 17:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
You need to discuss this with the user on the talk page of the article. That's the way wikipedia works. --Diannaa (Talk) 17:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I know it. But as I already wrote, we discussed it with it on discussion page under a theme "User ArmOvak". It hasn't helped, it continues to do unreasonable editings. ArmOvak (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Hamilton (priest)[edit]

Resolved: Discussion has been speedily kept. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet outing me[edit]

This new account [1] is a sock of the blocked:[2]

Like the previous sock, he goes around reverting my edits and links to an old account that I previously had before I registered this one, I have previously explained that account here:[3], It was an account I used before I registered this one, I wasn't active at Wikipedia and I didn't know any of Wikipedia rules and when I wanted to edit Wikipedia again I just registered a new one, full explanation is at that discussion.

I regret revealing my nationality and ethnicity with that account, can some admin please block this sock and remove the outing in the edit summarys? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Indef blocked for block evasion and the edit summaries are revdeled (but not the contents, which didn't have outing info in them that I see). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hoaxes, concerted effort[edit]

Hi. In response to an OTRS ticket (ticket:2011051110017164), two articles have been deleted as hoaxes: Bam Bamm Shibley (which copied content from a legitimate article) and Dancer (band). The latter was created by Feelgood4life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The former was created by Ladywords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who also contributed to the hoax on Dancer, editing the article and uploading a copyvio image of Stryper that s/he mislabeled to represent this band. I have cautioned both contributors, Ladywords more strongly, but I wanted to bring it here for review in case my handling of that was not deemed assertive enough. I'm inclined to think that deliberately undermining Wikipedia by placing fraudulent information is about as disruptive as you can get. I don't know if the hoax was perpetuated by a desire for fame or fortune; evidently, there has been a drive to place fraudulent information at LastFM on the band to drive up their profile, with their chief editor there now banned from the site. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought you handled it just fine. But it looks like there might be more...
I'm wondering if we need more than just a warning here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Note: The Ladywords/Ilovewordstoo connection might be false - other than Ladywords adding Bam Bamm Shibley to a band article created by Ilovewordstoo, there seems to have been no other overlap -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Warning might not be good enough. :/ I popped in on a few random articles when I left the notices and saw what looked to be some constructive activity; I didn't notice the evident vandalism in other articles. Some of the edits that seemed constructive on first view are now questionable: this spelling change is a plausibly legitimate mistake, since somebody had already misspelled it elsewhere in the article, but this one is just wrong...and it's been wrong for almost a year (now fixed). This may have been a self-corrected editing test; this edit seems to have introduced an error; as did this ([4]). I can't tell if perhaps sneaky vandalism was going on long before the hoax. Fraudulent use of Wikipedia is always going to be concerning; it raises the question of how we can trust anything that the contributor will do or has done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, I looked at those edits too, but as they weren't obvious vandalism/hoaxes, I just assumed they were probably constructive - but clearly not. It looks like there's just about nothing else left, and nothing we can trust - I think we'd be justified in a vandalism-only indef block, especially as it has been going on since August 2010 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I've indef blocked Ladywords, Feelgood4life and Zepfan4u as vandalism-only accounts. Fences&Windows 22:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Good move, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I agree. And thanks to you, Boing! said Zebedee, for pointing out that the supposed history of constructive edits may not have been that constructive, which prompted me to take a closer look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston[edit]

Meritless request, no action needed.  Sandstein  13:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When trying to improve Giulio Clovio biography I was immediately attacked buy one of editors here [5]. This attack was supported by administrator EdJohnston here [6] where EdJohnston, in his warning, throws pointless accusation If you continue your program of 'Italianization' you will most likely be warned under WP:ARBMAC, which covers nationalist editing on topics related to the Balkans. By the reverts I've made I supported Prof. Davide's (Sapienza University of Rome) contribution. My (at the level of a university professor of the European medieval history) full explanation of reasons for support is explained here [7].

The same way EdJohnston attacked Prof. Davide's (Sapienza University of Rome) on his talkpage [8] based on accusations [9] launched by two editors AnnekeBart and Philosopher12 both of which are college students (mathematics and philosophy respectively). Both editors AnnekeBart and Philosopher12 followed tactics of arguing, ridiculing, denying Prof. Davide’s academic approach and knowledge. The same foul language was used against me here [10] and here [11] where we were called idiots and my academic credentials ridiculed most primitive way.

The attitude common to AnnekeBart , Philosopher12 and EdJohnston is based on false accusations against me and Prof. Davide, then on no reading and, even worse, misquoting and misinterpreting the references particular to this topic. Which was fully exposed here [12] and here [13]. My attempt to talk to EdJohnston failed here [14].

The consequences of this irrational acting of EdJohnston are:

  • undermined credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia (‘knowledge’ = invented names(Julije Klovic), use of bad references or references proving opposite to the claimed)
  • forcing people of high academic credentials to retire (Prof. Davide)
  • harboring and shielding dilettantism and un-civilty --Luciano di Martino (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, EdJohnston's advice is entirely correct, and you should heed it. In particular:
  • Repeated reverts are prohibited even if you are right, see WP:EW.
  • Nobody on Wikipedia cares about your, or anybody else's, credentials. That's because we don't engage in our own research here. All that matters is the quality of the sources you cite.
  • Repeated reverts to change the nationality of something or somebody are indications of an intent to misuse Wikipedia for promoting a particular nationalist point of view and are, as such, normally sanctioned even more harshly than other acts of edit-warring. (That's my practice, at least.)  Sandstein  21:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to User:Sandstein for his comments, which I agree with.
The two users whose edits at Giulio Clovio suggested a nationalist agenda were:
Davide41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Luciano di Martino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  • The Giulio Clovio article first came to my attention in this ANI thread:
  • Later I closed a 3RR case involving Luciano di Martino on the same article:
  • As you may see from the ANI thread, Davide41 was edit warring to make Giulio Clovio be an Italian painter, and removing evidence of his Croatian connection. (He was born in Croatia, and there are modern scholarly sources which give well-balanced comments on his nationality which would help us make a neutral statement of the matter). There was no admin action against Davide41, since he made an agreement to stop editing the Giulio Clovio article. But I did block Luciano for 72 hours per the 3RR. When he first began editing at Giulio Clovio I was concerned he might be a sock of Davide41, but I no longer think that. It is possible he is a colleague, because he resumed the same fight and started re-making the same reverts there. Warnings of both editors have been logged in WP:ARBMAC, a case which is intended to cover nationalist editing related to the Balkans.
  • Luciano continues to object to anyone besides an art historian making any edits at Giulio Clovio. As you see above, he is unhappy that mere undergraduates are allowed to work on that article. I would welcome his continued edits of that article if he showed himself willing to work with others to reach consensus, and would respect Wikipedia's sourcing rules. He should also stop the personal attacks which you can see in the ANI thread. Some of the people on the other side used bad language as well, and they have been reminded of the need for civility. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Assertions that Ed has been attacking anyone by informing zealots of ARBMAC and posting related warnings are just plain silly. His conduct throughout this matter has been in every way exemplary. He's due our sincere thanks for again demonstrating his usual exacting standards of fairness, civility, patience, and calm enforcement of policy.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I recommend closure of this thread. Luciano di Martino appears to be a new user who could use some help. This whole debacle appears to be a major misunderstanding on his part. In my experience, OhioStandard is a good "people person" and I wonder if he might take the time to work with Luciano and help mentor him. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The most disturbing thing to me is the fact that all those above defending blindly EdJohnston behavior are refusing to see the facts
    • foul language used against us (me and Prof. Davide) where we were called idiots, ridiculed our credentials, etc
    • un-scholastic and false use and selection of the references, primitive understanding of ethnicity, use of forgeries and producing forgeries and attributing them to the well-known historic sources.
    • lack of basic knowledge about history of medieval Italy and her civilization and culture
    • arbitrary and irresponsible interpretation of the (Wikipedia) editorial rules
  • As to the above 'I wonder if he might take the time to work with Luciano and help mentor him', makes me laugh. Looks like, as a university professor, I should accept mentorship of dilettantes who were capable of coining a few meaningless phrases about something completely unclear to them. My students will be acknowledged about this 'discussion' in order to understand why Wikipedia is not more than an uncontrolled garbage collector.--Luciano di Martino (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
No harassment - I've only always seen EdJohnston act fairly even when others disagree with him. Frivolous report. Your own point #4 about editorial rules on this site is of utmost concern if this isn't to be considered an uncontrolled garbage collector. Doc talk 00:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Luciano di Martino, do you understand that your attitude is not conducive to clear and effective communication nor getting the result you desire? Si pigliano più mosche in una gocciola di miele che in un barile d'aceto. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • No true bill. EdJohnston is enforcing policy; that is not harassment. The block was for Luciano di Martino's actions which are separate from any content dispute and any actions of other editors. As an aside, Luciano di Martino's has not been apologetic about his characterizations; compare to frustration and apology of AnnekeBart. Glrx (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I've renamed this section heading since section names are supposed to be neutral and aren't supposed to contain wikilinks. I see from our excitable friend's user page that he's reiterated his attack there, saying, presumably of those who've opposed his wishes here, that Wikipedia is "controlled by people without ethics, knowledge, and responsibility." He also says there that he has "retired" but I think the userpage remarks merit someone taking away his Spiderman suit indefinitely. He can always ask on his talk page to participate again if he changes his mind and is willing to quit being a ... contemptuous person, let's say.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
There are currently 8 other sections whose titles make specific accusations of misconduct against named users. Why was this the only one you felt it necessary to change? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
An "other stuff exists" objection? If you're implying that I made this section heading conform to policy because I've reviewed EdJohnston's conduct in this matter, and believe it to be beyond reproach, and because I felt indignant that the section title chosen by the person bringing the complaint was prejudicial, you'd be perfectly correct. So go do your part: Change the other seven non-compliant section headings to make them neutral, as our policy requires.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
A question is not an objection. I asked, you answered, thank you for that. Please do not attempt to instruct me what my part in Wikipedia is. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is clearly no longer productive. I've changed the section title to simply the username and am closing this thread.  Sandstein  13:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Macula Risk[edit]

