Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive777

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Idle threat????[edit]

Special:FeedbackDashboard/61351 See RosePetals talk page for the threat itself (from an IP). I don't know how to respond. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, it could be a problem, depending on whether something further happens. IP's tend to come and go, so a single posting often doesn't result in a block, though a warning could be appropriate. As regards the general subject, I once scared away an intruder by raising my statue of Elvis as if to strike him. But it was only an idol threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Whatever. It's an IP making a threat against a newish vandal account. Unless the vandal's username is used elsewhere on the web, I can't see the police doing anything.--Peter cohen (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • No further admin action needed - User:Baseball Bugs has been blocked before, but in this case he opines that the other feller should escape any such sanction. Here at WP:ANI we find Baseball Bugs' opinions to be of key importance. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Not exactly. I said often doesn't result in a block. That does not mean I'm calling for no block to be issued (nor do I deny that past blocks against me were justified), I'm just reporting the typical action (or lack thereof) often taken by admins. Also, my comment originally was in part a response to an editor who basically said "So what?" and then erased his own comment. Feel free to look for it in the history. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ignoring the above that appears to be more Demiurge1000 baiting Baseball Bugs than addressing the subject at hand, note that someone with access to the block tool had already seen this when it came up on the BLP noticeboard. I'm keeping an eye on developments. Neither 69.204.251.91 nor RosePetalCrush have behaved well, here. Qworty has since pointed out some further problems in edits by 69.204.251.91 (talk · contribs), and Qworty and another editor are already addressing the article. If anyone seeing this discussion on this noticeboard wants to be productive, helping out with the article, per the BLP noticeboard discussion, is what to do. It has been the almost exclusive domain of three single-purpose accounts since March 2012. Uncle G (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I will no longer try to edit this article. I don't want to waste people's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosePetalCrush (talkcontribs) 12:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat over the speedy deletion of Kidd Cole[edit]

INDEFFED
NE Ent 12:22, 1 December 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 tagged the article Kidd Cole for speedy deletion under CSD:A7. The creator, User:TeenHollywood, subsequently made a threat of legal action against myself and Wikipedia for "Defamation of Character". The threat can be seen on my talk page, this diff. I have warned the user on their talk page about legal threats, this diff. -- Patchy1 05:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably some socking going on at GOOD Music as well. I'm on an iPad, so opening an SPI is an issue for me.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
05:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Definitely a sock. He used his real name for both accounts.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
05:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Indef'ed as a spammer (promotional username, promotional material added). --Rschen7754 05:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I've attempted to rev delete the legal threat as it contained a phone number and seem to have made a mess of it. I'll chalk this up to the perils of editing right before bed. AniMate 07:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Fixed the revdel. --Rschen7754 07:38, 1 December 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.

Miguel Melendez his manager the page wasn't suppose to go wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.38.117 (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Filter 139[edit]

A little help would be appreciated on monitoring filter 139 - all hits should probably result in a block, but I can't keep up with the rate myself. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You know about User:Animum/easyblock.js right? --Rschen7754 07:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I do now, thanks :) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations by Deonis 2012[edit]

User:Deonis 2012 has made the following copyright violations on Syria-related articles:

  1. National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, 19 Nov 2012 (cf [1] AFP)
  2. Siege of Base 46, 25 Nov 2012
  3. Battle of Aleppo (2012), 25 Nov 2012
    • source of both: AFP
  4. Rif Dimashq campaign, 16:31 UTC 1 Dec 2012 (cf AFP)
  5. Rif Dimashq campaign, 18:35 UTC 1 Dec 2012 (cf AFP, NOW Lebanon)

He gave a source in each case, but didn't understand that giving a source does not justify copy/pasting into a Wikipedia article.

He was warned on his talk page on 20 Nov, 25 Nov and 1 Dec shortly after each of these incidents. He apparently is a fairly new user (started 7 Oct 2012) who has never given an edit summary, and has never edited any talk page. Despite his talk page being filled with warnings, he has apparently not realised that he has to talk to other editors and come to consensus. Apart from copyright violations, there are several claims by other editors (see his talk page) that he has been involved in edit warring.

It seems to me that at least a short block is needed in order to convince him that free-licensing of our material is critical to the project, and that he needs to read and understand Wikipedia copyright policy and communicate with other users through talk pages and edit summaries rather than let (at least) perceptions of edit-warring continue. Boud (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A new copyvio, and no response from Deonis on his talk page (nor any other obvious place):
  1. Rif Dimashq campaign, 2 Dec 2012 (cf [2] AAP or the source that Deonis gave)
Boud (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, they violated copyright in two edits to that article. One was rephrased by another editor. I reverted the other one. I have left a final warning on their talk page that any more copyright violations will result in a block. Please feel free to update this topic or leave a note on my talk page if they do it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • They did it again. I think they're clueless, probably mistakenly believing that attribution eliminates the violation. I conservatively blocked them for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

User Anarose.antonio[edit]

Still introducing copyrighted images after talk page warnings and a previous block for copyvio: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Anarose.antonio seems to be motivated to improve articles related to Asian TV stars. Unfortunately we don't know whether they understand talk page messages, as they do not respond, nor use edit summaries. It is hard work picking through a long list of trial-and-error edits to find the problems. – Wdchk (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that they do not understand talk page messages as they are able to navigate around the project just fine, heck they even know to upload the files to Commons. Additionally, they are currently serving a one week block on Commons for copyvios. I'm thinking that might solve the issue for now. Tiptoety talk 21:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

East Germany[edit]

NO ADMIN ACTION
content dispute NE Ent 21:10, 2 December 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.

