Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive774

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Deleted history needed to recreate probably over-written article[edit]

RESOLVED
Resolved thread is resolved. Zad68 17:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

Rich Farmbrough, 18:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC).

I've dug the article back out and left the move artifacts deleted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks as always. Rich Farmbrough, 01:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC).

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

Cut and paste move needs sorting out[edit]

RESOLVED
Resolved thread is resolved. Zad68 17:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC).

Excellent! Rich Farmbrough, 01:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC).

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

User:Harcest - duck sock[edit]

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

Can I get a duck sock block of the Harcest (talk · contribs)? the only edits have been attempts to erase the information that User:Film1024 was blocked for socking. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


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

Personal attacks by Tarc[edit]

No administrator action required or likely to ensue. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Given Tarc's insistance on others not using personal attacks on Wikipedia, it's concerning that Tarc decided to attack other editors. Tarc has been uncivil, demeaning, and combative, and I don't think it's constructive or useful to have this kind of behavior on Wikipedia, especially from someone who wants to hold others to a higher standard then they are willing to meet. - SudoGhost 15:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Your "demeaning" and "combative" links don't contain any personal attacks. He's attacking a Wikipedia category, not the editors who created it or support its existence. The "attack other editors" and "uncivil" links, I grant, do contain a relatively mild personal insult in naming editors as "yahoos". —Psychonaut (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
My being a "nazi" is just fine though? I removed it and another editor restored it, so I'm not going to remove it again or anything, but I think when WP:NPA specifically points out that the exact thing an editor said is "never acceptable", it's probably a personal attack. - SudoGhost 15:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I mostly go along with Psychonaut's analysis. The "nazi" epithet was in the context of tarc describing you as a "grammar Nazi" which is not really a descent into Godwin's law. Describing your edits as trolling is also unnecessarily testy but doesn't cross the line into blocking territory, imho. The pair of you would be better of stepping away and taking a deep breath rather than fighting this out here, I suggest. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think calling someone a nazi is fine as long as there's context involved or you append some specific label in front of it, especially when WP:NPA says don't, but even if calling someone a nazi is fine, if this is what passes for acceptable, then why do we even have WP:CIVIL? - SudoGhost 15:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
There's an ongoing RFC attempting to address the question (please vote!). I think "nazi" in this context is more like Soup nazi rather than the National Socialist Party. Nobody Ent 15:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't get the reference, but if policy says don't call someone a Nazi, I don't think any type of Nazi would be appropriate, and I'm truly at a loss as to why this is apparently okay. It's be no different than calling someone a faggot; it doesn't matter what "type" of faggot you're being called, that's still a personal attack and unacceptable. Treating another editor in such a way is not constructive and serves absolutely no purpose other than to create animosity and the end result is no different than if it had been whatever y'all consider an actual personal attack, but if this is acceptable on Wikipedia when policy says otherwise then I guess I learned something today. - SudoGhost 15:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
@Nobody Ent, yes, that was pretty much the gist, not actually calling someone a Nazi any more than invoking "when did you stop beating your wife?" is an actual allegation of abuse. The specific image I had in mind was this one. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Seems pretty mild. a13ean (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Wading into an contentious category created as a result of a contentious comment on a contentious issue tempers are heated. Best if Tarc and SudoGhost agree to disagree and disengage from each other. Can we re-open WP:WQA for business now? Nobody Ent 15:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes please (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This is beyond petty. Sudoghost here is getting a bit agitated form discussions over a disruptive category from the Malleus-JClemens shitstorm that was rightfully WP:IAR deleted because sometimes the unwashed masses around here don't have a lick of common sense. What started this little side affair was this post of mine, where I typo'ed "tese" (these) and "site" (side). This user then came to my talk page to needle me about said typos, which I reverted as obvious trolling. Upon fixing said typos, this user again took a little jab with an edit summary of "Personal attacks? What happened to your support site?". I don't mind said needling and never had any intention of complaining over it, but the needler damn well better be prepared to get some of it in return. Obviously, this user couldn't handle that, and came a'scurrying here. Honestly, my dear ANI, if there's anything that needs admin intervention here is that godforsaken Deletion Review. Go close it up and put an end to this ridiculous pointy bullshit. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It's fine. I've learned what is acceptable on Wikipedia, so at least something useful came from this. Guess I'll just have to grow a thicker skin and move on. - SudoGhost 16:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
One day I'll figure out who the folk insistent on drumming up false equivalences in the Great Civility war think they're kidding. Really, "grammar nazi" is one step removed from shoving people into ovens, honest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
That's a nice red herring, because you captured what I said exactly; I'm sure you're the same kind of person that argues with the traffic officer that they should be catching murderers. - SudoGhost 16:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's no doubt the Wikipedia community has a serious, chronic issue with its Civility pillar. I agree in concept with Tarc the category shouldn't have been created and in concept with Sudoghost that "Nazi" is over the top. I agree with thumperward that's it's not the holocaust, but disagree with the tone of his expression. Neither I, nor anyone who is actually honest can say which, if any, of those actions crossing the line because no one knows where the heck the line is. We're not going to solve the problem on ANI today, support KDB's close. Nobody Ent 16:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


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

Possible harassment[edit]

I concur with Nobody Ent that we should deescalate this situation. Pass a Method talk 21:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are a couple of editors who are unhappy with the result of WP:DRN cases where I was the dispute resolution volunteer and have criticized me for same[1][2][3] (which is fine, they certainly have that right). Lately they have started acting in a way that borders on harassment, getting together on their own talk page (and possibly off-wiki) in order to coordinate their attacks.[4][5][6][7][8][9]. I would rather that they moved on having voiced their complaints instead of making me and my perceived shortcomings an ongoing crusade. Given the block logs for both users, I would like to have someone uninvolved look into this rather than confronting either of them directly. (Please note that Codename Lisa, who also had criticism for me (for which I have since apologized) is a good editor who is not involved in this or any other questionable behavior.) ANI-notices sent. --Guy Macon (talk)