Resolved: Corporate spam deleted, no more action required

(Moved here from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard -- John of Reading (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC))

Help needed to unblock a page

Howdy,

I have had various unhlepful discussions with wikipedians about unblocking the Macula Risk wiki page

The wikipedians in questions are (in no particular order): Presidentman ‎, John of Reading ‎ , MacGyverMagic ‎

I have sent request from the arcticdx domain to unblock this page and am met with obscure-wiki language that I do not understand and that it too dense for me to learn at the moment. How can you help

gbelgraver —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbelgraver (talkcontribs) 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Macula Risk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am notifying Presidentman (talk · contribs) and MacGyverMagic (talk · contribs) of this thread. I'm going to bed now. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as a copyright infringement. The talk page claimed that the text copied from the corporate website was released as CC-BY-SA, but (a) this is incompatible with the disclaimer on the source website which reads "Copyright © 2009, Macula Risk®", and (b) the content was problematic for other reasons including WP:CSD#G12WP:CSD#G11, WP:COI, WP:N. Gbelgraver, please read WP:FAQ/Organizations.  Sandstein  21:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Gbelgraver, if you want to recreate the article within Wikipedia policies, probably the best way forward is to write the article in userspace, then request that the article title be unprotected and move the article to that title. However, you first must assure us that you will not recreate the article with the copyright violations that it had before. The fact that you have a stated conflict of interest where the subject of the article is concerned is concerning but not disqualifying. All things considered, Wikipedia prefers that articles about products and companies be written by people who have no interest in promoting those products and companies. However if you want to take a stab at it, let someone know and they'll explain how to do it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Post Scriptum I don't really understand why you were advised to e mail anyone for permissions, but I honestly don't see how that would get you any closer to getting your article written. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I see now, you were told to e-mail to establish that you had permission to use the copyrighted text from your website. Well, permission or not, I don't think that's a good idea. Creating a Wikipedia article about a product by copying and pasting text directly from the website established to promote that product seems way too promotional to me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

John,

I have taken a look at pages related to Avastin (generic name- Bevacizumab) and Viagra (generic name- sildenafil) and do not see a difference between the text written there and the text I had placed on the site. Viagra and Avastin are very succesful drugs, and owned by large companies (Roche and Pfizer). Can I please request that you banish their sites too since there is a lot of information there that seems promotional to me? It would be the beginning of a very long list. I only referenced independent academic studies outlining the genes used in an assay, that was described first by an academic (Dr. Seddon in IOVS)

You appear to be saying that the because the text is very similar to a commercially available website, it is promotional. This is the exact same behaviour your colleagues enagage in, and reminds of Kafka-esque behaviour common in Western Europe (and the reason I am so glad I dont live in Holland anymore). You have done something wrong, but we're not going to tell you what it takes to fix the problem, we're just going to tell you it's wrong. It's almost Orwellian, but I digress.

Can you please outline what issue you have with what piece of text? I can no longer see the text (banished like lady chatterley's lover...). I can E-mail you (and explain to you in laymans terms) exactly what each article means. NONE of the text in the articles was ghost-written by corporate writers (a common practice in health care)

It seems easiest for me to create another identity, and just re-write the entire text by sprinkling a few and's, if's, and therefore's in there to obfuscate the issue? Shall I go ahead and give that a crack? I am trying to provide balanced, un-biased information regarding an issue that is needed.

Gerry (<email removed>) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbelgraver (talkcontribs) 12:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked Gbelgraver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely as an account dedicated solely to promoting their own product or company. Nothing more to do here.  Sandstein  14:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

User:DragoLink08[edit]

I have a major issue with User:DragoLink08 (talk), one which he will never respond to and one that has resulted in his being blocked in the past. He keeps tweaking college sports' templates' color schemes to try and make every one of them have white text, even when white is not a school color. There is no policy on all navboxes' titles needing to be white, and doing so makes the color schemes inaccurate. He also has a history of making a school's secondary colors its primary ones, and vice versa. He had been told to stop many times, refused to do, never acknowledged anyone, and then been blocked (see his block log) to try and force his hand at responding to gain community consensus. Instead, after the block, he created the account User:Dranzer13 (talk) to try to make it appear that he was a new editor who'd never been blocked. I brought the Dranzer13 account to a Sockpuppet investigation which resulted in that account being permanently blocked.

User:Killervogel5, the administrator who blocked DragoLink08, said this to him while doing so: "If you are able to actively participate in discussion about your edits, you may use your user talk page to do so until your block expires. I sincerely hope that this short block will clarify things for you and ensure that you discuss your edits in the future, especially when requested to do so. If you come back and continue to proceed as before your block, the level of block can escalate, and that's not something we want to see. Take a day or two off and come back with a productive attitude. Thanks."

DragoLink08 has been warned by me many times, other editors numerous times, and a blocking administrator that he needs to stop unilaterally altering college teams' navboxes. A very pertinent coincidence worth pointing out is that the IP 131.204.254.72, which is registered to Auburn University and was blocked on April 28th for disruptive editing, shares an eerily similar edit pattern as DragoLink08 (e.g. sports' teams coach and squad navboxes, Power Rangers-related articles, etc). Now that school is out, DragoLink08 has been more active getting back to his old habits.

I've run out of ideas with this user. What he's doing is more disruptive than beneficial when it comes to college coaches' and college teams' templates, because WikiProject College Basketball and WikiProject College Football have spent thousands of man hours creating and standardizing these to be uniform. Going in and screwing with a basketball template will make it dissimilar from its counterpart football template. He won't respond to anyone, ever, and will just keep carrying on as if he's just trying to "outlast" anyone who cares. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Just a short blurb from me. I have reviewed this user's edits several times, and it looks like a case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. His template-space edits exceed his article-space edits, which worries me considerably. Readers of that link will also note that his edits to talk pages of any type total, at the time of this writing, nine. For someone who's had so many messages left on his talk page, it appears that this is a user who's unwilling to discuss his editing patterns; I won't speculate on a reason why. Disruption by template is not an uncommon theme around the English Wikipedia, and I think this is a classic case. As I'm previously involved I'm declining to give any further input, but I do believe that the user is choosing not to hear, or not to respond to, the concerns raised by others on his talk page. I also hope that this is not a case of WP:DEW in any case. Cheers. — KV5Talk • 15:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • With the sheer number of articles involved, or potentially involved, and operating on the presumption that the editor in question will likely work through a dynamic IP pool, I don't see too many options available for pre-emptive defense of the articles. In fact, only two come to mind at the moment: build an edit filter that prevents non-autoconfirmed users from making the described changes, or Whac-a-Mole(tm). Anyone else have ideas? I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • There is a larger issue here as well, which is that adding random colors to articles or templates means that the color choices can no longer be over-ridden by personal choice using css preferences. Random colors are at odds with wikipedia standards as outlined at WP:COLOR and WP:Deviations. Bad color choices have an adverse impact on people who are color blind or are using a screen reader to read the text. --Diannaa (Talk) 17:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd like to now mention that I let DragoLink08 know about this ANI on May 21 at 14:44. He began editing again on May 22 at 02:28, and has since edited another sports template with no justification for his action. An administrator needs to take some serious action, and soon. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Fox and List of programs broadcast by Fox Kids[edit]

Resolved: No admin involvement required at present Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin take a look at this situation? Last week, I proposed a merger between List of programs broadcast by Fox and List of programs broadcast by Fox Kids. Fox Kids was not a television network. It was the kids' programming block of the Fox Broadcasting Company (not a network, a brand, like ABC Daytime), and is treated as such in reliable sources, specifically McNeil, Alex (1996). Total Television (4th ed.). New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-024916-8.