We seem to have yet another incipient edit-war over infobox content for our East Germany article, and in particular, User:Trust Is All You Need is insistent that it be described as a 'Marxist–Leninist single-party state' based on his/her own synthesis, and in flat contradiction to the article content, which makes entirely clear that the formal constitutional position was that the Volkskammer included not only representatives from multiple parties, but from various other organisations as well. While it might be true to state that, at least by a clear historical consensus, the reality was that real political power laid with the upper echelons of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands bureaucracy (or possibly with its big brother in the USSR), it is nevertheless entirely misleading to assert this as uncontroversial fact in the infobox. This would of course be a content dispute, and thus not a matter for this noticeboard - except that I cannot see how knowingly inserting factually-incorrect material into an infobox could be anything but a violation of policy, and at minimum, Trust Is All You Need needs to be given a firm whack with a trout, and also needs to be told to use infoboxes for the purpose intended, rather than as a platform for opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It seem to more like a content dispute did you followed WP:DR before coming here?Also that GDR is single party state in not WP:REDFLAG claim and its easily verified for example [9]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree that it would be a content dispute, were it not for the fact that Trust Is All You Need is fully aware that his edits are factually incorrect in formal terms. I'm sure that the DDR has been described (perhaps many times) as a 'single-party state', but that was never the formal position - and infoboxes are no place for opinions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I have also recently had a problem with "Trust is All You Need", who renamed the Harmonious Society article (a well-known concept in Chinese politics and written about in English too) with his neologism "Socialist Harmonious Society", based on his personal understanding that "democracy in the Chinese sense of the word means Socialist Democracy, that is democracy that will not hurt one-party rule" (incidentally, China, like East Germany and unlike most Marxist-Leninist states, permits the existence of multiple political parties, although they don't act quite like Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition). Without a move discussion, and with nary a response to my inquiry, he has also replaced all wikilinks to his preferred title. Shrigley (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Why does AndyTheGrump consider it an "opinion" that East Germany was a single-party state? It is well-known that East Germany was governed by one political party.--R-41 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Citation needed. Our article states otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Article 1 of the East German constitution reads ""Sie ist die politische Organisation der Werktätigen in Stadt und Land unter der Führung der Arbeiterklasse und ihrer marxistisch-leninistischen Partei".. The SED was given the rights to rule East Germany indefinitely.... This is not what I mean, this is what they said. --TIAYN (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
That is your interpretation of a primary source. As you are well aware, the supposed 'single-party state' had no less than five parties in the ruling alliance, including the Christlich-Demokratische Union Deutschlands, the Demokratische Bauernpartei Deutschlands, the Liberal-Demokratische Partei Deutschlands and the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands as well as the Marxist-Leninist Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands. It is simply factually incorrect to describe a five-party 'alliance' as a single party, and even more so to describe the first four named as 'Marxist-Leninist' - and yet you chose to add this, with not even a token attempt at discussion, into an infobox clearly intended for uncontroversial factual material. You knowingly and intentionally added misleading information into the infobox. That is a policy violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a content dispute. Some editors around here need to stop threatening with the ANI-bomb and creating drama-storms every time they get into a c/d. Keri (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC) creating drama-storms
  • Wrong venue, Andy, but I will stop by and opine. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • East Germany was a puppet state taking its orders from the USSR. That's hardly a news flash. That's why Reagan asked Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: Discussion is taking place at Talk:East_Germany#Single_party_in_info_box. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I just would like to note that edit warring by User:AndyTheGrump in this article continue [10]. He made four reverts during just over last 24 hours; he also refuses to constructively discuss sources [11]. Since this article is under discretionary sanctions on Eastern Europe, I think he (and possibly User:Trust Is All You Need) should be officially warned about the discretionary sanctions, unless they were warned already. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
That it's continuing is because no admin has taken any action to stop Trust repeatedly inserting clearly incorrect information without consensus. It would make no sense to reprimand Andy since he is not the cause of the disruption. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, to be fair, I left TIAN this notice, and he also makes unconstructive comments [12]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, apologies for the forth edit - I'd forgotten that I'd already reverted three times, and that it was that recent. However, given that My very best wishes chose to alter the disputed infobox content with no consensus whatsoever while the discussions were ongoing, I think that any comment regarding sanctions might better come from someone not already skirting close to violating such restrictions themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Please self revert.I don't have to explain to you that 3RR is a bright line that you don't cross.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
(ec)One editor violating 3RR does not permit another editor to edit war while reverting them, so it makes perfect sense to sanction ATG. And TIAYN has yet to actually cross over 3RR. With 4 reverts within 24 hours and 18 mins, ATG should be sanctioned: " Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation." He needs to at least self-revert. Keri (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Technically, I've not crossed it. However, if it makes you both happy, I'll revert - but with the proviso that I shall then expect My very best wishes to do the same, and restore the infobox to the state it was in before the entirely inappropriate edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It was already reverted to your version [13]. Honestly, I think this discussion about "single-party state" is simply ridiculous. Even Soviet history textbooks always claimed that GDR was a single party state, just like Soviet Union, where the primacy of Communist Party was officially stated in constitution (which did not exclude "real democracy"). Based the article edit history, this is a long-term battleground between multiple parties. I must avoid such places. Sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an amazing discussion. Andy the Grump is arguing that describing East Germany as a 'Marxist–Leninist single-party state' is against policy. If we have any trust in reliable sources, whatsoever, we have to tell him outright with no hesitation that he is just plain wrong, and will be banned for disruption the next time that he brings it up. Shouting "Black is white" multiple times, and then arguing that people who disagree with you are breaking policy, has no place on Wikipedia.

I'd like to point out something even more remarkable. At Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes All You Need is Trust asserts that North Korea is not Communist. (And, in-context, it is clear he is arguing that it "never was" Communist). If you allow 2 people to scream "Black is white," and "No, white is black" and then ask for protection from Wikipedia policy because the other guy is being disruptive, then you are asking for every fringe quack in the world to come here and pollute our pages with their gibberish. Admins need to take some responsibility for this. Ban them both. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think requesting bans in this delightful little thread is particularly helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you suggesting we ban Trust for pointing out on an article talk page that some sources have asserted that regarding North Korea, rather than seeing it as being 'communist', 'we should instead regard the Kim Jong-il system as a phenomenon of the very extreme and pathological right. It is based on totalitarian "military first" mobilization, is maintained by slave labor, and instills an ideology of the most unapologetic racism and xenophobia'. [14]. I was unaware that agreeing with Christopher Hitchens was bannable under policy, though I can see the occasional benefits of such a proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 2 December 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.

A query regarding discretionary sanctions[edit]

Nothing more needed here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 3 December 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.

~Since this has come up, and a quick look at the relevant page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe doesn't seem to resolve the issue, can anyone clarify whether East Germany (which by geographic standards at least is in Central Europe) comes within the remit of the Digwuren/Eastern Europe sanctions? From the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Motion: To rename Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren it appears unresolved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, my view is that edits to East Germany would be subject to discretionary sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The remedy says "Eastern Europe" and Wikipedia says: The term has widely disparate geopolitical, geographical, cultural and socioeconomic readings, which makes it highly context-dependent and even volatile, and there are "almost as many definitions of Eastern Europe as there are scholars of the region". So -- who knows?? I'd run it past WP:AE or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_clarification_and_amendment. NE Ent 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
As with most of these kinds of topic restrictions, the language says, "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". I also note that if you look through the sanction log, you'll see editors being topic-banned from articles related to Germany, even though I'm not saying that Germany itself is subject to discretionary sanctions. Obviously, if you or someone else feels the need for increased definition, knock yourself out, but I think it'd be a waste of time and resources.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Given that the dispute that provoked the DIGWUREN case (original name without the hair-splitting baggage of EE) revolved around "East-Bloc" issues, I'd be inclined to include East Germany as within the scope of the decision. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:02, 2 December 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.

IP[edit]

Im not taking this too seriously and I was unsure if I should report it here or not.. But an IP made this comment to me recently at my talk page [15]. I think a warning is appropriate as I have remained civil, a threat of reporting me just because I tell the IP my opinion seem quite drastic by a one-day IP. Im not the only one being somewhat POV-ed by the IP I guess. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to warn them about. Let him report you. Not sure for what, but it could be humourous. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) When someone (IP or not) puts something on your talk page that's manifestly silly, it's quite adequate to respond by just blanking it and carrying on with your day. (Personally, I prefer to mock them a bit first, but that can be construed as rude or battlegroundy or somesuch.) An extra step is to check the IP's other contribs to see if they're doing similar to other people who may be more easily pressured, or if they're resorting to legal threats (as opposed to just threats to "report") elsewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks guys! You both made my day:) I think this this edit summary by me at my talk page sums it up:)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to respond to that. Following his revert(without an edit summary and IMO unjustly), I contacted the user [16] to understand the reason for the edit, reiterating waht I already said in my edit summary, that the information is already covered in another section and don't belong in the current section. To which the user responded [17] "Well, you are seriously POV-pushing right now" which ignores my concerns and just none constructive replay about my post rather in response to it. I guessed that this reasoning with guy is unlikely but still, I offered him one more chance to explain/resolve this before I report this to one of the arbitrary committees. Which sums up my part.

Meanwhile unknown to me. Just after my first attempt to resolve the issue, the user tried to flag my "seriously POV-pushing" edit as vandalism [18] and after it was rejected, he tried the same with claims I threatened him [19] and when this failed as well, he came here.

This guy maybe "civil" and "not taking this too seriously" as he claims, but that not how I see it. While I was upfront with him, he instead of communicating went behind my back and misusing the vandalism mechanism to fast track his requests( btw same with his next/last two requests, [20], [21]) and same here he ignored the "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion" part. So Yes I find this user behavior not social, constructive nor contributing to a positive atmosphere.