I've never been to DRN, have never reviewed any cases there, so have no opinion about any of the cases that have ever been at DRN. You've accused of intention to "attack" you. Completely baseless. (This seems to be a pattern by you; you've done it before, as noted in my criticism of same accusation at the Nomination board, in your edit summary when you indef'd one of my subpages.) IMO, your use here of ANI was unnecessary and an attempt to intimidate and use WP as battleground, game the system, falsely accuse of harrassment. You are derailing your own Nomination for MED COM, IMO. Get a clue. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC) p.s. Oh, as long as we are in this very public venue, could I ask, for the 5th or 6th time, that you never post to my User talk again? I want no contact with you at any time in the future, as has been my consistent request for quite some time now. Thank you.
"Given the block log of both users". Don't you know, this is a worn & tired & transparent attempt to prejudice others about anyone who's ever had a block? News for you: not everyone who's received a block has deserved it. (I've recently read discussion that the trick you are employing to prejudice because of a past block, is creating a "criminal class" on WP. Consider the fact that you may be doing that: You have spread the "news" of my block by Toddst1 over as many WP pages you had opportunity to do so, and repeated as often as you had opportunity to do so. [Do you want a diff list for that?]) You noticed me about the ANI case. It was not my idea to be here and levy more complaints about you. But IMO you deserve these criticisms. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
This is extraordinary. Guy Macon claims I was "unhappy with the result of a WP:DRN case where GM was the dispute resolution volunteer and have criticized him for same"! Firstly, GM had nothing to do with the DRN. As you can see with this diff, it was closed by Steve Zhang without any involvement by GM and without a decision.[10] So his very first sentence is false. Secondly, my comments about him were my reasons why I oppose his candidacy for the MED COM because the MED COM No mination page says "Input from editors who are not members of the Committee is very welcome". Apparently not.[11] As this diff shows GM has posted on my Talk page whereas I have never posted on his.[12] And the invitation to chat with two other editors who also objected the GM's nominations can hardly be construed as harassment anymore than GM's private emails with Steven Zhang. Perhaps if GM were to apologise to me as he has to CL he might be able to move on instead of wasting my time with this unnecessary harassment.Momento (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll chip in here. I closed the DRN thread because the Prem Rawat disputes have been an ongoing issue on Wikipedia for at least five years, and the participants have strong, ingrained opinions. As I've mediated this dispute before, I offered to assist on the talk page. Guy Macon popped in, and I figured that two heads are better than one, thus I emailed him to discuss a way that we can move forward, to resolve this issue in the long term. There was no conspiracy or harassment going on - just DR volunteers discussing how we can resolve a dispute. I find that Momento's comments towards both Guy Macon belligerent, and thus I have declined to take part in resolving the dispute any further, which I think to be a shame. History has shown the unwillingness of volunteers to take on the Prem Rawat disputes, and I think this will do very little to improve that situation. I fear the only thing that will resolve this dispute is a salted earth remedy. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
This is bad. I'm inclined to say both Momento and Ihardlythinkso should be blocked for battleground editing, personal attacks, canvassing, etc. Perhaps they should be given their choice between a block and an interaction ban. Their Chewbacca defense raised above is not helping the case. Magog the Ogre (tc) 12:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
@Magog. This (your reponse) is the kind of thing that turns me off to WP. Irresponsible statements and accuses, that I don't believe you can possibly support in any reasonable fashion. There's no basis for your accuses. And I have no idea how "Chewbacca defense" relates to anything I've written. If you can make such unsupportable claims, irresponsible accuses, then how is that a basis to enter any reasonable discussion with you? If I write something you don't agree with and you label it "battleground", it is a misuse of the word. For what end? I'd like to discuss with you each and every claim you've made, to get to the bottom of your basis for making them, but, not here. I'm further unimpressed by the fact that you are an Administrator, Admin's are held to higher standards. That includes being responsible for your accuses and statements.
Meanwhile, the opener of this thread tosses around serious words like "harrassment" and bold accusations not having any relation to reality ("coordinating their attacks"), and goes to ANI with that crap, which is disruptive to WP because it is unnecessary and baseless, and you don't seem to find anything amiss about that?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I would add that I haven't gotten around to responding to that email. Hardly the stuff of conspiracy. Besides, I am busy with an actual conspiracy, which you can find here:
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 112#Emperor of Wikipedia redirects to your page
(Bottom comment)
Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 4#Opening DRN threads as volunteers
(Second and fourth comments)
Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 5#Proposed changes to instructions at the top of the page
(Suggestion number 4)
I hope this helps... --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of dispute resolution should be to deescalate situations. If you go around interjecting yourself into other folks disputes, you should expect a little blowback. (I speak from experience.) My own wikocratic oath is First, cause no drama. I highly advise Guy Macon not to stalk other folks' talk pages -- it just leads to aggravation. Additionally, if they do not wish to deal with stuff like this, stop getting involved in other folks stuff. Nobody Ent 13:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC) P.S. The length of an editor's block log is not relevant to any particular incident. Nobody Ent 13:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


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

Complaint on personal attacks by user Emmette Hernandez Coleman[edit]

No admin action necessary. EHC's talk page edits are fine, and reinstating warnings and templates with the threat that they have to address some issue or other is in complete disagreement with our talk page guidelines. No one (I assume) wants this to boomerang or drag on. Drmies (talk)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

During the last several days my account has experienced spamming by Emmette Hernandez Coleman, who repeatedly posted on my talk page posts related to dispute on issues relates to the Palestinian territories and the Palestinian Authority (see [13]). Emmette's posts were interpreted by me as spamming, because he tended not to use the talk pages of the relevant articles, but divert all discussions and remarks to my personal talk page. As a result, i posted a warning on his talk page, asking to perform relevant discussions on relevant articles' talk pages, assuming WP:GF [14]. While being sure that the issue between us is closed, i was surprised to find out that Emmette Hernandez Coleman synthesized a rename proposal Talk:Palestinian_territories#Requested_move, using my remarks on proper usage of the terms "Palestinian territories" and "Palestinian National Authority", and signing it with my name as if it was me who proposed a rename procedure which is a complete nonsense (quote: Palestinian territories → ? – To address Greayshark09's concerns about calling the WB&GS "Palestinian territories".). The proposal, being a complete nonsense immediately drew angry responses from several users in my direction, presenting me in a negative and absurd light. I think it is a complete misuse of wikipedia to post false proposals in the name of others, and is a clear violation of WP:GF and WP:PERSONAL.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that EHC did that with any malicious intent or to purposely mislead (people do make mistakes). The initial proposal just had his signature attached to it and at a look at the history, EHC just copy and pasted your comment into it later from somewhere else on the talk page for clarfication. Disregarding on how EHC should have went about the proposal, it might have been better to have talked to EHC about how this proposal was done and tell him that he shouldn't have copy pasted your comment than come to AN/I right away. SassyLilNugget (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with SassyLilNugget. The including of your signature was questionable, but he simply attributed the proposal to you rather than make it seem as if you were the one to post it. And when you insisted he stay away from your talk page (by warning him on his) he did, and then it seems you told him he wasn't allowed to remove that warning. Unless I read a diff incorrectly. Possible. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Edit: You did. You posted the warning on his talk page, he removed it, and you re-added it. Twice. And then formalized it with a template that you insisted he address. Then you agreed not to continue with a request for "legal action". 192.76.82.89 (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, EHC removing your warning from his talkpage does not seem to violate WP:REMOVED, in connection to this conversation. SassyLilNugget (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The rename proposal in Greshark's name was misguided, and I am sorry that Greyshark has been upset by that. Having said that, I am confident that there was no malicious intent in EHC's actions. He/she was simply trying organize a central discussion to work out a solution to to some ongoing issues across a number of articles in the IP topic area. Dlv999 (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I (and User:Dlv999) objected to the way Greayshark was changing "Palestinian Territories" to "Palestinian Authority" across a huge number of articles, because the usual practice on Wikipedia was to refer to the West Bank and Gaza as "Palestinian Territories", and to use "Palestinian National Authority" to refer to the organization that governs parts of the WB&GS. "So I brought it up on his talk page, he then moved the distinction to Talk:Palestinian territories#"Palestinian territories" vs "Palestinian Authority". Grayshark reverted one of my edits, so I broght that up on his talk page. He then very strongly objected to me putting those thing on his talk page, so I told him that I'd avoid editing his talk page. The move request was my attempt to resolve the issue of what to call the West Bank & Gaza Strip throughout Wikipedia. If we started calling WB&GS something other then PT, I would have no objection to Greyshark going throughout wikipedia and changing PT to whatever the new title were. The only way Greyshark was panted in a bad light was that other editors strongly disagreed with Greysharks objections to the use of the praise "Palestinian territories" for the WB&GS.
As for personal attacks, when did I ever personally attack Grayshark?
Sense I'm here anyway, could I have some help resolving this WB&GS issue with Greyshark please? Dlv999 and I don't seam to be getting anywhere on our own, and I'm very inexperienced with the Dispute resolution process. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It does seam that the conciseness is strongly in favor of using "Palestinian Territories" for the WB&GS and "Palestinian National Authority" for the organization tough. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Slight correction: "Palestinian Territories" is the normal WP phrase for the WB&GS (e.g. Racism in the Palestinian territories, Demographics of the Palestinian territories) and "Palestinian National Authority" for things of and closely related to the organization (e.g. Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority, Politics of the Palestinian National Authority)Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
That's not for here: the Move request on the talk page was closed; that page is the place to continue. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Request a Topic ban on Mtking[edit]

NO ACTION
No evidence presented, no consensus for banning. Nobody Ent 23:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Having left the MMA community alone for the last few months, serial troll Mtking is back again with his attempt to delete MMA articles. The MMA community values the Wikipedia articles as the best source there is for fighter stats, event results, and details on upcoming events. The MMA community agrees that the best way to present this is on a single page per event for ease of use the and the community agrred that the stupid and ill thought out "omnibus" idea should dropped. What Mtking is doing now is just ignoring what the community wants.