There was only one objection to the merge, by user:JPG-GR, here, because according to him Fox Kids "was treated as a separate entity" but no source provided to back up the claim, despite me repeatedly asking. Since no reliable source was forthcoming, and since WP:RS say otherwise, I waited the requisite seven days required at WP:MERGE, then began a merger of the two articles. I based the merger on reliable sources, and began fixing dates according to the source provided. Only a few minutes into my work, user:JPG-GR undid the merge with no edit summary. He apparently feels that two unsourced lists are better than one sourced list. I can't continue my sourcing when sourced work is being undone in favor of unsourced speculation. I'm notifying the user of this discussion right now. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Laughable. Reducing a rather lengthy list to a redirect to a list less than a third of its size is not a merge. As this isn't BLP-related and there's no deadline, I fail to see how essentially blanking the list because the one source you've found doesn't cover the history of Fox Kids is a preferable. JPG-GR (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
You may find using reliable sources "laughable", but it's what we do here at Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems a bit misleading to say only that "There was only one objection to the merge" as JPG-GR's comments were the only response to the proposal. As such, the merge shouldn't have gone ahead. I'd suggest asking for input from the appropriate Wikiprojects and using the dispute resolution procedures if that doesn't work and you feel strongly enough about the topic. Both of you really need to stop throwing insults around as well (it's only a list of TV shows). Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I have not thrown insults around, and I have tried asking for JPG-GR for sources. He doesn't provide any. The two are separate because he says so, sources be damned. (Edited to add: any reasonable objection ("source X says such-and-such") would have convinced me to open a wider discussion. "It's separate because I said so" isn't any sort of argument).Firsfron of Ronchester 04:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Please, continue to summarize my arguments to suit your needs - it only makes things easier on me.
Anyway... the list of Fox Kids shows is quite lengthy - combining them into the greater Fox list is needless as a a link to the Fox Kids article in the greater list would suffice (which I suggested - a suggestion that was ignored). And, for the record - I'm all for sourcing the information, I just do not have access to any sources off the top of my head - all I have is my memory of having watched the Fox Kids lineup for the duration of its existence while younger. JPG-GR (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The list of Fox Kids shows is lengthy, mostly because it's not accurate. Quite a few of the series listed therein are actually syndicated, not Fox/Fox Kids programs, as shown in reliable sources. I was going through the article, sourcing, when you blindly reverted the merge. "Your memory" is not a reliable source, nor would your local Fox affiliate have explained to you which shows were syndicated and which were Fox network shows (they don't do that). Television historians have covered this material; that's why we use their books for sourcing, instead of "JPG-GR's memory". Firsfron of Ronchester 05:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, the history of the page shows no evidence you were sourcing anything on the Fox Kids page. You converted the entirety of it to a redirect. Secondly, I do not claim to be a reliable source or an expert but I do know the difference between a syndicated children's show and a show airing as part of the Fox Kids lineup. My familiarity with Fox Kids may not beat a reliable source, but my familiarity with Fox Kids is almost certainly better than yours and better than most. Source the article if you like - you have my support. Blank the article again or attempt a "merge" which removes 75% of the list, and don't be surprised if it gets reverted. End of story. JPG-GR (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:SOURCE#Burden_of_evidence. You restored the incorrect and unsourceable (unsourceable because it's wrong) content. The policy states "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find supporting sources yourself and cite them." You were asked repeatedly to provide sources which back up your statements. You refused to do so. Your memory is not a reliable source. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Firsfron, that's exactly the kind of unproductive comment I was talking about. I don't see the need for any admin intervention here - please seek other editors' input on the proposed merge and use dispute resolution if that doesn't work. I'd also suggest that you be very careful with the quote marks when discussing other editors' comments as well - I can't see anywhere where JPG-GR wrote "It's separate because I said so" and you didn't provide a diff (I presume that you were summarising how you view his or her comments, but this needs to be done with caution in forums such as this as it could be very easily be misunderstood). Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
As all that this thread is being used for is to continue the insults, I'm marking this as resolved. Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
(cross-posted from Nick-D's page) I wish you hadn't done that, Nick. WP:MERGE states, "In more unclear, controversial cases, this determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved is normally done by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion. If necessary, one may request that an administrator who is not involved to close the discussion and make a determination as to whether consensus has occurred; such a request for an administrator to close the discussion may be made at the Administrators' noticeboard." You moved the request from WP:AN to WP:AN/I and then marked it as resolved. I was attempting to seek consensus by doing what is advised at WP:MERGE. Moving a request made at the right forum to the wrong one, then marking it as resolved, certainly will not solve the dispute. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
You had a two-person discussion and the second person disagreed with you, and now you're trying to get an admin to enforce your side of it? Post a notice at Talk:Fox Broadcasting Company, at Talk:Fox Kids, and/or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television to get more input. There's no rush, and there certainly wasn't any call to escalate it to an admin issue. postdlf (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, then we may want to reword WP:MERGE so that it doesn't state that in controversial cases, the discussion can be taken to WP:AN. You are right that there's no rush (the incorrect data has been up for years, and it's now been restored), but trying to "discuss" something with someone whose only "proof" is his own memory can be frustrating after a week of asking for Reliable Sources. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Please continue to beat the same dead horse rather than consider (or even respond to) my proposal and/or make any attempt to source anything in the current Fox Kids article. Methinks you are arguing with yourself and that is frustrating because you haven't responded to anything I've said in days short of saying the same thing over and over. JPG-GR (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing to source in the List of programs broadcast by Fox Kids because Fox Kids was not a broadcaster. It was programming block. I'm really sorry you're frustrated. Understand that I am, too. I asked you seven days ago to give me a source... the only source you provided was your memory. I searched in vain for a source myself. I can't "source" something which is contradicted in reliable sources. You restored this terrible content. I'm not about to add "sources" which don't verify the content. I'm not about to add a link to an article which has so much ncorrect content. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
No frustration here - I find the situation more amusing than anything (as intense arguing on the internet is always a weird concept). Let me get this straight - you are saying because Fox Kids is not a broadcaster, that there is no reliable source for programming that was shown on Fox Kids? Or are you implying that the name of the article itself is improper? I could get behind that argument... how about List of programs broadcast as part of Fox Kids or something not-as-oddly worded? And, once again, the only restoration of content I did was restoring the page to it's previous version before you essentially blanked it by turning it into a redirect. There are likely items on the list that are in fact not Fox Kids programming, but there are also items that WERE that are currently NOT part of the Fox "mother" list. JPG-GR (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you would state that "that is frustrating" and then state "No frustration here", but whatever. I wish you would have proposed List of programs broadcast as part of Fox Kids seven days ago instead of the "it is separate because my memory says it is" approach you've used for the past seven days (including just above). The content as it stands is unverified and unverifiable (unverifiable because it's wrong); I was going through the Fox article line by line adding sources to the content before you reverted the merge. The fact that content was not yet brought in from Fox Kids is immaterial; you reverted within minutes of the redirect, and you reverted to content which is quite clearly incorrect and which still remains unsourced. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The frustrating comment was referring to you being frustrated, not me. I didn't mention the article name change previously because I had no reason to dig my feet in for a debate in which no one else was participating and we weren't going to agree - i.e. consensus wouldn't be on the side I wasn't on. As for the FK article, I reverted to content that has been there for months - if it is "clearly incorrect", fix it. And, I question why anyone would completely blank a page into a redirect BEFORE merging data rather than after. I find that to be very odd. JPG-GR (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
You stated "Methinks you are arguing with yourself and that is frustrating because you haven't responded to anything I've said in days short of saying the same thing over and over." That's not an example of me being frustrated, but whatever. You reverted content which lacks reliable sources. Per WP:BURDEN, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Since you want this material included, you must source it. That is the policy. If it is not sourced, it must be removed. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Could I suggest that you guys break off this too-and-fro for a while (say, 24 hours) and then resume the discussion on the article's talk page after inviting other editors to comment? The current discussion here is misplaced and not terribly productive as you're repeating yourselves. Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
If this discussion is misplaced, it is because you moved it here. Why move a discussion to a place which you feel it does not belong? I started a discussion at WP:AN at the advice of WP:MERGE, not here. And, actually, already another editor has weighed in on the discussion, so it seems there are benefits to bringing the discussion to WP:AN. There's also the matter of this revert by JPG-GR. Editors are warned, "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." It's also troublesome because it is restoring unsourced content without attempting to source the content in any way. The onus is on JPG-GR to source this content, per WP:BURDEN, which is policy. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I apologize - I thought I had included "reverting page blanking." JPG-GR (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
(also originally posted on my talk page; I'm not sure what the benefits of conducting this discussion in parallel there and here are) Given that there wasn't either a consensus to merge (one editor proposing the merge, one editor disagreeing with the merge and no evidence of any attempts to seek wider input) or evidence that the results of the discussion were either unclear or controversial (beyond you and JPG-GR trading rude comments), I really don't see any need for admin involvement. This is basically a content dispute, and you need to seek wider input. If you like I can close the discussion on the article talk page as 'no consensus', but I don't think that that's the best option. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Or "no quorum." postdlf (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Non-Admin Observation Get a wider consensus from the involved wikiprojects or open a RFC. Creating multiple very deeply threaded discussions is not how you build consensus, it's how you destroy a collegial editing environment. Hasteur (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Two IP's adding unsourced category at Compulsory voting[edit]