Also I would still very much like to know the reason for the revert, so that I know how to proceed.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, BabbaQ has yet to provide an explanation of this edit that has no explanation in its edit summary, despite being asked three times now for one. Yes, responses of "nonsense" and "you are seriously POV-pushing right now" are deflections and non-responses to a civil request for an explanation. A more reasonable response from BabbaQ might have been along the lines of "Your edit removed information. If something is in the wrong section, place it in the right section. Don't remove it.". But I'm only guessing here. Uncle G (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That the whole point, I don't know if he think that it should be moved or ? (Because that information is already presented in the section I specified, its first word linking to an article that deals with this subject specifically, providing an uptodate figures from 2012 in the lead.) So by ignoring attempts to resolute, providing a simple explanation or offer his versio, he waste all of our time with this elaborate process, leaving me one edit short of 'editing warring'.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I have responded already. If that response was not what the IP wanted to hear that is not my problem. I think the IP was POV pushing and stand by it and the IP was reported to ARBPIA for a reason, and that is my final comment to this meta debate. I think that users Bwilkins and Demiurge1000 responses to my request is quite telling about the general consensus concerning these kind of debates. Especially this comment sums it up "When someone (IP or not) puts something on your talk page that's manifestly silly, it's quite adequate to respond by just blanking it and carrying on with your day. " Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
In light of further concerns, maybe you can help solve the issue and explain how exactly this edit was "POV pushing", after all my edit summary, contact to you and explanation here are detailed and technical enough for that.(the rest of your post is just more attempts to deflect, all of which related to your conduct here which I already covered in my previous post).--109.186.17.8 (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me IP 109 is making good faith efforts to discuss changes where BabbaQ is making invalid AIV reports, not using edit summaries and, rather than respond with logic or reason, so accusing 109 of POV editing. Not constructive. NE Ent 14:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with this assessment, NE Ent. I think there are some long-standing WP:CLUE issues here. Against the current (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Advice needed[edit]

Advice given and graciously acknowledged.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 3 December 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.

Hi. Not sure if this the right place so please redirect me if necessary. If you examine some of my recent edits you will see I have overwritten certain material which in my opinion should not be on the site, even if the original editor does have justification through "history". Can you advise me if I have acted correctly and point me towards relevant guidelines in case I should need to explain myself. How does one go about becoming an admin, subject to first gaining sufficient experience? Thank you. --Old Lanky (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the second time I have posted this today. The first was summarily removed by User:Widescreen without any explanation. --Old Lanky (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you post your first question at WP:EAR. It would also be helpful if you provided diffs of the edits you want others to look at. As for your second question, I think it's a little early for you to even think about becoming an admin, but if you're feeling really masochistic, you could start watching places where admins hang out (heh), like here, WP:AN, WP:RFA, and a whole slew of other administrative noticeboards. Also, it never hurts to read up on policy, guidelines, etc., to become more knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice, Bbb. --Old Lanky (talk) 22:28, 2 December 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:76.189.126.40[edit]

IP account is engaged in edit warring on a talk page (removing posts by others) [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. Any attempts to diffuse the situation have been met with hostility. "You have been educated" [28] "Stay off" [29] "You think you have any authority Rushyo" [30] and any notices/warnings have been deleted and ignored with threats [31] "You've been warned, stay off my talk page" [32].

Diffs demonstrating further incivility towards others: "Do you not understand English" [33] "As I said, thanks for revealing that you are a stalker. The losers who do that aren't usually dumb enough to actually admit it in writing" [34] "Go away, sock. Your use of so many different accounts and laughable interpretations of how Wikipedia works make you someone that cannot be taken seriously. You don't even know how to spell your own name." [35] "Bullshit Qwyrxian, there is no consenus at all" [36].

I'm only just scratching the surface of this behaviour, which appears to be systematic towards a variety of editors. Add to that really quite absurd accusations of harassment [37] [38] [39] and I find it hard to find anything redeemable in this user's editing, he's just combative and uncivil. Attempting to de-escalate this behaviour is not working. -Rushyo Talk 21:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to come here and request the same thing. The user is perceiving personal attacks where there are none. As I advised the user, removal of comments from talk pages should only be done in very serious circumstances (either ongoing WP:NOTFORUM contributions or clear personal attacks), and only be done by involved contributors in the most obvious and extreme circumstances where everyone would agree. I get that 76 believes there is sockpuppetry going on on that page, but s/he has yet to provide any actual evidence of that. Yes, that page is a mess, with a variety of people misunderstanding policy, and attempting to use Wikipedia for to advance their own personal causes...but especially in the last 24 hours, I think we're starting to get somewhere. The attacks on others are not helping. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I have just blocked the IP address for 1 hour. I have done so despite being WP:INVOLVED. The user was edit warring to remove comments on Talk:Tau Epsilon Phi that contained no personal attacks despite claiming that they did. Furthermore, the editor is making baseless threats against a number of editors, although, I must admit, including myself. I know I broke WP:INVOLVED. I did so because I felt that any other admin would have blocked, at least temporarily, to stop the disruption. I accept this puts me at risk. I invite any other admin to unblock (or, of course, to extend the block if you don't think I'm wrong), and place myself at the mercy of the Dramahboard, asserting that I merely wanted the disruption to stop long enough for us to actually discuss the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment)I reported this at AIV at the same time Qwyrxian was blocking. A simple shortcut would be for another admin to act on that report (which the bot has already marked as done). --Tgeairn (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Good block, as has been pointed out even WP:INVOLVED may be ignored in blatant cases. A 1 hour block is hardly a draconian measure. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
A note: I am very likely going to be away from Wikipedia for a few hours, so I won't be responding here rapidly; more importantly, I won't be here when the block expires, and comments on the user's talk page make me think the user may not be done reverting. So, eyes would be helpful. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Didn't see this - I have extended the block for 48 hours. IP is definitely WP:NOTHERE (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

Block justified, decline to unblock justified.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 3 December 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.

This recent AN/I discussion ended with me blocking two litigants on opposing sides of a court case who had brought their fight to Wikipedia. I unblocked one of them, Mary Cummins, after she agreed not to continue the legal battle on-Wiki. She subsequently started to comment on her own talk page, discussing the case and presenting her side of the argument. I warned her not to do this again, but she subsequently took the argument to another editor's talk page. I have blocked her and said I'd bring the block here for review. I will notify her immediately now that I have done so. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If parties to a legal case are fighting each other here, they've not violated the letter of WP:NLT, because they're doing more than threats: they've already sued. Blocking them is the only way to follow the spirit of WP:NLT. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
No issues, as per Nyttend. Of course, stating your case on Wikipedia instead of holding onto it until your court date is pure stupidity ... but I digress. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Mary Cummins's comments were not a legal threat, but they were a direct violation of her agreement in the last unblock to stop commenting on the legal issues. She's clearly too involved here to be a useful Wikipedia contributor. She needs to walk away, settle her real life legal problems, and not worry about what a WP article says (especially since it doesn't mention her by name anyway). The block is necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Good block.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
23:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This editor is now requesting unblock. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins declined the unblock request. I was about to do the same, but he's faster than I am. In her previous unblock request, the editor stated, "I further agree not to post about Amanda Lollar or Bat World Sanctuary on wiki." There are other reasons to decline the request, but her violation of that alone would be sufficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 2 December 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.

Apparent violation of WP:BLP and other policies by Zbrnajsem[edit]