I therefore propose that for deliberately ignoring the community Mtking should be banned from editing all MMA articles and from nominating any more for deletion and from voting on any deletions started by others. ScottMMA2 (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, first, we need to stop the voting. At this point, no one has produced any evidence. Please step back, provide some diffs or links to AfDs or something. We can't decide whetehr or not someone should be blocked or topic banned based solely on the claims of partisan editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I can oppose a ban proposal that's presented without any evidence. In fact, I do. And based on proposal above, I'd be willing to support a ban on the "MMA community". -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
You want evidence, look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Ultimate Fight Night or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Los Angeles or his edit warring with User: I remember halloween at UFC 156 or his actions at UFC on FX: Browne vs. Bigfoot about it’s notability. ScottMMA2 (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect to User:Dennis Brown I have reopened this for one I have posted evidence for two you are an involved admin in the area of MMA, you always voted delete in Mtking's MMA deletions for three have a look above there are other proposals for such bans and for four there is another editor who also agrees with the ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMMA2 (talkcontribs)
Two things, one, Wikipedia:Do not say "With all due respect" as it just another way of saying "go fuck yourself", so not recommended here. Second, according to WP:INVOLVED, I am not involved. I've never sanctioned either one of you. That I am familiar with MMA is a benefit, not a detriment, to the process. I've never edited an MMA article, I've only mediated. So you are very, very mistaken here. But fine, we will leave it open. Of course, ANI is the wrong place to start a topic ban, WP:AN is the right place, so you are already at the wrong board, as I said in the closing. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This BS again? Seems to me ScottMMA only started editing with this new account to continue his grudge against Mtking. Frivolous report that deserves a boomerang if you ask me, especially considering the disruptive history of the main account. But I'm willing to reclose without action just to be done with it.--Atlan (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hang on can't you see that he is the one causing all the problems, if he did not have a grudge against MMA then we would not be here asking for help, if he is stoped from trying to delete our event articles and leave us alone then all this will stop. ScottMMA2 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Um... If The MMA community values the Wikipedia articles as the best source there is for fighter stats, event results, and details on upcoming events. is true, then there is something very wrong. WP should not be the best source for these details, we're a tertiary work to summarize them. This was the problem before, and still appears to be the problem now. It's unfortunate that the MMA sporting area isn't covered as in depth as MLB, NBA or NFL, but that's not WP's to remedy. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Whats wrong with wikipedia being the best source for these details it's an Encyclopedia is it not? ScottMMA2 (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Because we are a tertiary source and summarizing more detailed sources that should be better respositories for said information. If WP is the "best" source, that means there's a good chance of original research, undue weight, and other major content problems since we should not be the first publication of this type of information. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:ANI isn't the place to request a topic ban, for starters. Second, it isn't your job to tell admin what action they need to do. If you think there is a problem, come here with evidence and let the community hash it out. Scott, you have instead come here demanding a topic ban without evidence. THIS is why I closed it, and why I will end up closing it again if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

MMA/K1 walled garden[edit]

I was about to say something above but it got closed. WP:WALLEDGARDEN and WP:SPA (likely sockpuppets) like Special:Contributions/BStudent0, Special:Contributions/Mdtemp_(school), and Special:Contributions/172.162.38.35 aren't very convincing. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

BStudent0 and Mdtemp_(school) are  Likely - they are editing off a uni campus, so I suppose it's possible they are drinking buddies, but one guy, two accounts seems more likely. The IP belongs to AOL so pretty much impossible to say. I've blocked it 24hrs, probably no point in a longer block. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

User:74.240.198.98[edit]

IP BLOCKED
Blocked by Dennis for 72 hours Mdann52 (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can we get a block for this user - simply spamming the same rant all over as see here.Moxy (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

  •  Done Mainly because he was just copy/pasting the same rant on many, many places. If he was actually contributing to the conversation, I can tolerate any opinion, but not copy/paste soapboxing. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Copyvio but direction not clear[edit]

List of Regular Show episodes has been deleted and re-created as a redirect, due to possible copyvio of the episode descriptions. A little discussion on the talk page (qv) indicates more than a negligible possibility that a substantial part of the Wikipedia version is the original. Even if that proves false the bare list of episode titles would not be a copyvio. This needs careful forensic work, from an admin, or undeleting and careful forensic work from an editor.

Be aware that there are over 5000 revisions of this article, therefore "big delete" is invoked if it should need to be deleted again.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC).

It doesn't seem likely to be a copyvio to me. Looking at the deleted revisions, the article was built very gradually in >5000 edits over the course of 2 years. It was very obviously not a cut-and-paste from another website, and I agree that the only website cited as the possible source was most likely copying us. I guess it's possible someone has been systematically copying episode descriptions over from another website. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Television episode articles are one of the biggest banes for copyright cleanup that we have. People don't seem to understand that these episode descriptions are subject to copyright. It's not uncommon to find episode summaries in a single list copied from multiple sources by multiple users, registered and otherwise. Personally, I'm afraid I can't volunteer to to do the forensic work that needs doing with this article, because it would take me (no exaggeration) many hours to determine which sources copied from us and vice versa. I don't have that kind of time at the moment. :/
For now, until and unless somebody takes different action, I'm going to grant the request at the talk page to restore the content sans episode summaries. This'll take a few minutes, particularly reconstructing attribution history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Skeleton is back; list of contributors maintained. I want to be clear that I'm not suggesting this is the best or only possible response to this situation. If somebody else can do the forensic work, awesome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for making the first steps. Rich Farmbrough, 12:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC).

Was the alleged infringement to do with watchcartoononline.com? Because that site doesn't produce its own episode summaries. It takes them from other websites (not all of them free; cf. Google's record though most of that looks like it's for media). Wikipedia would probably be one of the sites. They often leave the citation numbers in -- e.g., this one from the Regular Show list. Osiris (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Restarting the interaction ban discussion[edit]

