위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive605

브라흐마 쿠마리스

새로운 종교운동의 신봉자 중 한 명이나 IT인 BK 사이먼 b가 한동안 그것을 통제하려고 시도해온 브라흐마 쿠마리스 세계영성대학 주제에 여전히 문제가 있는 것 같다.그것은 몇 년 동안 계속되어 온 것처럼 보일 것이다.

직영이든 연출이든 어떻게 NPOV가 될 수 있는지 알 수 없다.--골든서클 (대화) 08:48, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

이 계정은 사용자:Lucyintheskywithdada와 보고서가 [1] 제출되었다.

루시는 기사를 방해하기 위해 매주 또는 몇 주마다 두 세 개 정도의 양말을 연속해서 재인쇄한다.이것은 분명히 WP를 로딩하고 있다.SPI 프로세스.SPI 프로세스가 진행되는 동안 그가 야기할 수 있는 혼란을 어떻게 줄일 수 있는지, 보고서 작성에 드는 간접비용 등을 제안해 주면 고맙겠다.그가 나타나고 차단되는 사이에 있는 시간대는 그에게 트롤을 할 기회를 준다.그 시간대를 닫을 방법이 없을까?그는 매우 예측 가능하고 명백하다.Bksimonb (대화) 09:44, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

Dwm 삭제 절차 및 사용자:블루보이96

안녕. 나는 지금 몇 년 동안 익명으로 기부를 해왔는데, 가끔 계좌 등록에 전혀 신경 쓰지 않아.나는 또한 Reddit 사용자인데, 최근에 두 개의 기사가 인기를 끌고 있는데, 위키피디아, Notability, Open Source Software와 그 후속작이다.

그들은 나에게 심금을 울렸고, 내가 과거의 기고를 쉽게 확인할 수는 없지만, 내가 기고한 덜 알려진 많은 기사들이 삭제되었을 수도 있다는 것을 알게 되어 슬프다.

내가 링크한 두 페이지에 따르면, 나는 dwm 진행에 대해 여기에 있다.

제1차 AFD가 아예 문을 닫고 재개관한 것은 매우 유감스러운 일이라고 생각하는데, 내게는 그것이 외부의 목소리를 잠재우고 평상시처럼 업무에 복귀하려는 시도로 보인다.

제2의 AFD의 반보호도 위키백과 삭제 과정이 외부 입력을 존중하거나 원하지 않는 것처럼 나를 불안하게 만든다.나는 위키백과 정책에 대해 잘 모르니, 내가 실수를 해도 용서해 줘.

특히, dwm 진행에 대한 차단과 이에 대한 책임을 지는 관리자의 행동에 대해, 사용자:블루보이96.다음 사용자들은 2월 28일 그에 의해 차단되었다.

특수:기여/0xd34df00d 2007년 12월에 등록, dwm AfD에 투표.

특수:기부금/닥터시너스 2009년 10월 등록, dwm AfD에서 투표.*

특수:2008년 10월에 등록된 기부금/글렙-ax는 공식적으로 투표하지 않았다.

특수:2010년 2월에 기고/Grasagrautur 등록, dwm 기사에 선의의 출처 추가 시도, 투표 유지.

특수:기부금/잉와르-k 2010년 1월에 등록되었으며 wmii AfD에 투표했다.*

특수:2010년 2월에 등록한 기여/이올라스(Iorlas)는 투표로 dwm, QVWM, Evilwm, Aewm, wmii, Oroborus AfDs에 등록되었다.차단 해제 요청 및 거부.

특수:2010년 2월에 기고/Jasonwryan 등록, 투표로 Dwm AfD에 보관.*

특수:기부금/주타는 2010년 2월에 등록되었으며, 투표로 Dwm AfD에 보관되었다.*

특수:2010년 2월에 등록한 기부금/네크로스포러스, 투표로 Dwm AfD에 보관.AfD가 끝난 후 언블록 요청은 거듭 거부되었다.

특수:2008년 9월에 등록한 기여/태어워는 Dwm AfD에 투표하지 않았으며 이전에 몇 차례 선의의 편집을 했었다.*

• 별표로 표시한 사용자들은 한 번만 댓글을 달았다.

행정관은 또 "11개 이하의 미트푸펫 삭제는 기사에 크게 기여하거나 여론조사를 통해 AfD에 온 것으로 확인되어 이 기사가 어떤 경우에도 우리가 지켜야 할 것이 아님을 시사한다" "내가 분명히 말하겠다-이 말은 분명히 하자-이 말은 분명히 하자.le는 내 마음 속에 있는 미트푸페리에 의해 너무 더럽혀져 있어서 그것을 보관하려면 처음부터 완전히 다시 써야 한다.마치 사람들이 무언가에 관심을 갖는 것은 그들이 완전히 무시되어야 한다는 것을 의미하는 것처럼 그것은 신뢰성의 문제다.

사용자:Anselmgarbe 및 사용자:아르네밥도 둘 다 막혔다.전자는 dwm 개발자로, 실질적인 논의를 거쳐 3월 3일 차단 해제됐다.2004년으로 거슬러 올라가는 기부자임에도 불구하고.허위 고소에 이어 3월 4일 악의적 가정으로 가득 찬 토론에 이어 무기한 차단됐고 사용자:김_브루닝의 반대에도 불구하고 차단도 정당화되지 않았다.사용자:Henrik에서 차단되지 않은 ArneBab을 추가한 지 17일 만에 오늘 차단 해제된 ArneBab.

나는 AfD 토론에서 한 가지 코멘트(또는 여러 가지)를 하는 것이 당신의 계정을 영구적으로 잃는 것은 득이 된다고 생각하지 않으며(그리고 차단되지 않은 요청이 매우 빨리 거부됨), 나는 개별적으로 조사하지 않고 그렇게 많은 사용자를 금지하는 관리자의 판단에 의문을 제기한다.선의와 모든 기여자가 가치 있다고 가정하는 것은 어떻게 되었는가?

일반적으로 '미트푸펫' 정책에 의문을 제기하는데, 모든 정책을 모르면서도 위키피디아에 오라는 요청을 받은 사람들을 엄벌하는 것 같고, 우연히 열정적인 기사를 보존하려 했다는 이유로 전혀 처벌받아서는 안 된다고 생각한다.이 사용자들 중 누구도 앙심을 품거나 인신 공격을 하지 않았다.이런 작은 정책 위반에 대해 십여 명의 사용자를 반드시 금지할 필요가 있을까?

이 시점에서 나는 그들 중 많은 (혹은 그 어느 누구도) 돌아올 것이라고 생각하지 않는다.그들은 그들이 즐기는 소프트웨어를 구하기 위해 왔고 극도의 적개심에 부딪혔고, 그들 모두를 위한 토론에 참여시키지 않으려는 시도는 금지로 끝났다.만약 내가 그들의 입장이라면, 나는 돌아오지 않을 것이다.

왜 차단되지 않은 두 사람만이 추가 정밀 조사 때문에 블록을 제거했을까?매일 얼마나 많은 불필요한 영구 블록이 주어지는지 궁금하다. 69.196.147.65 (토크) 06:35, 2010년 3월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

이 문제는 우리측이 이례적으로 잘 처리하지 못했으며 대규모 WP는 다음과 같이 말했다.물림 실패.우리의 공신력 정책은 인기가 없어서 설명하기 어렵다.WP:N이 좋은 아이디어인 이유는 다소 미묘하며, 이를 묵직한 접근법으로 부과하는 것은 많은 잠재적 편집자들을 소외시킬 것을 보장한다.이 세바클은 많은 악의를 불러일으켰고 관료로서의 위키피디아의 명성을 강화시켰다.우리는 더 이상 성장하지 않고, 잠재적인 편집자들을 화나게 할 여유도 없다.우리는 새로운 사용자들에게 좀 더 침착하고 인내심을 가져야 한다.사용자:블루보이96이나 특히 다른 사용자들이지만, 확실히 우리는 이것보다 더 나은 것을 할 수 있고 또 해야만 한다.henrik•talk 07:58, 2010년 3월 21일 (UTC)[응답하라]

단지 우리만이 아니라, 왜 그것이 좋은 생각이 아닌지에 대한 설명이 있은 지 한참 후에 사용자가 계속해서 미트푸펫을 모집했기 때문이다.그러나 나는 혼란의 중심지가 AfD였기 때문에 토론이 끝날 때까지 어떤 계좌도 차단했을 것이다.나는 또한 "그것은 주목할 만한 것이다!"라는 큰 주장이 내가 기억하는 한, 신뢰할 수 있는 독립적인 출처와 일치하지 않았기 때문에 AfD는 잘못 폐쇄되었다고 생각한다.가이 (도움말!) 2010년 3월 21일 11시 54분 (UTC)[응답]

물론, 그것은 타당하다.그리고 그렇다, AfD는 아마도 삭제로 종결되었어야 한다. 하지만 우리는 이미 편집자가 아니고 항상 시스템의 세부사항을 알고 있는 모든 사람들을 화나게 할 수는 없다.그것은 우리가 불명확한 X 창 매니저에 대한 기사를 가지고 있는지 없는지에 대한 것보다 훨씬 더 중요하다.너와 나 그리고 다른 모든 관리들은 이미 쓸모없는 관료주의 병신이라는 나쁜 평판을 얻고 있다.WP:RFA는 12명의 후보를 동시에 보유하고 있었는데, 지금은 종종 후보지가 비어 있다.우리의 사용자 기반은 고원화되었다.우리는 사람들이 관여하고 초기 장애물을 낮추는 것을 돕기 위해 더 많은 것을 할 필요가 있다.물론, 그들은 실수를 할 것이다.물론, 그들은 처음에는 그들 자신의 것을 홍보하려고 할 것이다.하지만 우리는 그것들이 필요하다.그리고 우리의 정책을 어떻게 일리가 있는 방식으로 설명할 것인지 알아내야 한다.henrik•talk 12:13, 2010년 3월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

논의 후 삭제로 AfD를 종료한다는 것은 "합의"의 완전한 재정의를 의미하거나 WP:컨센서스.그것은 논평가들을 "제안된 논쟁 제공자"의 지위로 떨어뜨리고, 최종 결정은 누가 먼저든 간에 완전히 맡겨지게 될 것이다.물론, 그 사람은 모든 정책과 가이드라인에 대한 완벽한 지식, 완벽한 이해와 만장일치로 모든 출처를 평가할 수 있는 능력, 그리고 완전히 정당화된 결정을 내릴 수 있는 마법의 과정을 적용한다.만약 우리가 관리자들 사이에 이런 놀라운 창조물들을 가지고 있다면, 그들 역시 의견을 제시하도록 놔두지 말고, 관리자들을 위해 그 모든 추잡한 토론을 무시하는 것은 어떨까?우리는 AfDs 라운드 로빈을 배정할 수도 있고, 누가 무엇을 끝냈는지 추첨을 할 수도 있다.같은 논리로 우리는 그런 성가시고 분열적인 공동체 토론 없이 관료들에게 행정관을 임명하게 할 수 있었다. --Stephan Schulz (대화) 12:28, 2010년 3월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

아니, 그것은 전적으로 타당한 합의의 해석일 것이다. 이것은 명백히 투표가 아니다.소수가 정책을 올바르게 인용하고 소수가 연기만 내뿜는 다수결에 대해 많은 삭제 논쟁이 종결되었다.그렇기 때문에 우리는 투표는 정책을 무시할 수 없고 AfD 토론은 WP와 같은 가이드라인을 뒷받침하는 훨씬 더 강력한 합의를 무시할 수 없기 때문에 "투표가 아니다"라는 모든 것을 가지고 있다.RS. 가이 (도움말!) 2010년 3월 22일 18:13 (UTC)[응답]

다수결에 반대하는 것은 내가 항상 비판해왔던 것이다.압도적 다수를 상대로 마무리를 짓는 것은 공정의 남용일 것이다.합의는 우리 규칙의 근원이며 궁극적인 결정권자지 그 반대는 아니다.만약 규칙이 명확하지 않다면, 우리는 그것을 적용하기 위해 작은 프로그램을 쓸 수 있을 것이다.그들이 아니기 때문에, 우리는 그것들을 해석하기 위해 사람들에게 의존한다.그리고 이 경우, 미트푸펫을 할인하고 심지어 공격적인 윙윙거림까지 세는 것조차 확실히 삭제해야 할 합의는 없다. --Stephan Schulz (토크) 09:15, 2010년 3월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

대다수가 AfD에만 존재하는 것이 아니라는 점을 제외하면, 그것은 논의된 정책 페이지와 가이드라인 페이지에 존재한다.그런 페이지를 만드는 데 도움을 준 모든 사람들이 AfD 토론회에 나타나지 않는다고 해서 이곳에 어떤 기사가 존재해야 하는지에 대한 그들의 의견을 무시해야 한다는 뜻은 아니다.그래, 너와 다른 많은 사람들은 그들이 원하는 어떤 기사라도 위키피디아에서 보관할 수 있다면 꽤 행복할 거야. 하지만 그건 그렇게 되지 않아.컨센서스는 그렇게 말하지 않으며, 당신은 WP의 심각한 경우를 경험했다.이 모든 과정 중에 IDNTHEART.아무리 노력해서라도 의견이 일치되는 것은 아니며 이 기사를 중심으로 진행되어 온 모든 절차는 DWM 관련자들과 그들의 미트푸펫 관련자들에 의해 농담이 되어왔다.--크로스미르 (talk) 06:25, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

내 침묵의 다수가 너의 침묵의 다수보다 더 크다.그리고 인신공격과 선의에 감사한다. --Stephan Schulz (대화) 23:38, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

어떻게 그럴 수가 있지? 이 기사를 뒷받침하는 정책이나 지침에는 전혀 아무 것도 없었고, 고기 인형 무리들에 의해 거짓된 의견 일치가 되는 것이 허용되었다.지금까지 여러 번 의견 일치를 보셨지만, 한 명 이상의 사용자가 동의하셨습니다.나는 행정관이 그것이 무엇인지에 대해 거의 파악하지 못하는 것이 다소 당황스럽다고 생각한다.지역 다수는 당신이 수백명 이상의 사용자들이 그 토론에 나타나지 않는 한 의견 일치를 전혀 고려하지 않는다.V, NPOV, Consensus, 그리고 RS와 Notability와 같은 가이드라인 뒤에 숨겨진 침묵의 다수는 AfD에 나타나서 어머니의 무덤에서 그것이 정말로 매우 중요하다고 약속한 몇 안 되는 사람들을 훨씬 능가했다.그들이 AfD의 진행에 있어서 그 어떤 것보다도 더 중요할 것이다.그래서 WP는 다음과 같다.컨센서스는 특히 이러한 주장이 AfD에 대한 어떤 개인 또는 개인의 보장 그룹보다 훨씬 더 큰 비중을 차지하기 때문에 기존 정책 및 지침과 비교되어야 한다고 기술한다.반대편을 지지하는 것은 소수의 사람들이 나타나서 며칠 동안 계속하게 할 수 있는 어떤 것도 포함하는 것을 의미할 것이다. 이것은 우리가 특별히 하지 않는 것이다.이 기사는 정책과 가이드라인에 있는 것보다 더 많은 군중들의 열정에 의해 유지되었다.사람들이 자네를 그만 불러내서 증거를 정리하길 바라는 거군네가 이 모든 과정을 하기를 꽤 꺼려했던 것.당신은 당신이 그렇게 믿을만하다고 주장하는 출처를 제공하라는 몇 시간을 요구받았고 대신 토론에서 물러났다.그렇다면 기존의 정책이나 가이드라인보다 훨씬 큰 규모의 침묵 다수가 어느 정도라고 생각하십니까?당신이 WP를 무시할 수 있다는 것을 의미한다고 생각하는 것은 당신이 얼마나 침묵하는 다수는 당신이 WP:컨센서스하고 당신만의 해석규칙을 만들어?--크로스르 (토크) 05:50, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 동의하지 않는다. 나는 AfD에서 나의 주장을 반복하기를 거부한다. 왜냐하면 나는 이미 WP를 알고 있기 때문에 논쟁을 무시하는 사람과 논쟁하는 것은 무의미하다는 것을 배웠기 때문이다.진실. 너는 글을 쓰는 동안 숨을 쉬어본 적이 있니?아니면 생각하나?No consensions close는 DRV에서 만장일치로 승인되었다는 점에 유의하십시오. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그 블록들을 제거하는 것이 아마도 사과와 함께 좋은 최소한의 첫걸음이 될 것이라고 생각한다.그것을 넘어서면, "미트푸펫" 정책은 면밀히 검토되어야 한다.아끼는 것을 아끼고자 하는 것은 악랄한 행동이 아니다.선거운동 정책은 어떤 것에 관심을 갖는 사람들이 그것의 임박한 삭제에 대해 통지를 받지 못하도록 하는 것이 주된 목적이라고 읽는다.완전히 무관심한 사람들이 토론하는 것은 삭제에 치우치는 것이다. 그들 중 몇몇이 당면한 주제에 관심을 갖지 않는다면 자료를 찾는데 많은 시간을 할애할 것이기 때문이다.기사를 삭제하는 것이 나쁜 경험이 될 필요는 없다.열정적인 커뮤니티가 단순히 좋은 출처를 찾을 수 있다면 기사의 배제가 재평가될 것이라는 말을 듣는다면 출처 찾기에 최선을 다할 것이다.만약 당신이 토론을 보호함으로써 에코 챔버로 줄이고, 그것을 지키기 위한 주장을 제시하기 위해 최선을 다한 사용자들을 금지한다면, 그 커뮤니티는 당신을 혐오하기 시작한다.사용자:Mclaudt는 금지되어야 한다.그의 행동은 현재 정책에 의해 금지되어 있지만, 정책은 깨졌다.그는 단지 삭제를 막으려는 열정적인 사용자였을 뿐, 위키피디아에 대한 재청구가 없어 그 밖으로 나가야 했다.나는 가장 논쟁이 되는 삭제 논쟁은 검증 가능한 출처가 조금이라도 있다면 유지되는 것으로 끝나야 한다고 생각한다.사용자를 차단하고 토론에 참여하지 못하게 함으로써, 또 다른 커뮤니티는 소외되고 편집자의 잠재적 기반이 작아진다. 69.196.147.65 (대화) 23:41, 2010년 3월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 네가 말한 모든 것에 대체로 동의해.나는 이 모든 계정을 차단할 것을 제안한다.더 이상의 붕괴 가능성은 낮다.기사에 열정적인 것은 확실히 무기한 차단할 만한 죄악은 아니며, 드문 기고자들을 일종의 이류 시민처럼 대하는 것은 내 입에 신맛을 남긴다.

삭제가 나쁜 경험일 필요는 없다는 것을 설명하는 방법은 이미 삭제 과정이 어떻게 작동해야 하는지에 대한 것이다.출처를 찾고 기사를 개선하기 위해 협력하거나, 할 수 없다고 일괄적으로 결정하는 것이어야 한다.우리는 그것에 대해 더 잘 설명할 필요가 있다.henrik•talk 06:55, 2010년 3월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 상황의 집단 블록이 다소 강압적이었다는 것을 인정한다.그러나 상황을 고려하면 정말 다른 선택의 여지가 없었다.이러한 사용자들 중 많은 수가 1~2년 동안 기여하지 않았다가 갑자기 다시 나타나 AfD에 기여했다.내 생각에 그것은 단지 AfDs에서 투표하기 위해 새로 온 계정보다 훨씬 더 나쁘다.게다가 그는 경고를 받고도 계속 유세를 했고, 정말로 내 마음속에 망치를 떨어뜨리는 것 외에는 다른 방도가 없었다.블루보이96 14:45, 2010년 3월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

여기서 일어난 일은 중압감을 넘어서는 것이다. 34분 동안 11개의 무기한 블록이 배치되었고, 그 중 6개는 이전보다 1~2분 이내에 배치되었다.사용자 중 5명은 러시아어 위키백과 편집자가 좋은 위치에 설치되어 있다:ru:hundakpastasa ик:닥터시누스, 루:уррарарарарарарарарарарарарарарарарарарарарарарарарарарарарарарарара, 루:0xd34df00d, 루:la.네크로스포루스, 뤼:урарарарарарарарарарарарир잉그와르. 다른 세 명(사용자:Jasonwryan, 사용자:테이어우, 사용자:안셀가르베)는 위키백과 사용자 이름과 유사한 도메인을 가진 무료 소프트웨어 개발자들이다.후자는 dwm의 개발자임을 유의한다.특이치, 사용자:아르네밥은 의견 일치가 부족하고 그의 편향된 선거운동에 대한 실질적인 증거가 없음에도 불구하고 며칠 후 봉쇄되었다.이들은 반달족이 아니라 무작위 문자열을 이름으로 등록하고 AFD를 반복적으로 파괴한 것이 아니라, 기사의 포함을 위해 최선의 주장을 했을 뿐이다.이러한 사용자들 중 몇몇은 한동안 존재해왔고, 투명성에도 불구하고 그렇게 쉽게 선의의 믿음을 창 밖으로 내던지는 것은 경각심을 불러일으킨다.사실, 그들은 반달족보다 더 가난했다 - 적어도 대부분의 반달족들은 먼저 경고를 받는 경향이 있다.그런 다음, "메트푸펫"의 대량 차단을 완료한 후 8분 후에 삭제에 대한 정당성을 사용하여 삭제에 찬성표를 던졌다.부상 추가, User_talk:네크로스포러스는 다른 관리자들로부터 4번이나 무차단을 거부당했는데, 그들은 그 블록이 그곳에 있을 것이라고 추측했다.그리고 다른 대부분의 사람들과는 달리, 그는 여전히 봉쇄되어 있어.30분 동안 11개의 잘못된 생각들이 순간적인 판단 착오보다 훨씬 더 많은 것을 구성한다.Fedbn (대화) 08:36, 2010년 3월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

아까도 말했지만, 이 사건에서 나의 블록은 잠자는 사람들에 의한 노골적인 봉헌이라고 본 것에 대해 무릎에 거슬리는 반응이었다.만약 내가 그 AfD에 기여하는 다른 프로젝트에서 좋은 위치에 있는 사용자들이 있다는 것을 알았더라면, 단지 잠자는 사람들만의 계정이 아니라, 나는 차단하지 않았을 것이다.나는 단지 누군가가 나에게 이것을 더 일찍 알려 주었더라면 좋았을 뿐이다.만약 내가 이것을 알았다면, 그들의 진술은 단지 토론을 방해하려는 헛된 시도가 아니라, 그들이 잘 알지 못하는 언어로 기여하기 위해 최선을 다하는 사람들처럼 보였을 것이다.블루보이96 13:31, 2010년 3월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

삭제 논의가 라이히스타그-클라이밍-복장-스파이더맨 경연대회로 번지는 것을 막고, 무언가를 지켜야 하는지/삭제해야 하는지/등등에 대한 공동체의 (즉, 그 단면) 관점을 적절히 반영하기 위해서는, 때때로 모든 곳에서 항의만 하는 사람들을 막기 위한 조치가 필요하다(예를 들면).여기서 행해지고 있는 것).문제의 사실은 그 차단된 계정들이 여기서 dwm 기사를 방어하기 위한 목적 외에는 다른 목적이 없었다는 것이다.그렇기에 분명한 혼란이 일어나지 않는 한 차단이 절대적으로 필요하지는 않았을 것이다.–MuZemike 16:12, 2010년 3월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그 "사실"에 동의하지 않길 바란다.나도 차단당했고, 내 계정의 목적은 내가 오류를 빨리 고칠 수 있는 곳에 기여하는 것이었고 또 내가 할 수 있는 것이었어.나는 시장 편집자가 아니다. 왜냐하면 나는 다른 프로젝트들, 많은 프로젝트들 또한 무료 소프트웨어에서 일하고 있고 내 아내와 함께 시간을 보내고 싶기 때문이다.그러나 대부분의 경우 오류를 보고 적절하게 고칠 수 있다고 확신할 때(그리고 진정한 개선을 가져올 수 있는 주제에 대한 충분한 이해를 가지고 있다) 나는 오류를 고칠 시간을 어느 정도 적립했다.AfD 논의에 기여하는 것은 단순한 해결책보다 훨씬 더 많은 시간이 소요되었을 수도 있지만, 그것은 의도하지 않은 것이며 내가 아는 분야에서 명백한 오류를 본 결과였다.그러니 제발 그 말을 취소해 주시오.그것은 부당하고, 내 계좌에 대해서만 그런 것이 아니다.드라케토 (대화) 22:14, 2010년 3월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

블루보이96의 안젤름가베 처리 세부사항

우리가 아직도 여기서 일어난 일을 옹호하는 경험이 있는 편집자들이 있다는 것은 믿을 수 없다.dwm의 개발자인 안셀름 가르베의 예를 들어보자.그:

• 실명 계정을 사용하여 그가 누구인지를 공개적으로 말했다. [2]
• 정보 제공을 위해 AfD에 왔다.
• 그가 캔버스화되었다고 공공연히 말했다. [3]
• 일부 신뢰할 수 있는 출처를 토론에 도입했다.
• 그가 소개한 출처가 믿을 만한 출처라고 주장하지 않았다.
• 전혀 파괴적인 기여를 하지 않았다. [4]
• 아마도 기사를 저장하려는 분노한 사용자들에게 침착한 영향을 끼쳤을 것이다.
• !투표하려고 시도하지 않았다("중립"을 세지 않는 한), [5]
• 기사를 타일링 윈도우 매니저로 병합하자는 제안에 긍정적인 반응을 보이며, 대신 다른 기사로 병합될 수 있는 의견을 개진했다. [6]
• 예의 바르고, 사려 깊고, 합리적이고, 총명했다. [7]
• 2월 25일에 논평을 중단했다.[8]

그리고 반주 뒤인 2월 28일 블루보이96은 다음과 같이 말했다.