User:Zbrnajsem, already familiar to ANI from a previous discussion relating to our article on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford ‎ (see archives: [40]) has chosen, after a long and rambling discussion over 'free speech' and why he thinks that Wikipedia articles should be sourced to whatever a contributor (i.e. himself) prefers to push a minority POV, to make a personal attack on the professional integrity of a respected academic, Professor Steven W. May (currently of Sheffield University, see [41]). Professor May is self-evidently well qualified to write on de Vere, specialising on the period as is evident from his list of publications. Zbrnajsem however, disliking May's descriptions of de Vere as the sometimes less-than-successful individual he was, has accused May of being "misleading or grossly false" and of engaging in "vile gossips". [42] This takes what would otherwise be a content dispute well into WP:BLP-violation territory as I see it, in that it is a direct attack on the professor, based on nothing but Zbrnajsem's dislike of anyone who fails to portray de Vere as the great poet, virtuous nobleman, and self-evident author of 'Shakespeare's works that Zbrnajsem wishes. I have asked Zbrnajsem to redact the personal attack, but he has declined. If he is unwilling to conform to policy in regard to resorting to personal attacks on the authors of source material, while likewise filling talk pages with what is self evidently vacuous waffle regarding his rights under the US constitution to fill Wikipedia articles with whatever he feels like (see for example [43]), I cannot see how his presence on the article talk page can be anything but a net liability. It is one thing to have a heated debate regarding content, but when unfounded personal attacks on outsiders are being made, and debates are endlessly dragged off-topic by irrelevances and a failure to understand elementary tenets of Wikipedia policy, any hope of reaching a reasonable compromise seems futile. I therefore ask that Zbrnajsem be asked to redact his personal attacks on May, and that he agrees in future to conform to talk-page policy regarding the de Vere article - staying on topic, not abusing it as a forum, and not engaging in pointless rambling posts regarding aspects of Wikipedia policy that cannot possibly be rescended on article talk pages. Should he fail to do so, I would propose that he be topic banned - at least from this article, though I suspect a broader ban regarding all articles etc touching on the 'Shakespeare authorship question' might perhaps be more appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I redact my personal attacks on Mr. May, if what I have written is qualified as personal attacks on him. OK, he is surely a great historian, and I hope this is appropriate. It is difficult and maybe futile to discuss anything on Edward de Vere if one has the sincere intention to see that historical person from all sides. What I have said and what I have done in the article - just deleting a half-sentence - was only with the sincere intention that this person gets so to say equal and just treatment as other historical persons, i.e. no negatively sounding depiction of his character right at the beginning of the article concerned. I am frustrated, this I may say. I ask you to read the whole discussion about Edward de Vere from the last say five days. If you who read it think that AndyTheGrump was polite to me personally during the discussion, then I will believe it. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Zbrnajsem, no one doubts your sincerity. But removing anything critical about a person is not giving "equal and just treatment as other historical persons". It is not the case that there should be "no negatively sounding depiction of his character right at the beginning of the article" (compare the article on his contemporary Gabriel Spenser). It is the case that it should be fair and rounded. This half-sentence was the only "negative sounding" part of a substantial lede section. Paul B (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to remember that this isn't the place to engage in content disputes. Zbrnajsem has agreed to redact the comments regarding May, which is a start, but we still need to address the other matter I raised - Zbrnajsem's soapboxing on the article talk page, combined with an apparent inability to accept that WP:RS etc policies are non-negotiable, and that appeals to the US constitution etc regarding 'free speech' are not only off-topic, but downright disruptive. I'd like to see some evidence that Zbrnajsem accepts that the de Vere article must conform to policy, and that the talk page is no place argue otherwise. Contributors are of course free to argue that policy should be revised - but doing so on article talk pages is pointless. Instead, discussions have to take place within the necessary limits of existing policy. Unless Zbrnajsem accepts these limits on the scope of talk page discussions, the disruption is likely to continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I have no intention to disrupt any article and any discussion. As far as the disputed full sentence in the article on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford is concerned, I still maintain my opinion that this rather long sentence has no sufficient inner logics and does not offer a proper consecution of arguments (see also the Talk on this page). It is composed from two or three sentences of different origin and with different points of view as intended by their authors. I maintain that this is no proper way how to argue on Wikipedia. Please look at the lede to the article. And I cannot think of any disruption of any discussion if the right for freedom of opinion and information is briefly mentioned in connection e.g. with the choice of sources. At times, however, during my participation in discussions, I had the impression that my participation was not welcome, and my views were fiercely rejected and not discussed properly. Of course, I have to take for granted that there is a policy of WP which maintains that there are mainstream theories on one side and a so-called fringe theories on the other side. My view is that in the past some theories previously labeled by the majority of scientists as fringe were later proven as correct, e.g. (but not only) Wegener´s theory of continental shift. So I suppose that it is within the limits of serious discussion on scientific fields if there is a certain scope of freedom for discussion on noticeable fringe theories. The existence of several articles on SAQ is a good evidence that there is such discussion on WP. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Your response to my complaint that you were dragging the talk page discussions off-topic seems to me to consist largely of yet further off-topic irrelevances. Wegener´s theory of continental shift is of no more relevance here than the US constitution was in the original discussion - and we are not discussing the content of the lede here, we are discussing your behaviour on the talk page. You are hardly going to improve your case by once more demonstrating the problematic behaviour that lead me to raise the issue here in the first place. Once again I'll ask you - are you willing to accept that Wikipedia articles have to be written according to relevant Wikipedia policies, and that talk pages are not an appropriate place to argue for irrelevant abstractions like 'freedom of speech', and likewise argue that Wikipedia policy should be ignored where it suits your objectives? If you get the impression that your 'participation was not welcome', does it not occur to you that it might be because you fail to actually participate in discussions in the way expected? This is what is being discussed here, and this is what needs to be sorted out. Wikipedia is not a platform for righting great wrongs - it is an online encyclopaedia, written according to the best available credible sources (or at least that is the intention, if not always the outcome), and if such sources fail to reflect your opinions, you have two choices. Either work within Wikipedia according to the policies arrived at by consensus, or find another arena to promote your views. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to accept that Wikipedia articles have to be written according to relevant Wikipedia policies, and that talk pages are not an appropriate place to argue for irrelevant abstractions. I would only like to ask you, AndyTheGrump, who decides that someone has argued for irrelevant abstractions? Up to now, only you have objected my contributions using this terminus. Likewise, I would like to read a very precise definition of irrelevant abstractions. If there is such a definition, please give it to me, then I would be better informed. Although I have got some education, it is not quite clear to me that it should be easy to decide about the content and quality of irrelevant abstractions. Besides this, there is no information that you personally would have the rights as administrator of Wikipedia. So it is possibly not quite correct if you, AndyTheGrump, give me very pointed advices and treat me as a pupil. Up to now, in this section, no administrator has objected my recent behaviour on Wikipedia, no administrator was engaged in the way you did in the above text, and also in the whole discussion which we had. My objections are now only towards the personal conduct between you and me, and could be made a case on my behalf. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It is true that I'm not a Wikipedia admin. I have never suggested otherwise. AS for the fact that so far no uninvolved individuals (admins or otherwise) have commented, that is unfortunate - I too would welcome such input, and it was in the hope of getting such input that I started this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk)
If no one is listening here, you could consider going to [[WP:AE}] with a case for a topic ban. This thread seems to contain typical examples of Zbrnajsem's witterings and it shouldn't be too hard to put together plenty of documentation of his persistent tendentiousness in the SAQ area despite frequent reminders of Wikipedia policy. Doesn't address the BLP problem you originally raised, though presumably BLPN would be the place for that.--Peter cohen (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Zbrnajsem wrote: "I have no intention to disrupt any article and any discussion." that may not have been your intention, but it certainly was the result, as evidenced by the edit war that you instigated with your comments and participated in.
You also directly above respond with irrelevant abstractions when told that you indulge in irrelevant abstractions.
As to Andy's choice of language in trying to explain policy to you, how many times do we have to repeat a point before you finally get it and modify your behavior? Either your command of the language is deficient, or you're stupid, or you refuse to get the point. Which is it? Because it's been explained to you over and over. Nobody says you have to like it; but you do have to conform to it if you want to participate here. If you don't, that's fine; there are plenty of Oxfordian echo chambers where you'll be hailed as a hero and a champion of free speech. Make your choice what it is to be.
I haven't chimed in on this before now because I'm sick to death of his bullshit and the bullshit of those like him--I've had years of it. For some reason they seem incapable of understanding Wikipedia policy and attribute their unsuccessful attempts at promotion to evil "Stratfordian" control. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I got it that Tom Reedy is a reviewer, but does not hold the rights of an administrator. In the same time, nothing and nobody gives you the right to speak of me in the above tone, and with such expressions, Tom Reedy. Citation: ...his bullshit and the bullshit of those like him... Would you please refrain from such expressions? I wonder what administrators possibly say about your misdemeanor on this page. AndyTheGrump, you forgot Paul Barlow´s contribution above. He reacted in a very decent tone. I appreciate it very much. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
"...nothing and nobody gives you the right to speak of me in the above tone, and with such expressions...." Oh? What happened to your little "freedom of speech" idea? I calls 'em like I sees 'em, and I didn't call you any name; I said I was tired of your bullshit, and I am, which is why I've been ignoring your droppings on my talk page and the deVere talk page. I'll now return to my ignoring you. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Given that Paul Barlow has been involved in discussions on the de Vere talk page, he isn't 'uninvolved'. As for Tom Reedy's comments above, has it ever occurred to you to wonder why so many people seem to find engaging you in any sort of discussion so frustrating that they resort to incivility? I know I'm sometimes inclined to respond in this manner myself, often with less justification than might seem appropriate, but if you get this sort of response from so many different people, shouldn't you perhaps ask yourself whether you may somehow be at least partly responsible? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I don´t think so. I cannot be made responsible for the conduct of other contributors. I have a certain standing, the others have theirs. I normally keep my actions pretty restrained, comes what may. It´s good to see that you lowered the tone of your previously temperamentful comments, AndyTheGrump. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
So are you going to stop using the article talk page as a platform for off-topic waffle about 'freedom of speech' and the like, and instead stick to using it for its intended purpose, or aren't you? This is the issue here: you aren't being 'restrained' at all when you climb on your soapbox and sound off about the injustices of a world that won't let you portray de Vere in the manner you so desire. Like it or not, Wikipedia isn't going to abandon its policies solely to place a long-deceased noble on a pedestal. If we were in the business of putting the world to rights, I somehow think that this alleged 'injustice' would come somewhat low in our list of priorities anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you start it again? You have absolutely no right to tell me how I should think about Edward de Vere. And just deleting one half-sentence, when there is no inherent logics in it in combination with the other part of the sentence, this is no disruption of an article. Moreover, you are not obliged to take part in any discussion if it is too complicated for you to understand what is in stake. Paul Barlow is not so vehemently engaged here, he is interested in serious discussion. He in fact made a proposal for a cooperation of Wikipedians who are Oxfordians in their ideal world, but want to be part within the limits of WP. Furthermore, you can´t make me responsible for actions of other contributors. They are also free people as you and me. No administrator took part in this discussion, no administrator supported you, so please stop your comments. I don´t intend to waste more time with further answering. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