Interaction ban enacted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As I said in my closing statement of the above discussion, while an i-ban was proposed above, it is impossible to read consensus since many of the opposes did so specifically due to their preference for the failed site ban. The proposal did have sufficient support, though, that it deserves to be considered independently of the site-ban discussion. As such, I want to give all participants a chance to comment again as to whether or not YRC and Priory should specifically and formally be banned from interacting with one another. Note that I will be leaving closure of this discussion to another uninvolved admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. Both parties have indicated that this resolves the matter for them, and that is a good thing. (A similar discussion should perhaps be started with respect to Nomo and YRC as well.) AndreasKolbe JN466 15:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Nobody Ent 15:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support because they both want it as I noted above. I suspect this 2nd poll is going to be a case of voter fatigue. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Per my statement in the original ANI case and the fact that both parties are consenting to it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support If they want to give an IBAN a go instead of blocks, sounds great. Zad68 17:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - and, given the history, this should be as zero tolerance as it palatable. GiantSnowman 17:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It is highly unlikely that further interactions between them will benefit the project. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. --Rschen7754 19:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Youreallycan 19:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is every reason to think that Prioryman's activities are going to continue to be discussed in derogatory terms on Wikipediocracy, and that their members will continue to be canvassed to votes like this one. Eventually, if he protests some such off-site action that peripherally involves YRC, he will probably be banned by some widely-canvassed "consensus". Wnt (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    What does YRC have to do with WO? Arkon (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing. He has never posted there, to the best of my knowledge, nor has there been a thread on Wikipediocracy "canvassing" for uniform action on this topic. Just another attempt to create a bogeyman, and a rather pathetic one. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
And that would be a bad thing? Seriously, not sure that makes alot of sense, but its a free wiki :) --Malerooster (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but why is this necessary, given the parties have already agreed to an interaction ban? Further, what do things posted to an external site have to do with anything? JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Can't do anything but help. Arkon (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Just avoiding another resource-wasteful mess like this one is sufficient reason for the ban. I'm pleased that both want the ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. - To avoid wasting any more Wikipedia resources on their personal conflict. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose  If they both want the I-ban, why was the community brought into this discussion?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea, but why is that a reason to oppose it? Only thing I can thing of is that ArbCom is in the midst of declining the case based on the assumption the ban will succeed. I was hoping an admin would snow close it (needs to be an admin per WP:CBAN) Nobody Ent 01:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
About to post the same. I was going to say to dot the i's and cross the t's. --Malerooster (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Wow, this is crazy. I read as much of this discussion as I could before I realized we were just going in circles. Call it a day and move on. This is insane. --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Snow- Both parties have agreed to an IBAN, support is overwhelming. Close this. Doc talk 04:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia is not kindergarten where fighting toddlers have to be kept apart. Count Iblis (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as both parties want it. --Nouniquenames 05:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Both parties have agreed to the interaction ban, so why are we here? If there's no consensus for a ban here, does that mean that the agreement between Youreallycan and Prioryman is invalid? Makes no sense to me. Jafeluv (talk) 07:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Needed and both agree. To those who are asking 'why?' as both support it. Being willing to have a gentleman's agreement not to interact now may change in the future. Both have issues with staying away from things they shouldnt be doing, this way it has the backing of swift admin intervention in the event either of them decide they want to change their minds. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support since both parties agree with it. Nomoskedascity probably should have an iBan imposed on him since he refuses to voluntarily accept it. His actions towards YRC have not been very helpful. Cla68 (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Qualified support both are genuine editors, not here for the dramah. My only worry is that either of them could be excluded from real discussion where they could make a positive contribution. Rich Farmbrough, 12:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC).
  • Support - With no support for my preferred option, a double indef block, in the cards, both parties need it. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Wikipediocracy set has managed, yet again, to make this about Prioryman (who admittedly isn't the best voice for those of us SICK TO DEATH of the conduct of editors such as YRC), thus obscuring the real issue. The stunningly dishonest eye-blinking feigned innocence of some involved editors makes clear that action on these favored few, such as YRC, will always be guided by a double-standard: make enough edits and you can be as big a bastard as you wish. --Drmargi (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Pardon, but: (1) WP:NPA, please, and (2) you're painting with a pretty broad brush. I have no relationship/membership with Wikipediocracy, have no preconceived notions about the users involved, and do not agree that content provides a free pass for conduct. I do think that WP has not been consistent in its approach to Civility enforcements. I also believe that the proposal, here, has a reasonable chance of reducing further conflict. Want to ban someone? Open an RFC/U. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Mass deleting of a well-sourced statement[edit]

User:Binksternet has been deleting the sourced phrase "democratically-elected government" from various 1953 Iranian coup-related articles in a disruptive manner. [15] He claims to have a "consensus" based on the closing comment and "suggestion" of a volunteer editor who routinely closes RFCs and has stated on record that he is not an expert on this particular topic, when the RFC was clearly inconclusive with seven editors opposing User:Binksternet's argument that because Mossadegh was "appointed" Prime Minster, his government could not have been "democratically-elected". [16] The problem with this rational, is the fact that this is User:Binksternet's own original research, and in fact many democratically-elected governments around the world such as Australia or Great Britain , have "appointed" head of government. Now, there are literally thousands of sources that use the phrase "democratically elected" to describe the government of Mossadegh[17], and this is the position of the vast majority of the scholars and historians. User:Binksternet, however, insists that because some sources use the phrase "Mossadegh was appointed Prime Minster" , that means that Mossadegh's government was not "democratically elected", yet he has failed to produce even one source that explicitly says "Mossadegh's government was not democratically elected" and he's allowing himself to mass-delete the "democratically elected" statement from various Wikipedia pages, based on his own original research, without a consensus to do so, and despite thousands of academic sources confirming the fact that Mossadegh's government was indeed democratically-elected. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

When you previously discussed this, one-on-one with him, on his user talk page, what did he have to say in response to your concerns? --Jayron32 04:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Please see our discussion here[18]], he dismisses the fact that he's engaged in WP:OR (ie he can't produce one source that explicitly says "Mossadegh's government was not democratically-elected" when there are thousands of sources that say it was[19]), and insists that he has a "consensus" to delete "democratically-elected government" from Wikipedia articles. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)At Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Was_Mosaddegh_democratically_elected.2C_or_appointed_prime_minister.3F, the consensus was that the phrase "democratically elected" was not supportable by itself in the presence of just as many other reliable sources saying "appointed". The existence of reliable sources saying "democratically elected" is not enough when there are opposing reliable sources saying "appointed".
Do we all agree that Mosaddegh was legitimately the leader of Iran's government? Yes, of course. Was he elected? No, he was approved by parliament as the sole candidate and ratified by the Shah as prime minister. He was never elected by popular vote, nor was he elected by indirect vote. He was appointed, not elected. The point that a lot of reliable sources are making is that Mosaddegh was immensely popular and that he was supported by a democratically elected parliament. The coup, however, was not aiming at the parliament, it aimed only at him. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The reliable sources saying " he was appointed" do not say that his government "was not democratically-elected". That part is entirely your own original research. Indirect election are the norm in many democratic countries where the head of the government is "appointed" by the head of the state. Wikipedia works with sources. Your own opinion on the subject, is not relevant to this discussion, as there are five thousand sources saying the government of Mossadegh was "democratically elected". You either need to produce a source that explicitly say "it wasn't democratically elected" or stop trying to refute sources using your own original research. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The fact that "democratically elected" is a subset of "appointed" has been brought to Binksternet's attention on numerous occasions. It was also the opinion of the majority of contributing users to the RFC that "democratically elected" remain in the lead. There are no reliable sources (or perhaps a fringe I may be unaware of) which dispute the notion that Mossadeq was democratically elected. In fact Mossadeq is primarily notable mostly because he was a democratically elected Iranian prime minister who was overthrown in a foreign backed coup. This is the only reason why he is the subject of so much more discussion and research when compared to his predecessors and successors. The problem is that after numerous discussions and debates on the subject where the majority strongly dissent to his suggestion that "democratically elected" be removed, Binksternet continues to remove these key words every few months, triggering yet another round of reverts and the restart of the discussions from the beginning once again.Poyani (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no substance to your assertion that "appointed" and "democratically elected" are related by one being a subset of the other. Actually, they are parallel methods for selecting leaders, completely different processes from one another. It does not matter anyway, since the RfC was decided against having "democratically elected" appear alone in Wikipedia's voice. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Kurdo777, there was no instance of "indirect election". The parliament was democratically elected, then they voted to approve Mosaddegh as the prime minister after his name, and his name only, was put forward as the candidate for prime minister. The parliament approved the candidate, then they sent that candidate's name to the Shah for ratification. The parliament did not "vote" on Mosaddegh versus another candidate, weighing the number of votes that each man received; no, he was subject to a vote of approval then was passed to the Shah. Even without the Shah the process is an appointment process, but the critical element of the Shah's necessary signature cements the fact of the appointment. The main point here is that the RfC went against your preference, and now you are reacting to retain your preference. Such a reaction does not respect the process of RfC. If you have a problem with the RfC closure, focus on that aspect alone. My editing behavior in following the RfC with appropriate action is not the problem here. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Similarly in June 2007, the democratically UK Parliament voted to approve Gordan Brown as the Prime Minister, after his name, and his name only, was put forward as the candidate for prime minister. The parliament approved the candidate, then they sent that candidate's name to the Queen for ratification. The parliament did not "vote" on Brown versus another candidate, weighing the number of votes that each man received; no, he was subject to a vote of approval then was passed to the Queen. And that is how Gordan Brown became the democratically elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. For the millionth time, that is how Prime Ministers are elected EVERYWHERE! Poyani (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI isn't for content disputes (which this now is). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Independent complaint