• 차단된 사용자:안젤름가베;
• 그를 무기한으로 막았다.
• 완전히 엽기적이고 반사실적인 블록 요약을 사용했다: "여러 계정 사용:Mclaudt의 자체 부착 미트푸펫";
• 토크 페이지에 차단 메시지를 전혀 남기지 않았다.

이 사실이 알려지자 두 명의 편집자가 즉시 안셀름 가르베를 차단하고 사과하는 대신, 언블록(Pcap과 사이코넛)을 요청했다. 블루보이96:

• "만약 그가 그가 한 일의 심각성을 이해한다면, 그가 차단되지 않을 이유가 없다." – 이것은 처음부터 안셀름 가르베가 아무 잘못도 하지 않았기 때문에 완전히 망상에 빠졌다는 것에 주목한다.
• "그가 편집에 관심이 있다고 다른 분야에 말하면 차단해제를 제안하는 이메일을 보냈을 뿐" – 참고: 21시간 후, Anselm Garbe는 내 이메일에 답장을 보냈고 그는 Blueboy96의 이메일을 받은 적이 없고 차단된 줄도 몰랐기 때문에 혼란스러웠다.

확인할 수 있어, 내 계정이 차단된 것을 몰랐고 2010년 3월 3일 한스 아들러 메일에서 알게 됐어.안젤름가베 (대화) 08:21, 2010년 3월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

• Anselm Garbe가 차단 해제된 후 사과하지 않았거나 적어도 공개적으로 하지 않았다[9] (이것은 분명히 중요하지 않다.

나는 이것이 고립된 실수라고 생각했지만, 이제 블루보이96이 캔버스화 된 터무니없는 '범죄'에 대해 무기한 블록을 대량으로 나눠줬다는 것을 알게 된 이상, 이것은 데시솝 영역에 확고히 자리 잡고 있다고 생각한다.한스 아들러 11:01, 2010년 3월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

2년 동안 활동을 하지 않은 후 이것과 이것의 처벌로서 이것 또한 완전히 정책 밖이다.

WP와 같은 짧은 가이드라인을 읽는 것은 얼마나 어려운가.캔버스(CANVANS)는 단 한 번도 선거운동의 대상을 차단하는 것을 언급하지 않았다는 점을 주목해야 한다.한스 아들러 11시 32분, 2010년 3월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

앞서 언급한 바와 같이 여기서의 문제의 일부는 WP:COVER는 가장 멍청하고 잘못된 위키백과 지침 중 하나이다(정책은 아님).왜 이런지는 그 발전의 역사에서 알 수 있다.그것은 WP로부터 분리되었다.처음에 "내부 스팸"이라고 불리는 스팸 메일은 원래 원하지 않는 알림(즉, 스팸)에만 언급된 캠페인에 대한 정책을 "내부 스팸"이라고 한다.그때 막 AfD 같은 것을 잃어버린 누군가가, 도끼로 갈기 위한 [10]을 가지고, 그것이 상대의 머리를 때릴 수 있는 편리한 막대(혹은 신 포도 뭉치)를 제공했다는 것을 깨달았고, 따라서 WP:COVER는 [11]로 태어났다. (얼마나 시큼한 포도가 있는지 주목하라.)기본적으로 나쁜 이기적인 지침은 오랫동안 잊혀져온 몇몇 삭제론자 vs.포용론자 논쟁에서 숭고한 이유보다 덜 숭고한 이유로 구상되고 쓰여졌다.그리고 나서 그것은 현 상태로 오식화되었다.

현실 세계에서 특정 이슈의 잠재적 이해 당사자인 사람들에게 알리는 것은 *좋은 일*으로 보여진다.시의회 선거가 실시되고 있다는 것을 누군가에게 상기시켜 준다면, 그들은 보통 "좋은 시민권"으로 여겨지는 투표하러 가야 한다.하지만 여기 위키피디아에서는, 많은 제안들이 특정 결과를 얻기 위해 "레이더 아래 흐른다"는 것이 분명히 좋은 것으로 여겨지고 있는 곳에서는, 그것은 모두 topsy turvy.radek (토크) 12:16, 2010년 3월 23일 (UTC)[응답하라]

블루보이96의 행동은 WP에 의해서도 결코 정당화되지 않았기 때문에, 나는 여기서 정말로 그것이 문제라고 생각하지 않는다.캔버스. 한스애들러 2010년 3월 23일(UTC) 12시 39분[응답]

나도 동의하지만, 이러한 종류의 "오해"에 부분적으로 책임이 있는 것은 지침 자체의 잘못된 특성이라고 생각한다.radek (대화) 13:34, 2010년 3월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 내가 안젤름 가르베를 취급한 것에 대해 전적으로 사과한다.어떤 온라인 커뮤니티에서든 항상 군사적으로 안티스팸을 해왔기 때문에(위키피디아뿐만 아니라) 내가 차단한 그의 모습은 순전히 반사적인 것이었다.그러나 그것은 WP의 정신에 부합되지 않았다.MIG는 그가 그 기사에 대한 개선을 제안하기 위해 선의의 노력을 기울였다.블루보이96 12:48, 2010년 3월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

안녕, 걱정마.사과가 받아들여졌다.안젤름가베 (대화) 08:21, 2010년 3월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

혹시라도 내 말이 얼버무릴까봐...

첫 번째 드름 아프드에서 무슨 일이 일어나고 있는지 알게 되었을 때, 나는 그 중 상당 부분이 잠꾸러기 계좌에 의해 자행되는 끔찍한 봉테스타킹을 봤다고 생각했다.하지만, 만약 내가 그 5명의 .ru 사용자들이 다른 위키에서 좋은 위치에 있는 기여자라는 것을 알았다면, 나는 확실히 차단하지 않았을 것이다.그 사실에 비추어 볼 때, 그들은 그저 자신들이 잘 모르는 언어로 기사를 보관하는 경우를 만들려고 했을 뿐이었다.

안셀름 가르베 사건--그것은 차단하려는 나의 입장에서 반사적인 반응이었다, 왜냐하면 나는 항상 스팸 발송과 봉테스타킹에 대해 무관용해 왔기 때문이다.However, 나는 그가 개선을 제안하기 위해 선의의 노력을 했다는 것을 자유롭게 인정한다.그런 이유로 내가 그를 차단한 것은 WP의 정신이 아니었다.미트, 그리고 내 반사적인 차단에 대해 사과할게.

이것으로 이 문제가 해결되었으면 좋겠다.블루보이96 13:37, 2010년 3월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

행정관이 '큰둥한 반응'으로 차단을 인정했을 때 좋은 징조는 아니다.확실히 어느 정도의 이성적인 생각이 어떤 차단보다 앞서야 하는가? --오이스터(토크) 13:44, 2010년 3월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

우리가 다른 프로젝트에서 좋은 상태로 사용자들을 상대하고 있다는 것을 그 당시에 아무도 알 수 없었을 것이다.안젤름에 관한 한, 앞서 말했듯이, 정책에 기반을 두고 있는 동안, 그것은 규칙의 정신에 맞지 않았다.블루보이96 21:16, 2010년 3월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

비슷한 일이 다시 일어나면 어떻게 반응할 것인지는 나와 있지 않다.그리고 당신은 안셀름뿐만 아니라 '다른 프로젝트에서 좋은 위치에 있다'는 사람들에게 변명만 늘어놓는다.다른 블록은?그리고 왜 사람들이 '좋은 지위'로 밝혀졌을 때 갑자기 잘못 받은 치료법이 잘못된 것일까?지위가 좋은 사람에게 행해졌을 때 그것이 잘못되었다면, 새로 온 사람에게 행해졌을 때 어떻게 그것이 옳을 수 있었겠는가?드라케토 (대화) 22:23, 2010년 3월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

네, 바로 그겁니다.블루보이96은 '미트푸펫'으로 추정되는 그런 산만한 블록들을 반복하는 것을 피해야 한다. 그렇지 않으면 나는 기꺼이 횃불과 피치포크를 들고 그의 탈소화를 부르겠다.기억해라: 너는 준설드 판사가 아니다.펜스&윈도우즈 22:46, 2010년 3월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

동의한다. 차단된 사용자 중 일부가 다른 프로젝트에서 좋은 위치에 있는 사용자였다는 사실은 요점을 벗어난다.이곳의 드라케토는 2004년부터 사용자로 있으면서 여전히 약식으로 차단되어 있었다.만약 여러분이 반달과 스팸메일 발송자들과 오랫동안 싸워왔다면, 지칠 대로 지치기 쉽고 자주 사용하지 않는 모든 사용자들은 그들이 여기 도움을 주기 위해 온 것과 같은 존경과 가정을 받을 자격이 있다는 것을 기억하기가 어렵다.그러나, 그것은 변명의 여지가 없다.우리는 이미 그룹에 속해 있지 않은 사람들을 위해 몇몇 인클릭과 다른 규칙들을 위한 특별한 규칙을 만들지 않도록 항상 조심해야 한다.누군가의 머리를 부르는 것은 생산적이지 않다고 생각하지만, 미래에 비슷한 상황을 다르게 다룰 것이라는 일종의 인정은 도움이 될 것이다.henrik•talk 10:27, 2010년 3월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

블록은 경고 후에도 사용자의 방해 활동이 계속될 때 최후의 수단이다.무기한 블록은 두 배로 그렇다.선의의 가정은 허용되어야 하며, 여기 있는 대부분의 사용자들의 지위는 단지 그것을 강화해야 한다.그러나 그것은 당신의 행동에 존재하는 것처럼 보이지 않았다.이 사건에서 당신은 판사, 배심원, 사형 집행인 역할을 했다.세 가지 역할을 모두 수행했다는 점에서 이들 사용자의 현황과 외부 연계에 대해 스스로 알리는 것이 의무였지만, 그렇지 않았다.이러한 각각의 무기한 금지사항을 배치하기 전에 신중하게 평가하지 않는 것은 관리자로 당신을 선택한 지역사회의 신뢰를 크게 침해하는 것이다.사과하는 것은 불충분하다 - 만약 이 문제가 최근에 조명되지 않았다면 이 무고한 기여자들은 영구적으로 차단되었을 것이다.마지막으로, 사용자에게 남겨진 잘못된 정보 제공 블록 요약은 아직 다루지 않으셨습니다.안젤름가베도, 당신이 그와 의사소통을 했다고 주장하는 심각한 비난도 아니고, 안젤름은 분명히 부인한다.나는 그에게 이리로 와서 분명히 말해 달라고 부탁했다.Fedbn (대화) 01:16, 2010년 3월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 AfD에 대한 안셀름의 진술을 받아들였는데, 그가 토론에 대해 경각심을 느꼈다는 것을 그가 탐문수사를 받은 것을 인정하기 위해서였다.말하자면, 앞으로 AfD에 참여하기 위해 조사된 것으로 보이는 계정이 명백히 파괴적이거나 SPA인 것이 확실하지 않다면, 나는 그들의 토크 페이지에 그들에게 경고할 것이다.블루보이96 13:12, 2010년 3월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

안셀름이 자신이 탐문수사를 받았다고 말한 것은 전혀 무관하다.네가 지금 이런 식으로 반복하고 있다는 사실은 네가 이것을 이해했는지 궁금하다.지난 ANI 토론에서 여론 조사를 받는 것은 누군가에게 불리하게 작용할 수 있다고 생각한 몇몇 편집자들과의 토론에서 분명히 문제가 있었다.그것은 단지 그들의 잘못이 아니기 때문에 할 수 없다.블록버튼이 있는 사람이 그 사실을 지적받고도 이런 오해 속에 남아 있을 수도 있다는 생각이 나를 매우 불안하게 하니, 분명히 말해 주시오.한사들러 2010년 3월 24일 (UTC) 16:32[응답]

나는 이제 이런 식으로 여기 오는 계정들은 개별적인 기준으로 보아야 하며, 자동적으로 모든 것이 파괴적이라고 가정할 수는 없다는 것을 깨달았다.블루보이96 21:46, 2010년 3월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

내셔널리즘 SPA

• 헤크웨 (토크 · 기여)

그들이 세라핀의 삭푸라기든 아니든 간에, 그것들은 영원히 차단되어야 한다.

• 사용자 페이지 [12]의 국가주의 의견:
  • 나는 독일인들이 너를 싫어한다는 사실에 놀랐다.
  • 폴란드에서 가장 잘 알려진 독일어 캐릭터.이것이 내가 바간/조작에 대해 의견을 개진하는 주된 이유다.버더는 오데르에 있고 나이스는 한 발도 넘지 못하게 한다. 이전과 같은 경우가 많을 것이다.그들은 가장 가까운 시기에 2등을 할 수 있도록 발을 무디게 할 것이다.
  • 독일의 우월주의적인 시도는 용납될 수 없다.폴란드 사람인 척하는 걸 도와줘야지4) 실레시아인들은 원래 슬라브 부족이었고 폴란드 국가의 창조자일 뿐 아니라 일부였다.나는 2차 세계대전이 폴란드 민족에게 역사적으로 폴란드 유산에 속하는 강철을 시도하게 한 후에 너와 독일인들은 부끄러워해야 한다고 생각한다.
  • 이것은 독일 분리주의자들이 자신들을 종종 실레시아인이라고 부르는 선전이다.
  • Krasicki는 독일화된 폴이었다 - 내가 보기에 뱀이었다.
  • 독일인!!!!! Dzierzon이 너를 싫어하니 그만 건방지게 굴어라.
• 그들의 토크 페이지에서의 유사한 논평[13]
• 그리고 전적으로 WP에만 초점을 맞춘 기여:양봉가의 국적/특성에 대한 진실.

사용자에게 이 스레드에 대한 통지를 받는다.스카페뢰드 (대화) 09:09, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

WP에 의해 제거된 내용:사용자#NOT 및 WP:SOAP. 이제 남은 질문은 "인간은 천사의 후손인가 아니면 아피리스트인가?"이다.LessEverned vanU (대화) 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC) 12시 58분[응답]

논평 - 그렇다, 이 사용자는 부적절하고 지지되지 않는 몇몇 민족주의적 관점을 밀어붙이려는 의도가 꽤 있는 것 같다. 그러나 나는 (다른 방향에서 같은 일을 많이 하지만 그의 대화 스타일에 조금 더 교묘하다는 것을 배운) 그의 독일 상대편의 행동이 더 낫다고 보지 않는다.나는 이 무고한 전기 기사를 민족주의적인 싸움터로 삼아, 그리고 이와 유사한 주제에서 벗어나도록 강요받고 있는 모든 사람들을 보고 싶다.--코트니스키 (토크) 13:15, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

히끄웨의 사용자 페이지에서 보면 상대가 너인 줄 알았는데, 기사 편집 이력을 보면 '독일 상대'가 마태드를 지칭하는 것 같다?만약 당신이 마태복음처럼 "관련없고 지지되지 않는 민족주의적인 견해를 강요"하는 것에 대해 확신한다면, 이것은 다른 것을 지지하지 않고 하는 꽤 강력한 주장이기 때문에, 증거를 제시해 달라.그것은 차치하고라도 위키-뷰로크라이시 게임을 할 만큼 충분히 정교한 편견을 가진 POV 푸셔들이 WP라는 것에 동의한다.페스트, 하지만 이 판에서는 해결이 안 될 거야

여기서 해결할 수 있는 것은 적어도 공공연히 드러나는 민족주의 계정을 차단하는 것이다.세라핀이 그 이후로 기사를 남용해서 비슷한 계정 이름을 사용했으니까 세라핀 전문가도 의견을 냈겠죠?근본적인 인종 분쟁과 관련하여, 나는 그 기사가 외부 입력을 필요로 한다는 것에 동의한다. 이 역시 세라핀, EEML 그리고 몇몇 다른 허가된 사용자들과 관련된 것으로 보인다.베스트 스카페뢰드 (토크) 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC) 14:29 [응답]

첫째로, 우리는 민족주의적 관점을 갖는 것에 대한 설명을 차단하지 않는다 - 우리는 그들의 민족주의적 관점이 일반 프로젝트에 지장을 줄 경우(그러나 다른 민족주의적 관점의 감성을 해친다고 해서가 아니라), 둘째로 동유럽 기사에 관한 논쟁 문제는 WP에서 다룬다.DIGWUREN 및 기타 ArbCom 관련 결정은 중재 집행 기관에 맡겨야 한다.마지막으로 SPI 사건이 진행 중인 것으로 보이므로 다른 우려 사항을 조사하기 전에 결론을 내려야 할지도 모른다.내가 아는 한, 나는 정책당 계정 사용자 페이지에 있는 비누박스를 제거했다; 분쟁 해결을 위한 다른 방법들이 있다.LessEverned vanU (대화) 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC) 15:06[응답]

Heaqwe의 사용자 페이지에 있는 "예고된 세라핀 양말" 태그(및 기사의 편집 내역과 이치에 맞는 계정 이름과 행동으로부터)만 해도 나는 현재 진행 중인 어떤 SPI 사건도 알지 못하지만 나는 CU가 아니다.각 SPI를 연결하여 이 스레드 무트를 렌더링할 수 있다면.

나는 이론상으로는 민족주의만이 계정을 파괴하지 않는다는 것에 동의한다.실제로 여기에 계정을 등록하는 민족주의자들은 펑기 분류법을 편집하고 싶어서 그렇게 하는 것이 아니다.헤크웨는 독일-폴란드 민족 분쟁을 편집하고 편집자를 국적으로 판단하는 것만으로 공공연히 폴란드와 반독일의 민족주의자다.그것은 파괴적이고, 그것에 근거한 합리적인 토론은 불가능하다.스카페뢰드 (대화) 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC) 16:25[응답]

SPI가 진행되지 않는 것 같아서 여기에 신청했어.스카페뢰드 (대화) 08:44, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

'소프박스'는 나와 그의 토론에 불과했다(우린 우연히 토크 페이지보다는 그의 사용자 페이지에 있게 되었다).마찬가지로 비생산적인 시도가 나의 토크 페이지(사용자 대화:코트니스키#진짜 의심의 여지가 없다).그 외에는 헤아크웨와 마태아드가 번갈아 가며 각자의 라인을 밀고 나가는 편집작업(폴란드인이 없을 때는 폴란드인만이 실레시아 원주민일 수 있다 vs 폴란드인이 없었다)과 나와 다른 한 두 사람은 그들의 과잉을 억제하려고 애쓰고 있다.지난번 기사를 봤을 때 괜찮아 보였으니까 (논란이 되어야 할 근본적인 이유는 없다) skap이 시사하는 바와 같이, 분별 있는 편집자 몇 명을 그 페이지에 눈독을 들이면 문제가 해결될지도 모른다.---코트니스키 (토크) 15:34, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

편집 이력을 보면 적어도 2007년으로 거슬러 올라가는 것 같다(더 이상 찾아보지 않았다)."지난번에 기사를 봤을 때 괜찮아 보였다"고 하셨는데, 그것은 실제로 모든 관련 편집자들의 동의가 있는 개정판이 있다는 뜻인가?스카페뢰드 (대화) 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC) 16:25[응답]

글쎄, 매튜드를 제외한다면, 나는 그 페이지의 현재 버전에 문제가 있는 사람은 아무도 모른다.--코트니스키 (토크) 16:35, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

세라핀은 더 이상 아무도 지에르손 기사를 돌보려 하지 않는 것 같아 모든 관리자들을 지치게 한 모양이다.반면에, 폴란드 편집자들은 종종 나를 기꺼이 차단할 관리자를 찾는다.기사에 대해서는 현재 상태와 제목이 아쉽다.그것은 WP이다."실레시아에서 온 장대였다"로 인트로 시작하는 것은 부당하다.그것은 "켄터키 출신의 일리노이 사람"으로 에이브러햄 링컨에게 바이오를 여는 것과 같다.공화당 정치인이자 저명한 대통령이 됐다고 말했다.얼마나 유치한 일인가?분명히, 세라핀/히크웨, 베테랑 편집자인 스페이스 캐데와 코티스키가 그것을 좋아하는 것 같다-그들의 최우선 순위인 "폴"로 시작하는 것은 당연하다.BTW, 나는 독일어로 그를 인용하는 일부 폴란드 소식통(오류)과 함께, 1966년에 폴란드 판이 추가된 "Jan Dzierzon"의 묘비 사진을 링크하여 독일 기사를 확대했다(!). "Jan Dzierzon"은 폴란드 실레시아의 열렬한 애국자 겸 수비수"라고 발음했다.추신: 얀 지에르손은 2003년에 언론 캠페인이 그를 사임시킬 때까지 오폴레 보이스십[14]의 부성장이었다는 사실을 알고 있었는가?[15] [16] 폴란드인들의 문제는 지에르존이 그곳의 독일 소수민족을 대표한다는 것이었다. -- 마태드 디스큐 04:16, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 당신이 우리의 기사를 개선하기 위해 소스화된 정보를 추가할 수 있다면, 그것은 좋을 것이다. (그러나 100년 후에 우연히 같은 이름을 갖게 된 사람에 대해 무관심하지 않은 것 - 왜 우리를 그런 연결고리로 지칭하는 우리의 시간을 낭비하는 겁니까?) "폴"은 "일리노이산"과 같지 않다. 누군가의 국적을 언급하는 것은 지극히 정상적이고, 전혀 부당한 것이 아니다.시민권과 동일하거나, 나중에 그가 기사 앞부분에서 말하고 출판하게 된 언어)또한 기사의 리드선은 그 내용을 반영해야 하며, 현재 기사의 소싱된 내용은 그의 폴란드스러움을 매우 분명하게 한다.만약 당신이 그것에 의문을 제기하는 다른 출처를 가지고 있거나 혹은 현재의 출처가 신뢰할 수 없거나 잘못 사용되고 있다고 생각한다면, 들어봅시다.나는 확실히 그가 폴이 아니었다면 그를 폴로 묘사하는 것을 원하지 않을 것이다; 하지만 우리 모두는 그가 폴로 묘사하는 것을 원해야 한다.당신이 가지고 있는 것처럼 보이는 문제는 당신이 계속 비판하고 있는 폴란드 편집자들과 같은 종류의 십자군원정을 하고 있다는 것이다 - 당신은 모든 사람들이 사소한 구실(나는 독일인 명단의 범위를 넓히려는 당신의 최근 시도에 주목한다), 독일인 이름을 사용하고 독일인이 아닌 사람들을 삭제하는 것 등을.종종 당신의 변화는 옳다, 왜냐하면 주변에 반독재 편집자들이 많이 있지만, 그렇다고 해서 다른 방향으로 똑같이 할 수 있는 것은 아니다.--코트니스키 (토크) 07:23, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그렇구나, 헤크웨이는 막혔고, 지금은 기사토크 페이지에서 건설적인 논의가 진행 중이라 이 실을 해결된 것으로 표시하고 있다.--코트니스키 (토크) 11:41, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

저작권/라이센싱 문제

사용자:람나레시아다브1982는 저작권이 있는 텍스트의 추가(경고 후 재 추가)뿐만 아니라 적절한 라이센스 정보나 공정한 사용에 대한 의문스러운 주장이 결여된 이미지를 지속적으로 웹 페이지에 업로드한다.가장 최근에 오늘 아침에 면허가 없다는 이유로 삭제된 파일을 다시 업로드했다.그들은 우리가 단순히 저작권이 있는 자료를 받아들일 수 없다는 것을 이해하지 못하는 것 같다.버노위트니 (토크) 17:28, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 그가 자료의 소유자라고 주장하는 것 같아.WP에 지시해야 한다.OTRS가 저작권으로부터 해당 자료를 공개하고 무료 면허를 받을 수 있도록?–MuZemike 20:06, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