More bullshit... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
If Zbrnajsem continues to waste the time of other editors at Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford admins will consider imposing a topic ban under WP:ARBSAQ. Should he want to offer a well-focused content proposal for a decision on talk he should consider opening up an WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Andrew 3770[edit]

Blocked. Clearly only here to advertise and is creating a mess. Basalisk inspect damageberate 20:11, 1 December 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.

Not sure if I'm at the right place, but IDK what's apt. This appears to be a single-issue account, dedicated to adding Diego Firestone here. It also suggests to me a sock of User:AndrewFirestone777, since the singular emphasis is the same & the usernames are so alike. It's also a possible COI, IMO; this has the smell of said Diego Firestone angling for his own page. Any action would be appreciated. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked. as an account used only for spam. Basalisk inspect damageberate 20:09, 1 December 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.
  • I've tagged both accounts for sockpuppetry as well. Obvious sock, may help with CU later if needed. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response! TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

East Germany[edit]

NO ADMIN ACTION
content dispute NE Ent 21:10, 2 December 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.

We seem to have yet another incipient edit-war over infobox content for our East Germany article, and in particular, User:Trust Is All You Need is insistent that it be described as a 'Marxist–Leninist single-party state' based on his/her own synthesis, and in flat contradiction to the article content, which makes entirely clear that the formal constitutional position was that the Volkskammer included not only representatives from multiple parties, but from various other organisations as well. While it might be true to state that, at least by a clear historical consensus, the reality was that real political power laid with the upper echelons of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands bureaucracy (or possibly with its big brother in the USSR), it is nevertheless entirely misleading to assert this as uncontroversial fact in the infobox. This would of course be a content dispute, and thus not a matter for this noticeboard - except that I cannot see how knowingly inserting factually-incorrect material into an infobox could be anything but a violation of policy, and at minimum, Trust Is All You Need needs to be given a firm whack with a trout, and also needs to be told to use infoboxes for the purpose intended, rather than as a platform for opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It seem to more like a content dispute did you followed WP:DR before coming here?Also that GDR is single party state in not WP:REDFLAG claim and its easily verified for example [44]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree that it would be a content dispute, were it not for the fact that Trust Is All You Need is fully aware that his edits are factually incorrect in formal terms. I'm sure that the DDR has been described (perhaps many times) as a 'single-party state', but that was never the formal position - and infoboxes are no place for opinions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I have also recently had a problem with "Trust is All You Need", who renamed the Harmonious Society article (a well-known concept in Chinese politics and written about in English too) with his neologism "Socialist Harmonious Society", based on his personal understanding that "democracy in the Chinese sense of the word means Socialist Democracy, that is democracy that will not hurt one-party rule" (incidentally, China, like East Germany and unlike most Marxist-Leninist states, permits the existence of multiple political parties, although they don't act quite like Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition). Without a move discussion, and with nary a response to my inquiry, he has also replaced all wikilinks to his preferred title. Shrigley (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Why does AndyTheGrump consider it an "opinion" that East Germany was a single-party state? It is well-known that East Germany was governed by one political party.--R-41 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Citation needed. Our article states otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Article 1 of the East German constitution reads ""Sie ist die politische Organisation der Werktätigen in Stadt und Land unter der Führung der Arbeiterklasse und ihrer marxistisch-leninistischen Partei".. The SED was given the rights to rule East Germany indefinitely.... This is not what I mean, this is what they said. --TIAYN (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
That is your interpretation of a primary source. As you are well aware, the supposed 'single-party state' had no less than five parties in the ruling alliance, including the Christlich-Demokratische Union Deutschlands, the Demokratische Bauernpartei Deutschlands, the Liberal-Demokratische Partei Deutschlands and the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands as well as the Marxist-Leninist Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands. It is simply factually incorrect to describe a five-party 'alliance' as a single party, and even more so to describe the first four named as 'Marxist-Leninist' - and yet you chose to add this, with not even a token attempt at discussion, into an infobox clearly intended for uncontroversial factual material. You knowingly and intentionally added misleading information into the infobox. That is a policy violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a content dispute. Some editors around here need to stop threatening with the ANI-bomb and creating drama-storms every time they get into a c/d. Keri (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC) creating drama-storms
  • Wrong venue, Andy, but I will stop by and opine. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • East Germany was a puppet state taking its orders from the USSR. That's hardly a news flash. That's why Reagan asked Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: Discussion is taking place at Talk:East_Germany#Single_party_in_info_box. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I just would like to note that edit warring by User:AndyTheGrump in this article continue [45]. He made four reverts during just over last 24 hours; he also refuses to constructively discuss sources [46]. Since this article is under discretionary sanctions on Eastern Europe, I think he (and possibly User:Trust Is All You Need) should be officially warned about the discretionary sanctions, unless they were warned already. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
That it's continuing is because no admin has taken any action to stop Trust repeatedly inserting clearly incorrect information without consensus. It would make no sense to reprimand Andy since he is not the cause of the disruption. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, to be fair, I left TIAN this notice, and he also makes unconstructive comments [47]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, apologies for the forth edit - I'd forgotten that I'd already reverted three times, and that it was that recent. However, given that My very best wishes chose to alter the disputed infobox content with no consensus whatsoever while the discussions were ongoing, I think that any comment regarding sanctions might better come from someone not already skirting close to violating such restrictions themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Please self revert.I don't have to explain to you that 3RR is a bright line that you don't cross.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
(ec)One editor violating 3RR does not permit another editor to edit war while reverting them, so it makes perfect sense to sanction ATG. And TIAYN has yet to actually cross over 3RR. With 4 reverts within 24 hours and 18 mins, ATG should be sanctioned: " Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation." He needs to at least self-revert. Keri (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Technically, I've not crossed it. However, if it makes you both happy, I'll revert - but with the proviso that I shall then expect My very best wishes to do the same, and restore the infobox to the state it was in before the entirely inappropriate edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It was already reverted to your version [48]. Honestly, I think this discussion about "single-party state" is simply ridiculous. Even Soviet history textbooks always claimed that GDR was a single party state, just like Soviet Union, where the primacy of Communist Party was officially stated in constitution (which did not exclude "real democracy"). Based the article edit history, this is a long-term battleground between multiple parties. I must avoid such places. Sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an amazing discussion. Andy the Grump is arguing that describing East Germany as a 'Marxist–Leninist single-party state' is against policy. If we have any trust in reliable sources, whatsoever, we have to tell him outright with no hesitation that he is just plain wrong, and will be banned for disruption the next time that he brings it up. Shouting "Black is white" multiple times, and then arguing that people who disagree with you are breaking policy, has no place on Wikipedia.