I found my way here after a clearly inappropriate deletion by binksternet popped up on my watchlist. Deletion of a fact that, though uncited, is easy to cite. And now I find out that he's been warned before, and the behavior is now spilling out onto articles only minorly connected to the Iranian Coup. This isn't a content dispute, it's a a series of deletion of useful content. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not yet followed the link to the RfC where the determination was made to deprecate the term "democratically elected" with regard to Iran's Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Here is the link again: Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Was_Mosaddegh_democratically_elected.2C_or_appointed_prime_minister.3F Check it out.
There, you'll see that just as much as "democratically elected" appears in reliable sources, so does "appointed", a completely different process. My editing behavior is above reproach here; I am implementing the results of the RfC. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't object to you adding "appointed" to the Masaddegh bio-- but I do object to you deleting the term 'democractically-elected government' from multiple articles.
[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]

[32][33][34][35][36][37][38] + 19 others.!?

These are very controversial edits, and I realize he knows they are controversial from prior discussions. When someone deletes the same phrase from about 40 different articles against consensus, that's what the block button is for. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the block button is not for enforcing your preferred content, especially after an Rfc was closed with the suggestion that neither "democratically elected" nor "appointed" be used until editors work out a consensus. Now take this content dispute elsewhere; this is not the correct venue for content disputes. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Please read more carefully. The prime minister was appointed and his BIO is a content dispute how to best characterize it on that BIO. I don't care about the bio of the PM.
I'm just talking about the issue of "was there a democratic election in Iran that led to the formation of a government". That is, to my knowledge, not in dispute by anyone but a single editor. We have revert wars on _40_ pages-- edit wars of that scale are a behavior problem. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
We see again above that this entire issue is about Binksternet's delusion that "'appointed' and 'democratically elected' () are parallel methods for selecting leaders, completely different processes from one another." This is his own original research. No scholar or author on the subject matter agrees with his assessment. His assessment is of course absurd. The president of the United States is appointed by the electoral college. The Prime Minister of Canada is appointed by Parliament. The Prime Minister of the UK is appointed by parliament. The Prime Minister of Israel is appointed by the Knesset. The Prime Minister of Australia is appointed by Parliament. All of these are democratically elected leaders. The fact that Binksternet has trouble understanding this based on his own OR should not be used to damage a critical part of the Mossadeq and coup articles. As I said before, even the perpetrators of the coup agree that Mossadeq was a democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran. Not a single source disputes this. Some, correctly point out that he was democratically elected. Others, correctly point out that he was appointed by Parliament. This was explained to Binksternet but by being purposely coy he is prolonging this useless debate. Poyani (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Binksternet has created a false dichotomy of appointed/elected. In all cases prime ministers are appointed by the head of state. However in parliamentary democracies, the head of state appoints whomever has the confidence of the legislature and therefore governments in Western democracies are generally referred to as "democratically elected". TFD (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It's bit troubling to see some of the assertions in this discussion. For example, Poyani writes above that "the Prime Minister of the UK is appointed by parliament". Not so; the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is appointed by the monarch, and after an election that happens before Parliament reassembles. There is a complex theology around how the monarch chooses a PM, the aim being to select a PM who can command the confidence of the House of Commons ... but the Commons itself does not actively choose the PM.
The Four Deuces is right: the elected/appointed dichotomy is a false one. For example, in Ireland the Taoiseach is nominated on a motion of Dail Eireann ... and then appointed by the President, who has no discretion in accepting the nominationArticle 13.1.1. As with the UK, a crude statement of either "appointed" or "elected" is an oversimplifcation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The Monarchy does not appoint a PM and she does not choose the PM either in the UK,she just rubber stamps whoever is sent there by the winners of the election(normally the largest party in the Parliament). The person who is PM has been appointed by his own party of MP's,those MP's are elected by the people as is the PM. In the Iranian elections Mohammad Mossadegh was elected by the people of Iran to the Iranian parliament and then he was voted as Prime Minister by a huge majority of the democratically elected Majles (Iranian Parliament). The Shah then rubber stamps it not that he wanted to because he wanted to pick someone else but had no choice.So Mossadegh was indeed democratically elected on a par with many other states in the world including the UK.Anyway getting back to the subject, the mass deletion of sourced material has been reverted back to what it was at the moment.Kabulbuddha (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
BroanHairedGirl is correct. I stand corrected. The PM in the UK is appointed by the Monarch. Similarily, the PM in Australia and Canada are appointed by the Governor General. Traditionally they are the leaders of the party (or coalition of parties) with a plurality of seats. But this even further proves my point that being appointed and democratically elected, are not mutually exclusive concepts. Prime Ministers, in democratic countries, are almost all appointed. Hence, Binksternet's deletion of the critical words "democratically elected" based on his interpretation of sources which state (correctly) that Mossadeq was appointed by the Parliament , is absolutely incorrect and unjustified. Poyani (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Re the "Independent complaint" by HectorMoffet: Please read what you wrote. Specifically, you claimed Deletion of a fact that, though uncited, is easy to cite as an issue. There is only one problem. The onus is on the person adding content to source/cite it. Based on your own words, the other user was not in the wrong. --Nouniquenames 06:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Consider this scenario: hundreds of pages refer, uncited, to a spherical earth. If a flat-earther took it upon himself to purge all reference to the spherical earth. That would be a behavior issue, not a content issue.
Let me admit, that's a educational fable-- reality is always more complicated. But hopefully you see what I was getting at. Removing it from the 1 page on my watchlist, that was fine, that's being WP:BOLD. But removing it from 40 pages en masse, over the protests of many others editors-- that's being too 'bold'. --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure where this issue of "uncited facts" comes from. The issue at hand is actually about the removal of facts that are very well cited from multiple reputable sources. The issue is that the user who deletes them is basing his decision (against the majority of editors) on his own interpretation of other authors. Poyani (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────For those arguing about content, there is no point to doing that here. This noticeboard is for behavior, and my behavior has been aboveboard. I took the RfC closure of "both" or "neither" and implemented it by choosing "neither", for simplicity. The choice of "both" is only appropriate to very detailed articles about the event. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the admin should close this now. The editing by Binksternet has been reverted back to what it was and no real harm was done. All he did was make the mistake of taking as gospel a suggestion by a member of the admin team.The admin involved has pointed out to him that it was just a suggestion and not binding at all.Kabulbuddha (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Restarting the interaction ban discussion[edit]