그가 해야 할 일에 대한 링크는 저작권 침해와 공정한 사용 근거 템플릿과 함께 그의 토크 페이지에 반복적으로 포함되었다.도움이 될 것 같으면 내가 새 손타입을 수 있어.나는 단지 그것이 그가 이미 받은 통지서와 다를 것이 없을까 의심스러워서 이미 하지 않았다.버노위트니(토크) 21:06, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답하라]

경고된 사용자.WP에 사용자를 보고하는 것을 고려하십시오.교란이 계속된다면 AIV. -FASTY_sock^(TALK) 03:58, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

당신의 경고 이후 또 다른 이슈에 대해 완료되었고 차단되었다. WP와 유사한 우려만 할 것이다.다음번에는 AIV.어쩐지 반복되는 저작권 문제가 공공 기물 파손으로 간주된다는 사실을 잊고 있었다.고마워!버노위트니 (토크) 13:55, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

내 사용자 대화 페이지의 원치 않는 주석

사용자:Mk5384는 내 사용자 토크 페이지 [17], [18], [19]에 부정적이고 미개하며 원치 않는 의견을 게시하고 있다.[20], [21]을(를) 사용자(두 번)에게 요청한 후 이 작업을 취소하십시오.User의 토크 페이지에서도 유사한 상황이 전개되었다.오프2리오롭[22]사용자 자신의 토크 페이지에도 [23], 공지사항을 즉시 삭제해 달라고 했다. -OberRacks (대화) 04:13, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

편집자가 경고하기를 -- 공이 지금 그들의 코트에 있다. --SerkOfVulcan (대화) 04:27, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

공이 내 코트에 있다고?좋아! OberRanks는 내 게시물에 대한 답장을 올렸다. 그리고 나서 내가 거기에 넣은 다른 것은 삭제하겠다고 협박했다.그럼, 그는 마지막 말을 받고, 나는 반박을 허락받지 않았단 말인가?더군다나 이 자리에서 나에 대한 댓글을 달고, 통보도 하지 않는 등 정책 위반이 아닌가.이 사용자는 존 퍼싱 토론에서 볼 수 있는, 그가 그 편지에 대해 자신의 뜻대로 되지 않을 때 관리자들에게 달려가는 버릇이 있다.그는 그 기사의 최종 권위가 주어지는 권리를 거절당했기 때문에 성질을 내고 있다.위키피디아의 내력을 보면 내가 예의와 타협을 한 기록이 있음을 알 수 있을 것이다.하지만 그렇다고 해서 내가 누구의 도마트가 되겠다는 뜻은 아니다!감사합니다.Mk5384 (대화) 04:58, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

어떤 관리자라도 존 퍼싱 토론에 대한 나의 기여를 검토할 수 있다. 나는 숨길 것이 없다.JP 기사에서의 토론은 나 자신의 사용자 페이지에 있는 미개한 토크 페이지 노트와는 무관하다. -OberRacks (토크) 05:28, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

다시, 그가 여기 있다.그는 마지막 말을 해야 한다.혼자 남고 싶다고 주장하다가 솥을 휘젓으러 온다.관리자로서 OberRacks가 이제 Pershing 기사를 검토할 수 있는 권한을 부여했다는 점을 유념하십시오.Mk5384 (대화) 05:43, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그렇다, 이 편집은 내가 존 퍼싱 기사에 실린 자료와 관련하여 성질을 내고 있다는 M5384의 진술로 볼 때 특히 흥미가 있을 것이다.'시민성과 타협'이라는 트랙 기록까지, 사용자 토크 페이지에는 편집전쟁에 대한 경고와 함께 다른 사람의 토크 페이지에 부적절한 게시물에 대한 최근의 실마리가 담겨 있다.또한 사용자가 코멘트 없이 삭제한 최근 3rrr 경고 [24]도 있었다[25].패턴이 분명한 것 같아. -오버랭크스 (대화) 06:09, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]

Mk5384, 넌 정말 설 다리가 없어.물러나는 게 좋겠어.Jtrainor (대화) 06:17, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

Mk5384는 1월에 시작되었고 그의 7번째 편집은 "N*gger Jack"을 퍼싱의 닉네임 리스트에 넣으려고 시도했다.최근에 그는 알 수 없는 이유로 그것을 십자군원정으로 만들었다.【베이스볼 벅스 당근→ 2010년 3월 26일(UTC)】[응답]

알 수 없는 이유?좋아; 나는 선의로 행동할 것이다.그의 이름이었다.Mk5384 (대화) 12:29, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

아니, 그렇지 않았다.어쨌든, 이번 편집 전쟁에서 가장 최근에 번복한 것은 여기 [26]이며, 그것을 다시 추가할 명분을 제공하지 않는다.여기에 정당성을 게시하는 것은 중요하지 않다.←베이스볼 버그스카르티크^{What's up, Doc?}→ 12:32, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

좋아; 이건 그냥 바보같아졌어.아니 아니었어?62명의 출처에도 불구하고 "아니, 그렇지 않았다"는 코멘트로 자신을 변호할 겁니까?Mk5384 (대화) 12:45, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 흔한 별명이 아니었다."블랙잭"은 그랬다.그래서 그 기원을 설명하는 각주는...출처를 설명하는 기사 텍스트.N단어를 infobox에 밀어 넣는 것은 정당화 할 수 없고 부정확하다.←베이스볼 버그스카르티크^{What's up, Doc?}→13:17, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

이것은 토크 페이지에서 해결할 필요가 있다.관리자(administrator)는 여기서 특별한 역량이 없다.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

대체로 동의하다.여기에 제시된 원래 이슈에 대해 말하자면 - 일반적으로 누군가 당신에게 그들의 토크 페이지에 게시하는 것을 중단하라고 요구한다면, 당신은 그들의 소원을 존중해야 한다.모든 미해결 이슈는 기사토크, ANI 또는 기타 관련 장소에서 다룰 수 있다.위키백과 참조:분쟁 해결.–xeno^talk 13:27, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

십자군 사용자들이 편집 전쟁을 격화할 수 있는 가능성을 제외하면 말이다.그것이 필요할지도 모르는 관리자들의 관심이다.←베이스볼 버그스카르티크^{What's up, Doc?}→13:29, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

물론, 편집 작업이 진행 중인 경우, 여기 또는 WP에 기록하십시오.A3. –xeno^talk 13:33, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

글쎄, 그가 십자군원정을 하든, 네가 검열하든, AN/I가 처리해야 할 논쟁은 아니야.제발 그 사람과 함께 해결해 줘.RS당 별명이 존재하지만 각주처럼 흔하지 않다면 중간지대가 있을 수 있다.--Wehwalt (대화) 13:36, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그 글에는 검열이 없다.그것은 십자군의 잘못된 주장이다.Mk5384가 후퇴하는지 가속하는지 지켜볼 것이다.◆야구 벅스 당근→ 13:47, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

또 다른 편집 전쟁이 일어날 것 같으니까 완전히 보호되었으므로 대화 페이지에서 토론을 계속하십시오.–xeno^talk 13:51, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

(ec)또한 Mk5384가 기술적으로 3RR을 위반하지는 않았지만(yet) 39시간 동안 5번 되돌아갔다. 그리고 만약 그가 바로 다시 되돌아간다면, 그것은 약 41시간 후에 6이 될 것이고, 그것은 아마도 그를 위반하게 될 것이기 때문에, 나는 그가 첫 번째 복귀로부터 총 48시간 이상이 지나갈 때까지 기다릴 것이라고 추측한다. (Moot) ← 베이스볼 버그스카롱^{What's up, Doc?}→ 13:53, 2010년 3월 26 (UTC)[응답]

나는 모든 관련자들에게 WP:3RR#은 자격이 없다는 것을 상기시켜주고 싶다.–xeno^talk 13:55, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

노골적인 광고

사용자가 정책에 대해 알고 있으며 논의 중인 것으로 보이는 경우.SGGH 12:07, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[답글]

나는 웹사이트의 노골적인 광고로 보이는 사례를 조사해 달라는 요청을 받았다.문제의 스팸 발송자, 사용자:Keithwatt는 여기서 본 바와 같이 Wireless Set 19번 기사에 링크와 홍보 문구를 지속적으로 추가한다.나는 이것을 명백하게 생각할 수 없을 정도로 고려하지만, 나는 지금 관여하고 있기 때문에 다른 의견/눈을 주면 고맙겠으며, 따라서 이 편집자에게 조치를 취하는 것이 부적절하다고 생각한다.— 헌터 (t @c) 10:34, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

최종 경고 추가, 문제를 전달하거나 인식하려는 시도 없이 명백한 승급.처리하기가 불편할 경우(괜찮을 경우) 여기에 플래그를 표시하거나 WP:만약 그가 그것을 다시 하고 우리 중 한 명이 그것을 놓친다면 AIV.SGGH^ping! 10:38, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

사실 누군가가 그를 막았다.SGGH 10:39, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그는 교전을 편집하고 경고하거나 토론하려는 모든 시도를 무시하고 있다.머리가 이상하지 않다.그 계정은 다른 용도가 없어서 변명의 여지가 없다.그는 우리와 대화를 시작하면 차단 해제될 수 있다.--스콧 맥 (Doc) 10:42, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

정말로, 일단 내가 다른 편집자와 반대하게 되면, 나는 어떤 상황에도 (특히 악랄한 것에 대해 저축) 대걸레와 양동이를 사용하지 않을 것이다.당신의 두 번째 의견에 SGGH, 그리고 스콧 맥도날드에게 세 번째에 감사한다.— 헌터 (t @c) 10:43, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그가 말을 시작한 이후로 나는 이제 막힘이 풀렸다.누군가 가서 좀 이해시켜주고 싶을지도 몰라.--스콧 맥(Doc) 11시 15분, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]

누군가가 그와 약혼한 것 같다.헷갈리는 건 알지만 내가 믿는 것을 이해하려면 네가 책임져야 해.그러나 그가 올바른 방향으로 정책을 가리킨다면, 상황은 좋아야 한다.결심한 것으로 표시하고 있다.SGGH 12:07, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

자살 위협

사용자:FkpCascais

사용자 장애 및 모욕적인 행위 확산에 대한 보고서를 작성하고자 함:FkpCascais.그가 스스로 중립의 바로 그 이미지(실제로 대부분의 발칸 민족주의 계정들이 그러하듯이)라고 생각한다는 사실과는 무관하게, 이 사용자는 의심할 여지 없이 세르비아 민족주의 POV를 홍보하기 위한 캠페인을 벌이고 있다.내가 "POV"라고 말하는 것은 그의 입장과 그의 편집은 물론 그가 아직 그의 파괴적인 편집에 대한 단 하나의 출처도 제시하지 못했기 때문이다.게다가, 나에 대한 그의 행동은 이제 막 너희들에게 보고되어야 할 단계에 이르렀어.내가 어떤 식으로든 그를 상대하고 있다는 것이 아니라, 그의 영어실력, 그리고 따라서 그의 편집의 질도 눈에 띄게 하위권이다.

• 템플릿:유고슬라비아 축 협력주의, 사용자:FkpCascais는 경고와 토론에도 불구하고 그들이 지지하는 정보와 함께 6개의 대학 자료를 반복적으로 제거해 왔다.[27][28][29] 이 반달리즘의 이유에 대해 물었을 때, 유일한 대답은 그 사람이 크로아티아 혈통이라는 이유[30] (또한 이것이 근원의 하나라는 것을 편리하게 잊고 있다는 이유로 작가 중 한 사람(스탠포드 대학의 역사 교수)을 개인적으로 못마땅하게 여긴다는 것이었다.나도 크로아티아 사람인데, 나에 대한 그의 적대적인 행동을 고려하면, 이 사용자가 크로아티아와 문제가 있다는 것을 느끼지 않을 수 없다.발칸 반도의 민족적 증오.

• 드라자 미하일로비치 기사에 유저는 악필 수 많은 수정에 반복적으로 입력했고, 이어 이를 지키기 위해 편집전을 진행했다.그는 성공했다.자세한 것은 말하지 않겠다. 그가 그 기사의 많은 언급과 반대로 편집했다고 말해도 충분하다.그는 자신이 인정하지 않은 학자의 민족적 조상을 적어냈는데, 이는 다른 인식의 이유 없이 국가 노선을 따라 그들의 편견을 암시했다.그는 상상할 수 있는 기회마다 '공산주의자'라는 단어를 삽입했고, 가장 흥미롭게도 그는 인용문서의 본문을 '클리어싱'할 필요가 있다고 느꼈기 때문에 실제로 변경했다.모든 것이 명백히 나쁜 영어로 되어 있다.[31]

• 체트니크스 기사에선 알파벳 순으로 정렬된 'See also' 섹션을 더 적절하다고 느끼는 방식으로 재정렬하기 위해 편집전을 벌였고, 기사와 연결되는 템플릿도 계속 제거했다.[32] 교란으로 인한 기사 수는 증가할 수밖에 없다.

그의 행동에 대해서: 1) 그는 내가 "말을 내뱉고 있다"고 진술했는데, 그것은 지극히 저속한 세르보-크로아티아어 용어 "세레시"의 가장 근접한(그리고 아마도 가장 공손한) 번역이 될 것이다.[33] 이것은 내가 그에게 WP:V를 설명하기 위해 최선을 다하고 있었기 때문이었고 그는 그의 말에서 나의 어조가 너무 "마음"이라고 인식했기 때문이다.2) 그는 나의 "복제"[34][35]를 언급하면서 끊임없이 내가 정신질환자임을 암시한다(그는 아마도 나의 의학적 수련이 정신의학에 중점을 두고 있다는 점에서 아이러니를 모르고 있을 것이다.3) 가장 최근에 그는 나를 얼간이라고 부르며 "교육을 좀 배우든지, 너희 마을에 돌을 차버리든지 하라"고 지시함으로써 내 출신을 모욕했다.". [36] 이것은 물론 간단한 설명이다.덜 명백한 모욕("어리석은", "거짓말", "거짓말" 등) --TORKER 22:51, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답]은 생략한다.

나중에 이 스레드를 열었다고 관련 사용자에게 알리십시오.이번에는 내가 너를 위해 그것을 해줬어.SGGH^ping! 23:03, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

죄송합니다, 사용자가 주소를 알려주지 말라고 지시하셨습니다. --TORCTER 23:34, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

일주일 동안 봉쇄된, 이것은 EE 정치라는 지뢰밭에서도 꽤 명백하다.[37]과 [38]은 다른 편집자에 대한 공격에도 들어가지 않고, 매우 명백하다.블랙 카이트 01:06, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

흐흐, 아이 세렌의 말에 의하면, 유저는 "편집-경고, 그것이 말하는 것이 마음에 들지 않아 소스 자료를 제거하고, 또 다른 편집자에 대해 인신공격을 가했다"고 한다.FkpCascais가 동유럽 기사에 대해 파괴적인 편집을 한 것은 이번이 처음이 아니다: 그는 LessEnard vanU로부터 보고와 경고를 받았다[39].위키피디아에 대한 그의 주된 관심사는 축구인데, 그것은 그가 생산적인 곳이기도 하다.나는 이 논쟁에 관여하고 있지만, 나는 여전히 계속하여 사용자에게 발칸 관련 기사에 대한 주제 금지를 권고할 것이다.일주일간의 블록은 사용자의 추가적인 인신공격은 단념시킬 수 있지만, 사용자가 여전히 토론과 타협에 대한 경멸적인 태도를 숨기려 하지 않기 때문에 장기적으로는 편집 파괴 문제를 해결할 가능성이 매우 낮다.[40] --TORKER 18:06, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Ryan Postlethwaite 정책 및 토크 페이지 가이드라인 남용

편집자가 너무 많고 오버액션이 너무 많음.이 실의 근본적인 문제는 해결되었으니 이제는 사이드쇼를 닫아야 할 때다.
다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.
Ryan은 ARBCOM의 멤버다.그는 다른 사람의 발언을 움직이거나 개혁하는 경향을 보여 왔다.나는 그가 자신에게 권한이 부여되지 않았다고 가정하는 것이 매우 아이러니하다고 생각한다. 사실 명백한 공공 기물 파손 행위가 아닌 한 다른 사람들의 의견을 반박하거나 형식화하는 것은 정책에 상당히 어긋난다.이와 같은 게시물은 공공 기물 파손이 아닌 것이 분명하다.헬 인 A 버킷 (토크) 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC) 14시 30분[응답] 나는 ArbCom 회원이 아니라 ArbCom 점원이다.Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:32, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 롤. 탄39 14:33, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] (갈등 편집) 분명히 말하자면 그는 중재위원회 사무원이다.그리고 WP:TPG는 위의 확산에 연계된 제거가 적절한지 여부에 대해서는 언급하지 않지만, 명백한 공공 기물 파손에 대한 다른 지침을 가지고 있다.–xenotalk 14:34, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 당신이 연결한 게시물은 편집자가 다른 편집자를 동성애 혐오증이라고 부르려고 한 것인데, 그것을 뒷받침할 증거가 전혀 없다.그것은 쉽게 제거할 수 있는 끔찍한 인신공격이었다.당신의 편집인[42][43]에 대한 경고문구를 새긴 것은 문제가 된다.Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:35, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 견적 wp:dttr... "이렇게 말했기 때문에, 템플릿 메시지를 받은 사람들은 해당 템플릿의 사용자에 대해 나쁜 믿음을 가져서는 안 된다.템플릿을 사용하는 편집자는 사용자가 정책을 얼마나 잘 알고 있는지 알지 못하거나 템플릿이 무례하다고 스스로 생각하지 않을 수 있다.그들은 또한 기본적으로 템플릿의 목적, 즉 템플릿의 목적과 같은 것을 말하는 긴 메시지를 쓰는 것을 피함으로써 단순히 시간을 절약하려고 할 수도 있다."2010년 3월 26일 (UTC) 14:39, 응답하라" 여기서 시간을 절약할 수 있는 건 아니잖아.단골손님들은 그만둬라.진짜, 그거 집어치워.Tan 39 14:41, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 심각하게, 동의하지 않는 사람들을 위한 조항이 있다.Ryan은 자유롭게 모자를 바꾸려고 할 수 있다. 그러나 나 역시 이것을 할 수 있는 권한을 가지고 있다.헬 인 A 버킷 (토크) 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC) 14:42, 응답 이 단계에서는 블록을 향해 순항하고 있어다른 편집자를 부적절하게 모방하는 걸 보면 강제적인 휴식이 있을 거야Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:44, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 이것을 특별히 허용하지 않는 정책을 보여 주시겠습니까?헬 인 A 버킷 (토크) 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC) 14:46[응답] 글쎄, 만약 여러분이 올바른 이유로 사람들을 템플리트로 만들면, 무례할 수도 있지만, 전혀 허용되지 않을 것이다.부적절한 이유로 사람들을 템플리트로 만드는 것은 무례함을 위키피디아로 옮긴다.운영 중단 편집.Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:50, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 나는 그것이 올바른 행동이라고 믿는다.당신은 자신의 것이 아니고 명백한 공공 기물 파괴 행위도 아닌 토론을 번복했다.그런 다음 정책 외부에서 위협을 가하십시오.나는 정책에 따라 명시적인 용돈을 가지고 있지만, 당신이 인정하는 바와 같이, 다른 사람에게 당신을 템플릿으로 만들지 말라고 부탁하는 것은 어떠한가?나는 또한 당신에게 다른 에세이 WP를 지적하고 싶다.DTR이 특별히 허용되지 않는 유일한 것은 명백한 공공 기물 파손 행위가 아닌 토크 페이지 논평을 리팩터링하는 것이다.헬 인 A 버킷 (토크) 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC) 14:56[응답] 단골손님들 좀 그만 모시지.마침표.이것이 문제가 된 것은 이번이 처음이 아니다.라이언 P와 나는 친구와는 거리가 멀지만 그의 말이 맞다.다시 하면 블록을 통해 더 이상의 중단이 방지된다.Tan 39 14:59, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 다시 말하지만, 현재 사례에 대한 언급 없이, TPG는 단순한 공공 기물 파괴 행위 제거 이상의 것을 허용한다.–xenotalk 15:00, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 다른 사람의 코멘트를 편집하거나 삭제하는 것이 허용되기도 하지만, 그렇게 할 때는 주의를 기울여야 한다.다른 사람의 의견을 적절하게 편집하는 몇 가지 예: [...] 인신공격, 트롤링, 공공기물 파손 등 유해 게시물 제거.이것은 일반적으로 단지 미개한 메시지로까지 확장되지 않는다; 단순한 음모의 삭제는 논란의 여지가 있다.다양한 방법으로 파괴적인 것으로 간주될 수 있는 게시물은 또 다른 경계선 사례로, 일반적으로 현재 그대로 두거나 보관하는 것이 최선이다. 인신공격, 트롤링, 공공기물 파손 등 유해 게시물 제거.이것은 일반적으로 단지 미개한 메시지로까지 확장되지 않는다; 단순한 음모의 삭제는 논란의 여지가 있다.다양한 방법으로 파괴적인 것으로 간주될 수 있는 게시물은 또 다른 경계선 사례로, 일반적으로 현재 그대로 두거나 보관하는 것이 최선이다. @taN과 ryan.그럼 지금 정책을 만들고 있는 겁니까?나는 그 정책에 따라 이것을 할 수 있는 구체적인 용돈이 있다.안 된다고 쓰여 있는 곳을 구체적으로 보여주면 안 된다.정책 외부의 위협을 중지하십시오.헬 인 어 버킷(토크) 15:03, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 위키백과에서 인용하려면:토크 페이지 가이드라인(토크 페이지 코멘트를 위한 가이드라인); "다른 사람의 코멘트를 편집하거나 삭제하는 것은 때때로 허용되지만, 그렇게 할 때는 주의를 기울여야 한다.다른 사용자의 의견을 적절하게 편집하는 몇 가지 예:...인신공격, 트롤링, 공공기물 파손 등 유해 게시물 제거."짐보의 강연의 게시물을 지우고 있을 때, 그것은 사용자가 다른 편집자를 동성애 혐오증, 터무니없는 인신공격이라고 불렀기 때문이었다.ArbCom motion 페이지에서 당신의 의견을 리팩터링할 때, 인신공격으로 가득 차 있었기 때문에 리팩터링하고 있었다.이 두 가지 모두 게시물을 삭제하는 것이 허용되지만, 당신은 나를 4번이나 템플리트로 만들자고 주장했잖아. 이것은 편집에 지장을 주는 일이니까, 만약 당신이 비슷한 것을 다시 한다면, 당신은 왜 차단될까?Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:04, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 그리고 나는 여전히 그것이 강제 수용이었다고 주장한다. 그 동의는 말도 안 되는 것이었다.그것은 더 이상 정치적으로 아무 것도 행세하지 않는 것이다.헬 인 어 버킷(토크) 15:06, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 그럼 그때로 미루자.이런 말을 하기가 좀 부끄럽지만, 이번 일은 내가 옳고 네가 완전히 틀린 그런 경우 중 하나이다.자, 위에서 너에게 준 충고를 받아들이든지, 아니면 아주 빨리 차단되든지 둘 중 하나야.그것이 내가 그 문제에 대해 말할 수 있는 마지막이다.Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:08, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 네가 틀렸고 내가 옳다고 해도 전혀 부끄럽지 않아.그 자세 그만해.나는 내 주장이 모두 차분하고 분석적인 것은 아니지만 그들이 옳다고 확신한다.그들이 없을 때 나는 사과할 것이지만 먼저 위협하고 나중에 관여하기를 좋아하는 행정관에게 선의로 행동하기는 어렵다.헬 인 A 버킷(토크) 15:12, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 인신공격을 제거하기 위해 반달로 막히게 될 것이라고 누군가에게 경고하는 것은 분명히 그를 화나게 할 것이다, 그렇지 않은가?결과적으로, 당신이 그것을 통해 절약하려고 했던 시간은 지금 찻잔에 5등급 허리케인을 일으키는 데 사용되고 있다.지금은 모두가 더위를 식히기에 좋은 시간이 될 것이다.≈ 참말 ¤ 15:10, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 거의 적용할 수 없는 템플릿을 발행하는 것과 같은 것을 위해 차단하겠다고 위협하는 것은 둘 다 같은 이유로 잘못된 것이다.템플릿과 블록은 둘 다 제자리에 있지만, 다른 선의의 사용자를 대할 때 정확한 초기 행동 방침은 거의 없다.HiaB, 2분만 더 시간을 내어 어떤 것을 타이핑하십시오. 문제를 에스컬레이션할 가능성이 낮고, 주의를 기울일 가능성이 높으며, 그렇게 불합리한 것처럼 보이지는 않을 겁니다(템플릿의 문구는 실제로 해당되지 않았다).RP와 Tan, 부디 "분란"이라는 사소한 문제들에 대한 차단 위협으로 직행하지 마십시오; 때때로 부적절한 템플릿은 모욕적일 수 있지만, 차단할 가치가 있는 것은 아니다.나는 여전히 순진해서 우리가 때때로 서로를 템플릿과 블록으로 의사소통하는 대신에 어른으로 대할 수 있다고 생각한다.<!- 템플릿:uw-rodneyking1 --> -- --Floquenbeam (대화) 15:10, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 위에서 지적했듯이 이런 일이 처음은 아니었다.그래서 나는 "위협에 바로 달려들"이 아니라 문제가 지속되면 블록을 위협했다.만약 당신이 파괴적인 편집자들을 편애하고 싶다면, 그것은 당신의 특권이다; 나는 과거에 내가 하지 않는다는 것을 분명히 했다고 생각한다.Tan39 15:14, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 좋아, "위협에 너무 빨리 접근해"우리가 동의하지 않는다는 것을 알지만, IMHO가 사소한 짜증 때문에 일반적으로 선의의 편집자들을 차단하는 것은 거의 항상 상황을 악화시킨다. --Floquenbeam (토크) 15:21, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] Floquen 불행히도 이것은 내가 자초했을지도 모르는 상황이다.나는 가장 침착한 편집자가 아니다.나는 선의로 일을 하려고 노력하지만, 나는 정말 화가 난다. 그리고 이것은 ARB 관행과 장기간에 걸친 분쟁과 관련이 있다.이렇게 함으로써 나는 바람직하지 않다는 호칭을 얻었다.난 널 주변에서 봤고 그 사람들한테도 약 먹는 걸 싫어할 거야.헬 인 A 버킷(토크) 15:27, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 이론적으로 그 특정 논평에 가장 신경을 써야 할 당사자로서, 나는 멋진 대화를 나눴다. (아니, 정말 - WP:AGF works]]] 포스터와 함께.그들은 사과했고, 오해가 풀렸다, 위키피디아:짐보에 대한 항소가 언급되었다...왜 여기서 더 할 일이 있을까?WP 아래 이 나사산을 닫아 주시겠습니까?드라마? 이 토론의 초점이 어떻게 우리에게 더 나은 백과사전을 가져다 줄지 모르겠다. - 2/0 (연주) 15:24, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라] 코멘트 고마워, 2/0.짐보의 토크페이지의 주제 포스터를 제외한 모든 사람들이 분명히 알 수 있는, 완전한 오해에 근거한 엄청나게 과열된 분쟁 해결이었다는 것은 꽤 명백하기 때문에, 라이언의 행동은 과장을 일부 제거함으로써 상황을 도우려는 (AGF)였다.나는 이 실을 스스로 닫고 싶지만, 정책 및/또는 대화 페이지 지침의 잠재적인 남용에 대한 후속적인 실마리를 가지고 있지 않는 것이 좋다.빌어먹을 버킷에, 이 모든 것을 식히기 위해 실을 닫아도 괜찮을까?— 사이언티즐 16:36, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 코발트블루 댓글토니 B의 H는 서로 다른 견해를 가질 수 있지만, 그의 전달 방법은 WP를 통과할 수 있다.Civil line, 그로 인해 그가 막히게 된다.그에게 일리가 있다면, 그는 자신의 주장의 타당성을 받아들이기 전에 먼저 화해하고 부부에 키스할 필요가 있다.예를 들어, 위에서 그가 시작한 예는 사람들이 짐보 웨일즈에게 같은 문제를 계속해서 제기하는 길고 고된 과정의 스냅숏이다. 그의 반응에 결코 만족하지 않는다.B의 H와 Brews의 승무원들 역시 그들의 정당한 주장에 대한 정당한 반응에 결코 만족하지 못하며, 그래서 그들은 공동체가 원하는 것을 위반하더라도 우리가 그들에게 질려 그들 마음대로 하게 해달라는 기괴한 희망으로 공동체를 계속 비통하게 한다. - 코발트블루Tony™ 14:57, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 사실 그것은 효과가 있었다.내 생각엔 짐보가 그 사건 처리에 대해 걱정한다고 보낸 이메일을 아직도 가지고 있을 것 같아.그는 특별히 검토를 요청했고, 우리가 한 모든 것이 2010년 3월 26일 14:59, 26 Hell In A Buckle(토크)에 크게 성공적이었다[응답] 그럼에도 불구하고, 내가 설명한 종류의 코멘트를 블랭킹하는 것은 불필요한 혼란을 막기 위한 일반적인 관행이다.(웨일스 씨가 그것을 어떻게 받는지는 그에게 달려 있다.)요점은, 만약 ArbCom과 같은 것을 고치려면, 당신은 정말로 당신의 행동을 깨끗하게 해야 한다는 것이다.여기 이런 말도 안 되는 소리는 별로 도움이 안 돼. - 코발트블루Tony™ 15:07, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 사실 이 Arb 액션 다음에 나는 Administrators와 우호적인 관계를 즐긴다.위키에 관한 나의 주요 이슈는 때때로 나의 실수를 중재 형식에서 무시하지 않았다는 것이다.그것은 정말로 나에게서 빼앗아 갔지만, 나는 내 부분뿐만 아니라 관리자와 아르컴에게도 올바른 행동을 믿는다.헬 인 어 버킷(토크) 15:14, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 그들의 말에 반대할 때는 신중하게 골라라.냉정을 유지한다면, 그들은 당신에게 불리한 행동을 할 수 있는 것이 아무것도 없다.내가 줄곧 그렇게 말하고 있어. - 코발트블루Tony™ 16:02, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 재미있는 것은 내가 말을 시원하게 했다는 것이다. 그래서 나는 다른 것들과 함께 템플릿을 사용했다는 것이다.이로 인해 블록이 위협받게 되었다.내가 비난하지 않도록 템플릿을 사용한다는 뜻이라면 인신공격으로 차단을 당하는 것이 훨씬 낫다.헬 인 A 버킷 (토크) 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC) 16:05[응답] 부적절한 (그리고 종종 잘못된 측면에 빠지는)에 가까운 이러한 템플릿의 사용은 둘 다 파괴적이며(그리고 이미 알고 있었기 때문에) 단지 당신이 동의하지 않는 사람을 짜증나게 할 뿐이다(의도적으로?).경찰한테 이중주차를 했다고 말하는 것 같아좋게 끝나지 않을 거야 - 코발트블루Tony™ 17:44, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