I'd like to point out something even more remarkable. At Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes All You Need is Trust asserts that North Korea is not Communist. (And, in-context, it is clear he is arguing that it "never was" Communist). If you allow 2 people to scream "Black is white," and "No, white is black" and then ask for protection from Wikipedia policy because the other guy is being disruptive, then you are asking for every fringe quack in the world to come here and pollute our pages with their gibberish. Admins need to take some responsibility for this. Ban them both. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think requesting bans in this delightful little thread is particularly helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you suggesting we ban Trust for pointing out on an article talk page that some sources have asserted that regarding North Korea, rather than seeing it as being 'communist', 'we should instead regard the Kim Jong-il system as a phenomenon of the very extreme and pathological right. It is based on totalitarian "military first" mobilization, is maintained by slave labor, and instills an ideology of the most unapologetic racism and xenophobia'. [49]. I was unaware that agreeing with Christopher Hitchens was bannable under policy, though I can see the occasional benefits of such a proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 2 December 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.

A query regarding discretionary sanctions[edit]

Nothing more needed here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 3 December 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.

~Since this has come up, and a quick look at the relevant page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe doesn't seem to resolve the issue, can anyone clarify whether East Germany (which by geographic standards at least is in Central Europe) comes within the remit of the Digwuren/Eastern Europe sanctions? From the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Motion: To rename Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren it appears unresolved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, my view is that edits to East Germany would be subject to discretionary sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The remedy says "Eastern Europe" and Wikipedia says: The term has widely disparate geopolitical, geographical, cultural and socioeconomic readings, which makes it highly context-dependent and even volatile, and there are "almost as many definitions of Eastern Europe as there are scholars of the region". So -- who knows?? I'd run it past WP:AE or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_clarification_and_amendment. NE Ent 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
As with most of these kinds of topic restrictions, the language says, "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". I also note that if you look through the sanction log, you'll see editors being topic-banned from articles related to Germany, even though I'm not saying that Germany itself is subject to discretionary sanctions. Obviously, if you or someone else feels the need for increased definition, knock yourself out, but I think it'd be a waste of time and resources.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Given that the dispute that provoked the DIGWUREN case (original name without the hair-splitting baggage of EE) revolved around "East-Bloc" issues, I'd be inclined to include East Germany as within the scope of the decision. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:02, 2 December 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.

IP[edit]

Im not taking this too seriously and I was unsure if I should report it here or not.. But an IP made this comment to me recently at my talk page [50]. I think a warning is appropriate as I have remained civil, a threat of reporting me just because I tell the IP my opinion seem quite drastic by a one-day IP. Im not the only one being somewhat POV-ed by the IP I guess. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to warn them about. Let him report you. Not sure for what, but it could be humourous. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) When someone (IP or not) puts something on your talk page that's manifestly silly, it's quite adequate to respond by just blanking it and carrying on with your day. (Personally, I prefer to mock them a bit first, but that can be construed as rude or battlegroundy or somesuch.) An extra step is to check the IP's other contribs to see if they're doing similar to other people who may be more easily pressured, or if they're resorting to legal threats (as opposed to just threats to "report") elsewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks guys! You both made my day:) I think this this edit summary by me at my talk page sums it up:)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to respond to that. Following his revert(without an edit summary and IMO unjustly), I contacted the user [51] to understand the reason for the edit, reiterating waht I already said in my edit summary, that the information is already covered in another section and don't belong in the current section. To which the user responded [52] "Well, you are seriously POV-pushing right now" which ignores my concerns and just none constructive replay about my post rather in response to it. I guessed that this reasoning with guy is unlikely but still, I offered him one more chance to explain/resolve this before I report this to one of the arbitrary committees. Which sums up my part.

Meanwhile unknown to me. Just after my first attempt to resolve the issue, the user tried to flag my "seriously POV-pushing" edit as vandalism [53] and after it was rejected, he tried the same with claims I threatened him [54] and when this failed as well, he came here.

This guy maybe "civil" and "not taking this too seriously" as he claims, but that not how I see it. While I was upfront with him, he instead of communicating went behind my back and misusing the vandalism mechanism to fast track his requests( btw same with his next/last two requests, [55], [56]) and same here he ignored the "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion" part. So Yes I find this user behavior not social, constructive nor contributing to a positive atmosphere.

Also I would still very much like to know the reason for the revert, so that I know how to proceed.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, BabbaQ has yet to provide an explanation of this edit that has no explanation in its edit summary, despite being asked three times now for one. Yes, responses of "nonsense" and "you are seriously POV-pushing right now" are deflections and non-responses to a civil request for an explanation. A more reasonable response from BabbaQ might have been along the lines of "Your edit removed information. If something is in the wrong section, place it in the right section. Don't remove it.". But I'm only guessing here. Uncle G (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That the whole point, I don't know if he think that it should be moved or ? (Because that information is already presented in the section I specified, its first word linking to an article that deals with this subject specifically, providing an uptodate figures from 2012 in the lead.) So by ignoring attempts to resolute, providing a simple explanation or offer his versio, he waste all of our time with this elaborate process, leaving me one edit short of 'editing warring'.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I have responded already. If that response was not what the IP wanted to hear that is not my problem. I think the IP was POV pushing and stand by it and the IP was reported to ARBPIA for a reason, and that is my final comment to this meta debate. I think that users Bwilkins and Demiurge1000 responses to my request is quite telling about the general consensus concerning these kind of debates. Especially this comment sums it up "When someone (IP or not) puts something on your talk page that's manifestly silly, it's quite adequate to respond by just blanking it and carrying on with your day. " Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
In light of further concerns, maybe you can help solve the issue and explain how exactly this edit was "POV pushing", after all my edit summary, contact to you and explanation here are detailed and technical enough for that.(the rest of your post is just more attempts to deflect, all of which related to your conduct here which I already covered in my previous post).--109.186.17.8 (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me IP 109 is making good faith efforts to discuss changes where BabbaQ is making invalid AIV reports, not using edit summaries and, rather than respond with logic or reason, so accusing 109 of POV editing. Not constructive. NE Ent 14:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with this assessment, NE Ent. I think there are some long-standing WP:CLUE issues here. Against the current (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Advice needed[edit]

Advice given and graciously acknowledged.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 3 December 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.

Hi. Not sure if this the right place so please redirect me if necessary. If you examine some of my recent edits you will see I have overwritten certain material which in my opinion should not be on the site, even if the original editor does have justification through "history". Can you advise me if I have acted correctly and point me towards relevant guidelines in case I should need to explain myself. How does one go about becoming an admin, subject to first gaining sufficient experience? Thank you. --Old Lanky (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the second time I have posted this today. The first was summarily removed by User:Widescreen without any explanation. --Old Lanky (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you post your first question at WP:EAR. It would also be helpful if you provided diffs of the edits you want others to look at. As for your second question, I think it's a little early for you to even think about becoming an admin, but if you're feeling really masochistic, you could start watching places where admins hang out (heh), like here, WP:AN, WP:RFA, and a whole slew of other administrative noticeboards. Also, it never hurts to read up on policy, guidelines, etc., to become more knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice, Bbb. --Old Lanky (talk) 22:28, 2 December 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:76.189.126.40[edit]

IP account is engaged in edit warring on a talk page (removing posts by others) [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]. Any attempts to diffuse the situation have been met with hostility. "You have been educated" [63] "Stay off" [64] "You think you have any authority Rushyo" [65] and any notices/warnings have been deleted and ignored with threats [66] "You've been warned, stay off my talk page" [67].

Diffs demonstrating further incivility towards others: "Do you not understand English" [68] "As I said, thanks for revealing that you are a stalker. The losers who do that aren't usually dumb enough to actually admit it in writing" [69] "Go away, sock. Your use of so many different accounts and laughable interpretations of how Wikipedia works make you someone that cannot be taken seriously. You don't even know how to spell your own name." [70] "Bullshit Qwyrxian, there is no consenus at all" [71].