Interaction ban enacted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As I said in my closing statement of the above discussion, while an i-ban was proposed above, it is impossible to read consensus since many of the opposes did so specifically due to their preference for the failed site ban. The proposal did have sufficient support, though, that it deserves to be considered independently of the site-ban discussion. As such, I want to give all participants a chance to comment again as to whether or not YRC and Priory should specifically and formally be banned from interacting with one another. Note that I will be leaving closure of this discussion to another uninvolved admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. Both parties have indicated that this resolves the matter for them, and that is a good thing. (A similar discussion should perhaps be started with respect to Nomo and YRC as well.) AndreasKolbe JN466 15:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Nobody Ent 15:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support because they both want it as I noted above. I suspect this 2nd poll is going to be a case of voter fatigue. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Per my statement in the original ANI case and the fact that both parties are consenting to it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support If they want to give an IBAN a go instead of blocks, sounds great. Zad68 17:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - and, given the history, this should be as zero tolerance as it palatable. GiantSnowman 17:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It is highly unlikely that further interactions between them will benefit the project. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. --Rschen7754 19:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Youreallycan 19:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is every reason to think that Prioryman's activities are going to continue to be discussed in derogatory terms on Wikipediocracy, and that their members will continue to be canvassed to votes like this one. Eventually, if he protests some such off-site action that peripherally involves YRC, he will probably be banned by some widely-canvassed "consensus". Wnt (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    What does YRC have to do with WO? Arkon (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing. He has never posted there, to the best of my knowledge, nor has there been a thread on Wikipediocracy "canvassing" for uniform action on this topic. Just another attempt to create a bogeyman, and a rather pathetic one. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
And that would be a bad thing? Seriously, not sure that makes alot of sense, but its a free wiki :) --Malerooster (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but why is this necessary, given the parties have already agreed to an interaction ban? Further, what do things posted to an external site have to do with anything? JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Can't do anything but help. Arkon (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Just avoiding another resource-wasteful mess like this one is sufficient reason for the ban. I'm pleased that both want the ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. - To avoid wasting any more Wikipedia resources on their personal conflict. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose  If they both want the I-ban, why was the community brought into this discussion?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea, but why is that a reason to oppose it? Only thing I can thing of is that ArbCom is in the midst of declining the case based on the assumption the ban will succeed. I was hoping an admin would snow close it (needs to be an admin per WP:CBAN) Nobody Ent 01:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
About to post the same. I was going to say to dot the i's and cross the t's. --Malerooster (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Wow, this is crazy. I read as much of this discussion as I could before I realized we were just going in circles. Call it a day and move on. This is insane. --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Snow- Both parties have agreed to an IBAN, support is overwhelming. Close this. Doc talk 04:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia is not kindergarten where fighting toddlers have to be kept apart. Count Iblis (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as both parties want it. --Nouniquenames 05:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Both parties have agreed to the interaction ban, so why are we here? If there's no consensus for a ban here, does that mean that the agreement between Youreallycan and Prioryman is invalid? Makes no sense to me. Jafeluv (talk) 07:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Needed and both agree. To those who are asking 'why?' as both support it. Being willing to have a gentleman's agreement not to interact now may change in the future. Both have issues with staying away from things they shouldnt be doing, this way it has the backing of swift admin intervention in the event either of them decide they want to change their minds. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support since both parties agree with it. Nomoskedascity probably should have an iBan imposed on him since he refuses to voluntarily accept it. His actions towards YRC have not been very helpful. Cla68 (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Qualified support both are genuine editors, not here for the dramah. My only worry is that either of them could be excluded from real discussion where they could make a positive contribution. Rich Farmbrough, 12:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC).
  • Support - With no support for my preferred option, a double indef block, in the cards, both parties need it. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Wikipediocracy set has managed, yet again, to make this about Prioryman (who admittedly isn't the best voice for those of us SICK TO DEATH of the conduct of editors such as YRC), thus obscuring the real issue. The stunningly dishonest eye-blinking feigned innocence of some involved editors makes clear that action on these favored few, such as YRC, will always be guided by a double-standard: make enough edits and you can be as big a bastard as you wish. --Drmargi (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Pardon, but: (1) WP:NPA, please, and (2) you're painting with a pretty broad brush. I have no relationship/membership with Wikipediocracy, have no preconceived notions about the users involved, and do not agree that content provides a free pass for conduct. I do think that WP has not been consistent in its approach to Civility enforcements. I also believe that the proposal, here, has a reasonable chance of reducing further conflict. Want to ban someone? Open an RFC/U. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Mass deleting of a well-sourced statement[edit]

User:Binksternet has been deleting the sourced phrase "democratically-elected government" from various 1953 Iranian coup-related articles in a disruptive manner. [39] He claims to have a "consensus" based on the closing comment and "suggestion" of a volunteer editor who routinely closes RFCs and has stated on record that he is not an expert on this particular topic, when the RFC was clearly inconclusive with seven editors opposing User:Binksternet's argument that because Mossadegh was "appointed" Prime Minster, his government could not have been "democratically-elected". [40] The problem with this rational, is the fact that this is User:Binksternet's own original research, and in fact many democratically-elected governments around the world such as Australia or Great Britain , have "appointed" head of government. Now, there are literally thousands of sources that use the phrase "democratically elected" to describe the government of Mossadegh[41], and this is the position of the vast majority of the scholars and historians. User:Binksternet, however, insists that because some sources use the phrase "Mossadegh was appointed Prime Minster" , that means that Mossadegh's government was not "democratically elected", yet he has failed to produce even one source that explicitly says "Mossadegh's government was not democratically elected" and he's allowing himself to mass-delete the "democratically elected" statement from various Wikipedia pages, based on his own original research, without a consensus to do so, and despite thousands of academic sources confirming the fact that Mossadegh's government was indeed democratically-elected. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

When you previously discussed this, one-on-one with him, on his user talk page, what did he have to say in response to your concerns? --Jayron32 04:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Please see our discussion here[42]], he dismisses the fact that he's engaged in WP:OR (ie he can't produce one source that explicitly says "Mossadegh's government was not democratically-elected" when there are thousands of sources that say it was[43]), and insists that he has a "consensus" to delete "democratically-elected government" from Wikipedia articles. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)At Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Was_Mosaddegh_democratically_elected.2C_or_appointed_prime_minister.3F, the consensus was that the phrase "democratically elected" was not supportable by itself in the presence of just as many other reliable sources saying "appointed". The existence of reliable sources saying "democratically elected" is not enough when there are opposing reliable sources saying "appointed".
Do we all agree that Mosaddegh was legitimately the leader of Iran's government? Yes, of course. Was he elected? No, he was approved by parliament as the sole candidate and ratified by the Shah as prime minister. He was never elected by popular vote, nor was he elected by indirect vote. He was appointed, not elected. The point that a lot of reliable sources are making is that Mosaddegh was immensely popular and that he was supported by a democratically elected parliament. The coup, however, was not aiming at the parliament, it aimed only at him. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The reliable sources saying " he was appointed" do not say that his government "was not democratically-elected". That part is entirely your own original research. Indirect election are the norm in many democratic countries where the head of the government is "appointed" by the head of the state. Wikipedia works with sources. Your own opinion on the subject, is not relevant to this discussion, as there are five thousand sources saying the government of Mossadegh was "democratically elected". You either need to produce a source that explicitly say "it wasn't democratically elected" or stop trying to refute sources using your own original research. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The fact that "democratically elected" is a subset of "appointed" has been brought to Binksternet's attention on numerous occasions. It was also the opinion of the majority of contributing users to the RFC that "democratically elected" remain in the lead. There are no reliable sources (or perhaps a fringe I may be unaware of) which dispute the notion that Mossadeq was democratically elected. In fact Mossadeq is primarily notable mostly because he was a democratically elected Iranian prime minister who was overthrown in a foreign backed coup. This is the only reason why he is the subject of so much more discussion and research when compared to his predecessors and successors. The problem is that after numerous discussions and debates on the subject where the majority strongly dissent to his suggestion that "democratically elected" be removed, Binksternet continues to remove these key words every few months, triggering yet another round of reverts and the restart of the discussions from the beginning once again.Poyani (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no substance to your assertion that "appointed" and "democratically elected" are related by one being a subset of the other. Actually, they are parallel methods for selecting leaders, completely different processes from one another. It does not matter anyway, since the RfC was decided against having "democratically elected" appear alone in Wikipedia's voice. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Kurdo777, there was no instance of "indirect election". The parliament was democratically elected, then they voted to approve Mosaddegh as the prime minister after his name, and his name only, was put forward as the candidate for prime minister. The parliament approved the candidate, then they sent that candidate's name to the Shah for ratification. The parliament did not "vote" on Mosaddegh versus another candidate, weighing the number of votes that each man received; no, he was subject to a vote of approval then was passed to the Shah. Even without the Shah the process is an appointment process, but the critical element of the Shah's necessary signature cements the fact of the appointment. The main point here is that the RfC went against your preference, and now you are reacting to retain your preference. Such a reaction does not respect the process of RfC. If you have a problem with the RfC closure, focus on that aspect alone. My editing behavior in following the RfC with appropriate action is not the problem here. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Similarly in June 2007, the democratically UK Parliament voted to approve Gordan Brown as the Prime Minister, after his name, and his name only, was put forward as the candidate for prime minister. The parliament approved the candidate, then they sent that candidate's name to the Queen for ratification. The parliament did not "vote" on Brown versus another candidate, weighing the number of votes that each man received; no, he was subject to a vote of approval then was passed to the Queen. And that is how Gordan Brown became the democratically elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. For the millionth time, that is how Prime Ministers are elected EVERYWHERE! Poyani (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI isn't for content disputes (which this now is). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Independent complaint