오스트레일리아 수도 지역 토론 연합, 사용자:JJ999, 121.45.216.232 및 121.45.196.175

나는 행정관이 호주 수도권 토론 연합을 검토했으면 한다.

사용자:JJ999(그리고 그가 사용하는 IP는 121.45.216.232 & 121.45.196.175)는 자신이 기사의 소유자인 것처럼 행동하고 있다.

나는 그 기사에 몇 가지 문제가 있다.

1. ACTDU의 공신력에 의문을 제기한다(토크를 보기 전에 질문한 적이 있다:오스트레일리아_캐피탈_영역_디베이트_유니온#기사 문제).내가 태그를 붙이려고 할 때마다 여기나 여기로 되돌아온다.

2. 글과 어떤 식으로도 관련이 없는 'ref'가 많이 들어 있는데, 그가 예를 들어 선두에 서서 다음과 같이 주장하고 있다.

• hotfrog.com.au에서 ACTDU의 디렉토리 항목
• SA 정부로부터 - 관련된 유일한 것은 ACTUR 웹사이트로의 링크 이다.
• radford.com.au는 죽었고 그것이 무엇을 돕기 위해 의도된 것인지에 대한 기사에 아무런 표시가 없다.
• 시간 초과된 "ACT 토론팀"의 IP를 검색하다.

기사의 마지막에, 그들이 왜 그곳에 있는지 또는 무엇을 도와주고 있는지에 대한 어떠한 표시도 없이:

• Accessmylibrary.com - ACTDU를 언급하지 않은 캔버라 타임즈에서 발췌한 자료
• Accessmylibrary.com- ACTDU에 대한 언급이 없는 캔버라 타임즈에서 발췌한 자료
• Accessmylibrary.com- ACTDU에 대한 언급이 없는 캔버라 타임즈에서 발췌한 자료
• Accessmylibrary.com- ACTDU에 대한 언급이 없는 캔버라 타임즈에서 발췌한 자료
• ABC Stateline Home - ACTDU에 대해서도 언급하지 않는 ABC 라디오 쇼의 대본.
• Factiva.com 그것이 무엇이었는지 또는 무엇을 지원하는지 알 수 없는 죽은 팩티바 조회.

3. 사용자:JJ999에는 WP가 있을 수 있다.COI는 그가 AGM 회의록의 하드 카피를 가지고 있다는 사실에서 증명되었듯이, 또한 그가 여기 페이지와 여기 페이지에 있는 두 장의 사진에 카피 쓰기 허가를 받을 수 있다는 코멘트와 함께 그것을 만들었음을 나타내는 저작권 진술서를 주었다.

4. 나는 그 기사가 "지나치게 상세하고" "특정 관객에게만 관심을 가질 수 있는 너무 복잡한 세부사항"을 담고 있다고 생각한다.

나는 첫 번째 요점에 대한 RfC를 토크 페이지에 올렸으나 아직까지 아무런 반응이 없다(Talk:오스트레일리아_캐피탈_Territory_Debating_Union#RFC : Notability tag)

또한 3RR 보드에 User:JJ999와 IP는 일요일(여기)에 4회 회수를 했는데, 사용자는 다음과 같다.JJJ999는 여기에 응답했지만 이것은 아무런 관심도 없이 보관되었다. 나는 그가 쓴 것에 대해 이의를 제기하지만 지금은 그와 관계를 맺지 않기로 결정했다.나는 여기와 여기의 토크 페이지에서 나의 문제를 지적하려고 시도했다.

따라서 위의 문제를 해결하려고 하는 즉시 이 기사를 진전시킬 수 있는 가장 좋은 방법이 궁금하다. 사용자:JJ999는 다시 되돌아가기 시작할 것이다.Codf1977 (대화) 07:27, 2010년 3월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 RfC가 분쟁 해결의 상당히 불확실한 단계라고 생각한다. 왜냐하면 당신은 누가 (누군가) 나타날지 모르기 때문이다.RfC를 철회하고 WP와 같은 다른 분쟁 해결 방법 중 하나를 시도해 보십시오.코인 또는 WP:CNB. 만약 두 분만 참여한 것이 확실하다면 WP:3O는 도움을 받을 수 있는 좋은 포럼이 될 수 있다.나는 일반적으로 그곳에서 일하는 자원봉사자들이 문제를 철저히 토론할 용의가 있다는 것을 알게 되었다. --Moonledgirl^(talk) 11:42, 2010년 3월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 확신할 수 없지만, 그 셋이 하나라는 것을 99% 확신한다.이 편집은 두 개가 같은 것으로 확인되며 다른 하나는 WP처럼 보인다.DOK. Codf1977 (대화) 2010년 3월 24일 (UTC) 12:05, 응답

그렇다면 WP:3O가 최선일 것이다.전형적으로, 나는 그런 문제를 나열하고 기다릴 것이다.2, 3일 이내에 응답을 받지 못하면 다른 곳에서 도움을 청하는 것이 필요할 수도 있다.그렇다면 또 어디서 물어봤는지, 또 왜 또 물어봤는지 분명히 밝혀두면 '포름 쇼핑'이 아니라 입력만 찾는 게 분명하다.이미 관리자로서 기사와 교류한 경험이 있는 나는 콘텐츠 문제에 스스로 끼어들어서는 안 될 것 같다. --Moonedgirl^(talk) 12:08, 2010년 3월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

조언에 감사드리며, 나는 포럼 쇼핑의 출현을 원하지 않기 때문에 여기에 있는 다른 사람이 조언이 있는지 며칠 동안 기다릴 것이고, 만약 없다면 WP:3O로 가서 내가 여기와 RfC로 교차 연결되도록 할 것이다.Codf1977 (대화) 2010년 3월 24일 (UTC) 12:41, 응답

• 아까 회신이 있었는데, 지워진 것 같다.기본적으로, 이것은 포럼 쇼핑이다. 왜냐하면 여러분이 공감대를 형성하지 못했기 때문이다.토크 페이지로 가서 불평해 봐.어쨌든, 이건 카피비오가 아니야, 이건 취재한 거야.다음 번에는 의견 일치를 기다리고 다른 사람들이 자신에 대해 최근에야 경고받았다고 다른 사람들이 불신하고 전쟁을 편집했다고 비난하지 마라.JJ999 (대화) 21:31, 2010년 3월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

RfC나 3RR 게시물에 대한 응답이 없어 "좋아하는 의견이 나올 때까지 반복적으로 외부 의견을 요청한다"고 정의한 '포럼 쇼핑'이 아니다. 두 번째로 나는 그 게시물을 공개하고 연결시켰다.

또한 최근 내가 너의 편집 전쟁 금지 5가지에서 주의를 딴 데로 돌리기 위한 방법으로 편집 전쟁으로 경고를 받은 것에 대해 완전히 잘못된 주장을 하는 것은 자제해줘(여기 참조).- 작년 10월에 단 한 번 경고를 받은 적이 있는데, 그 때 내 계좌가 2주도 채 되지 않았고 24시간 동안 1개만 돌려받았다. - 만약 당신이 dif를 생산하지 못한다면.Codf1977 (대화) 22:23, 2010년 3월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

맞아, 이건 나한테 포럼 쇼핑처럼 보이지 않아.호주 공지사항 게시판에 다음과 같은 메모를 남길 가치가 있을 수 있다.AWNB가 기사를 더 보기 위해.그 기사는 분명히 문제가 있어 보이고 나는 그 평판이 명확하지 않다는 것에 동의한다.그것은 아마도 AFD를 통과하거나 모조 기사로 합병되어야 할 것이다.팩티바 링크가 어떤 의미인지는 모르겠지만 모든 날짜/모든 지역/등에서 "호주 수도권 토론 연합"을 찾기 위해 팩티바를 검색하는 것은 0의 결과를 가져온다.사라 12시 30분, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

당신의 제안에 감사하지만, 심방을 보는 눈이 많을수록 더 좋은 IMO. 하지만 포럼 쇼핑의 냄새조차 피하고 JJJ999를 다른 곳으로 보내지 않기 위해 나는 그곳에 게시하지 않을 것이다. 하지만 제발 그것이 다른 사람을 멈추게 하지 마라.Codf1977 (대화) 13:18, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

• 글쎄, 나는 네가 걱정하는 것에 대해 다른 많은 장소나 포뮬러로 대응해야 하는 것에 지쳤어.나는 그 토크 페이지에 몇몇 출처를 언급했는데, 그 중에는 BLP 청구 과정에서 일시적으로 제거된 일부 출처도 포함되어 있고, 쉽게 되찾을 수 있다(주제 이름을 빼고도 출처 자체를 되찾는 것은 분명 쉽다).당신은 내 토크 페이지 병합 회신에 대한 응답을 하지 않았거나 공감대를 형성하지 않았으니, 나는 당신이 가서 당신이 찾을 수 있는 모든 장소에서 불평하지 말 것을 제안한다.JJ999 (대화) 00:23, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 사용자가 속박에 관련되어 있다는 어떤 결론에도 속단하는 것을 주의할 것이다.Dg-reg-fd-1971 (대화) 20:49, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

릭 슈미들린

다른 3명의 편집자의 노력에도 불구하고, 릭 슈미들린 기사의 주제가 분명해 보이는 anon IP User:199.175.219.1은 IP 토크 페이지의 이 섹션에 여러 개의 경고에도 불구하고, 여러 위키백과 정책을 위반하는 파괴적인 편집을 계속하고 있다.그는 토크에서 토론에 참여하지 않을 것이다.릭 슈미들린, 그리고 파괴적인 행동이 금지로 이어질 수 있다는 여러 번의 경고에도 불구하고, 위키피디아를 사용하여 이력서 기사를 올리려고 완강하게 시도하고 있는 것으로 보인다.도와줘서 고마워. -- Tenebrae (대화) 22:11, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자가 4차 경고 후 태그를 제거해서 반달리즘이라고 생각했나 봐.이용자를 신고했더니 IP가 차단됐다.안녕, PDCook (토크) 22:21, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 IP가 정말로 기사를 더 좋게 만들려고 노력하지만 위키백과 스타일을 어떻게 하는지 완전히 망각하고 있다고 믿는다.몇 명의 다른 편집자들이 눈치채고 나는 샌드박스를 설치해 그것을 헤쳐 나갔다.우리는 모두 요약 편집, 기사 토크 페이지, IP 토크 페이지를 통해 IP와 소통하려고 노력했지만 분명히 소용이 없었다.그럼에도 불구하고 나는 그의 (그의 편집 중 하나에서 주장하는 대로 릭 슈미들린이라고 가정하는) 노력이 불신이라고 생각하지 않는다.그렇긴 하지만, 우리는 그의 끊임없는 번복으로부터 휴식이 필요하다. 이것은 우리에게 기사를 다시 쓸 시간을 줄 것이기 때문이다.비록 그것이 꽤 단순할 지라도 그것은 그것이 가지고 있는 정보에 대해 잘 공급될 것이다.다시 말해서 나는 IP가 1년 블록을 필요로 하지 않는다고 생각한다. 나는 일단 새로운 버전이 완성되면 그는 유용한 방법으로 기여할 수 있을 것이라고 생각하고 싶다.SQGibbon (대화) 22:34, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답하라]

이 "기사"를 수정될 때까지 사용하는 것이 최선은 아닐 것인가? 왜냐하면 현재로서는 그것은 단지 비소싱 BLP일 뿐이기 때문이다.블랙 카이트 01:10, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자 편의 어디서?IP의 영역으로 가지 않는다.우지(토크) 01:27, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

인큐베이터로 옮기는 건 어때? -- 아타마시 20:34, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]

이제 새로운 버전이 나왔다.그것은 뭉툭하지만 소스가 잘된 것이다.SQGibbon (대화) 22:08, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

양말 편집 로데릭 노블의 이상하고 프로그램적인 세트

이것은 내가 위키피디아에서 본 것 중 가장 이상한 것이다.이달 초부터 다섯 개의 별도 계정이 비교적 잘 알려지지 않은 영국 배우 로데릭 노블의 페이지를 편집하고 있는데, 로데릭 노블은 처음 만들어졌을 때 참고문제로 태그를 달았기 때문에 내가 보고 있는 것뿐이다.이 페이지에서 수행한 계정 외에 5개의 계정 모두 편집한 내용이 없다.그들 중 세 명은 매우 비슷한 이름을 가지고 있다.그들은 편집을 중단하지 않는다; 결국 하나의 계정은 중단되고, 또 다른 계정은 나중에 회복되기 때문에, 그들의 편집을 더 어렵게 만들려는 노력이 아니다.나는 처음에 의도하지 않은 양말일 가능성이 있지만 모두 양말이라고 의심하고 그들의 토크 페이지에 경고하였다.그러나 페이지 기록을 더 가까이 보면 편집된 내용이 이례적으로 균일한 타이밍으로 나타난다.오늘 한 계좌에 의한 편집은 오전 8시부터 오전 10시까지 30분마다, 30분 플러스 9초에서 11초(클록 불일치?)로 이루어졌다.이전의 편집은 그렇게 규칙적이지는 않지만, 마치 일정표에 페이지를 업데이트하는 것처럼 5로 균등하게 나누어진 1분 후 9초에서 12초 정도 걸린다.일부 편집은 기본적인 자연어 프로세서가 할 수 있는 것과 같은 것처럼 보이지만(동음어 전환, 문장 순서 변경 등) 정보 단락도 추가하기 때문에 어딘가에서 데이터를 끌어오고 있는 것이 틀림없다.나는 무슨 일이 일어나고 있는지 전혀 알지 못한다. 그리고 대부분 무해하지만, 그것은 매우 의심스러워 보인다.이 일에 경험이 더 많은 사람이 조사해 줄 수 있는가?페이지의 비소싱된 내용(기본적으로 재검증을 의미함)을 삭제했는데, 이건 너무 이상해서 그냥 떨어뜨릴 수가 없다.내가 직접 언급하는 것이 아니고, 이것은 준 쇼크푸펫 시나리오라서 그들의 토크 페이지에 통지가 필요한지 확실하지 않다.—ShadowRanger 17:29, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그래, 이건 꽤 의심스러운 소리야.우리가 확실히 할 수 있도록 내가 SPI를 시작할게.케빈 러더포드 (대화) 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC) 17:46[응답]

편집 요약을 하지 않는 것은 좋은 선물이다.우리가 그를 겁주기 전에, 우리는 그에게 그의 "일"을 인용하게 할 수 있을까?나도 그가 비밀번호를 다 잊어버릴 수도 있어서 시작하기가 망설여.만약 그것이 있다면, 그 글의 창안자는 양말장사일 것이다. 왜냐하면 그것과 새로운 사용자들 사이에는 유사성이 있기 때문이다.케빈 러더포드 (대화) 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC) 17:57 (대화)[응답]

그는 내 토크 페이지에 "최근 로데릭과 인터뷰를 했다.나는 당신의 온라인 백과사전 독자들의 이익을 위해 위키피디아에 몇 가지 세부사항들을 올리는 중이다.내가 끝낼 수 있게 해줄래?정말 고마울 것 같다고 말했다.최상의 시나리오가 바로 WP:OR + 의도하지 않은 WP 위반일 수 있음:SOCK 규칙.그러나 편집 패턴은 의심스럽다.만약 그 계정이 상당히 많은 페이지를 편집했기 때문에(양말장이라고 생각하지만, 특정 페이지에 사용할 수 있는 단일 목적의 양말을 만드는 것) 기사 작성자를 용의자로 포함시키지 않았다.—ShadowRanger^{(talk stalk)} 18:00, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그에게 회계와 관련이 있는지 물었다.나는 또한 그가 말한 것을 보았고, 그것은 그가 그것을 어떻게 썼는지를 뒷받침한다.나는 그가 대량 수정을 보면 틀림없이 기겁할 것이라고 확신해, 나는 그의 편집 내용을 되돌리고 그가 그것을 인용할 것이라고 가정할 것이다.그렇지 않다면 그냥 제거하면 된다.하지만 두 번째는 좀 징그럽다.케빈 러더포드 (토크) 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC) 18:08 (talkevin Rutherford (talk)

두 번째?명확하게?—ShadowRanger^{(talk stalk)} 18:12, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

0 또는 5로 끝나는 1초의 전체 편집.왜 그때 편집자가 편집했는지를 생각하면 왠지 자폐증이나 미신이 떠오른다.케빈 러더포드 (대화) 2010년 3월 26일 18:14 (UTC)[응답]

OCD의 고약한 경우라도, 인터넷과 위키백과 DB 지연의 변화로부터 그 불일치를 예상할 수 있도록 정확히 편집하는 방법을 보는 데 어려움을 겪고 있다.강박장애가 있고, 제출을 클릭하면 *완벽한* 타이밍이 두 번째로 내려간다.비록 내 토크 페이지에 있는 그의 반응조차도 5로 나누어질 수 있는 분에 불과하지만, 그 중 오직 한 분만이 "분후 9-12" 범위에 있었다.분명히 강박장애는 내 토크 페이지에서 긴장을 풀고 있지만, "5로 나누어질 수 있는" 요구사항을 멈출 정도는 아니겠지?—ShadowRanger^{(talk stalk)} 18:20, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

편집자가 가지고 있을 수 있는 각종 심리나 신경작용에 대한 추측을 정당화할 정도로 편집 시기를 어긴 정책이나 가이드라인이 있는가?그 어떤 것도 "생산적인 편집봇"을 의미하지는 않는다. 유일한 진짜 문제는 무해하거나 유익한 편집을 하는 양말인 것 같다. 나는 이것이 기사를 실제보다 편집자들 사이에서 더 인기 있어 보이게 하는 의심스러운 효과를 가져올 수 있다고 생각하지만, 그것은 가상의 AFD에 기사를 보관하는 근거조차 되지 않는다.생산적인 편집자가 기사를 만들고 개선한다면, 한 가지 정체성 아래 편집하는 것을 주저하고 장려해야 하지만 백과사전에 대한 기고에서는 장려되어야 한다.내가 생각하는 루트 편집 계정이 누구라고 생각하는지 지금 여기서 추측하지는 않겠지만, 만약 내가 다양한 기사와 백과사전의 전체적인 기고 패턴을 수정한다면 괜찮아 보인다.에디슨 (토크) 2010년 3월 26일 18시 41분 (UTC)[응답하라]

위키피디아에 등록되지 않은 봇을 운영하는 것을 금지하는 정책이 있다고 생각한다.그렇긴 하지만, 나는 편집자를 차단하라고 요구하는 것이 아니다; 나는 주로 이런 일이 전에 일어났는지, 그것이 아마도 어떤 형태의 학대인지 나타내는지 확인하고 싶었다.그래서 내가 차단하지 말고 조사하라고 한 거야.문제의 편집자는 대체 계정 정책을 고수해야 하지만, 내가 말했듯이 이것은 악의적인 의도가 없는 무지에서 태어난 위반이라고 의심한다.—ShadowRanger 19:40, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

자, 여기 두 가지 가설이 있다:

1. 누군가는 위키피디아가 기사를 직접 편집하고 서버와의 정기적인 동기화를 가능하게 하는 새로운 도구를 시도하고 있다.업데이트 간격은 5분으로 시작했지만, 어떤 이유로 30분 후로 변경했다.편집 없이 그 사이에 있는 시간은 그 앞에 있는 5분(또는 30분) 동안 그 사람의 개인 사본이 변하지 않았기 때문이다.소프트웨어는 매우 지능적으로 프로그램되어 있어서 편집이 단면만 변경하면 편집 요약에 단면을 넣는다.그러나 그것이 지금까지 만들 수 있는 편집 요약의 유일한 종류다.
2. 우리는 추적당하고 있다.누군가는 그들이 컴퓨터인 척하고 나서 우리가 어떻게 반응하는지 지켜보는 것이 매우 재미있다고 생각한다.참고 항목:튜링 테스트.