I'm only just scratching the surface of this behaviour, which appears to be systematic towards a variety of editors. Add to that really quite absurd accusations of harassment [72] [73] [74] and I find it hard to find anything redeemable in this user's editing, he's just combative and uncivil. Attempting to de-escalate this behaviour is not working. -Rushyo Talk 21:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to come here and request the same thing. The user is perceiving personal attacks where there are none. As I advised the user, removal of comments from talk pages should only be done in very serious circumstances (either ongoing WP:NOTFORUM contributions or clear personal attacks), and only be done by involved contributors in the most obvious and extreme circumstances where everyone would agree. I get that 76 believes there is sockpuppetry going on on that page, but s/he has yet to provide any actual evidence of that. Yes, that page is a mess, with a variety of people misunderstanding policy, and attempting to use Wikipedia for to advance their own personal causes...but especially in the last 24 hours, I think we're starting to get somewhere. The attacks on others are not helping. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I have just blocked the IP address for 1 hour. I have done so despite being WP:INVOLVED. The user was edit warring to remove comments on Talk:Tau Epsilon Phi that contained no personal attacks despite claiming that they did. Furthermore, the editor is making baseless threats against a number of editors, although, I must admit, including myself. I know I broke WP:INVOLVED. I did so because I felt that any other admin would have blocked, at least temporarily, to stop the disruption. I accept this puts me at risk. I invite any other admin to unblock (or, of course, to extend the block if you don't think I'm wrong), and place myself at the mercy of the Dramahboard, asserting that I merely wanted the disruption to stop long enough for us to actually discuss the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment)I reported this at AIV at the same time Qwyrxian was blocking. A simple shortcut would be for another admin to act on that report (which the bot has already marked as done). --Tgeairn (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Good block, as has been pointed out even WP:INVOLVED may be ignored in blatant cases. A 1 hour block is hardly a draconian measure. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
A note: I am very likely going to be away from Wikipedia for a few hours, so I won't be responding here rapidly; more importantly, I won't be here when the block expires, and comments on the user's talk page make me think the user may not be done reverting. So, eyes would be helpful. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Didn't see this - I have extended the block for 48 hours. IP is definitely WP:NOTHERE (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

N-Word[edit]

Resolved

Not sure if this should be for AIV or here. DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

AIV will work fine in the future, but either way I have blocked the IP. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I've RevDel'd the diff, and the edit summary of another containing the same phrase. Basalisk inspect damageberate 22:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
There's probably an embarrassingly obvious answer to this, but when I go to the page i'm still seeing the image in question. I've done WP:PURGE which seems not to make a difference. DeCausa (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
someone's now rv'd it but the image itself doesn't appear to be rev del'd DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to delete the image. FWIW, E4024, if you get trash like that on your talk page you're probably doing something right. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

Block justified, decline to unblock justified.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 3 December 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.

This recent AN/I discussion ended with me blocking two litigants on opposing sides of a court case who had brought their fight to Wikipedia. I unblocked one of them, Mary Cummins, after she agreed not to continue the legal battle on-Wiki. She subsequently started to comment on her own talk page, discussing the case and presenting her side of the argument. I warned her not to do this again, but she subsequently took the argument to another editor's talk page. I have blocked her and said I'd bring the block here for review. I will notify her immediately now that I have done so. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If parties to a legal case are fighting each other here, they've not violated the letter of WP:NLT, because they're doing more than threats: they've already sued. Blocking them is the only way to follow the spirit of WP:NLT. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
No issues, as per Nyttend. Of course, stating your case on Wikipedia instead of holding onto it until your court date is pure stupidity ... but I digress. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Mary Cummins's comments were not a legal threat, but they were a direct violation of her agreement in the last unblock to stop commenting on the legal issues. She's clearly too involved here to be a useful Wikipedia contributor. She needs to walk away, settle her real life legal problems, and not worry about what a WP article says (especially since it doesn't mention her by name anyway). The block is necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Good block.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
23:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This editor is now requesting unblock. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins declined the unblock request. I was about to do the same, but he's faster than I am. In her previous unblock request, the editor stated, "I further agree not to post about Amanda Lollar or Bat World Sanctuary on wiki." There are other reasons to decline the request, but her violation of that alone would be sufficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 2 December 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.

Widescreen and psychoanalysis[edit]

Widescreen has been involved in numerous disputes regarding psychological articles, often pushing a pro-psychoanalytic POV and removes well cited material that contradicts it. Recently he's been in slow moving edit war in the Psychoanalysis article and has been told multiple times not to and is editing against consensus.

Previously Widescreen has been blocked twice for edit warring in psychoanalytic/psychological articles.

Because its the third time this came up and because its specifically in psychological articles, I think its worth considering a short topic ban. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Worth noting that while Widescreen can go OTT, CartoonDiablo hardly comes here with clean hands. In a previous dispute between the two CartoonDiablo was proved wrong on the content issue and Widescreen right when other members of the community got involved. In that case CartoonDiablo was pushing a strongly CBT position. On that occassion CartoonDiablo used an ANI report to obtain a ban for Widescreen. So if there is to be a topic ban I'd be tempted to make it for both of them. ----Snowded TALK 07:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Some further background is at this old arb request. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thats such a cheek of CartoonDiablo! Thats no Editwar, that was the result of the discussion [75]! CartoonDiablo starts this WAR. The last edit of CartoonDiablo on Talk:Psychoanalysis was at Okt. 16. --WSC ® 09:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm the editor who drafted the material (cited to reliable sources) that WSC twice blanked (first and second edits linked in the OP. I have to say from my point of view that did feel like a short burst of edit warring. I had the suspicion that WSC seemed to be removing any material that described psychoanalysis as ineffective. We have discussed things on the article talk page however and I would like to AGF a little longer. I've invited WSC to add references to articles which he thinks should be cited, if he feels the article is poorly balanced. That would be a better way forward than removing material he disagrees with. I'm not in favour of a topic ban right now; what is needed is more editors with knowledge of the field and of WP policy to be active here (ideally in drafting additions to the article, and not merely talk-page commenting.) Sadly, as in many technical areas, editors who are knowledgable are likely to have a strong POV and those without a POV may not know the literature well! Full disclosure: I probably fall into the former camp, as a psychotherapy researcher and a cognitive analytic therapist. WSC's relatively poor written English (though better than my German!) does not help, but can we wait a little before invoking sanctions? I'd rather not ensure a quiet life at the cost of excluding an editor who seems familiar with the area but might just need some guidance. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
From my point of view, it seems like no one is really interested in high quality. Kim Dent-Bronw drops two selected studies in the article by ignoring about 10 others ([76]). But it seems like no action is required. There's "material (cited to reliable sources)", the autor itself called gold standard (Cochrane Collaboration) are still excluded. No sense of responsibility for our contens we presented our readers is apparent: "Maybe anyone will balance that in five years or so..." In my view that looks like lousy work mixed with indifference. I would call this a kind of "naive positivism" in wikipedia. What is verifiable by a more or less good source is right. But thats no quality at all! --WSC ® 16:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
KDH's advice about WSC sounds good. Looking at the talkpage with WP:AGF, I didn't as much get the impression that WSC was "removing material he disagrees with" as trying to put the section into balance. If the literature about some topic represents views A and B about equally, and the Wikipedia article cites 90% view A, then view A is overrepresented (wp:undue weight) and the long term remedy is to research and add citations for view B until the representation is equal. But in the short term, the article has a neutrality problem (WP:undue weight for view A) and WSC's doubts towards "naive positivism" (also called m:eventualism) are understandable. In WP practice it's generally not ok to remove well-cited material from an article without consensus, and certainly anything removed from the article in that situation should be transferred to the talk page for possible later re-use. A collaborative approach (not always feasible) is for editors (using their general familiarity with the literature) to agree ahead of time about how much representation each view should get in the article, and then collect citations and draft text in the talkpage until there's agreement that it's well-balanced and ready to put in the article. If that fails and there's a dispute, then yeah, our practice is to put a neutrality dispute tag into the article and WSC did that[77] per KDH's advice.[78]