Both IP's are repeatedly adding [[Category:Discrimination]] to Compulsory voting. The addition may have a reason but I can't see any sourced text in the article to justify the addition and the IP's refuse to discuss. Help? --NeilN talk to me 16:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page, but WP:RFPP is thataway ---> (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Kronikerdelta making threats against editors[edit]

Resolved: Kronikerdelta indef blocked HalfShadow 22:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I protected a version of a page that Kronikerdelta (talk · contribs) did not agree with. This often happens, per WP:Wrong Version. When I replied informing the user of this, his response was to make a threat diff.

Can another admin take action here?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not a sock and the only threat I made was to go to other editors to get a page fixed correctly. But f*ck it, no one here gives a damn about the truth. If you'd like to block me for simply trying to avoid a libel case against your foundation be my guest, however since you have been informed of the truth and have not taken corrective action that does not bode well. δiji.broke.it. 05:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Which individual are you, Kronikerdelta, refering to? Because I have done nothing one way or the other here. I'd like to be able to look through this case as a neutral observer, but you, Kronikerdelta, haven't informed me, Jayron32, of anything. I still haven't looked at anything, but have you tried to provide sources to back up what you are claiming in this case? Because Wikipedia is quite interested in the truth, insofar as the truth can be verified because it is reported in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not so interested in The Truth, which is usually reserved for information which is The Truth because someone asserts that it is The Truth. So, which is it: is this verifiably the truth, or is this The Truth? I'd like to know before I invest time in trying to help you if it would be worth my effort. --Jayron32 05:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


  • wow... I was about to come back here and say something to the effect of "give the guy a chance. It seems like he's just peeved about having the page protected."... and then you post this. Oh well. Hasta la vista.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The above comment by Kronikerdelta, in combination with the original response cited by Cirt, appears to be a legal threat. I suggest that Kronikerdelta be blocked indefinitely, per common practice in this situation. Chester Markel (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is a definite threat. [15]. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Someone saying they will "take action" could be interpreted various ways (e.g. simply bringing it here), but the one you cite (you beat me to it) leaves no doubt. Block him and explain the NLT policy - but also check and see if he has a legitimate beef. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The editor also made this much clearer legal threat: [16], I've asked them to retract the statements or risk being blocked for violating WP:NLT, and also warned about the civility issues this editor seems to be having. Dreadstar 05:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
That's the same one I linked, silly. =p Though you did provide more of a comment on it. Are regular editors really representatives of the Wikimedia Foundation though? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
LOL! I blame the damned page loading problems...and now an ec as I was posting this: "I see my diff is a dup of one mentioned above, I'm thinking it's blockable..." Dreadstar 05:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Kronikerdelta now states that he won't retract the legal threat, because his comments never constituted one[17]. Making legal threats on behalf of third parties, such as his "I'll tell the school, and they'll sue your pants off" claim, still seems to violate the policy. Chester Markel (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the block. I think we need to be careful in distinguishing between someone making a legal threat along the lines of "I will sue you", and someone informing/warning editors that an article contains libel which may result in someone else taking legal action. While the first diff posted by Cirt was closer to the former, even though there was no mention of it being a legal threat (just that the editor "will take action") the last diff ([18]) wasn't - he clearly stated that he was not in a position to take legal action, but he would be informing the school of the situation.
Part of my concern was that the article did contain libel. It made an incorrect statement about the institution, which was specifically denied by the source as it currently stands. And given the nature of the statement, the institution could have potentially lost a considerable part of their income if the Wikipedia article was believed. It has been corrected, but the version that was protected represented a real problem. - Bilby (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
What was the allegedly libelous statement? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it was this bit right here. By the way, you guys don't mind random editors piping up a lot so long as we don't pretend to be admins, right? =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 09:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Anyone is allowed to post here. OK, so the alleged "libel" was an apparently incorrectly sourced statement about restrictions on the school. Obviously, it needed to be corrected. That does not excuse the tone of the user. Legal-sounding threats are forbidden because they're an attempt to intimidate. If there are concerns about facts, those concerns can be stated without raising a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Depending on the region, libel can, or so I understand, cover more than individuals. But I don't like the term, anyway. The real point is just that the material was quite serious in regard to St Matthew's, as stating that people who complete their degree there will be unable to practice in the UK was a big deal. While I generally agree with you, in this case it wasn't incorrectly sourced, so much as a false claim, that could have significant impact on the institution, and one which was denied by the source being used. Thus I can see why the user was so upset, especially if they were in some way connected with the organisation. - Bilby (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Bugs: Just making sure it's not just for admins to mostly offer thoughts. Lol, my dad (a corporate attorney) sees fit to remind me of the definition of libel as well as defamy every time I mention a controversial topic I am editing xD (I saw the previous edit, and yeah, I know that's for everyone, but just sayin'). Yeah, he really could have tried a much softer and more friendly approach. That last bit seemed to me like "alright, you won't do what I want, so I'll get these guys to make you do it." Very rude imo. Though he was right that it could have been damaging to the school's ability to get med students from the UK as most people would probably look the school up here first. @Bilby, well doesn't Wikipedia go by the laws of the state of Florida? Yeah, the UK is especially a big deal as this uni is in a dependent territory of the UK (Cayman Islands), and so probably relies on the Home Island for the bulk of their students. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 09:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a side comment, but I've recently had to enquire about the legal status of additions here. Although you're right, it's worth remembering that individual editors operate under local laws. So if I added illegal content, the Foundation might be safe, but I wouldn't necessarily be. Anyway, this is a bit of a diversion, and I'm not really concerned about whether or not the material, as posted, was legally actionable. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Presumably the Wikimedia Foundation wouldn't release the identities of editors unless they had to though. =p I think if worse came to worst, a representative would just contact Wikipedia about the error. I don't think you'd have these guys take the Foundation to court over it (unless they could prove that it had actually harmed their ability to get students, they had a good legal team, and the Foundation didn't have a good legal team to get them to settle or just go away). So that whole issue has been corrected then? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 09:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The Foundation will release the identity of an editor when ordered to by the court, as would any such organisation. Nevertheless, I'd rather not rely on pseudo-anonymity to allow editors to post illegal content, whether or not they could get away with it. :)
The article has been fixed, so yes, that's great. My concern is different, though. WP:NLT is good policy. But in this case, the user didn't seem to be personally threatening legal action, but trying to inform editors that the information was libellous. Indeed, he specifically stated that he was not threatening legal action, because he was not in a position to do so, but that he would be informing the institution concerned - and it was that last statement for which he was blocked. His actions were understandable, his annoyance was understandable, and blocking him under those terms (and only then fixing the problem) seems like a bad sequence to follow. - Bilby (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Um, back to the article, please? I think there's a legitimate complaint here that's being overlooked. The source cited ([19]) has two listings, one is Primary medical qualifications not accepted by the GMC, under which we have St Matthew's University School of Medicine listed under Belize; another is Primary medical qualifications which may be accepted by the GMC, under which we have St Matthew's University School of Medicine listed under Cayman Islands. Since this school we are talking about is on the Cayman Islands, why exactly are we restoring - and protecting - a version with a highly questionable statement? T. Canens (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Errr... this is odd, they're both listed and are technically the same uni, but one is the old (now defunct) Belizian institution, and the other is the current one in Cayman. O_O Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── 1. Bilby, Kronikerdelta originally stated to Cirt: 'Cut the crap and get this factually correct or I will take action against you and the other editor. There is no debate, this ends now,' which is unequivocally a specific, directed threat. Certainly, he later qualified this statement to suggest that he merely intended to inform the institution, but he also went on to accuse several editors of lying and malicious editing.