두 경우 모두 어떤 식으로든 과민반응하지 않는 것이 최선일 것이다.한스 아들러 19:00, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

편집의 시계 바늘로 편집자의 온전성이나 동기에 대한 어떤 감정과 상관없이, WP:BLP는 "지적 자료는 검증가능성, 중립성, 독창적인 연구 회피에 가장 주의와 주의를 기울여 작성되어야 한다"고 말한다.청구된 인터뷰는 기사에 추가된 전기적 세부사항을 유지하는 것을 정당화할 수 없으며, 나는 IMDB가 다른 곳에 발표된 전기 정보가 없는 사람에 대한 전기적 정보에 대한 "신뢰할 수 있는 출처"로서 IMDB에게 질문한다.위키백과 참조:신뢰할 수 있는 소스/공지판/아카이브 40#IMDB, 다시.위반 실험에서 악의로부터, 일반적인 거짓된 조작이나 사실에 대한 단순한 부주의로부터, 거짓된 정보를 거기에 게시한 다음, 그것이 무해한 것인지, 복을 주는 것인지, 또는 명예를 훼손하는 것인지에 관계없이, 위키피디아에 동일한 허위 정보를 게시하는 "참고"로 사용될 수 있다.이것은 또 다른 "침입 실험"이 될 수 있으며, 그 정보에 대한 신뢰할 수 있는 출처가 제공될 때까지 기사에 대한 정보를 수집해야 한다.참조 없이 정보를 반복적으로 추가하면 차단으로 이어질 수 있다.에디슨 (토크) 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC) 19:48 [응답]

위의 의견과 WP에 따르면:BLP 및 WP:아니, 오늘 아침 ShadowRanger의 스텁으로 돌아가서 다시 기사를 작성했다.확대된 이후 RIT는 이상한 편집 패턴을 가진 양말 퍼펫 용의자의 '개인 인터뷰'를 바탕으로 했다.에디슨 (토크)20:07, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

가능한 자기 선전, 트롤링, Idk

[44] 트롤링인지 뭔지 알 수 없지만, 나는 그것이 여기로 와야 한다고 느꼈다.삭스원 (대화)20:32, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

비록 나는 인권법이 항상 100% 지켜지는 것이 중요하다고 생각하지만, 위키피다는 내 공간이 아니다.편집 되돌리기.Dg-reg-fd-1971 (대화) 20:52, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

스스로 빠져나갈 수 있을지 몰랐는데...분명히 그들은 기꺼이 그들의 정보를 올렸지...그들이 여기가 게시하기에 적절한 장소가 아니라는 것을 알고 있는지 아닌지 의심스럽다.Thing // Talk // 기여 21:02, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

틀림없이 그럴 것이다.그러나 되돌릴 필요가 있는 편집일 뿐이다.Dg-reg-fd-1971 (대화) 21:08, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

다른 관리자가 사용자 대화에 대한 내가 편집한 논리를 이중으로 확인할 수 있다.세시섹

내 생각에 당신의 사용자 이름을 바꾸는 것은 은퇴하는 것과 같지 않다고 생각하는 것이 옳다고 생각한다. 왜냐하면 당신은 여전히 여기에 있고 편집된 것은 새로운 사용자 이름으로 귀속되고 있고, 그렇지 않은 척하는 것은 기만적이기 때문이다.또한, 그들은 여전히 예전 사용자 이름으로 로그인을 하고 있다.비블브록스 (대화)20:22, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 행정관은 아니지만, 네가 한 모든 일에 동의해.만약 그들이 깨끗한 휴식을 원한다면, 그들은 옛 이름을 버리고 새로운 계정을 시작해야 한다.만약 그들이 이름만 바꾸기를 원한다면, 그들은 사용자/대화 페이지를 이동시켜야 한다.그들은 양쪽 다 가질 수 없다.버노위트니 (토크)20:51, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답하라]

맞았어, 비블브록스회계는 은퇴하지 않아, 편집자들은 은퇴하지 않아.만약 계정 뒤에 있는 사람이 여전히 편집하고 있다면, 그들은 은퇴한 것이 아니며, 그러한 것을 나타내는 태그는 오해의 소지가 있다.이름을 바꾸면 이전 계정은 새 계정으로 리디렉션되어야 한다.그 밖에 다른 것은 끔찍하게 혼란스럽다.누군가가 기사 토크 페이지에서 세시섹의 오래된 댓글을 보고 그것에 대해 질문을 하고 싶어한다고 하자, 만약 그들이 사용자 토크 페이지 링크를 클릭해서 "퇴직"을 본다면, 그들은 불필요한 막다른 골목에 부딪혔다.대신 새 계정으로 리디렉션되면 누구에게 물어봐야 할지 알 수 있다.편집자가 은퇴했다고 계속 선언하는 사용자 페이지도 문제다.편집자는 여러 가지 이유로 틀린 옛 이름과 새 이름 사이의 관계를 대체 계정 정책 하나로 끊고 싶어하는 것 같다. -- 아타마頭 21:14, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:CLEINSTART는 특별히 관계를 끊는 것을 허용하지만, 그것은 단지 그들이 한 일이 아니며 지금으로서는 좀 늦었다(적어도 두 개의 오래된 계정을 모두 폐기하고 다른 계정을 만들지 않는 한).버노위트니 (토크) 21:36, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

다들 피드백 고마워.비블브록스 (대화) 17:29, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

여기서 문제는 내 예전 사용자 이름이 오프사이트 괴롭힘으로 이어졌고 위키피디아 편집자가 내 업무용 휴대폰에 편집 분쟁에 대한 문자 메시지를 보내고 있었다는 것이다.과거 계정에서 "실행"하려는 것이 아니라 사용자 이름만 "실행"하려는 것이다.토크 아카이브도 새 페이지로 옮겼다.만약 내 역사를 간직할 수 없다면, 내 옛 계정에서 내 연줄을 제거하면서, 나는 옛 계정과 새 계정에서 모두 벗어나 양말 꼭두각시를 세울 것이다.내가 이것을 1년 전에 처음 꺼냈을 때, 내 토크 페이지는 의심의 여지 없이 삭제되었다.왜 내가 지금 두 계정 사이의 연결고리를 끊을 수 없는지, esp. 내가 요청으로 이력을 옮겼기 때문에 알 수 없다.할 수 없으면 양말 꼭두각시를 설치하거나 앞으로 IP에서 편집만 할 수 있으니 가능한지 알려줘.오프사이트 스토킹을 피하는 것이 이렇게 어렵지 않아야 한다.다시 한번 말하지만, 만약 그렇게 할 수 없다면, 나는 단지 새로운 계정을 설정하고, 처음부터 다시 시작하고, 내 WP를 연습해야 할 것이다.VANISH. --Secisek (대화) 21:59, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

이러한 유형의 문제는 사용자 이름 변경 및 새로운 시작 상황에서 고려되어야 한다.대체 계정 정책의 중대한 위반이 있거나 커뮤니티를 오도하려는 시도가 있지 않는 한, 이런 유형의 문제가 제기된 곳에서는 편집자를 이전 계정이나 사용자 이름에 연결할 필요는 없다고 생각한다.물론 만약 상당한 폭력의 삭발이나 그와 같은 것이 있었다면, 그 상황을 해결하는 가장 좋은 방법은 매우 다를 수 있다.뉴욕브래드 (대화) 04:51, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

오늘 이전에는 세시섹이 실제로 이 사실을 전혀 명확히 하지 않았었다.또한, 그들의 편집은 새로운 사용자 이름에 기인할 것이기 때문에, 이전에 익숙한 사람이라면 어쨌든 동일한 사용자라는 것을 알게 될 것이다.비블브록스 (대화) 05:09, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

릴 모에 지속적인 BLP 기물 파손

지난 며칠 동안, 릴 모에 BLP 반달리즘을 삽입하기 위한 공동의 노력이 있었다. 3월 24일, 말도 안 되는 것을 삽입하는 IP 주소들이 많이 있었다. 사용자들은 되돌아갔고 나는 그 기사를 하루 동안 훔쳐보았지만, 불행하게도 보호막이 만료되자마자 반달리즘이 다시 시작된 것 같다.이번에는 메인 계정을 차단했다(사용자:반달리즘의 공정한 덩어리를 하고 있던 리얼리티킹(토크 · 기여자들).사용된 IP주소에 다양한 ISP가 있다는 사실에 근거하여, 나는 여기 직장에 여러 개의 반달들이 있다고 말할 것이다. (아마도 인터넷 포럼이나 IRC 방에서 편집된 내용에 따르면, 더 이상 할 일이 없는 아이들이라고 할 수 있다.) 이런 이유로, 오토록이 많은 일을 할 것이라고 확신하지는 않지만,그 기사가 지금으로서는 비교적 안정되어 보이는 것과 동시에, 나는 실제로 차단하는 것이 망설여진다.

만약 사람들이 그 기사를 그들의 감시목록을 추가할 수 있다면, 아니면 계속 주시할 수 있다면 그것은 좋을 것이다.란키베일 04:11, 2010년 3월 26일(UTC)[답답하다]

만약 내가 더 잘 몰랐다면, 나는 그것이 포찬의 조정된 공격이었다고 말하겠지만, 나는 그것이 그들임을 나타내는 것을 실제로 아무것도 보지 못한다.최근에 인기 있는 과목인가?Thing // Talk // 기여 04:43, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그들은 분명히 이 BLP로 시내에 갔다.몇 가지를 놓치셨군요. [45].나는 가지고 있다. 2주 동안 반비보호된 후 페이지가 자동으로 보호되지 않음.–xeno^talk 05:54, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

아, 아쉽다.화두를 알 수 없는 상황에서 기사의 중단과 반달리즘이 시작된 장소를 어디선가 구분하기 어려웠다.독수리 눈 고마워!란키베일 03:46, 2010년 3월 27일(UTC)[답답하다]

사용자 페이지 문제

더 이상 볼 게 없다.–xenotalk 03:03, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.
편집자의 신변 안전에 대한 위협? 애쉬(대화·출고)는 사용자 페이지(내 것 강조)에 다음과 같은 내용을 게재했다. 나에 대한 특히 고약한 인신공격 이후 나는 위키피디아에 관한 다른 중요한 저작들을 중단했다. 왜냐하면 나의 보안이 우선되어야 하기 때문이다.관련된 소수의 위키백과 검토 회원들의 목적은 이 경우 편집자들이 LGBT 성적인 주제에 기여한다면 지속적인 인신공격에 대해 두려워하게 함으로써 위키백과를 검열하는 것이다.그들의 접근법은 효과가 있다. 논의하기를 원하거나 다음 단계에 대해 조언할 수 있는 이해 당사자는 이메일로 연락하십시오.관련 배경은 이 초안 RFC/U에서 찾을 수 있다. 이 문서가 만들어진 지 얼마 되지 않아 나에 대한 심각한 인신공격이 시작됐다는 것은 있을 수 없는 공증거일 것이다. 나는 RFC/U의 연계된 초안에 이름이 붙여진 편집자인데, 따라서 대부분의 독자들은 내가 불특정 다수인 "특히 고약한 인신공격"과 애쉬의 "보안"에 대한 불특정 다수인 위협 둘 다와 연관되어 있다고 생각할 것이다.이 섹션이 "<!--맛있는 카번클--"와 "<!-/맛있는 카번클--"이라고 쓰여 있는 숨겨진 코멘트로 둘러싸여 있다는 사실은 내가 이러한 발언들의 의도적이고 구체적으로 표적이 되고 있다는 어떤 의심도 없애줄 것이다. 이는 사용자 페이지와 그 밖의 다른 곳에서 애쉬의 염증성 인신공격으로 인해 발생한다.이러한 코멘트를 처리하기 위해 관리자들에게 직접 요청한 결과 이상하게 부적절한 코멘트가 나오거나 전혀 응답이 없었다.나는 애쉬와 관련 당사자들에게 그들의 우려가 해소되고 그들의 비난이 진정될 수 있도록 위협받는 RFC/U를 제출하도록 격려했다.나는 이러한 근거 없는 비난을 다루려고 하는 것에 지쳤고 나는 위키백과 편집자가 다른 편집자가 그들의 신체적 안전을 위험에 빠뜨렸다고 주장하는 것이 받아들여져야 한다고 생각하지 않는다.누가 좀 처리해 줄래?고마워요.맛있는 카르분클 (토크) 2010년 3월 26일 16:42, 26 (UTC)[응답] 개인의 안전은 위키피디아가 모든 편집자에게 우선시하는 사항이며 항상 그러할 것이다.애쉬가 자신의 신변안전이 위험하다는 인상을 어디서 받았는지 정말 알 수가 없다.그는 '관련된 소수의 위키백과 검토 회원들의 목적은, 이 경우 편집자들이 LGBT 성적인 주제에 기여한다면 지속적인 인신공격에 두려움을 가질 것을 보장함으로써 위키백과를 검열하는 것이다. 그들의 접근법은 효과가 있다.' 그것은 그가 그의 신변안전이 위험하다고 말한 부분과 모순된다.나는 그가 혐의를 제기하고 있기 때문에, 편집자에 대한 그것에 대해 원하지 않는 주장을 하는 것을 막아야 한다고 생각한다.그는 이메일을 통해 정보를 요청하고 있다(논의하기를 원하거나 다음 단계에 대해 조언할 수 있는 이해관계자, 이메일로 나에게 연락하라). 이는 그가 법적 조치를 취할 것이라는 것을 의미할 수 있다.그가 망상의 구름을 받고 있거나 그가 합법적으로 염려하고 있는 것 같은데 우리는 그 우려를 잠재워야 한다.더스티SPEAK!! 16:52, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] (ec) 나의 의견은 법적 조치와 관련이 없으며, 이것은 내가 기부를 중단한 이유를 설명하기 위한 통지서다.감독에 대한 미해결 요청이 있어서 나는 이 포럼에서 이 문제에 대해 논평할 수 없다.나는 내가 잘못 인용되고 있다는 것에 주목한다.나의 경호와 신변 안전에는 차이가 있다.애쉬 (토크) 2010년 3월 26일 16:57 (UTC)[응답] 여기서 무슨 일이 벌어지고 있는지는 잘 모르겠지만, 그것은 Talk의 어떤 논쟁에 초점을 맞춘 것 같다.포르노 배우들의 실명 확인을 둘러싼 게이 포르노 영화 속 남자 출연자 명단. --존 나글 (토크) 17:15, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 정말 자신이 위험에 처했다고 생각하는 사람들은 경찰을 부른다.자신이 위험에 처해 있다는 주장과 논쟁에서 우위를 점하려는 사람들은 위키피디아에 모든 것을 쓴다.실제로 수시로 되지 않으면 우스울 법한 옛날 기법이다('의식 있는 관리자'들이 포르노 마케팅의 중요한 사업으로 돌아갈 수 있도록 오프라인에서 그와 접촉하고 조율해 달라는 호소를 주목한다).발리 최종 (토크) 2010년 3월 26일 17:24 (UTC)[응답] 애쉬가 당국에 관여하지 않았다는 사실을 모르시죠? 38.109.88.180 (대화) 18:37, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 아, 나는 애쉬가 히스테리를 일으킨 원인을 알아낸 것 같다("이 페이지가 위키백과 리뷰의 회원들에 의해 감시되고 있다고 믿을 만한 이유가 있기 때문에 이메일로 의사소통이 필요하다는 그의 최근 편집증적 업데이트는 나에게 귀띔해 주었다).위키피디아 리뷰의 누군가가 애쉬의 정체를 알아낸 것 같다(또는 애쉬의 정체를 알아냈다고 생각한다).애쉬는 위키피디아에 있는 누군가가 이것에 대해 뭔가를 할 수 있다고 상상한다.애쉬에게는 슬프게도, 여기 있는 누구도 할 수 없다.슬프게도 위키피디아의 경우, 그것은 "그래비상"으로 소싱된 포르노 blps의 끝없는 흐름이 곧 재개될 것이라는 것을 의미한다.한숨. 발리 최종 (토크) 17:33, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 만약 RFC/U가 이미 반쯤 건설되어 있다면, 나는 그것을 마무리하고 정리할 것을 제안한다. 그리고 이 대화는 거기서 이루어 질 수 있다.비블브록스 (대화) 17:40, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 몇 달 동안 나는 에쉬(그리고 그 전에 벤지보이)에게 나에 대해 근거 없는 비난을 하기보다는 RFC/U를 제출하라고 격려해 왔다.애쉬는 하나를 시작했지만 가짜 이유로 제출을 연기했다. 첫째는 애쉬가 인용문 및 WQA 나사산을 잘못 사용했다는 공개 ANI 실과 (이 두 실 모두 현재 폐쇄된 상태) 그리고 지금은 애쉬의 "기본 안전이 우선이기 때문이다. RFC/U는 이러한 안전 문제가 해결될 때까지 지연될 것이다."그러는 동안 애쉬는 그들이 관심 있는 근거 없는 비난은 무엇이든 마음대로 할 수 있다고 믿는 것 같다.이 아주 심각한 인신공격에 누가 좀 대처해 줄래?맛있는 카르분클 (토크) 17:52, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 내가 널 괴롭히고 있다고 생각한다면, 적절한 DR 절차를 따르라. 내 공정한 편집을 계속 방해하지 말고.당신은 당신에게 제안된 휴전에 참여하지 않았고, 개방되어 있는 WQA에도 참여하지 않았다.여러 제3자로부터 나를 트롤이라고 부르는 것을 자제해 달라는 부탁을 받았는데도 계속하는구나.당신은 당신의 행동에 대한 어떤 RFC/U에 참여하는 것에 관심이 없다고 말했고, 당신이 참여한 ANI는 당신의 호의에 반하여 폐쇄되었다...하지만 당신은 겨우 2주만에 준비해온 RFC/U를 제출하기 위해 애쉬를 계속 괴롭히고 있다.애쉬가 발리의 궁극적인 주들처럼 "파라노이드"도 아니고 비난도 근거가 없는 것처럼 들린다.이런 이슈들이 통과되길 바란다면 10일 만에 다섯 번째로 위키백과에 분쟁해결 과정이 있다는 것을 상기시켜 주겠으며, 아마도 그 과정에 참여해야 할 것이다. 38.109.88.180 (대화) 18:37, 2010년 3월 26 (UTC)[응답] 이 심각한 인신공격은 지나친 관점이 있는가, 아니면 그것과 연관성이 있는가?Off2riorob (대화) 2010년 3월 26일 18:12 (UTC)[응답] 나에 대한 공격을 말하는 거라면, 위를 봐.나는 애쉬가 그들의 노트에서 어떤 인신 공격을 언급하는지 모른다.나는 Ash가 이 줄기의 앞부분에서 언급한 감독 요청은 그들이 그들 자신을 확인하거나 이전 계정과 연결시키는 그들 자신의 기여를 포함하고 있다고 추측한다.맛있는 카르분클(토크) 18:20, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 당사자들이 낚시를 하거나 미끼를 자르거나 실을 닫을 것을 제안한다.이런 의혹으로는 아무것도 할 수 없다.--위활트(대화) 18:31, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라] 그것은 여왕과 그의 엉덩이를 때리는 물질에 내재된 위험을 보여 준다! --Fred the Oste (토크) 18:33, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] ^적절하지 않음. 38.109.88.180 (대화) 18:38, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 드라마 페스트가 걷잡을 수 없이 번져나가기 때문에 기본적인 사실들을 여기에 적어보도록 하자. 애쉬는 얼마 전 자신의 실명, 즉 프로젝트에서 자신의 실명을 사용했고, 이후 실명과 사용자 ID(아마도 자신이 한 일을 깨닫지 못한 채)를 연결했다. 위키백과 리뷰 편집자는 최근 현재의 드라마 축제와 무관하게 Ash가 한 일부 COI 편집에 대해 설명했으며, WP 편집자 "Ash"를 실명으로 확인했다. 몇몇 위키백과 검토 편집자들은 Ash와 DC 사이의 현재 진행중인 전투나 COI 편집에 대해 논평하면서 Ash의 실제 활동과 관련된 추가 논평을 냈으며, Ash의 실제 배우자에 대한 (구입된) 식별도 포함시켰다.한 WPR 편집자는 Ash가 위키피디아에 자신의 사진까지 올린 것을 알아챘다(삭제된 이후). 애쉬는 WPR 댓글에서 반복적으로 조롱을 받아왔다. 이런 상황에 대해 애쉬가 크게 과장된 반응과 편집에 있어서 그의 반감을 연상시키는 그의 빈정거림은 불미스러운 행동으로 논쟁을 불러일으키고 있는 그의 불평을 선의로 받아들이기 어렵게 만든다.그는 WPR에서 대략적인 대우를 받았으나, WPR에 게시하는 위키백과 편집자들의 WPR 토론에 관여하는 것(대부분 비인기)과는 무관하게, WPR에 게재하는 위키백과 편집자들에 대한 그의 일반적인 미개한 처사는 결코 정당화되지 않는다.훌라발루 울포위츠 (대화) 2010년 3월 26일 19:22 (UTC)[응답] 그것들은 몇몇 심각한 주장이고 거의 NPOV 요약이 아니다.그 모든 "사실"에 대해 좀 말해줄래?DR을 위해 그러한 사실이 제시된 장소를 알려주시겠습니까? 38.109.88.180 (대화) 21:25, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 나는 확실히 Ash가 위키피디아에 어떻게 자신을 "아웃"시켰는지를 보여주는 다른 글을 올리지 않을 것이다; 아마도 그것들은 그가 감독 요청을 한 항목들 중 하나일 것이고, 또한 나는 그의 실제적인 정체성을 증명하거나 주장하는 WPR 링크를 올리지 않을 것이다.나머지는, 당신도 잘 알고 있겠지만, 최근에 보관된 이 나사산[46]에 수록되어 있는데, 이 스레드는 당신이 여러 번 게시한 것이다.훌라발루 울포위츠 (대화) 21:35, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라] 내가 지금 두 번이나 되돌아왔기 때문에, 나는 공식적으로 관리자나 다른 편집자가 나의 요청과 위왈트의 요청을 승인해 줄 것을 요청하는 것이다. 위왈트는 RFC/U나 ArbComm 중 어느 한 곳으로도 이 장소를 가져가야 할 것이다.더스티SPEAK!! 21:30, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] ANI는 WP:NPA 위반을 신고하는 곳이 아닌가?이게 어떻게 인신공격이 아니겠어?맛있는 카르분클 (토크) 21:42, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 그래, 너와 의견이 다른 두 편집자의 말이다.대화가 진행되도록 내버려 두어라. 예를 들면 말이다.그것은 나에게 임박한 것으로 알려진 RFC가 오래된 AN/I 보고서에 상당히 의존하고 있는 것처럼 보이기 때문에 특히 가치 있는 것으로 생각된다.이 문제를 여기에 가져온 이유는 카르분클레가 그것이 다소 음흉하고 심각한 종류의 인신공격이라고 주장하기 때문이다.애쉬는 이것을 부인하지만, 그럼에도 불구하고, 그것은 WQA와 다른 장소들이 쓸모없는 복잡한 상황이다.그의 선의의 관심에 대해 긍정적인 반응을 얻을 수 있는 만큼, 이곳은 최고의 장소다.발리 최종 (토크) 21:44, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 당신의 의견에 전적으로 동의하지만, 맛있는 카번클은 5P의 모든 것을 포함한 대부분의 기본적인 위키 원칙들을 무시한 채 의심스러운 편집 행동을 계속하는 것이 아니라, 이미 제시된 분쟁 해결 과정에 기꺼이 참여한다면 정말 그리고 확실히 가장 긍정적인 반응을 얻을 것이다.지금까지 dc의 참여 의지 부족은 정확히 어떤 다른 편집자도 미래에 참여할 수 있다고 믿도록 하는 것은 아니다. 38.109.88.180 (대화) 22:10, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] IMO Ash는 똥을 싸거나 화를 내야 한다; 당신은 단지 프로젝트 전반에 걸쳐 다른 편집자들에 대한 모호한 비난을 그냥 방치할 수는 없다.RfC/U를 완료하거나 삭제하십시오.ArbCom에서 문제를 제기하거나, 해결하지 마십시오.이누엔도는 시간이 지나면 피곤해진다.Tarc (대화) 22:13, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 사용자 설명:애쉬 영구 연결은 완전히 허용되지 않으며 리팩터링되거나 삭제되어야 한다.첫 번째 문장은 "특히 불안한 인신공격"을 주장하고 두 번째 문장은 DC의 "과거 행위"를 가리킨다.의도했든 아니든 이 두 문장은 DC가 극단적인 공격에 가담했음을 암시한다.그러한 주장이 실제 공식적인 불만 사항이 있는 페이지 이외의 어떤 페이지에도 증거와 함께 제기되는 것은 받아들일 수 없다.조누니크 (대화) 00:50, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답] RFC/U 초안은 빠른 삭제를 위해 이미 올려놨는데, 맛있는 카번클의 요청으로 빈칸으로 남겨졌을 뿐이다.맛있는 카분클레가 이 ANI에 대해 제기한 원래의 통지는 이 ANI가 어떠한 불만 사항도 해결하기 위해 제기된 이후 여러 번 다시 쓰여졌고 현재는 그나 위키백과 리뷰에 대해 전혀 언급하지 않고 있다.나는 또한 내 User 페이지에서 모든 내용과 이력을 삭제하여 그것이 인신공격으로 해석되지 않도록 했다.만약 내가 위키피디아에서 지난 3년 반 동안 2만 3천 건의 기고를 철회할 수 있다면, 나는 오늘 그렇게 했을 것이다. 나는 이 줄기의 외출 정보가 이러한 문제에 대한 정책을 위반하고 그것이 이 정보를 게시하는 사람들의 의도인지 아닌지에 상관없이 동성애 혐오적인 성격의 인신공격에 해당한다고 믿는다.나는 이 토론에서 그것이 남겨지는 것에 강력히 반대한다.이 ANI에 대한 위키백과 리뷰의 외출 정보를 재게시하는 것이 여기 관리자들이 분명히 받아들일 수 있다는 사실은 나에게 위키백과 리뷰의 어떤 회원이나 더 많은 추측성 개인 정보가 시도되는 것처럼 맛있는 카번클의 행동에 대해 어떤 불만도 추구하는 것은 어리석은 짓이라는 것을 확신시켜 주었다.위키백과에서 나와 연결된 사람들은 그 정보가 정확한지 아닌지를 검토한다. 만약 여기서의 의도가 내가 이런 문제들에 대해 언급하는 것을 재갈을 물리는 것이었다면, 그 욕설은 나를 추구할 가치가 없다고 확신시키기에 충분하다.목요일부터 나의 사용자 페이지와 사용자 토크 페이지에 언급된 바와 같이 나는 이러한 이유로 LGBT 관련 기사에 대한 기고를 중단했다.애쉬(토크) 01:31, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답] 애쉬, 여기서 정말 편집을 마쳤다면 언제든지 바니시권을 발동할 수 있다.애니메이트 02:20, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답] 애쉬, 사용자 및 대화 페이지 헤더에서 나에 대한 참조를 삭제해줘서 고마워.그게 내 목표였어. 네가 위키피디아를 편집하는 걸 막지도 못하게 만들지도 않았어.나는 이 실이 폐쇄되고 보관되는 것에 대해 반대하지 않는다. 만약 그것이 당신의 개인적인 세부사항들을 더 빨리 공개적인 시야에서 벗어나게 한다면.맛있는 카르분클 (토크) 02:54, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