I found my way here after a clearly inappropriate deletion by binksternet popped up on my watchlist. Deletion of a fact that, though uncited, is easy to cite. And now I find out that he's been warned before, and the behavior is now spilling out onto articles only minorly connected to the Iranian Coup. This isn't a content dispute, it's a a series of deletion of useful content. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not yet followed the link to the RfC where the determination was made to deprecate the term "democratically elected" with regard to Iran's Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Here is the link again: Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Was_Mosaddegh_democratically_elected.2C_or_appointed_prime_minister.3F Check it out.
There, you'll see that just as much as "democratically elected" appears in reliable sources, so does "appointed", a completely different process. My editing behavior is above reproach here; I am implementing the results of the RfC. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't object to you adding "appointed" to the Masaddegh bio-- but I do object to you deleting the term 'democractically-elected government' from multiple articles.
[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]

[56][57][58][59][60][61][62] + 19 others.!?

These are very controversial edits, and I realize he knows they are controversial from prior discussions. When someone deletes the same phrase from about 40 different articles against consensus, that's what the block button is for. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the block button is not for enforcing your preferred content, especially after an Rfc was closed with the suggestion that neither "democratically elected" nor "appointed" be used until editors work out a consensus. Now take this content dispute elsewhere; this is not the correct venue for content disputes. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Please read more carefully. The prime minister was appointed and his BIO is a content dispute how to best characterize it on that BIO. I don't care about the bio of the PM.
I'm just talking about the issue of "was there a democratic election in Iran that led to the formation of a government". That is, to my knowledge, not in dispute by anyone but a single editor. We have revert wars on _40_ pages-- edit wars of that scale are a behavior problem. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
We see again above that this entire issue is about Binksternet's delusion that "'appointed' and 'democratically elected' () are parallel methods for selecting leaders, completely different processes from one another." This is his own original research. No scholar or author on the subject matter agrees with his assessment. His assessment is of course absurd. The president of the United States is appointed by the electoral college. The Prime Minister of Canada is appointed by Parliament. The Prime Minister of the UK is appointed by parliament. The Prime Minister of Israel is appointed by the Knesset. The Prime Minister of Australia is appointed by Parliament. All of these are democratically elected leaders. The fact that Binksternet has trouble understanding this based on his own OR should not be used to damage a critical part of the Mossadeq and coup articles. As I said before, even the perpetrators of the coup agree that Mossadeq was a democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran. Not a single source disputes this. Some, correctly point out that he was democratically elected. Others, correctly point out that he was appointed by Parliament. This was explained to Binksternet but by being purposely coy he is prolonging this useless debate. Poyani (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Binksternet has created a false dichotomy of appointed/elected. In all cases prime ministers are appointed by the head of state. However in parliamentary democracies, the head of state appoints whomever has the confidence of the legislature and therefore governments in Western democracies are generally referred to as "democratically elected". TFD (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It's bit troubling to see some of the assertions in this discussion. For example, Poyani writes above that "the Prime Minister of the UK is appointed by parliament". Not so; the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is appointed by the monarch, and after an election that happens before Parliament reassembles. There is a complex theology around how the monarch chooses a PM, the aim being to select a PM who can command the confidence of the House of Commons ... but the Commons itself does not actively choose the PM.
The Four Deuces is right: the elected/appointed dichotomy is a false one. For example, in Ireland the Taoiseach is nominated on a motion of Dail Eireann ... and then appointed by the President, who has no discretion in accepting the nominationArticle 13.1.1. As with the UK, a crude statement of either "appointed" or "elected" is an oversimplifcation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The Monarchy does not appoint a PM and she does not choose the PM either in the UK,she just rubber stamps whoever is sent there by the winners of the election(normally the largest party in the Parliament). The person who is PM has been appointed by his own party of MP's,those MP's are elected by the people as is the PM. In the Iranian elections Mohammad Mossadegh was elected by the people of Iran to the Iranian parliament and then he was voted as Prime Minister by a huge majority of the democratically elected Majles (Iranian Parliament). The Shah then rubber stamps it not that he wanted to because he wanted to pick someone else but had no choice.So Mossadegh was indeed democratically elected on a par with many other states in the world including the UK.Anyway getting back to the subject, the mass deletion of sourced material has been reverted back to what it was at the moment.Kabulbuddha (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
BroanHairedGirl is correct. I stand corrected. The PM in the UK is appointed by the Monarch. Similarily, the PM in Australia and Canada are appointed by the Governor General. Traditionally they are the leaders of the party (or coalition of parties) with a plurality of seats. But this even further proves my point that being appointed and democratically elected, are not mutually exclusive concepts. Prime Ministers, in democratic countries, are almost all appointed. Hence, Binksternet's deletion of the critical words "democratically elected" based on his interpretation of sources which state (correctly) that Mossadeq was appointed by the Parliament , is absolutely incorrect and unjustified. Poyani (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Re the "Independent complaint" by HectorMoffet: Please read what you wrote. Specifically, you claimed Deletion of a fact that, though uncited, is easy to cite as an issue. There is only one problem. The onus is on the person adding content to source/cite it. Based on your own words, the other user was not in the wrong. --Nouniquenames 06:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Consider this scenario: hundreds of pages refer, uncited, to a spherical earth. If a flat-earther took it upon himself to purge all reference to the spherical earth. That would be a behavior issue, not a content issue.
Let me admit, that's a educational fable-- reality is always more complicated. But hopefully you see what I was getting at. Removing it from the 1 page on my watchlist, that was fine, that's being WP:BOLD. But removing it from 40 pages en masse, over the protests of many others editors-- that's being too 'bold'. --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure where this issue of "uncited facts" comes from. The issue at hand is actually about the removal of facts that are very well cited from multiple reputable sources. The issue is that the user who deletes them is basing his decision (against the majority of editors) on his own interpretation of other authors. Poyani (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────For those arguing about content, there is no point to doing that here. This noticeboard is for behavior, and my behavior has been aboveboard. I took the RfC closure of "both" or "neither" and implemented it by choosing "neither", for simplicity. The choice of "both" is only appropriate to very detailed articles about the event. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the admin should close this now. The editing by Binksternet has been reverted back to what it was and no real harm was done. All he did was make the mistake of taking as gospel a suggestion by a member of the admin team.The admin involved has pointed out to him that it was just a suggestion and not binding at all.Kabulbuddha (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Foul-mouthed slanging match[edit]