2. T. Canens, the article was updated to reflect changes on the GMC's website regarding St. Matthew's University (Cayman Islands). I'm not aware of an outstanding issue here (protected version v. current; talk page notification). Mephtalk 10:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My point is that the first comment wasn't necessarily a legal threat, and, as you point out, he later qualified it to say that it wasn't. At which point he was blocked for making a legal threat. There is a problem here - if we are going to interpret "making a legal threat" as "making something that we could interpret to be a legal threat, even when specifically denied by the user", and rely on that interpretation to make blocks rather than address the problem raised, then we have a significant problem with how we're using the policy.
We need to think about it from his perspective. He corrects a serious problem in an article, is reverted, told that he inserted false information, is immediately taken to an SPI case based on the one edit, and then at every point he is stopped from fixing it by people who continue to focus on his growing annoyance rather than the problem causing it. I'm not surprised he overreacted. The best way of ending this would have been to fix the article before it went too far. - Bilby (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your points, and agree that it could've been fixed earlier. However, Kronikerdelta asserted that material was defamatory, and would've resulted in legal action if s/he were to inform the institution ('If you'd like to block me for simply trying to avoid a libel case against your foundation be my guest' and 'I'm going to inform the administration of the school that this foundations representatives (namely you) are acting in bad faith in producing libel about them.'). S/he thus qualified their initial complaint, and suggested instead that a third party would take action, with their assistance. This assistance simply reaffirms the actual threat, as opposed to a perceived one. Best, Mephtalk 12:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
If we assume good faith, looking at this from the editor's perspective, both statements are reasonable. There is significant incorrect content, that the user is being prevented from fixing. So the first point is valid. When no one does anything, but instead attacks the editor though AN/I and an SPI case, it is clear to the editor that no-one will tackle the problem. So the obvious next step is to inform the institution of the problem. If we continue to react by blocking upset people when they have a valid concern, rather than looking into their concern, on the grounds of making legal threats when they haven't actually done so, then we have a long-term problem. I'm not sure what I want done. But I'd like to think that next time this arises someone will speak for the editor before it reaches this point. - Bilby (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no question the guy was making legal threats. NLT is not about whether a threat is "legally" a legal threat - it's about an attempt to intimidate other editors. And that's exactly what the editor was doing. Very appropriate block. He has the constitutional right to bring legal action or to try to get someone else to bring legal action. But there is no consitutionl right to edit wikipedia, and if someone threatens legal action in some way, shape or form, they are not allowed to edit wikipedia until or if they fully retract their threat. Meanwhile, if the source about the school's restrictions turns out to be a good and valid, i.e. verifiable source, then it can be used in wikipedia, whether the school likes it or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Bugs is 100% right here. The spirit of NLT is "Editors shall not use the threat of taking action outside of the confines of Wikipedia to force others to accept their preferred version of articles" or perhaps "Editing decisions should not be made under threat of actions to be taken in venues outside of Wikipedia". The issue with this user is they resorted to these external threats "If you don't change the article to read like I want it to read, I will take some action outside of Wikipedia", a clear threat he made immediately before his block. Editorial decisions should be made for editorial reasons, not because someone is willing to take extraordinary means to force through what they want forced through. Whether or not the editors preferred version is "right" in the end is irrelevent; NLT is about behavior, not content, and this editor's behavior was clearly over the line. It was a good block. --Jayron32 19:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
So where do you draw the line? If someone says "this is legally actionable, and I think it should be removed before a third party, not connected to me, takes action", is this a warning, or a legal threat? Your reading is that it is a legal threat. Mine is that I'm damn pleased that someone is taking the time to try and explain why it should be removed. Had someone listened, rather than attacking the editor, the editor would never have felt that it needed to be brought to the attention of the institution.
This is creating a second chilling effect - any mention of the possible legal consequences of editing an article can be seen as a legal threat, and someone can be blocked accordingly. At least next time could someone try and address the problem first, rather than watching it escalate until they feel justified in making a block? Blocking instead of fixing the problem damages wikipedia. Fixing it would have improved things, and maybe gained a contributor. - Bilby (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
A mention of a potential legal risk is not actionable ... but their statements was that "I am going make the schools administrative staff aware of the problem." [20] That is not "mention of the possible legal consequences", but instead direct action to facilitate legal actions.
It is a clear legal threat. Whether threatening to take action themself, or threatening to take the issue to someone else who can take legal action - the intent was clear: either do it their way, or else legal action will be taken - it was legal intimidation directed at other parties in a content dispute. See WP:NLT#Rationale for the policy - it's clear that their actions had the intent to cause the specific problems the NLT is intended to avoid.
Had they addressed the issue through standard internal WP:DR processes, a block likely would not have been needed. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Had someone told them about standard DR processes, maybe they would have. But thats's not what happened. Your reading is viable, but taken from a different perspective there is a completely different interpretation of what was said. At any rate, there is nothing to be done. It's just disappointing that we chose this path instead of addressing the problem, and only addressed it after the event. - Bilby (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I feel certain that no one will have any trouble interpreting this comment by the editor in question:[21]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
You're right. Venting after being treated that way was, of course, a massive surprise and in no way understandable. - Bilby (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Most blocked editors don't react with obscenities, although socks often do. It simply underscores the editor's value (or lack thereof) to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
That's not a particularly fair argument. Again, all I hope is that next time we consider finding a solution before we seriously upset and block a user. There was a better, and simpler, approach to this, but we didn't take it. Something I was pleased to see you supported above, so thankyou, and I respect your view - my wish was that we could have checked for a legitimate beef first, because if it was legitimate and fixed, the editor would have been more inclined to step back. - Bilby (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • For a little light reading, here's a related, interesting link with information about Wikimedia's stance on the defense of editors: [22]. Dreadstar 22:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What to do with uncredited and machine-translated versions of foreign language Wikipedia articles?[edit]

Wikipedia:Translation states in bold text (presumably to stress the importance of the points) that machine translations of foreign language Wikipedia artiles are worse than having no article at all, and that any translation must be appropriately credited back to the original foreign language article. With that in mind, what should be done about Lapierre (bicycle) and Winora, both of which are a largely unmodified copy/paste of Google translations of the German language originals? No attempt has been made to correct the machine translation, and no credit has been given to the German language original articles. I have nominated both at AfD, but wonder if in fact these should be speedy deleted, and if so under what criteria? Help from a knowledgeable admin would be welcomed. I already reverted a machine translation of Hercules Fahrrad GmbH & Co by the same editor (Degen Earthfast (talk · contribs)) because an article already existed at Hercules (motorcycle) - the editor had blanked the original and redirected it to his machine translation, but everything on that article is back as it was. I have left a message on the editor's talk page pointing out the translation policy. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

G12 will work nicely, since they are essentially copyvios without the attribution. T. Canens (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting that. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it isn't sorted. Degen Earthfast just blanked and redirected the original Hercules (motorcycle) article and left a stroppy message on my talk page (dif) saying he is going to undo the deletes and telling me to "deal with it". --Biker Biker (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have warned them not to. If they do, I or somebody will need to apply the clue hammer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Any chance you can speedy delete the remaining copyvio article Hercules Fahrrad GmbH & Co? --Biker Biker (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
No need to speed, I reverted it back to a redirect. Obviously if you think it still needs speedy deletion then go ahead. b.t.w. The same "deal with it" message came in the edit summary of that article from 71.162.161.175 (talk · contribs) who I'm guessing is the same editor. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I consider it very pointy to delete an article under G12 when the copyvio can be fixed by attribution using the standard interwiki links, and a comment in the edit summary. The sort of mMachine translations that are discouraged are ones that are not even minimally rewritten to fix the obvious grammar faults. Wikipedia has many acceptable articles that started as machine translations. I've done some of this sort of revising myself. DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
You consider just about any deletion to be pointy, honestly. We shouldn't have articles that look as though they were run through Babelfish; drop these rough translations into userspace first, then move them when they are readable. Tarc (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Tarc, how can iI consider "any deletion pointy when I've made over 13,000 of them myself, and when about 1/4 of my AfD !votes are for deletion? I go article by article; in my experience, most articles sent for deletion at speedy, prod, and AfD, should certainly be deleted. True, I do not interpret "most" to mean "almost all" DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
As Biker Biker pointed out, there is a strongly worded advice note that "machine translated" article creation is to be avoided, and the very pertinent point that copy and paste translated pages - without referencing - is in violation of WikiMedia's requirement that proper attribution must be provided. Of course any number of editors could rectify these issues by copy editing the content and researching and adding the links and attributions, but this is a volunteer project and in the interests of both compliance with requirements and maintain standards it is often quicker to delete the content. Of course, this does not stop an editor continuing to work upon presenting a compliant and comprehensible article in the meantime. Further, and I suppose this is where your raising of WP:POINT applies, it discourages editors such as Degen Earthfast from dumping bad content into the encyclopedia - as it disappears from their contribution history. It is a consequence that I feel the project could live with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I work with {{Copied}} tagging unattributed copies, and it's difficult and tedious enough when the source content is on the same wiki. I have used G12 once, for an article that was deuserfied without its author's consent (see Talk:List of cricket grounds in New Zealand for the gory details). I think that G12 may be used on a technical infringement if fixing the attribution is more trouble than the article's worth. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Raleigh DeGeer Amyx[edit]