부적합한 카테고리

위키백과에서 카테고리:10살짜리를 삭제할 수 있는가?위키피디아 미성년자, WP 위반:Child. 그들이 속히 삭제되는 범주는 없는 것 같다.고마워, 이글스 24/7 (C) 23:47, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

이걸 보진 못했지만, 지옥에서 그들을 머물게 할 방법이 없었어--Jac16888^Talk 00:29, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

사용자 차단 해제:그랜트.알포

이 이용자의 블록은 작년 여기서의 합의에 의해 유지되었다.그들은 지금 차단을 해제해 달라고 요청하고 있다.차단 전 교란 편집 사실을 시인했고, 회피 후기를 차단하기 위해 지난해 10월 초부터 별다른 이슈를 일으키지 않은 것으로 보인다.그들이 여기서 토론에 의해 근본적으로 금지되었기 때문에 나는 그들의 요청을 여기에 가져온다.나는 또한 이전에 관계된 관리자들에게 통지할 것이다.아래는 그들이 요청한 차단 해제 요청의 전문이다.비블브록스 (대화) 23:56, 2010년 3월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

대략 1년 전에 2009년 메이저 리그 축구 시즌과 관련된 기사들에 대한 많은 논쟁이 시작되었다.그 논쟁 이전, 그 동안, 그리고 그 후에 나는 내가 깊이, 완전히, 그리고 완전히 후회하는 방식으로 행동했다.그런 논의에 들어가는 내 태도를 돌이켜보면 MLS와 미국 축구 기사 대부분을 소유주의적인 태도를 분명히 취했다.차가운 대낮에, 나는 지금 그것을 볼 수 있다.그런 태도는 유감스럽지만, 그것은 솔직히 내가 이 공동체의 생산적인 일원이었던 몇 년 전 백과사전의 자산이었던 미국의 스포츠에 대한 나의 디에프 열정에서 비롯되었다.그 말은, 나는 그것이 부적절했다는 것을 확실히 인식하고 있고, 정말 미안해.기회가 주어진다면 좀 더 겸손해지고 다른 사람들과 더 건설적인 방법으로 일할 것을 약속한다.그 토론 동안, 나는 지역 사회에 새로 온 사람들과 최근 MLS와 미국 축구에 관심을 가져왔던 회원들을 설립하는 두 사람에 대해 불필요하게 공격적이고 모욕적이며 가장 중요하게 달갑지 않은 태도를 취했다.다시 한번, 나는 그 행동들을 깊이 후회한다.나는 내가 했던 말들 중 몇몇을 되돌려서 풀어줄 수 있는 것, 또는 적어도 내가 그런 말들을 했던 방식들을 풀 수 있는 그 어떤 것보다도 더 많은 것을 바란다.기회가 주어진다면 내가 가장 먼저 하고 싶은 일은 이 프로젝트에서 내가 기분 상하게 하고 달갑지 않은 감정을 느끼게 한 멤버들에게 사과하는 것이다.마침내, 백과사전의 편집이 금지된 후, 나는 나의 금지령을 피하려고 전혀 변명의 여지가 없는 행동을 했다.이런 행동은 백과사전에 지장을 주었고, 만약 이 공동체가 나를 다시 태어나게 하는 것이 적합하다고 본다면 다시는 그런 일이 없을 것이라는 약속으로 사과하고 용서를 구할 수 있을 뿐이다.나는 솔직히 양말 인형극의 초기 의심은 정말로 내 동생과 나 둘 다 데이튼에 있는 우리 집에서 토론에 참여했다고 말할 수 있지만, 우리는 처음부터 우리가 누구인지를 분명히 하지 않았기 때문에 적어도 고기 인형극의 죄는 지웠다.다시 한 번 말하지만, 나는 이런 행동에 대해 사과하고, 용서를 구하며, 내가 다시 한번 이 공동체의 소중한 일원이 될 수 있다는 것을 증명하려고 노력할 뿐이다.나는 지난 1년 동안 했던 일들에 대해 매우 미안하고 부끄러우며, 백과사전에 다시 참여할 수 있는 기회를 다시 주길 바란다.

나는 그가 교훈을 얻었다는 것이 진심인 것처럼 보이기 때문에 그의 막힘 없는 요청을 지지할 것이다.케빈 러더포드 (대화) 01:03, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

우리가 그를 봉쇄하고 그가 예전의 방식을 계속한다면 어떻게 될까?킹제프 (대화) 01:58, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

우리는 그를 다시 가두었다.케빈 러더포드 (대화) 02:28, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]

저 레브록이 지금처럼 무기한 블록이 될까?내가 그를 차단 해제할 수 있는 유일한 방법은 그의 현재 무기한 차단된 것이 2, 3개의 차단 가능한 사건이라고 말한 후에 발효될 것이라는 조항을 넣거나 혹은 첫 번째 차단 가능한 사건이 일어난 직후에 그 무기한 차단된 차단된 차단된 것을 복구시킬 수 있다는 것이다.킹제프 (대화) 03:23, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 사용자의 기여와 차단 해제 요청을 간단히 살펴본 적이 있다. 그리고 사용자가 이중 강도의 선한 행동 약속을 준수할 경우 차단 해제 요청을 조심스럽게 지지한다. 문제의 첫 번째 징후로, 그들은 이번에도 영구적으로 차단된다.란키베일 04:30, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[답답하다]
• 그의 마지막 양말 사건(내가 아는)은 사실 불과 6개월 전이지만, 나는 그랜트에게 다시 한번 기회를 주는 것을 지지할 것이다.시간이 충분하지 않거나 그가 다시 나쁜 행동으로 되돌아갈 수 있다는 우려가 있다면, 나는 그를 0RR 수습 기간으로 막거나 그와 같은 선에서 차단해제를 제안할 것이다.나는 그가 나 자신과 다른 편집자들로부터 야기시킨 혼란과 좌절감을 기꺼이 용서할 것이며 행정관들도 그렇게 하도록 격려한다.만약 그의 기여가 예전처럼 비생산적이거나 문제가 된다면, 그는 신속하게 다시 금지되어야 한다는 데 동의한다. --스코티WA^T_C 06:09, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 Skoty에 동의한다.WA. 차단을 해제하여 0RR 또는 1RR로 제한하고, 교란/소크 인형극이 다시 문제가 될 경우 다시 금지한다.◆ 조지 ^talk 06:16, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]

그의 토크 페이지 비블브록스 (토크) 18:02, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)*내 요청을 고려해도 고맙다.여러분 모두 나를 믿을 이유가 없다는 것을 알지만, 이 프로젝트에 대한 나의 마지막 진지한 활동 이후 6개월에서 1년 사이에 (물론 읽어주는 것 외에는) 그것에 대한 나의 태도가 정말로 바뀌었다는 것을 믿어주길 부탁한다.나는 위키피디아에 중독된 더 좋은 단어가 없어서 위키피디아에 중독되곤 했다.더 이상 그렇지 않다.내가 여전히 하루에 여러 번 백과사전을 사용하는 동안, 나는 더 이상 내가 부적절하다고 생각하는 모든 것을 고쳐야 한다는 강박적인 필요성을 느끼지 않는다.어떤 것이 사실적으로 틀린 것이 아니라면, 나는 지금 어떤 것을 다루는 올바른 방법이 다른 편집자들과 토론하는 것이라는 것을 깨닫는다.어쨌든, 내 부탁을 들어줘서 다시 한번 고마워. - 그랜트.알포 00:04, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 그에게 다시 한 번 기회를 주겠다고 말하는데, 아무도 과거를 완전히 잊어버리지 않을 것이고, 그가 다시 부적절한 행동을 시작하면 앞으로 관용이 희박해질 것이라고 예상한다. -- 아타마호 20:39, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 또한 User talk에서의 그의 대답에 근거하여 또 다른 기회에 동의할 것이다.그랜트.Alpaugh#Unblock. CBW 02:37, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)에서 나온 절박한 내용[응답]

• 동의해, 또 다른 기회야2010년 3월 27일 밤 10:00 (토크) (UTC)[응답]

다 했어. 차단 해제하고 이전 행동으로 되돌아갈 경우 추가 경고 없이 차단 기능이 다시 작동될 것이라는 것을 그가 알고 있는지 확인했어.비블브록스 (대화) 17:01, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자의 문제 편집:절대 굴복하지 마라.

절대 굴복하지 말라(토크 · 기여)는 1월 이후 편집하지 않은 후 오늘날 많은 편집을 하고 있다. 이는 그가 편집하기 전에 했던 것처럼 그가 편집하고 있는 기사들을 보이게 한다.나는 설명을 요구해 왔다.우지 (토크) 22:18, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 일부 편집에서 쉼표가 삭제되는 것을 알아챘고, 내 눈에는 그 텍스트가 문법적으로 약간 덜 만들어졌다.(일시 중지 기능을 통해 텍스트를 읽기 쉽게 만드는 일시 중지 기능이 제거됨).예를 들어 설명이 제공될 때까지 이 사용자의 모든 편집 내용을 백업하고 추가 편집을 차단하는 것이 좋다.와일드베어 (토크) 22:49, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그들이 마지막으로 편집한 지 몇 시간이 지났기 때문에 나는 차단하는 것보다 그들이 동일한 행동을 다시 시작하는지 아니면 그들의 토크 페이지에 남겨진 논평에 반응하는지를 보는 것이 더 나을 것이라고 생각한다.CBW 08:19, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)에서 나온 절름발이의 말[응답]

그들은 여러 편집자들로부터 좀 더 조심하라는 말을 들었음에도 불구하고 정확히 똑같은 일을 다시 시작했으며, 그들은 토크 페이지에서는 아무런 반응을 보이지 않았다.대런후스테드 (대화) 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC) 13:09 [응답]

사용자 ID가 단서를 제공할 수 있다고 생각하지 않으시죠?base야구 벅스 당근→ 14:14, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

이 편집자는 "그리고"는 결코 콤마가 선행되어서는 안 된다는 오해에서 고심하고 있는 것 같다.내가 확인한 그의 모든 편집 내용은 그가 그러한 쉼표를 삭제한 예들이다.몇몇 경우에서 제거된 쉼표는 중복된 것처럼 보였지만, 와일드베어가 인용한 쉼표처럼, 제거된 쉼표가 두 개의 독립된 문장을 연결하는 결합의 예보다 선행된 예가 몇 개 있다.파울러 현대 영어 사용의 나의 사본 (1968년 거의 무테딜루비안 시대의 것으로 채택)에 따르면, 그러한 경우에는 쉼표가 필요하다.적어도 한 가지 다른 경우에서 그는 또한 두 개의 쉼표(또는 대시 또는 괄호 같은 일부 다른 중지 쌍)가 모두 마찬가지로 필요한 괄호 주석을 둘러싸는 쉼표 쌍의 두 번째 쉼표를 잘못 삭제했다.나는 이 편집자가 자신의 편집이 진정한 개선이라고 진심으로 믿을 가능성이 높기 때문에 블록이 정당하다고는 생각하지 않는다. 그러나, 그는 쉼표 사용에 대한 그의 생각들 중 일부는 평판이 좋은 스타일 매뉴얼에 제시된 권고에 동의하지 않는 것처럼 꾸밀 필요가 있다.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:22, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 소설의 전개에 약간 뒤처진 것 같다.글을 올리기 전에 편집자의 토크 페이지를 확인했어야 했어.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 2010년 3월 27일 14:46 (UTC)[응답]

음, 가장 최근의 발전은 내가 복수 계정을 남용했다는 이유로 두 개와 함께 이 계정을 차단했다는 것이다(다른 두 개도 똑같이 도움이 되지 않는 편집을 하고 있었다). --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:09, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

Brett Salisbury를 삭제하지 않도록 제거하십시오.그는 3년 동안 위키피디아에 있었다.고마워

안녕, 내 이름은 질 먼로야.나는 내 연구를 했고 또한 내가 한 자료를 복사해서 붙여 여기에 올릴 것이다.구글 검색으로 브렛 솔즈베리에 간다면, 아카이브에 가봐.이 신사에 관한 기사는 9800개가 넘는다.그는 또한 현재 전국 6위의 책을 가지고 있다.그 자체로 그를 제거해야 한다고 말이야그는 오리건 대학의 팩 10 쿼터백에서 시작했다.그가 UCLA를 상대로 시작한 오리건과 같은 1부 리그에서 선발 쿼터백이 되는 것 또한 그에게 자격을 부여해야 한다.예를 들어 여기 UCLA의 쿼터백인 케빈 크래프트와 같은 사람들을 나열할 때, 어떻게 솔즈베리가 애초에 삭제될 수 있었을까?설명 좀 해주시죠.여기 그 페이지가 있다.감사합니다.나는 이 일을 처음이라 임이 제대로 했으면 좋겠다.질 먼로 04:04, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)질 먼로[응답]

[ 내용 잘림 ]

• 위키백과:삭제 조항/Brett Salisbury - 2008년 8월: '이 사람은 통고할 수 없다.스포츠 업적은 경미하고 모델 주장이 의심스러우며 영양학자가 된다는 처음 주장은 아직 출판되지 않은 책(AfD Wikipedia:조항_for_deletion/Transform_diet).Poltair (talk) 14:51, 2008년 8월 18일 (UTC) '—서명되지 않은 코멘트 61.45.36.159 (talk) 추가 준비

• 지금 전국 6위에 오른 책은 정확하지 않다.아이유니버스를 통해 자체 출판된 책의 1월 6일인데, 이것은 다소 덜 거창한 주장이다.[47] --82.7.40.7 (대화) 10:56, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

삭제된 자료의 재생성뿐만 아니라 이 사용자의 사용자 페이지도 삭제되어야 한다.Tarc (대화) 2010년 3월 27일 12시 54분 (UTC)[응답]

2010년 3월 27일 15:45, 27 워즈미스^Communicate 끝내기[응답]

인종차별적 파괴 행위

2009년 말레이시아 그랑프리 기사에 인종차별적 반달리즘으로 31시간 동안 115.132.107.121(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 필터 로그 · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)을 막았다.어제 나는 115.134.109.92(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 필터 로그 · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 블록 사용자 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)에 같은 내용의 uw-van4im을 발행했다.나는 이러한 편집("루이스 해밀턴"을 "검은 개코원숭이"로 바꾸는 것)이 같은 사람에 의해 행해지고 있다고 의심한다.이건 계속 지켜볼 필요가 있어.나는 그러한 블록이 효과가 있을 것인지 아닌지에 대한 의견을 형성할 정도로 레인지 블록에 대해 충분히 알지 못한다.Mjroot (대화) 11:46, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

범위가 너무 커서 250000입스 이상에 걸쳐 있다. decltype (토크) 2010년 3월 27일 12시 3분 (UTC)[응답하라]

남용 필터("검은 개코원숭이"라는 단어를 포함한 IP 범위의 편집자)의 후보일 수 있는가?(불행히도 나는 내가 무의미한 질문을 하고 있는지 말할 만큼 남용 필터에 대해 충분히 알지 못한다.)토니왈튼^Talk 12:09, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

나도 그럴듯할지는 모르겠지만, 그건 좋은 생각인 것 같아.:) 또는 기사에 대한 반보호는? --Moonedgirl^(talk) 12:49, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

2주간 세미드. caknuck은 2010년 3월 27일(UTC) 14시 9분 더 자주 실행되어야 한다[응답하라]

게다가, 나는 그것이 단지 이 범위인지 의심스럽다.개인적인 경험을 통해 같은 위치에서 Streamyx를 사용할 때(글쎄 기본적으로 연결을 끊고 다시 연결할 때) 여러 범위가 생길 수 있다는 것을 알고 있다.내가 지난 1년여 동안 별로 신경 쓰지 않았던 일인데, 그들이 라우팅 행동을 바꿨을 수도 있지만, 닐 아인(토크) 14:36, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]은 아닐 것이다.

WP에서 요청했었습니다.편집 필터를 생성하는 EF/R.Mjroot (talk) 16:20, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

Yugiohmike2001의 편집행태

최근 유기오마이케2001의 끊임없는 반전이 주요 이슈가 되고 있다.지난 21일 편집 차단을 받기도 했다.하지만, 그를 편집 요약을 제공하거나 덜 되돌리려는 나 자신과 다른 편집자들의 끊임없는 시도에도 불구하고, 그는 계속해서 모든 사람들을 무시한다.너무 많아서 디프트는 안 줄 건데, 그의 기여도를 봐달라고 부탁할게.나는 그가 따르지 않는다면 오랜 기간(6개월) 동안 차단되거나 레슬링과 관련된 어떤 것도 영구적으로 금지되어야 한다고 생각한다.그의 편집은 다른 누구도 청소하고 싶어하지 않는 큰 문제가 되었다. –투리안 (토크) 01:59, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

통지됨.–터리언(토크) 02:01, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

행정관이 실제로 내가 기록보관소에서 발굴하지 않아도 되도록 이걸 볼 수 있을까?–터리언(토크) 13:00, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

글쎄, 나는 그것을 살펴봤고 그의 기여가 실제로 많은 회귀를 포함하긴 하지만, 회전의 대부분은 노골적으로 부정확해 보이지 않는다 - 그는 도움이 되지 않는 IP 추가가 많은 지역에서 일하는 것 같다.만약 당신이 나에게 지난 며칠 동안 실제로 도움이 되지 않거나 의심스러운 몇 가지 구체적인 반전을 지적해 줄 수 있다면, 그것은 더 명백할 것이다.요약 편집이 도움이 될 것이라는 데는 동의하지만, 그 자체로는 차단할 수 없다.~ mazca 13:28, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

이것이 NAC의 올바른 절차인가?

위키백과:조항_for_deletion/Robert_Earl_Hughes가 비관리자 마감에서 스노우볼 킵으로 마감되었다.나의 문제는 스노우볼 킵이나 NAC가 아니다; 나의 관심사는 토론에서 또한 토론을 종결시킨 편집장이다.나는 네가 아프간을 폐쇄하면 안 된다고 믿고 있었다.이거 다시 열고 닫아야 하는 거야?와라 (토크) 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC) 14:08 [응답]

아마도 그 결과가 명백했기 때문에 그렇지 않을 것이다.그들에게 그렇게 하지 말았어야 했다고 말하는 것은 순서에 따라다닌다.케빈 러더포드 (토크) 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC) 15:01, 응답

(e/c) 엄중한 예의를 위해 나는 다시 문을 열고 무단결근을 했다.JohnCD (대화) 15:03, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

편집 충돌이 발생했는가?