KDH and WSC, is it reasonable to say that the two of you are getting along ok now? WSC, can you live with the current situation of having a temporarily unbalanced section with a neutrality tag, until more material can be added to balance things out, or else trying to reach some agreement on the talk page about what to use before removing stuff again? That leaves a possible issue with Cartoon Diablo and I wonder if KDH has any thoughts. Maunus in the checklist section of the talkpage makes the interesting point that "psychoanalysis is not primarily a clinical discipline - its aim is to understand the mind, not necessarily to cure it - that is only an incidental aspect of psychoanalysis." From that standpoint, maybe the entire clinical aspect is overrepresented in the article. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick response to the above: I don't think WSC and I (I presume you mean me when you type KDH above) are collaborating terribly well, no. But he has stopped blanking the material I added and I can tolerate the NPOV tag he has placed. I don't by the way agree that the section is currently unbalanced - there is some material speaking to the effectiveness of psychoanalytic treatment and some saying it's less effective. That seems balanced to me and to reflect the current scientific consensus. But we are straying into content discussion here and the main issue, one of conduct, is not currently a problem as far as WSC and I are concerned, in my view. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The dispute is about adding a POV tag, notice WSC removed material and then added a POV dispute tag without discussing it. Later Snowded did the same (diff) and made no mention in the talk page as to why. It seems clear that WSC and Snowded are trying to remove anything critical of effectiveness, and if not, to insert POV tags without discussing why they did so to make it look like the section is flawed when it isn't.
And to the other point, Psychoanalysis has been considered a clinical since the 1890s which is why there is a vast literature of its effectiveness to begin with. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
At present the main person I can see actively edit warring is CartoonDiablo with this latest reversion to remove a NPOV tag yet again. Now myself I don't think the NPOV tag is justified, but I don't think I'd be right to unilaterally remove it and nor is CartoonDiablo. The right thing to do is improve the article to provide a fuller, more balanced and fully detailed picture. Warring over the addition/removal of the tag does not improve the article for the average reader of Wikipedia who is in ignorance about what goes on under the bonnet. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Back in October Arbcom came close to accepting a case about the edit war on Psychoanalysis. At least one arbitrator thought that the community would be unable to deal with this. What I get from the comments that the arbs made then is that they hoped the community would take this to a content RfC. That still seems to me the best option. If an RfC reaches a conclusion and then someone edit wars against the result, an admin can take action as needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Fully agree with Kim Dent-Brown above. CartoonDiablo has twice removed a NPOV tag before the issue is resolved. This is exactly the behaviour which resulted in the Arbcom case. I'm not taking sides in the content dispute, other than to say I think it could be more balanced, but that is not the point. Unresolved con conflict = PoV tag, RfC etc. ----Snowded TALK 06:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the distinguished mediation. I can't live with the current situation. Thats why I try to phrase a own paragraph [79] with my poor written english. No fear! It will be proofread by an english user. If its disires by Kim, we can discuss it on the talkpage befor adding it to the article. But I doubt that CartoonDiablo will accept that, whatever I write. After the last revert [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychoanalysis&curid=23585&diff=526070740&oldid=526054964 in the article] I doubt a consense with him. I don't expect problems with Kim but with CartoonDiablo. I hope Kim will give a comment to my paragraph. I don't know but I think, the NPOV-box is a good interim arrangement. CartoonDiablo don't edit the talkpage since oktober but requires a discussion about the box. But Kim and I alrady discuss that? Here's my proposal: I try phrase out the paragraph and we can discuss that on talkpage. I try to add it to the article, but CartoonDiabolo will revert that. Than we can start another RfC or DRN? That seems to me the most "efficient" way. --WSC ® 06:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) KDB, I'm sorry I wrote KDH, I'm not sure why I did I can't even think of a good joke about a Freudian slip. Yes, Cartoon Diablo's reversion was inappropriate and its edit summary is inaccurate since you and WSC did discuss the tag. WSC's objection about balance, I thought, was not the presence of your cite about schizophrenia, but about the absence of a bunch of other stuff that he mentioned. Unless you're saying that the stuff he wants to add is either irrelevant or already sufficiently represented (in which case you shouldn't be telling him to add it), it sounds like the section is in fact currently unbalanced.

Maybe some mediation could help for the long-running conflict in the article? Has it been tried? As for the clinical thing: I don't know anything about the subject (psychoanalysis) but I know that figures into non-clinical work. For example, Sherry Turkle has used it to study interactions between people and computers,[80] Marvin Minsky called Freud the first computer scientist and suggested simulating the ego, superego, and id in AI software,[81] and Freudian theory is apparently influential in political science.[82] This type of thing seems more interesting to me than the clinical stuff, and nothing like it is in the article at all. So it sounds to me like Maunus is onto something. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis is both a fundation to understand mind and a clinical discipline. Just like cognitiv science aims to understand mind and developed clinical interventions. I think you can't separate that. The conflict would be relocated to other articles but not resolved. Futher the article psychoanalysis could be a example in this area. --WSC ® 06:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

User:L'carpetron Dookmarriot[edit]

RESOLVED
L'carpetron Dookmarriot indef blocked by King of Hearts. Rcsprinter (state) @ 22:41, 4 December 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.

Vandalism-only account, has been given a short-term block, possibly treated leniently because of an apparently-erudite userpage which in fact has been copied from User:Seraphimblade. Please consider converting to a permanent block. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done King of ♠ 09:58, 3 December 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.

A moving war on A.C. ChievoVerona[edit]

I think A.C. ChievoVerona to A.C. Chievo Verona is controversial. However i probably started a moving war. Would admin first blocked the page to move first in order to let involving parties to sit down a give citation for and against on proposed name? Matthew_hk tc 12:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no evidence that either version has ever been protected in any way, shape, or form, so I'm confused: what do you mean by the "admin first blocked the page"? If you could provide a link at which the page was blocked, it would help. Nyttend (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I request to protect it first in order to avoid moving war continues . Matthew_hk tc 15:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean that you already asked somewhere else, or is this thread the way you're asking? I'm not trying to make it hard for you; I just don't want to respond to your request only to find that you asked somewhere else and got a response different from what I gave. Nyttend (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I asked for somewhat intermediate measure on that page, as i moved back to the original namespace twice already. Or as lease someone with admin status to have a look. Or did i solved already by edited the page A.C. Chievo Verona? Matthew_hk tc 15:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It now won't be able to be moved back there, but it could be moved somewhere else. Nyttend (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
"In fair Verona, where we lay our scene". Romeo and Juliet, Prologue, line 2. I am working with my therapist about my compulsive Shakespeare quotation problem, though it is minor amongst the many of my other problems. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The page has been protected; I strongly suggest all parties stop warring and start a RM on the talk page before we hand out any blocks. I'm an English major but will refrain from any quotes ;) GiantSnowman 12:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Association of Business Executives(UK)[edit]

Incorrect venue. I notice that this was not dicussed with JamesBWatson nor were they notified at User talk:JamesBWatson. Try that first and then if necessary go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:17, 3 December 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.

─────────────────────────A little investigation of the web site and some of the sponsors would make the case (assuming the web site is accurate) that this is not just a promotional site, but something that is worthy of an entry ----Snowded TALK 08:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  • perhaps this is too much of an obvious question, but why would "a Notable educational institution in Africa and Asia" be calling itself "Association of Business Executives(UK)"? How exactly are they 'UK'? And why is this relevant, even if it is meaningful? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • AndyTheGrump, you should do some research before you cast your opinion. That is a British institution providing business education globally and it's programs are popular in Africa and Asia.EconomicTiger (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • No idea on the origins of the name Andy, but I do think you owe it to the community to have a look at the web site content before you come up with an opinion. ----Snowded TALK 09:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • … as well as the link to the actual article title, given right at the start by EconomicTiger and cleaned up by me, at the top of this section. Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How about this -- I'm in East Africa. I'm happy to consult a colleague at the British Embassy here and ask if they're familiar with this organization. It's not dispositive, but if they say yes, it certainly would indicate legitimacy. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 09:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)