This incident concerns User:Raw4815 and the application of a COI tag on the article Raleigh DeGeer Amyx. Based on edit [23] and comments on my talk page I applied a COI tag on the article. User:Raw4815 has removed the tag mutiple times and has denied any affiliation with the subject of the article in teh edit summaries when removing the COI. I cannot add back the COI without creating a warring situation and do not wish to do so. I am also concerned that the article is not only a coi, but that the article is possibly being used for self-promotion. My best to all. ttonyb (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have done some clean-up and will watch-list. Off now for dog-walk, TTYL. --Diannaa (Talk) 03:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
When it gets to a point that you're worrying about a 3RR situation, you can always report the article at WP:COIN. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
On my watchlist. The article called him historian and antiquarian, but sources call him what he appears to be, a collector. I'm dubious about at least one source which I raised at WP:RSN#Wealth Perspectives", JULY 2010 after failing to find out what it is. It also includes some trivia that looks promotional (he was given a signed photo, etc). Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Qur'an and science user Tauhidaerospace and mentoring[edit]

I was about to take Tauhidaerospace (talk · contribs) to 3RR but as he is, I think, editing in good faith, thought I'd take the issue here as I believe this editor really needs mentoring rather than blocking. I don't think he understands 3RR and he certainly doesn't understand our policies on sources, original research, etc. He posts to talk pages of both the article and editors but then for some reason seems to ignore responses. I've been posting to his talk page asking him to read our policies and to the article's talk page in some detail about his use of sources, etc. I'm hoping that somehow we can harness his enthusiasm constructively. The article was a terrible mess before he got there, by the way, so it didn't provide much in the way of a good example for him. I'll notify him of this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No response by him or anyone else here, and he continues to edit war, so perhaps other action will be necessary. Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Earlymorningcans / User:Trumpkin[edit]

These editors appear to be meat puppet / sock puppet team related to the alleged hoax at St John's Jerusalem.

They are currently engaged in some quite obvious pestering of Ghmyrtle and Snowded, who spotted the St John's Jerusalem alleged hoax.

Neither user have much edits but an examples of the meat/sock puppet is that Trumpkin — a "veteran Wikipedian of 5 years" according to his page but with actually only ~50 edits since 2006 — re-stared editing directly after Earlymorningcans opened a spurious SPI on Ghmyrtle and Snowded. The edit was to express support for Earlymorningcans in defending the St John's Jerusalem against Ghmyrtle and Snowded.

See also tag team like edits to Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland and Snowded's talk page. --RA (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: Trumpkin is using the sig Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) --RA (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I must deny all these allegations which have only the flimsiest of evidence and no basis in truth. Secondly I would point out that I have been the victim of harassment by Snowded (wikihounding as set out by WP:HA) - I first encountered him on edits on the page Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming and then he followed me to Talk:Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland, seemingly simply to undermine my efforts to improve the page - as such I would like his actions investigated and certainly his neutrality is suspect. Any user check will clear my name but Snowded's harassment has made me feel extremely uncomfortable, a fact I warned him of on his talk page. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
It is also completely untrue to assert that I supported anyone against Ghmyrtle and Snowded in regards to St John's Jerusalem. I wrote on User talk:Earlymorningcans to express my gratitude for his edits to improve the article following vandalism by Stellas4luncha and Bobadillaman: "Can I thank you for your recent edits to St John's Jerusalem, it certainly makes a start to undoing the vandalism the page has sustained over the last month." - I don't know what I have done to inspire such hatred against me by this user but I am patently innocent of all trumped up charges. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Also:

...whose only edit was here and is referenced here. --RA (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I imagine he was scared of by Snowded's abuse of editing priviledges, bullying and condescending tone. Earlymorningcans (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The fact that a new user contributes to a discussion I am involved in does not make me guilty of anything, and a check user will clear my name of such an implicit charge. Could an admin please ask RA and Snowded to desist from their harassment of me so I can edit in peace! Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There is an SPI which has been endorsed which could do with a hurry up. Worth noting that we have had sockmasters on these pages who use proxy IPs so behavioral evidence may also need to come into play --Snowded TALK 19:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

May I add in relation to St John's Jerusalem that I have made it my mission to restore the page after the appalling incidents of vandalism. Earlymorningcans (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have never defended the edits of Stellas4lunch or Bobadillaman at St John's Jerusalem as RA suggests above. Earlymorningcans (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Also (courtesy of this edit):
--RA (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know whose sock this is, but it's someone's. Also, he's obviously trolling. Earlymorningcans blocked indef, the SPI can continue to determine if the others are socks too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
It appears a dresser full of socks has been stumbled upon. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry to be dragged into what looks like a long running dispute started by some vandals. I just happened to agree with them in my first edit and had not realised that they were trolling! Can I clarify by saying that I am not supporting them and are not in this situation. I am sorry for the confusion caused by my single edit and lack of follow-up. Thanks Hellohenry57 (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Advise for Trumpkin: Shorten the alternate appearance of your moniker. Its length ("Grand High Most Supreme...")is a tad annoying. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that your 'advice' has any particular bearing on this issue, nonetheless I shall consider considering it presently. Grand High Most Ultimate Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia, the Universe and all parallel Universes (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Naive move from Two-dimensional display size to Display size[edit]

I've come across another naive article move. Could an admin copy the contents of Display size into Two-dimensional display size and then move that article to have the name Display size? That would keep the article history.

Thanks.

Yaris678 (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I spoke too soon. One user is happy with the article being at Two-dimensional display size, but there is some disagreement. Yaris678 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Can these users be blocked per WP:DUCK?[edit]

QAQUAU showed up on Computer monitor on May 18 & 20 and ran into trouble. Oilosiso was created on May 22 and continued that editing. Oilosio did the c&p move mentioned above {now at Display Size), only to have auto-confirmed QAQUAU show up out of nowhere to complete the move. The IP also supported the move. English appears to be a second language for both, and the IP geolocated to Sweden. Is this enough to block as socks per WP:DUCK? QAQUAU appears to be the sockmaster. --64.85.215.26 (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Block review: Neutralhomer[edit]

Wgfinley has blocked Neutralhomer for 24 hours for "Improper reversion and warning of disputed content as vandalism" on WMAQ-TV. Neutralhomer requests to be unblocked because he believes that Wgfinley is too involved to make this block. I agree with this assessment, though not for the reasons given by Neutralhomer, but because Wgfinley has twice removed (15 May, 22 May) the content that Neutralhomer edit-warred to re-insert, which makes Wgfinley an involved party to the edit war.