방금 대화 중에 편집 충돌이 생겼어지진과 위쪽 텍스트 창의 내용은 충돌하는 텍스트를 포함하지 않았다. 충돌하는 변경 전의 텍스트였다.누군가 조금 전에 내가 지진으로 바꾼 것을 밟았었는데, 지금 나는 그 EC도 잘못된 것이 아닌가 하는 생각이 든다.셀레스트라 (토크) 2010년 3월 27일 14시 56분 (UTC)[응답]

81.155.22.183

차단된 사용자 Kirkley이기도 한 이 IP 주소High 및 IP 86.162.18.140(Wipedia:Sockpuppet 조사/KirkleyHigh/Archive)는 이전과 동일한 편집을 계속한다: 참조를 포함한 내용 삭제, [48] 부적절한 대문자화, [49] 등...항상 그렇듯이, 그와 토론하는 것은 불가능하다: 그의 토크 페이지에 있는 경고와 메시지는 무시된다.[50][51][52] 이전의 논의도 참조한다[53].Anness, -- Europe22 (대화) 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC) 15:58[응답]

사용자:랜터닉스

사용자가 알무이즈 리데닐라에 불량한 소스 재료를 삽입하고 있다.사용자는 그 이후 문제의 자료를 지원하기 위해 다른 편집기를 캔버스처럼 다루어 왔다. [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64](이 모든 사용자들은 Copts로 자체 식별한다.사용자는 또한 삭싱이 차단된 다른 사용자가 다른 사용자 이름으로 돌아오도록 촉구한다([65] 참조).누가 이 사용자에 대해 뭔가를 할 수 있을까?나발레지 - 02:17, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

분명히 보고 사용자는 여기 같은 기사에서 8번이나 참고 자료를 편집하고 회수한 것으로 보고된 것에 대해 보복하려고 한다.내가 알기로는 내가 한 일 중 어떤 위키백과 정책에도 어긋나는 일은 없다. -- --ⲁⲛτε^[talk] 02 02 02 02:24, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그것이 내가 이 보고서를 제출한 이유가 아니다. 사실 만약 관리자가 당신의 3RR 불만사항을 적절히 검토한다면 당신은 WP의 반복적인 위반으로 인해 차단되어야 한다.BLP. 그 보고서를 제출해줘서 기뻤어. 네블레지 - 02:27, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워내가 보고서를 제출해서 네가 기뻐서 기뻐.관리자에 따라 위반자가 누구인지 확인할 것. --λⲁⲛτε^[talk] 02 02 02 02:29, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 랜닉스에 대해 직접 실마리를 풀려고 했다.나는 그가 차단된 편집자에게 자신의 차단물을 피하도록 부추기는 것이 매우 불안하다고 생각한다.— 말릭 샤바즈 _Stalk/ 02:38, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그에게 그 블록을 피하라고 요구하는 것이 아니다.내가 이해한 바로는, 그리고 내가 이전에 들은 바로는, 만약 사용자가 여기서처럼 무기한 차단된다면, 애초에 차단되었던 것과 같은 행동을 더 이상 반복하지 않는 한, 새로운 사용자 이름을 가지고 돌아올 수 있다는 것이다.무기한 블록이 인생의 블록이 되는 건 아니잖아!만약 그 사람이 시간을 내어 그들의 행동을 재고한다면?이에 대한 관리자 코멘트를 주시면 감사하겠다. --λⲁⲛτξ^[talk] 03 03 03:04, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그게 네가 한 짓이야?나발레지 - 2010년 3월 23일 03:23 (UTC)[응답]

이게 바로 내가 한 짓이야.내가 그에게 한 말은 다른 사용자 이름으로 돌아와 달라는 말뿐이었다. 위키피디아에 대한 당신의 기여는 매우 도움이 되었다!그게 왜 그렇게 큰 일이지?이것에 반대하는 위키백과 규정이 있는가? --λⲁⲛτε^[talk] 03 03 03 03:28, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

이 사용자 이름으로 무기한 차단된 계정에서 돌아오셨는지 물어본 겁니다.nableezy - 03:29, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

왜 그런 걸 물어보는 거지? 왜 그게 너한테 무슨 걱정거리야?네가 상관할 바는 아니지만 대답은 '아니오'야그리고 그 질문은 완전히 도를 벗어났다. --λⲁⲛτε^[talk] 03 03 03 03:33, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

르 "이것을 반대하는 위키백과 규칙이 있는가?"; 사람은 양말 맞기 때문에 무기한 차단당하고, 당신은 그에게, 음...양말을 하나 더 만들다이것을 반대하는 규칙이 없는 대체 현실은 무엇인가?Tarc (대화) 03:34, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

위키피디아의 규칙은 무한정 차단된 사용자는 죽는 날까지 위키피디아의 다른 사용자로서 위키피디아를 편집하기 위해 다시 올 수 없다고 명시하고 있다는 말인가?죄송하지만, 그게 상식이라고 하는 겁니까?? --λⲁτεερξξ^[talk] 03 03 03:37, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 콥트가 아랍인에 대해 항상 소수인종에 속한다는 것에 공감하지만, 불과 며칠 전에 사용자가 차단되었다고 말했다.네가 말하는 "새 출발"이란 말은 그렇게 짧은 시간이 지나면 날아가지 않을 거야.츄우우우히:2010년 3월 26일 (UTC) 03:40, 세브 아즈86556 [응답]

우선, 나는 그 사용자가 차단된 날짜를 보지 않았다.둘째로, 누군가가 자신의 행동을 재고하고 모든 것을 다른 태도로 다시 시작하는 것은 결코 이르지 않다.그리고 콥트교도들을 동정해줘서 고마워.우리는 그것이 필요하다. --λⲁⲛτεξξξ^[talk] 03 03 03:42, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

이것을 간단한 언어로 설명하겠다, 랜닉스.사용자가 차단되면 사용자 이름뿐만 아니라 사용자가 차단된다.블록을 피하기 위해 새로운 사용자 이름을 사용하는 것을 sockpupetry라고 한다.WP 참조:블록 및 WP:자세한 내용은 SOCK을 참조하십시오.— 말릭 샤바즈 _Stalk/ 03:57, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

말릭, 이걸 설명하려고 해줘서 고마워.그러나 부디 나를 참고 다음의 두 가지 질문에 대답해 주시오.

1. 무한정 차단된 위키백과 사용자는 앞으로 다른 사용자 이름을 사용하여 위키백과에서 편집하기 위해 다시 오는 것이 허용되지 않는가?
2. 1번 질문에 대한 대답이 부정적일 경우, 위키피디아의 경우, 영구적으로 차단된 사용자가 다시 편집하러 오는 것을 다른 사용자가 권장하지 못하도록 하는 규칙이 있는가? --λτεε^[talk] 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04:01, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

1. 차단된 사용자는 차단 해제 요청을 할 수 있다.차단 해제되지 않은 경우 사용자는 새 사용자 이름을 사용하여 다시 돌아올 수 없다.
2. 차단된 사용자가 자신의 차단 기능에 대해 이의를 제기하도록 권장하는 것에 대한 규칙은 없다.— 말릭 샤바즈 _Stalk/ 2010년 3월 26일 04:12 (UTC)[응답]

잘됐네, 그래서 네가 한 말에 비추어 볼 때:

1. 사용자의 차단 해제 호소가 거부된 경우?무기한 차단된 사용자는 앞으로 다른 사용자 이름을 사용하여 위키피디아를 편집하기 위해 다시 오는 것이 허용되지 않는가?
2. 엄밀히 말하면 나는 유저의 귀환을 권유하여 잘못한 것이 없다. --λⲁⲛτε^[talk] 04 04 04 04 04 04 04:29, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

음, 아니. 사용자의 차단 해제 요청이 거절되면 잠시 기다렸다가 새로운 요청을 할 수 있다(또는 새로운 취미를 찾아 위키피디아를 포기한다).당신은 그것을 깨닫지 못했을지도 모르지만, 당신은 Tutie3가 위키백과 정책을 위반하고 그의 차단을 피하기 위해 양말뿌리를 만들도록 부추겼다.— 말릭 샤바즈 _Stalk/ 04:36, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 아무에게도 삭푸펫을 만들라고 권하지 않았다.위키피디아의 기여가 귀중하기 때문에 위키피디아에 대한 편집을 포기하지 말고 사용자에게 돌아오라고 권했을 뿐이다.사용자에게 다시 오도록 권하고 포기하지 말라는 법은 없어!적어도 난 아무것도 몰라.앞에서 했던 말을 다시 해보겠다. "내 이해는, 그리고 전에 들은 바와 같이, 만약 사용자가 여기서처럼 무기한 차단된다면, 애초에 차단되었던 동일한 행동을 더 이상 반복하지 않는 한, 새로운 사용자 이름을 가지고 돌아올 수 있다는 것이다.무기한 블록이 인생의 블록이 되는 건 아니잖아!만약 그 사람이 시간을 내어 그들의 행동을 재고한다면?" --λⲁⲛτε^[talk] 04 04 04 04:48, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

우리가 여기에 가지고 있는 것은 의사소통에 실패하는 것이다.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 05:19, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

랜틱스, "여기서처럼 사용자가 무기한 차단된다면 애초에 차단되었던 동일한 행동을 더 이상 반복하지 않는 한 새로운 사용자 이름을 가지고 돌아올 수 있다"고 말한 사람은 틀린 것이다.무한정 차단된 사용자가 새 이름으로 돌아오도록 권장할 수 있다.그들은 위키피디아의 항소 요약을 따르도록 권장되어야 한다.차단 정책#차단 해제.항소가 거부된 후 새로운 사용자 이름을 만들면 위키백과에서 차단된다.양말 인형극.내가 볼 때 이것은 너에게 한 번 이상 분명하게 설명되어 왔다.그래도 이해가 안 된다면 여기서 다시 반복하지 말고 내 토크 페이지에서 물어봐.무기한 차단된 사용자가 새 사용자 이름으로 다시 돌아오도록 권장하면 차단될 가능성이 더 높다.2010년 3월 26일 CBW 07:24 (UTC)에서 나온 절름발이의 말[응답]

만약 네 말이 사실이라면, 차단된 사용자에게 이런 제안을 한 것에 대해 사과할게.나는 이것이 위키피디아 정책이라는 것을 알지 못했다.선의로 이런 제안을 한 것을 차단하는 것은 내게는 좀 극단적인 것 같다.--λⲁⲛτε^[talk] 07 07 07 07 07:36, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

미안, 마지막 문장이 잘못 쓰여졌어."무제한으로 차단된 사용자가 새 이름으로 돌아오도록 부추기는 메시지를 또 올리면 차단될 가능성이 훨씬 높다"고 말했어야 했다.나는 네가 그것을 처음 한 것에 대해 차단당한다고 제안할 생각은 없었다.CBW 08:04, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)에서 나온 절름발이의 말[응답]

뭔가 짚고 넘어가고 싶은 게 있다.

"어떤 규칙이 위키피디아를 개선하거나 유지하는 것을 방해한다면 무시하라."

나는 새로운 이름으로 돌아와서 당신을 차단한 행동을 반복하지 않는 것이 본질적으로 잘못된 것이라고 보지 않는다.그것이 잘못되었다고 말하는 것은 비논리적이다.인페르노, 펭귄의 제왕 2010년 3월 26일 14:31 (UTC)[응답하라]

확실히 만약 어떤 사람이 정밀 조사를 피하기 위해 그렇게 하고 있다면(그리고 이전 계정을 공개하지 않는다면), 그것은 정말로 오해의 소지가 있는 방식으로 복수의 계정을 사용하는 예일 것이다.–MuZemike 14:58, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

차단된 사용자가 새 계정으로 돌아와 잘 행동하면 정말로 차단된 편집자임을 알아낼 방법이 없다는 일종의 암묵적인 이해가 있지 않은가?라테닉스가 말한 것에 반대하는 논쟁도 있을 수 있지만, 여기에 오래 있었던 모든 사람들이 알고 있는 것을 다른 사람들에게 숨기려고 하는 것이 정말 유익할까?버디431 (대화) 15:10, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

글쎄, 개방성은 좋은 것이라고 생각하지만, 누군가 조용히 와서 흠잡을 데 없이 행동하는 것과 사람들이 조금 전에 귀가 금지된 사용자인지 아닌지를 외면하는 것 사이에는 차이가 있다.이번 기회에 랜닉스 - 논란의 여지가 있는 자료를 여기에 삽입하려는 노력을 뒷받침하기 위해 아주 최근에 삭싱으로 금지된 편집자에게 며칠 안에 새로운 사용자 이름으로 돌아오라고 간청하는 것, 확실히?또한, Lunternix는 자신의 짧은 블록을 따라 "우리의 로비"를 강화하고 그들의 토크 페이지에서 다른 편집자를 설명하는 다른 편집자와 농담하는 것에 대해 이야기 하고 있다 - 사용자:Nableezy - "Muhammad or anything"으로.이 중 어느 것도 백과사전을 쓰는 것과 큰 관련이 없는 것 같다.N-H talk/edits 19:36, 2010년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

내 의견은 다음과 같다.

조용히 블록을 피한 뒤 다시 말썽을 일으키지 않는 선에서 깨끗한 출발을 하는 것이 블록에 대한 항소가 규칙을 완전히 준수해 이뤄졌고 거부된 사건에서 관리자들의 잘못을 입증할 수 있는 유일한 현실적인 방법이다.하지만, 그것은 또한 나쁜 행동에 대한 억제에 반대하는 반항적인 제스처가 될 수도 있다.상황이 중요하다.

진정으로 뉘우치는 사용자가 모든 합법적인 반환 방법을 다 써버리기 전까지는, 몰래 뒷문으로 들어오는 것은 고의적인 절차의 경시를 의미하며, 그런 식으로 프로세스를 날려버릴 정도의 태도를 가진 사람 또한 새로운 화신에서 공손함을 훨씬 덜 느끼게 된다.한 개인의 태도는 일반적으로 그들에 대한 상당히 일정한 속성이며, 그들이 그들에게 한 블록을 어떻게 대하느냐는 그들이 돌아온다면/그들이 백과사전을 어떻게 전체로 대할 것인가에 대해 투영적으로 반영할 것 같다.

그러나 먼저 책을 읽으려는 그러한 시도를 배제하고, 블록을 거스르는 누군가가 성가신 영역 밖으로 나가 침입의 영역으로 모험을 하고 있다.궁극적으로 위키미디어 재단은 위키백과가 호스팅되는 서버를 소유하고 있으며, 누군가, 궁극적으로 초대된 게스트로, 문을 열고 돌아오지 말라고 하는 사람들은 초대를 잃어버렸고, 그들이 돌아오면 불법 침입자가 된다.유추를 계속하면, 만약 누군가가 초대받지 않은 채 당신의 집에 쳐들어오면, 당신은 경찰을 불러서 그들을 그 건물 밖으로 호송하게 할 수 있고, 그들이 떠나지 않으면 체포할 수 있다.또는 인터넷 사이트의 경우, ISP에 무허가 접속을 주장하며 인터넷 접속을 중단하지 않을 경우 이를 취소하도록 제소한다.

양말퍼플링으로 블록을 반복적으로 방어하는 사람은 무단침입자이므로 그에 따라 대처해야 한다.이 있다:suse, this elseling 한국 확립된이이이::wp:abuse.또한 wp:ban에서 detialized한 바와 같이, 금지를 회피하는 것은 비록 편집 자체가 좋은 것일지라도, 어쨌든 규칙에 반하는 일면이다.

"비프, 투표, 배심원, 탄약" 박스에 대한 옛말이 있는데, 나는 스스로 재활을 시도하는 사용자들에게 적용된다고 믿는다.탈출을 막기 위해 곧장 뛰어드는 것은 정답이 아니다.

내 2센트.선티노 (대화)20:48, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

공개적으로 누군가에게 규칙을 위반하도록 권장하는 것은 큰 금지 사항이다.변명의 여지가 없는 사용자가 다른 사용자로 돌아올 수 있는 능력을 가질 수 있고, 관심 영역과 작업 방식을 바꾸는 한 감지되지 않는 상태로 남아 있을 수 있다는 것은 아주 명백하다.그런 것도 있을 수 있다.그러나 자신을 내주는 것은 애당초 그들을 곤경에 빠뜨렸던 곳으로 되돌아오지 않을 수 없는 사람들이다.그리고 만약 그들이 "그들의 방식"을 바꾸지 않았다면, 그들의 접근법은 결국 따라잡을 것이고 그들은 다시 변명을 하지 않을 것이다.base야구 벅스 당근→ 00:55, 2010년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 댓글을 달다.위와 같은 말릭의 의견에 동의한다.필자는 또한 이 문자열의 처음에서 언급된 3RR 위반에서 나블지의 블록은 48시간이고, 이후 3개월 동안 아랍과 이스라엘의 분쟁과 관련된 모든 페이지 또는 내용에 대해 하루에 한 페이지씩 되돌리는 제한을 받게 되지만, 랜닉스는 72시간 동안 차단된다는 점에 주목한다.Epeefleche (대화) 01:08, 2010년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

메인 페이지에 오류 발생, 누구에게 연락할 것인가?

메인 페이지의 뉴스에서...

구글은 .cn 도메인을 홍콩 서버로 리디렉션하고 중화인민공화국 내에서 검색 결과 검열을 중단한다.

이는 잘못되었다.장황하지만 정확한 버전은...

구글은 google.hk에 접속한 사용자들을 위해 중화인민공화국의 특별 행정 구역인 홍콩의 서버로 .dv 도메인을 리디렉션하고 중화인민공화국 내의 검색 결과에 대한 검열을 중단한다.

오류 1: 홍콩은 중국이지만 미국의 푸에르토리코나 핀란드의 알랜드와 같은 특별한 지역이다.

오류 2: Google.cn은 검열을 중단하지 않았으며, 단지 리디렉션되었을 뿐이다.

물론 WP가 대부분 정확해야 하지만 조금 부정확해야 한다고 생각한다면 변화가 필요 없다.수오미 핀란드 2009년 (토크) 22:14, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

은 검색 로 .구글은 검색 결과를 중화인민공화국 정부에 의해 검열하려는 노력을 피하기 위해 홍콩 서버로 .cn 도메인을 리디렉션한다.

• WP:Errors는 이것을 위한 장소다.Jon 22:36, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC) —서명되지 않은 코멘트 추가 86.156.83.41 (대화)

새 사용자 양말:잘못된 번호로 BLP에 삭제되지 않은 개인 정보 추가

새 편집기(사용자:스투파흐)는 Sorrywrongnumber(가장 최근에 사용자:B-Wuuu로 알려진)의 명백한 양말인 것 같다.그들은 동일한 기사를 편집하고, 그들의 BLP 기사에 피험자의 사생활에 관한 미참조 정보를 추가하기 위해 편집하고 있다.

그들은 또한 새로운 기사인 Jeremy Cox(배우)를 만들었는데, 이것은 Sorrywrongnumber가 그의 User 페이지에 그의 이름이라고 주장한 이름이다.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 17:09, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자도 살펴보십시오.방금 이 항목을 삭제하려고 시도한 AAaaafslkfjlkdaaa.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 17:14, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자에 의한 두 번째 삭제:Bbbbfcbfasas - 분명히 Sorrywrongnumber는 현재 통제 불능이다.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 17:16, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

이미 블랩. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:17, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:제레미 콕스 기사에서 신속한 삭제 및 기타 태그를 삭제한 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 2010년 3월 27일 17시 20분 (UTC)[응답]

빠르구나!비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 2010년 3월 27일 17시 20분 (UTC)[응답]

양말들이 그들이 누구인지 전보를 쳤을 때 좋다.많은 시간과 노력을 절약한다.base야구 벅스 당근→ 17:27, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

user:DDDddddddddfaafsafs가 그 다음이다.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 17:29, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

제임스 커윈과 체이스 마스터슨은 당분간 철저히 보호받아야 한다고 생각하고, 제레미 콕스(배우)는 삭제해 소금에 절였다.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 2010년 3월 27일 17시 30분 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:EEEElyyy.(어디선가 'C'사용자를 놓친 게 틀림없어.)비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 17:32, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

가능한 사용자:Cccccccasjccc, 비록 결론에 속단하지 말라고 경고하겠지만(사용자는 내가 아는 한 아직 편집하지 않았다; 나는 새 사용자 로그를 검색하여 그것들을 찾았다).—Soap—2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

User(사용자)를 제외하고 모두 차단된 것으로 알고 있다.DDDdddddddddfaafs.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC) 17:53[응답]

C와 D도 이제 막혔다.—DoRD (대화) 22:21, 2010년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

가능한 두 번째 "D"는 사용자:Deeeedddddeee, 거의 동시에 작성되었지만(몇 가지 후에), 아직 편집하지 않았다.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 03:46, 2010년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자에 의한 반달리즘:글루아젠

내가 풍골국민학교를 afd로 지명한 이후, 기사의 창시자인 User:글루아젠은 위키피디아를 파괴했다.반달리즘, 지명된 위키백과:삭제방침과 afd를 위한 위키백과, 풍골중학교에 afd 태그를 달아 풍골국민학교 afd에 지시했다.우지 (토크) 07:45, 2010년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 지금 그들은 레이디 가가를 afd로 지명했다.우지 (토크) 07:51, 2010년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 내가 지금 들고 있는 것도 아니고 너를 위해 막아줄 수도 있지만 AIV가 이 일을 끝낼 수 있는 가장 빠른 장소인 것 같아...스파르타즈 07:53, 2010년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

그러나 그들은 완전한 경고를 받지 못했다.지금까지, 오늘에 이르기까지나는 그들에게 버락 오바마를 afd로 지명했을 뿐만 아니라 기사에 blp 위반을 추가한 것에 대해 blp4 경고를 주었다.우기 (토크) 07:54, 2010년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

그들의 사용자 페이지에 따르면, 그들은 초등학생이다.우지 (토크) 07:56, 2010년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 이제 그들은 차단되었다.우지 (토크) 08:03, 2010년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자에 의한 AfD에 관한 주목할 만한 기사 스팸 발송:스페이스파러

나는 방금 세 개의 AfD 후보작인 [66], [67], [68]을 우연히 발견했는데, 모두 참조자 수가 많은 명백하게 주목할 만한 기사들이지만, User:우주 여행자, 모두 "공신력 부족"이라는 근거를 가지고 있다.이것은 WP처럼 보인다.다른 여러 정책 중단과 함께 나를 가리킨다.올바른 행동 방침이 뭔지 보려고 이걸 여기에 올려놓는 겁니다.실버스렌^C 08:59, 2010년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

영구 암묵적 되돌리기

작년에 나는 여러 페이지에서 나의 모든 편집 내용을 체계적으로 되돌리고 있는 선인에 대한 오만한 태도에 대한 관리자들을 발견했고 마침내 그는 편집 전쟁을 일으켰다.이제 그는 카운터 페이지에서 주제 줄("설명 오류 수정", "문법 수정", "문법 수정", "비논리적 문장 복구", "합리적 수정")에서 오해하고 무의미한 요약("설명 오류 수정", "수정"), 사실 그는 현재 페이지를 내가 편집하기 전의 상태로 되돌렸다.이전 버전과의 차이에 의해 보여지는 이러한 숨겨진 반전의 역사는 다음과 같다(오도된 코멘트는 둥근 괄호로 표시된다).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=351577900&oldid=351519656 (설명 오류 수정)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352359224&oldid=352199087 (문법 수정, 비논리적 문장 수리)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352359658&oldid=352359224 (?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352360268&oldid=352359658 (수정본)

그리고 이것은 페이지의 초기(내 편집 전)와 현재 상태 사이의 "차이"이다.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352360268&oldid=350904704

보시다시피 유일한 "차이"는..."2"라는 단어, 이 페이지에 대한 유일한 Zen-in 기고문은 한 단어?!?!?!?!??그것은 무엇을 뜻하나요?그것은 무엇일까요?

나는 선인의 행동을 위키피디아에 의해 행해진 일종의 "내부 반달리즘"이라고 생각한다.그렇게 믿을 수 없는 사람들은 위키피디아 사람들이 될 자격이 없다.다가오는 편집 전쟁을 막기 위해 주의사항을 따르십시오.

나는 내가 편집한 모든 내용을 밑줄에 쓴 포괄적인 코멘트로 제공했다.하지만, 필요하다면, 나는 먼저 내가 편집한 모든 내용을 토크 페이지에 논평하고 나서 그것을 메인 페이지로 옮길 수 있어.