A most uncivil discussion has erupted at Template talk:Civility#Socks/Meats. I would have reverted earlier, but not sure about what the rules are on re-factoring talk page comments. Thanks, Darth Sitges (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have just blocked Balph Eubank (talk · contribs) for three days for this personal attack. I know that the community has not reached a consensus regarding the enforcement of the civility pillar, but that comment is unacceptable even under our rather loose interpretation of the word "civility". I'd also have blocked Joefromrandb (talk · contribs), but TParis got there first. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree, but the parent comment from Joefromrandb also contains a personal attack, and should likewise be removed. Thanks, Darth Sitges (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The insults have been redacted and the affected revisions of the talk page have been deleted. De728631 (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
A strange place to have such a volatile discussion, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I like what Darth said "Do neither of you see the irony of a foul-mouthed slanging match at Template talk:Civility"? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" Darth Sitges (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it strange that the Wikipedia community have not "reached a consensus regarding the enforcement of the civility pillar". This is something I would have thought would have been sorted out when Wikipedia first came on the scene. Jonty Monty (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Incivility like this was hardly an issue in the early years of Wikipedia.--Atlan (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
"Pillars" are a simplistic graphic rendition of basic WP ideas for newcomers. Actual organizational law are the guidelines and policies and whatever constitutional documents are floating around in the ether — and the civility section of that remains the subject of ongoing debate. We can all agree that puppies and warm summer days and ice cream are good things; exactly what constitutes actionable "incivility" is less definite. Carrite (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Having seen the now-revedeleted comments Balph made, I'm pretty sure that they qualify as incivil in anyone's definition. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I hate ice cream. ;) Jonty Monty (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia was originally envisioned as being wide open to editors, and what few rules we had were treated more like a Wild West frontier town than a structured ruleset. Over the years, the rules have become more solidified, losing a bit of that freedom in exchange for accuracy and process. The trick is, no one can really define "civility." And, in a community based on debate, that means it's really, really damn hard to get a working definition that is also practical to enforce. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I generally hew to a "fuck the civility nannies" philosophy. That said, I saw BE's edit before it was revdeleted and can confirm it was well beyond anything that would have been tolerated in the Wild West days. It graphically asserted that the recipient suffered from mental retardation, denounced the honor and chastity of the recipient's mom, and (gasp!) was liberally salted with naughty words. It's the sort of thing that would get someone assaulted were they to utter it in person. This really isn't the best incident to use as a launching point for a metadiscussion of civility. Skinwalker (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I didn't see the comment but it sure sounds as though it was a serious verbal assault. I was thinking more basic rudeness than Wild West type insults. If I were to tell someone to f*** off for no good reason would I get warned by an admin that if I repeated it I would be blocked or, would it depend on the admin who happened to come along. That particular admin may have a relaxed view of the F word. Ps; I have no immediate plans to tell someone to f*** off. :) Jonty Monty (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I got a little bit of that myself last night and showed my favored way of dealing with it when directed at me, although I can see how it would get under many an editor/admin's skin. Ks0stm (TCGE) 19:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Well, that was poorly done.

  • WP:ROLLBACK clearly states: "The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting." (emphasis original). As Joefromrandb was clearly attempting to provide an explanatory edit summary, rv IP vandalism-3RR exempt he certainly met the intent of the policy. (Admittedly, the term vandalism was poorly chosen -- referencing WP:TPG would have been more accurate.) Accordingly his rollback privilege should be restored.
  • Ks0stm's self-proclaimed "favored way" of dealing with upset users -- a prolonged interchange of snark and smart ass replies -- is immature and inflammatory. No reply was necessary to Joe's fuck you comment. Simply walking away, or providing information on how/where they could appeal the decision would have showed maturity and deescalated the situation. Nobody Ent 21:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
    Close, but not quite. This revert (which he did twice) as well as this one were all blatantly not vandalism and used the generic edit summary. As far as the "favored way", it's not so much the way you put it that I intend it, more along the lines of what Hersfold made of it: "refusing to retaliate against a truly abusive series of insults in a wonderfully humorous fashion" ([63]). However, that's not to say that I don't see your point, and yes, walking away in that situation probably would have produced more good than the way I handled it. Ks0stm (TCGE) 22:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion requested on Requested Move decision[edit]

PREMATURE
Please review instructions at WP:MRV. Specifically you should discuss with closing editor before bringing issue to a noticeboard Nobody Ent 19:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Back in August, User:Jenks24 closed a Requested Move decision (Talk:Union Jack#Requested move) with a decision to Move. The discussion seemed fairly well split with 14 supports and 11 opposes. I don't feel that this was a correct decision, and that really the RM should have been closed with a No Consensus (and hence the article should have been unmoved). Can another admin please give a second opinion? I should point out that I did not take part in the original discussion, and whilst I would have probably opted not to move, I have no strong feelings either way. Bazonka (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


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

Searching wikipedia for what it cost past presidents to run an election[edit]

Wrong venue; referred to WP:RD. --Kinu t/c 20:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have been on the internet searching for what a Presidential campaign has cost past Presidents and am unable to find a site that show the historical record. I thought it might be something for people to find of interest concerning just how much this campaign is costing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.121.152 (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, this is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for Wikipedia, for matters that need assistance from our administrators. I think you may want to redirect your question to our Reference Desk. SassyLilNugget (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

User has moved his talk page to an inappropriate target[edit]

FIXED
RE moved back. Nobody Ent 21:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wajids (talk · contribs) has moved his user talk page to Wikipedia:Shaukat Ali. Attempts to revert the move are unsuccessful and require administrator intervention. I have not notified the user as do not wish to disturb the history of the user talk page until it can be restored to the proper location. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've restored his user talk page back to the appropriate location. I think he accidentally moved it when moving his userpage sandbox to article space and then moved his user talk page to Wikipedia space, not knowing how to get it back to the original location. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Cooly123[edit]

Cooly123 (talk · contribs) has continued for several years(!) to disregard warnings about adding copyright-infringing material to Wikipedia articles, and about improper use of the "minor edit" flag. [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] His user talk page history is pretty much a string of warnings and his removals of them. He's already been given several final warnings for various types of disruption. From a quick glance at his contributions from the last year or so it looks like there are other copyvios which haven't yet been discovered or reported (like this edit copied and pasted from http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/x_factor/3794272/Seven-stars-back-in-X-Factor-finals.html). It doesn't look like he's going to reform his behaviour any time soon; perhaps this is a competence issue. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The copyvio you listed is from over 12 months ago. Is there anything more recent? Magog the Ogre (tc) 12:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The most recent one for which he actually received a warning was in October 2012 (this edit was copied and pasted from a PTI news article). A couple others I already linked to in my post above are also less than a year old. Among ones that haven't been reported yet there's also this edit from June 2012 which apparently plagiarized a sentence from the show's official website. So that's at least four copyvios in the past year, three of which he was warned for, and several more (both warned and unwarned) if you go farther back. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
YesY Done Blocked indefinitely. Now, if you'd do me a favor and report him to WP:CCI so we can do a further investigation. Also, you might want to keep an eye out on his favorite articles as he is likely to reincarnate as another user, in my experience. Magog the Ogre (tc) 15:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Cooly123. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Opened. MER-C 12:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Harassment via template[edit]

Hi, gang. This may be a known issue, but I haven't noticed a discussion about it elsewhere. I've noticed a contributor—I'm assuming it's one person—who has been harassing users (disturbingly, often new users) by adding inappropriate templates to their user talk pages. These sometimes take the form of warning templates accusing them of things they didn't do, but more often it's done by adding sockpuppet templates to the pages. The person seems to hold a grudge against User:Bongwarrior and User:Materialscientist, in particular. This pattern has been repeating for months. I first noticed it when my user page was vandalized in August. I've tried to clean up as much as I can, but I'd appreciate your input on next steps and your help with the ongoing cleanup. Here are the IP addresses I've found so far (be sure to take a peek at their deleted contributions):

There are probably others that I've missed. Any thoughts? - Eureka Lott 01:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate warnings, inappropriate tags, biting new users, a