Another block reviewer, FisherQueen, has declined the unblock request because she considers that the block is correct on the merits as a block for edit-warring and frivolous vandalism warnings, with which I agree. I'm starting this thread to get more opinions as to whether the block should be undone as procedurally flawed, or upheld as materially correct.  Sandstein  19:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support unblock Had It been administered by another admin I would oppose unblocking. There is definite WP:INVOLVED violation here which makes the block invalid and raises concerns over how Wgfinley uses his tools The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Given that FisherQueen, totally uninvolved, has endorsed the block then it seems fine to let it stand as upheld. I dislike overturning blocks on a technicality like this. Wgfinley is undoubtedly involved, and we should discuss his actions and perhaps sanction/chastise him appropriately. (I'd probably have supported an unblock, except Neutralhomer doesn't seem to "get" the problem with using the vandalism revert in his unblock request) --Errant (chat!) 20:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • - User:Wgfinley was also at AN last August for a similar involved week long extension block on User:JRHammond that was overturned for involved issues. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I see now that I made an error; I thought Neutralhomer was edit-warring to remove the content, and now I see that he was the one adding it. My bad. Either way this is not vandalism, but I did look at it a little backward. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Support unblock - Wgfinley has stained the issue through his involvement. Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Unblock I regret to say that this is an egregiously bad block, not only might the blocking admin be involved in editing the article, and did so to revert the editor they have blocked, but they are also apparently acting in a mentor capacity to the other involved party to an edit war, and they have used the technicality of sanctioning for one editor for misrepresenting the other editors contributions as "vandalism" - when the blocked editor had already made the argument that as the edits were being made in bad faith that they were correctly labelled as such (I am offering no opinion on whether this statement is based in fact, let alone accepted). Even if an uninvolved admin were to take over the block, I would suggest that it is still inappropriate to sanction one side of what appears to be an edit war. Under the circumstances, I think NeutralHomer should be unblocked and final warned for edit warring, User:TVFAN24 also so warned, and Wgfinley cautioned regarding the correct application of distance in regard to an issue they are involved in and an editor they have a relationship with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Unblock immediately. Disclaimer: I consider NH a friend. This a truly atrocious block. The blocking admin is so unambiguously involved that it is difficult to fathom what was going through his mind when he made this block. The block is not preventing anything that wouldn't have been prevented by telling NH to go for a walk or invest his energies in a different part of the wiki for a while. But even if there was emrit to the block (and I objectively don't think there is), to then revert the editor you've just blocked in the same edit war is gross miconduct. With possible exceptions for vandalism, copyvios and BLP issues, it is never appropriate to revert an edit in an edit war that was made by an editor you've just blocked. You don't even have to read the policy to know that. I have little doubt that the blocking admin wasn't trying to get the upper hand in the dispute, but the appearance of impropriety alone means that a swift unblock, with appropriate annotation in the block log that it was a bad block, is the only appropriate thing to do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have voluntarily unblocked this user. I agree it could be construed that I am WP:INVOLVED as I previously mentored TVFAN24. However, this user has done nothing to state he will change his conduct. I hope this will at least draw some attention to that. --WGFinley (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Reblock pending: Neutralhomer has repeatedly mislabeled vandalism and reverted using Twinkle, and he's repeatedly promised to stop. I've asked him to renew his promise to not do so again, and if he does not then we need to look into removing his access to Twinkle.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • As noted before, Nh has forwarded the notion that the other parties edits, although apparently compliant, are being made in a bad faith manner - which constitutes WP:DISRUPT and is thus vandalism. Having Nh agree not to mislabel edits as vandalism might be argued as not applying in this issue. I thus suggest a more specific undertaking in this instance, that Nh will follow DR process in trying to resolve the issue and not reverting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • LessHeard, while I would always have thought it made sense to label intentionally disruptive edits as vandalism, they actually are not. Interesting, huh? Within certain definitions of disruptive, I wouldn't mind seeing that change, but alas, this isn't the venue for that. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The issue is not limited to the WMAQ-TV edits. NH has labeled other edits as vandalism for no clear reason.[24][25][26]   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I won't block NH, but I am putting him on the Twinkle blacklist. There have been numerous complaints over the years and he only retained his TW access by promising not to use it to label edits as vandalism. If he can go a year without mislabeling vandalism then he can get the tool back.   Will Beback  talk  03:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
NH had TW removed twice in December 2007,[27][28] and again in November 2008.[29] He apparently added it back in March 2009 without any discussion.[30] He agreed to a permanent blacklist if any admin thought he'd misused TW, in December 2008.[31] He agreed to remove access to TW in April 2009.[32] He was blocked in April 2010 for misusing TW, and again promised not to abuse it.[33] He was on the verge of being blacklisted again just three months later, but again promised to change his behavior.[34] He violated that promise just 12 hours later and made fresh promises.[35] Those are just a few of the TW-related incidents involving NH. He will need to maintain a very clean record in his other editing over the next year to earn access again.   Will Beback  talk  06:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Clarify: I do understand the policies and guidelines on it... there's a line of common sense in determining whether disruptive editing is vandalism. Thus, what I am trying to say is that simply because the editing is disruptive, one cannot label it as vandalism. And in this case, one would be hard pressed to do so. Nonetheless, that still leaves either war or 3rr. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/ CN 22:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • WGFinley, that is straight up abuse right there, what you did. You knew that you were involved and was mentoring a user on the opposite side of the conflict, and yet you blocked anyways. Moreover, Neutralhomer has now left because of your careless action. Well, I suppose the one side has indeed come out on top. –MuZemike 06:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I'd guess that NH is more upset about getting Twinkle removed (again) than for the now-expired block. I hope and expect that his retirement will be short.   Will Beback  talk  06:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment While I don't feel it is right for "involved" admins to make judgement calls such as this (it smacks too much of trying to insert THEIR version of whatever), a block may have been warranted under the circumstances, but it should not have been done by Wgfinley.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 14:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Probably why he undid his own block yesterday.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

RockSound on MOMK[edit]

RockSound (talk · contribs) Ok, yes, it's the Murder of Meredith Kercher article again.... things were going fairly smoothly with editors discussing issues on the talk page. However a new editor, RockSound, started editing the article the other day. Generally the edits are ok, some are contentious and some go against pre-discussed consensus (consensus we worked really hard to get compromise agreed). I've been trying to get him to participate in the talk page but instead he is claiming things like The cabal needs to stop with this censorship and harassment and on his talk page there is a rather unfortunate pro-innocence rant. I can't get him to participate in the talk page, he simply does not seem to want to engage, if his edits are reverted with requests to discuss he simply ignores it and reverts back (not really edit warring, more just consistently changing things over and over) :( I'm not sure what else to do; could someone have a strong word to try and iron this out. Some of his changes shouldn't be reverted, but not discussing the issues isn't helping get his content kept. --Errant (chat!) 23:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Wales has been involved in this article as reported in the news media. Many people are upset that there is a clique of pro-guilt editors who have a lock hold on the article and won't allow any changes unless approved by the clique. Mr. Wales was served with an open letter now signed by hundreds of people complaining of the pro-guilt bias in the article which violates BLP since Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have not been finally convicted of the crime. Mr. Wales needs to come back as he promised to help make this article more neutral and less of an advocacy piece to pursuade the public of the guilt of the two students. Wikipedia is being abused by these people who are using it for their own agenda.

There has been a lot of media coverage of Mr. Wales trying to straighten out the problems with this article, but no follow up.

Check this out: "Does Wikipedia host the Amanda Knox is Guilty Project?" http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/03/23/does-wikipedia-host-the-amanda-knox-guilt-project/

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/03/26/news/updatewikipedia-founder-jimbo-wales-reviews-page- —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talkcontribs) 00:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


—Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talkcontribs) 23:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

RockSound - Wikipedia operates by open consensus, and strives to find a neutral point of view. If you will not cooperate with discussing your issues with the article with other editors, on their talk pages or the article talk page, you're intentionally disregarding the whole method Wikipedia uses to resolve conflicts and deal with questions.
If you edit disruptively and will not discuss issues on talk pages, no matter what your background or particular problem, you will be warned, and if you continue can be blocked from editing.
Please, simply take the time to participate in discussions on the talk pages. That's the correct response and will avoid any unncessary friction. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


I doubt that the user is a sockpuppet. However, I agree that RockSound needs to demonstrate a greater willingness to engage in talk page discussion, rather than throw around accusations of a perceived "pro-guilt" bias whenever their failure to engage in talk page discussion leads to their bold edits being reverted. SuperMarioMan 00:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a whole lot of people raising this exact same issue of pro-guilt people having total control of the article, with the same style and interests. Everyone is accused of being a sock or some other misconduct so that they can be immediately banned and the real wrongdoing ---violation of BLP--continues. The problems with this article being used as an advocacy piece for guilt are outrageous and Mr. Wales needs to come back and follow up as he promised. And all those who were banned by those trying to silence those who did not support a view of guilt need to be unbanned, like PhanuelB for instance. It isn't simply a problem of not discussing on the Talk page. It is a problem of a pro-guilt POV having control of the Talk page and article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talkcontribs) 00:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sign your edits, please. You've been here almost a year; I'd like to believe you know how. HalfShadow 00:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Have you sought a third opinion, or otherwise attempted to come to consensus by discussion or through dispute resolution? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Disruptive people should stay banned, no matter what their views are. Wikipedia can't function if too many people are disrupting the work.
There have been allegations of abusing multiple accounts: Has anyone actually opened a sockpuppet investigation, or are we just making accusations because we can? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the essence of the problem:

" “I just read the entire article from top to bottom, and I have concerns that most serious criticism of the trial from reliable sources has been excluded or presented in a negative fashion,”

This is what Mr. Wales said in April. The situation is still exactly the same. Virtually everything I tried to add was deleted, even the most tiny, neutral of edits that should never have needed discussion.

For those who may be interested, there is a Petition to Mr. Wales now signed by over 300 people complaining of serious problems on this article. It is at this site petitiononline.com/qbcrt64w/petition.html

Since there is no help here, I will approach Mr. Wales directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talkcontribs) 00:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You should feel free to talk to Mr. Wales.
That does not absolve you of the responsibility to participate in community discussions going forwards.
Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia that everyone can edit; it's an encyclopedia that everyone edits together. If you are not willing to cooperate with discussions and the community consensus process - i.e., go to talk pages and discuss issues there in good faith - you are not going to be welcome to continue editing.
This is not a "Stop having an opinion and go away". This is "You need to participate in the community discussions in good faith along the way".
This is not optional, regardless of what Jimmy Wales may eventually say. You HAVE TO participate in discussions here.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Rocksound, in terms of the Meredith Kercher murder article, Jimbo Wales is just one voice, one editor. He has no more and no less of a say than any of the rest of us do. Please stop holding up his participation as some sort of bright-line gospel that we are failing or not failing to live up to. Editing here doesn't work that way. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Wales is the owner and founder and a very important person on this website. I certainly value his opinion as do most people on here. I am entitled to value his good judgment and opinion if I want to. He makes a lot of sense and I happen to admire the fact that he seems like a very principled person. If he says there are problems on the Kercher article, and he has said that, that is good enough for me. I will see if he will follow up, as it is quite needed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talkcontribs)

"No help here"? I see plenty of help. Suggestions to engage in discussion on the talk pages, which is always the first way to resolve disputes. Having been involved in disputes where discussion on talk pages is not fruitful, I can understand that it is not always a panacea, but the evidence suggests you haven't even tried. Other dispute resolution suggestions were given, and I see no response form you indicating whether they have been tried and failed, or even acknowledging their existence. It looks to me like you think you can convince Mr. Wales to support you, so why bother with the usual routes. Jimbo is quite interested in ensuring that articles are neutral, and do not promote one side over another, but he is also (I believe) a fan of following normal dispute resolution processes, at least until they are shown to fail. I don't see evidence you have even tried. My hope and expectation is that Jimbo Wales will urge you to at least try. (Disclaimer - I'm not familiar with the incident discussed in the article, and had not viewed the article before today, Even now, I merely glanced at it to see if I knew the incident. My comments are based solely on the exchange in this forum, in which I see no evidence of an attempt at dispute resolution by you.)--SPhilbrickT 01:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This is just another data point on how advocacy has rendered the atmosphere there highly toxic, and counter to improving the article. Jimbo's involvement has been well-meaning and even in some regards helpful, but by encouraging those who have an ax to grind to believe that he is on their "side" he has made life harder for those of us who believe there should only be one "side", and that should be devoted to improving the encyclopedia. --John (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Yup. I tried to get Jimbo to see this the first time around, but he took offense to my comments and told me not to comment on his talk page anymore. As long as Jimbo stays involved in this topic, it's going to be a source of conflict. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Mr Wales has to cop the public blame for the misdeeds of the editors, which makes him much more than just one voice and one editor. Editing together makes us all responsible. Community consensus is not a panacea. If there are public allegations that an article is gravely flawed, and the editors working on it are ignoring reliable sources, then that should be concern us all, and should be investigated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    • For the most part that is just false characterisation by the rather vocal pro-innocence bloggers/commentators. There are issues on the article, but it's not quite the white wash as it is characterised. The problem is that this is an ongoing event that has tow hugely divided factions using the internet as their battleground - they expect Wikipedia to have an complete article about the case, and naturally expect it to reflect their view of events. It's basically impossible for the article to be complete, and it won't be for some years. And that both the pro-innocence and pro-guilt whine about it being a biased article says something, I think :) --Errant (chat!) 12:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to learn more about the problems and attempted solutions on the Kercher article, these two sources give some of the background and this is all reflected in the archived pages of the discussion pages. It seems that out of long frustration and disappointment a whole lot of people resorted to the petition route and finally someone responded, Mr. Wales. But there has been no follow up. I understand that he is very busy, but maybe he can squeeze the article in soon. I will also send an email to the email address on the petition to see if I can learn anything further from them, and maybe they would like to talk to him too. Then maybe Mr. Wales and everyone could go back to using the discussion pages on the Kercher article. Talk to you later. - - petitiononline.com/qbcrt64w/petition.html - - "Does Wikipedia host the Amanda Knox is Guilty Project?" - http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/03/23/does-wikipedia-host-the-amanda-knox-guilt-project/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talkcontribs) 01:52, 23 May 2011

You seem to be under the impression that when Jimbo says jump we all respond with a "how high?" That is not the case and has not been for a long time. He devolved authority over wikipedia to the community. Despite being the founder of wiki his decision meant that he has the same status as any of us. A petition to Jimbo will not mean that he'll step in on your side or on anyone's side for that matter. I've neither interacted with you nor involved myself with the article but I can see that this is a content dispute that has yet to be discussed on the talk page. In fact, looking through your contributions history, you have not discussed anything at all on the talk page on the article, which is the issue that needs to be addressed here. You cannot continually keep editing an article when other editors are raising concerns on the content you are adding. This amounts to disruptive editing and will get you blocked. Your posts here have a great deal of wp:idht and attempts at side stepping the issue at hand, your increasingly disruptive editing. --Blackmane (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Some are also of the opinion that Jimbo's involvement in the article has done more harm than good, in that the Amanda Knox advocacy camp feels emboldended to turn the page away from coverage of the murder and into detailed CSI-fueled evidence rebuttals. I'll also note that online petitions are utter garbage that will not sway a single policy or editorial decision here. Thousands of people signed onto a "remove the images of Muhammed from the Wikipedia, they offend meeeeeee!" petition a few years back. It was dismissed out of hand. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic banned editor returns on William Greer[edit]

74.96.114.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the editor who is banned from William Greer (and all other articles relating to the assassination of JFK) per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive204#Topic ban redux, see the history of the talk page for previous similar IP 74.96.113.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The general method of dealing with him has been to protect the article (and on occasion, the talk page too), but if someone wants to take a less drastic approach and just block the IP and leave any protection unless problems persist that might be a better way forward. Thanks. 2 lines of K303 12:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and semi-protected. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User Flying Fische vandalizing templates despite three warnings and two previous blocks[edit]

Despite multiple warnings from three different editors to Flying Fische about vandalizing templates [36] [37] [38], and despite two previous blocks for this offense, he vandalized yet another maintenance template today [39]. Since he has ignored all warnings and learned nothing from his blocks, I believe a permanent block may be in order. Qworty (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

He didn't "vandalize a template", he removed it. No way that deserves an indef block. Seems like you're both accusing each other erroneously of vandalism. Calling him "old boy" and "old chap" is condescending. How about you try discussing this with him reasonably and not stalking his article creations? Fences&Windows 18:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Generally, he seems to be editing in good faith, but has run up against overzealous speedy deleters who don't have the ability or patience to improve articles or talk to new editors, so instead he's faced a series of rather robotic speedy deletion nominations and harsh template messages. Fences&Windows 18:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I concur. His frustration seems warrented. -Atmoz (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Both sides seem overly zealous, particularly given the insults and vindictive defence of various biographies. Mephtalk 19:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is neither a content dispute nor a personal one, but strictly a policy issue. He has been warned several times about removing templates he disagrees with and he has been blocked twice, with increasing duration, for those offenses [40] [41]. If his behavior was sufficient to merit two blocks from two different admins, and since his behavior is continuing despite every warning and every block, then he certainly merits a more serious block at this time. Qworty (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Qworty seems to be forum shopping/canvassing just a little - [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • As one of the canvassed admins, I note that the edit at issue is not vandalism, and the cleanup tag Flying Fische removed had little merit to begin with. I see nothing patently objectionable in Flying Fische's recent edits and suggest that this request be dismissed. Fences and windows has given Flying Fische useful advice about notability and such.  Sandstein  20:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Further note. He's deleted another template since I opened this AN/I [48] and is contentiously bragging about it [49]. I wish somebody would help with this problem. Qworty (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding! George Taylor (botanist) is massively notable (FRS, knighted, director of Kew Gardens, lots of coverage), to suggest that his removal of that notability tag is wrong is bizarre. Tags are not holy objects. There's nothing contentious about that removal, and if you insist there is perhaps it is you who is being disruptive. Qworty, please try to help improve articles rather than tag bombing them and trying to get them deleted regardless of their potential. Fences&Windows 01:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
But from someone who doesn't know anything about the Royal Society or Kew Gardens, the article says he's a botanist who seems to have held a job at some gardens. The refs (at the time, before the obit) where to a paywall protected Who's Who article and a single line citation on a related organisation's website. I understand about stubs (but tagging stubs with how to improve them is surely to be encouraged, not punished or be abused for doing so), I understand that maybe if you don't know about the area, then don't question the experts, but surely the answer is to STATE IN MORE DETAIL WHY HE'S NOTABLE - ie what he did, awards he won etc etc, not just remove the tag with an abusive edit summary. Fix the problems, stop attacking those who think that the articles are still lacking. It was a notability tag, not a CSD A7 tag - there is a big difference. The-Pope (