서킷몽사 (토크) 09:54, 2010년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

팩트선더그라운드

User Kwami and "Cantonese"

Without a sign of consensus and with significant disputes, Kwamikagami (talk · contribs), an administrator who has been consistently an "involved party" for the past six months, suddenly moved the disputed "Cantonese (Yue)" page to "Yue Chinese". This is a unilateral move that took place suddenly and without any hint of consensus. There has been many prior calls for Kwami to refrain from moving the page himself because he is so heavily involved in the subject area. He has clearly not heeded these calls. I ask that a non-involved administrator move the page back to its former name, ASAP. Colipon+(Talk) 19:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion, closed now for several weeks, was "Yue Chinese" rather than the temporary straw-poll name, which was never intended to be permanent. By that I don't mean that Yue Chinese won the poll, which is not what decisions are based on (though it did, if narrowly), but that the points of the debate were on that side: Consensus that "Cantonese" should refer to Cantonese; common and technical convention when this distinction is made (either (a) Cantonese vs Canton dialect or Standard Cantonese, or (b) Yue vs Cantonese; again, WP consensus was for the latter when Standard Cantonese was moved to Cantonese); WP's Chinese naming conventions; and WP's dab conventions ("Cantonese (Yue)" being logically incorrect; "Yue (Cantonese)" would have been a correct use of that convention, but there was little desire for that name). kwami (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Kwami, there was no consensus for anything - the archives speak for themselves. Even if you are fully justified, which you are not, you should let an uninvolved party deal with it. It should not take an administrator to know these basic rules of the encyclopedia. And this has happened one too many times. Colipon+(Talk) 20:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the move, purely on the technical basis that there was not an apparent consensus and that the editor who actioned the previous move is an involved party. Please ensure an uninvolved admin reviews the discussion and determines consensus for any future move. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion closed weeks ago, and nothing's been done. Where do we go from here? kwami (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard was very clear on that: you ask a non-involved admin to review the discussion and determine if a consensus has been reached. You are a veteran administrator, kwami. I feel as though you should know these things before you did the page move. Each time one of these unilateral moves occur, I feel that respect for you from the community decreases. Adminship is a responsibility, not a privilege. Please respect the other parties that have been involved in the discussion. Colipon+(Talk) 06:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kwamikagami has several times, unilaterally moved several pages around concerning various "Cantonese" articles, against previously established consensus, with only one or two editors agreeing with him, even though pages have had WP:RM discussions establishing names. (see the talk archives for Cantonese, Cantonese (Yue), and several other Cantonese articles) I think it is highly inappropriate for him to move any of the Cantonese articles, since he is an involved editor who knows that there are disputes in the naming of the article, yet ignores the years worth of discussions that he has been invloved with in the naming of the articles. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The years of discussion have arrived at "Cantonese" and "Yue Chinese", as you presumably know. kwami (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the consensus should be enacted by an uninvolved party. It ensures that instances such as these do not occur. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AFAICT, Kwamikagami's admin actions (unilateral page moves) at Cantonese go as far back as December 2008. They are of great concern, as he is clearly an involved editor pushing some sort of agenda, and should not be involved in actions of this type. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued canvassing of AfD nominations

I was going to make a report at WP:SPI, but I have no current evidence of sockpuppetry. For now, it will be shown here. User:Lời chào và lời chào, User:Joker264, and User:SuperHappyPerson have been going around on WP:AFD and been both nominating articles for deletion and group-voting delete on nominations, right after each other most of the time. Furthermore, they almost always use the exact same wording in their delete votes. They all appear to be single purpose accounts that were created less than two weeks ago and have only been voting on AfD since their creation. Evidence of this can be seen here: [113], [114], [115]. Silverseren^C 21:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree there is no evidence of sockpuppetry. I don't even think there is circumstantial evidence of canvassing or meatpuppetry. I'm not seeing a problem here. The articles on which the three of them have !voted together are a small proportion of the number of AfDs that they have participated in individually. Its not alarming that AfD regulars will cross paths in a number of AfD debates. The patterns are also different: each user has a different style of edit summary for instance and they !vote keep on quite a few occasions. New accounts going straight to AfD is unusual, but not necessarily evidence of untoward behaviour. I would want substantially more evidence before supporting a SPI here: there is nothing disruptive happening and the circumstantial evidence is very thin. Finally, a lot of AfD regulars start out as rabid deletionists and mellow over time. Lets be careful not to bite potentially constructive contributors. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing does look a little fishy, though. SuperHappyPerson created his account in September 2009--then only sporadic edits until just a few days ago, and all on AfDs. Blueboy96 22:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that's fishy. Many editors (myself included) have sporadic edits for months or years before ploughing into AfDs. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but SuperHappyPerson had only three edits in September '09, then nothing until recently. Blueboy96 22:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does that matter? He made a few edits with a new account, went on his merry way, and then decided to edit again and wanted to contribute to AfDs... That is a AGF explanation that is a much more reasonable suspicion than an accusation of sockpuppetry.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a lot like Dalejenkins, but we ran a checkuser on him a few weeks ago and these weren't caught, so it probably isn't him. The only user that could be him is the joker one, as he was created after the latest check. I'm willing to start up one to see if the joker is it if anyone thinks that it will be useful. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI's aren't for fishing. A new user should not be subjected to a SPI merely because he or she participates in a few AfDs. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I whacked a sock of Dale after he nominated an article that I created for deletion. I only found out after another editor notified me. He came on, used Wikilawyering, and I was suspicious. I added him to the active investigation, and the sock was blocked. Interestingly, the creator of that SPI was a sock of another user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but basically anyone who edits from the UKs biggest ISP is being whacked as a sock of Dale ... Black Kite 01:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We only knocked off about 7 socks, and these all participate in deletion discussions. He seems to have slowed down popping up again, so I'm hopeful that these ones aren't connected. Why they were linked to Dale at the SPI, I won't know. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an investigation here as vote evasion is clearly going on. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joker64's first edits were to create an article, GTA-NeXt Network (coi there also) which was speedied by user:Bwilkins. Then he attacked Bwilkins on the 11th [116] suggesting that other articles such as Myspace be deleted, using the phrase 'double-edged sword'. Three days later, Superhappyperson, whose only edits before were in September, starts voting delete on articles for deletion, in one 6 minute burst voting on 9 articles. On the 26th Joker64, having made no other edits since his attack on BWilkins, starts voting on a number of articles giving no specific reason except lack of notability, no evidence he's checked to see, in one 6 minute burst voting on 9 articles. Also on the 26th L?i chào và l?i chào arrives, creates a userpage and then nominates 2 articles for deletion, if you look at these other editors suggest bad faith . We now have a clerk report saying "I'm positive that SuperHappyPerson is related, based upon the account name and MO. Lời chào và lời chào also displays a similar style to SuperHappyPerson, in that they include "*delete" in their edit summaries. Joker264 (talk · contribs) is pretty off from the typical MO, so I haven't endorsed to preform a check on them. Note that last time a check was preformed on Dalejenkins the range was too wide to effectively search for sleepers, so there's no reason to suppose that these accounts can't be related just because they didn't show up in the last check". I don't see these as new users, the AfDs I've looked are criticised as not being good faith AfDs. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't get what the clerk was trying to do there. Personally, I don't want to put a link between them and Supertart, I just want them all checked so this can be closed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joker265 is probably someone else, but the other two are two of the twenty or so socks of User:Mynameisstanley that I just blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Threat by jbolden1517

Jbolden1517 recently threatened me in the midst of a mediation case. [117] He's since deleted the post without being prompted to do so and I am therefore not asking for administrative action. However, I felt that I should note the issue here in the event that he continues to threaten me. I take the matter rather seriously as I've not attempted to conceal my real-world identity. Eugene (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your actions. I would suggest you save the URL for the diff where you added the above comment to ANI somewhere, so if a further ANI case needs to be made you have your initial action there to evidence. SGGH^ping! 10:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also save the diff of your WP:AGF comment on his talk page for further evidence. We won't take any more action now as that would just turn embers into flames. SGGH ^ping! 10:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the original posting here, User:Jbolden1517 has simply re-posted a similar threat on Eugeneacurry's own talk page [118]. IRL threats are completely unacceptable here, and I have therefore blocked jbolden1517 until they can work in a more collegial manner. Black Kite 11:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long term IP range vandalism problem from "Satan"

Considering the history of vandalism from this IP range has been tracked over the last 2 months, see Wikipedia:Abuse response/75.2xx.xxx.xxx, perhaps it's time for some considered action? As I have been forced to stop using my Wikipedia account for working on articles, I may not be following up on this particular problem in the future. Ash (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done a range block, but according to [119], just looking at the 23 "newer" listings in that abuse response report, a range block of that magnitude could inadvertently affect a lot of people. (So many, I wonder if something is wrong. It says, and I quote, "(up to 4194304 users would be blocked)") The activity seems to be limited to one page. In accordance with WP:PP, since the article itself is open, I have semi-protected Talk:Church of Satan for two weeks, which can be extended if necessary. If somebody familiar with range blocks drops by and realizes that this isn't quite the magnitude my blockcalc results suggest, perhaps they can make short work of this and open the talk page for editing. --Moonriddengirl^(talk) 12:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that all of the IPs in that list are either in the range 75.200.0.0 - 75.203.255.255 or 75.248.0.0 - 75.251.255.255. So I would hypothesize that Satan doesnt have access to the entire range 75.192.0.0 - 75.255.255.255, but only to two much smaller ranges that fall within it (and appear to be owned by the same ISP). I'm not an administrator, and wouldn't feel comfortable with even a small rangeblock if I were, but if someone does feel that a range block is appropriate I am pointing out that it wouldnt necessarily have to be a huge one. —Soap— 14:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's good to know. Blocking over 4 million people to protect that talk page seems a bit extreme. :) Perhaps an experienced rangeblock admin (or exorcist) will wander by who can determine if that rangeblock is more reasonable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new sockpuppet of banned user UCLAcdemic

User UCLAcdemic was banned in the last days, as well as some of his sockpuppets. Well, 67.188.204.114 is a new sockpuppet, which earlier today even vandalised my user page [120]. His other sockpuppet ip's include 74.50.125.97, 75.127.67.114 (both blocked). -TheG (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the article in question is Islam in Denmark. His ranting can be found on its talk page, where it is obvious that the ip's are sockpuppets. He also proclaimed at the banning of his account that he were now to evade the ban by use of sockpuppets. -TheG (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

67.188.204.114 blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 15:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User disregarding consensus and guidelines, forcing edits through

User:Magicianbink has been continually forcing his edits through on the Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4 article and other video games in the same series. Me and several other editors have opposed his edits which consist solely of adding lists of music used in the game(s), and his responses so far have been: Personal attacks[121], forcing his edits through[122](by his own admission), and just circumventing the consensus, which is against adding the listcruft he wants to add. We have explained why the information is inappropriate, which guidelines apply, we have tried explaining how he could go about it in another way, the general response is: The rules support what HE is saying. So, the next logical step is bringing it here. Eik Corell (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Hello this is magicianbink, I have tried on numerous occasions to work with both Eik Corell and Falcon9x5 to find a way that i can update the article and provide information that is relevant to the the Tony Hawks Pro skater series, while i understand the a basic list of songs Isn't conducive to a good article i have explained my intentions of improving that format, which has only been met with further negativity. As a person who has followed the series and have used these articles for reference i can safely say that the consensus has in the past leaned toward content edited in a somewhat similar fashion to my own, and those editors have also been met by pressure and bullying by users that by my own experience have no inclination to compromise. I understand there are rules but there are also exceptions to these rules otherwise why would there be any debate at all or the need for any means of consensus if these rules were so set in stone Magicianbink (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to point out that Magicianbink hasn't tried to "find a way" to update the article, and has essentially ignored the four separate times I've tried to give advice on how to include the music[123][124][125][126], three separate times on the alternate ways he can work on the list without leaving it half finished on the article itself[127][128][129], and has instead repeatedly reinserted the list (which I and Eik above feel is gamecruft, listcruft etc) without modification. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback Misuse by User:Baa

I hate doing this but I have to report this user. He has used rollback correctly, but also uses it incorrectly. He misuses it too much. I post my warning to him here which explains where i found his misuse, but if you look at his history there is more.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback is a privilege NOT a right. You have been misusing it by using it to revert edits that are clearly not vandalism. I stumbled upon you revert on My Gym Partner's a Monkey to IP user 68.19.165.98 & 72.198.204.240 which were not vandalism. They just added a fact that the show was showing again, which it is. I was just going to warn you about this, but then I looked at your history and I was deeply disappointed in what I saw. You made two inappropriate reverts on Cartoon Network, one to List of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends episodes, The Powerpuff Girls and others. I'm going to have to report you to have your rollback revoked. This is too much. Your report will be at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs to illustrate your report so that we all aren't required to search through their contributions. Thanks. —DoRD (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the ones that I found.

[130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138]

As you can see, I only went back up to March 19.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of the ones you point out there, each of those diffs I perceive as being vandalism by being either disruptive or wholly inaccurate and usually prolonged over several edits where I need to rollback most of their recent edits for being wilful addition of opinion or factually inaccurate content across several articles. I'll admit that I do on occasion misuse rollback if only in order to shorten the amount of clicks I make but that sort of thing is minimal so I'd like to see better examples of my blatant and wanton misuse. baa!_radda 13:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:VANDAL. Adding content, even if wrong headed or plain wrong, is not vandalism. Many forms of disruptive editing (POV pushing, hypernationalism, inserting unsourced BLP information) is NOT vandalism, and rollback should not be used.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you thought it was vandalism why didn't you warn the user (I'm glad you didn't since it wasn't). If you think it's vandalism you warn the user. If you aren't willing to warn a user about an edit that's a good sign that its not vandalism.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your rollback, Baa. I don't think you mean harm but the fact is you admit you sometimes misuse rollback intentionally and you don't seem to understand that rollback is only provided as an anti-vandalism tool, not to reduce the number of clicks you need to make when reverting for editorial or content reasons. Misusing rollback can damage the project and scare off good faith newbie editors who don't understand why you're reverting them. If you're reverting good faith but poor quality edits, they should get an explanation for the revert so they know what they're doing wrong and can improve. You can use undo etc for now and once you've demonstrated you understand the appropriate way to use automated tools and will only use them appropriately regardless of whether it requires an extra click or not, you can request the tool be returned to you. Sarah 05:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:79.69.124.107: Vandalism and misuse of Wikipedia for political purposes

A new user (the type one could fear would be vulnerable to Al-Qaeda recruitment efforts) is misusing Wikipedia as a place to place hateful messages, links to YouTube, etc:

• 79.69.124.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I placed a welcome template and warnings on their talk page. They have replaced them.

Contributions

• 11:51, March 28, 2010 (hist diff) User talk:79.69.124.107 ‎ (←Replaced content with ' the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America... Syrian Arabic republic only how is Assyrian pieces of rubbishand shit') (top) [rollback]

the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America... Syrian Arabic republic only how is Assyrian pieces of rubbishand shit

• 11:50, March 28, 2010 (hist diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (→the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America: new section)

Added the following:

the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America

the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America... Syrian Arabic republic only how is Assyrian pieces of rubbishand shit

• 11:47, March 28, 2010 (hist diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America)

Blanked whole page and placed this message:

Assyrian Nation Rubbish nation ..there are Arab no any more Assyrian...there is only Syrian Arabic republic ...the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America

• 23:15, March 27, 2010 (hist diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (→Al Qamishli is historically Syriac and Armenian, not kurdish)

Vandalism and placement of YouTube link.

• 23:15, March 27, 2010 (hist diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (→remove "WikiProject Kurdistan")

Vandalism and placement of YouTube link.

• 23:13, March 27, 2010 (hist diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (→Qamishli belongs to Assyria)

Vandalism and placement of YouTube link.

• 23:10, March 27, 2010 (hist diff) Help talk:Edit summary ‎ (→arab and assyrian killing kurdish people: new section)

arab and assyrian killing kurdish people

this clip will show how arab and assyrian ar killing kurdish civilian .these is the true of arab and assyrian people I ask every on to watch this clip to see the true http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0brR1dKM0bM

• 23:05, March 27, 2010 (hist diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (→Name)

killing krdish peoplethese it is the true of arab and assyrian and how they killing kurdish people people I ask every on to watch this clip to see the true http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0brR1dKM0bM

• 23:02, March 27, 2010 (hist diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (→Al Qamishli is an Aramean city)

these is the true of arab and assyrian people I ask every on to watch this clip to see the true http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0brR1dKM0bM

This user is up to no good. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now notified the user of this thread. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, WP:AIV? Unomi (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just vandalism. There are admins here who can take care of the problem, including the vandalism. It's to block the user. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about html coloring

I keep running into table coloring that look like rainbow, and tv shows that seem bent on differentiating different characters (good guys in powder blue and bad guys in black, etc). What is our stance on this? I think its distracting and un-encyclopedic. Thoughts? - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue to discuss this, probably better at WP:VPP. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:44, 28 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Err, as I understand it, Village Pump is for discussing NEW ideas or basic griping. I am doing neither. I am seeking a policy/guideline on how we address excessive html coloration. Let's try this again

Wikipedia:Accessibility specifically the section WP:COLOR i s what you are after. Gnangarra 02:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Gnangarra. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian names of Romanian places

I'm raising this here as it's a bit outside my area of knowledge, and to try and centralise discussion. Three editors have contacted me over the last couple of days concerning an issue with articles about places in Romania which have a different name in Hungarian.

The first contact I had was from Umumu (talk · contribs), who wrote:- Hello

I would like you to ask you to express your opinion about the format that should be used for the localities from Romania where Hungarian has co-official status (where at least 20% of the population speaks Hungarian)

Variant 1. Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name)

Variant 2. Romanian_Name or Hungarian_Name (Romanian: Romanian_Name; Hungarian: Hungarian_Name)

Variant 3. Romanian_Name(Romanian) or Hungarian_Name(Hungarian)

There are used different formats on different articles and I think it should exist a standard format used for all of them

Thanks in advance for your answer. Umumu (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reply on Umumu's talk page was:-

I'd say that if the location is in Romania, the Romanian name should occur first, with the Hungarian name second (option 1). Similar to how the name of the Dutch city of Leeuwarden is treated in that article. The city is in the Netherlands, so its Dutch name is given and is the article title. It is the capital of the province of Friesland, so its name in Stadtsfries (a dialect) and West Frisian (a recognised provincial language) are also given. Mjroots (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iadrian later contacted me with this message:-

Hello, i am contacting you to try to resolve a certain problem with Hungarian names in Romania. In Romania official language is Romanian therefore names of the certain towns etc should be in Romanian and then in brackets in other language names. I think that is the standard wiki policy, please, correct me if i am wrong. Now some users are trying to change this, ex [here]. Can you please help me to solve this problem? Thank you in advance. iadrian (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't reply as for much of last evening I couldn't access any Wikipedia website due to getting an "unable to contact server" message until about 21:30 UTC. This morning, Rokarudi (talk · contribs) posted another message on my talk page.:-

I can only repeat myself. Please look at the compromise reached many years ago on this subject(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odorheiu_Secuiesc)

It was clearly agreed that >20%, Hungarian names should be bolded and put into the infobox, too. Everywhere else in Transylvania, even if the Hungarian population is less than 20%, Hungarian placename should be in brackets.

Please also study the recent opinion on this issue of neutral and undoubtedly impartial editors here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C4%83rma%C5%9Fu

Please stop wikihounding and vandalizing hundreds of articles.

Kind regards:User:Rokarudi Rokarudi 09:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thus it would seem that there is a dispute about the inclusion or otherwise of the Hungarian name for a place in an article about a place in Romania. This has the potential to develop into an edit war, with the inevitable results of blocks, topic bans etc. In an effort to avert this, it seems that a centralised location for a discussion would be in order. If anyone feels that there is a better location, please feel free to copy this post over to the new venue. My personal view is that if the infobox has a space for an alternative name, then that name should be added, with the necessary annotation as to the language. Both should also be mentioned in the lede, per the example of Leeuwarden that I used in my original reply to Umumu. I will notify Umumu, Iadrian and Rokarudi of this post. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We never denied the necessity of including the Hungarian names too. It would be ridiculous to ask something like that for localities with absolute Hungarian majority

We just want to respect the standard naming policy WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage rule (Umumu (talk) 09:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

All three now notified. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with this matter. I never said that Hungarian names should not be present, just not in the form Rokarudi is presenting it, as we can see the changes i made on some of the articles, i am just for respecting the standard naming polocy, since in Transilvania Hungarian language has no legal status and no form of autonomy we should use the standard form EX: Satu Mare (Hungarian: ------; etc)... like explained on WP:PLACE and here iadrian (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, form 1 Variant 1. Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name) , as standard wiki policy implies. Yes, this example is OK. iadrian (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Romanian Constitution: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_2&par1=1#t1c0s0a13 "In Romania, the official language is Romanian". Also, According to Local Public Administration Bill (promulgated in 2001): "Where over 20 of the population is of an ethnic minority, all documents of a legal character will be published in the ethnic minorities' mother tongue.". My opinion is that Hungarian names should be listed before for example German names, but still in parantheses, in Italics: Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name, German: German_Name) (Umumu (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If there is more than one foreign language (non-Romanian) name, the order should be by size of minority, so if there's a large German minority than Hungarian, then the German name should come first, and vice versa. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what we think. But it looks messy to make such lead sections:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frumoasa,_Harghita (Umumu (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, in this case, the Hungarian minority, the first other language names should be in Hungarian and then in German , etc.. iadrian (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with this example here, The villages should not have Hungarian names in this form. On the page about that particular village other language names can be present (Hungarian) but not in every instance this location is mentioned, since we should use the official names only when talking about that location/village. EX:

• Bârzava/Csíkborzsova
• Făgeţel/Bükklok
• Frumoasa/Szépvíz
• Nicoleşti/Csíkszentmiklós

iadrian (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What we speak about is not a simple discussuion on proper editing, but are facing:

1) Sockpuppetry by User:Iadrian yu, User:Dicocodino and User:Umumu as sockpupets of recently blocked editor Iaaasi, 2.) Act of large-scale vandalism, deleting long established and accepted content, 3.) Challenging accepted practices confirmed by a compromise in the very delicate subject of placenaming in Transylvania.

I must remind everyone, who is not very familiar, with the topic, that in 2007 there was a long discussion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odorheiu_Secuiesc

The status quo ante discussion was this:

Romanian titles, Romanian and Hungarian names in the infobox (if ≥20), Romanian names in bold and Hungarian ones (for anywhere in Transylvania, even if <20%) in italics, and also German names if applicable.

In the compromise Hungarians resigned of trying to move article titles of places with Hungarian majority to the Hungarian name, while Romanian accepted that Hungarian placenames will be bolded whenever the Hungarian population >20%.

The established format was:

Odorheiu Secuiesc or Székelyudvarhely (Romanian: Odorheiu Secuiesc, Hungarian: Székelyudvarhely, German: Oderhellen) is…

--Rokarudi 12:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi i ask you again to be CIVIL and respect the WP:CIV. Don`t avoid the discusson by your accusations. The discusson you are talking about is no standard naming policy and the format you personally try to implement over the official wiki policy is against the rules. iadrian (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here we talk about wikipedia rules, not about individual opinions expressed by specific editors 3 years ago. We ask only to apply wiki policies, namely WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage rule (Umumu (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Rokarudi, if you have evidence of sockpuppetry, then WP:SPI is the place to head to. I'll remind all parties, this is the Admin's Noticeboard. You can be sure that a number of admins are keeping a weather eye on this situation and those involved. I facilitated this discussion in order that consensus could be gained on the issue, and to keep the discussion in a centralised place. Those who hold the view which does not gain consensus would do well to acknowledge the fact and let the issue lie. Edit warring over this will lead to administrative action being taken. I'm sure all involved would rather that didn't happen if at all avoidable. Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here is really not proving sockpuppetry. What I know is this: there was an order how to represent these particular placenames for more than 3 years, and the above mentioned editors neglected it by systematically editing more than 100 articles according to their ideas against consensus. Under changing names, they go around wiki and try to get a favourable opinion from good faith editors . When they fail to do so, they go to the next one: First, User:Dicocodino failed to get what he wanted one here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests, Then User:Umumu was not given the expected answer here: http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlexiusHoratius#Question Now, User:Iadrian yu has put up the same question here (to delete bolded alternative names). --Rokarudi 13:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent this question to many admins and there was no expected answer. I asked them to choose which is the most appropriate format and I got 2 answers: one is the one you listed, and the second (from User:Mjroots) was that Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name) is the best format)(Umumu (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Rokarudi, I don`t understand what that has to do with official wiki rules? If we take a look at that "order" you are talking about, there is also clear that the "order" is not like you are implementing it, also we can see that it is a clear violation of the WP:PLACE and First sentence usage. Rokarudi, i ask you again to be Civil and to stop with your attempts/accusations to discredit me. You don`t see me accusing you of anything even if you are avoiding this matter to discuss until now, i hope. I don`t see a point repeating myself anymore because you are ignoring me as you ignore the WP:PLACE policy. I have explained everything in my previous posts here. Stop inventing a custom policy for Hungarian names in Romania.iadrian (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI isn't the right place for a centralized discussion of something like this. It's for user conduct issues. If there's not clear enough consensus on the naming issue, use a content RFC. This is basically a miniature Balkan-like nationalistic dispute. And the Romanian constitution certainly isn't the final arbiter of such questions, given that some parts of Romania are basically 100% Hungarian and would be happy to break away and join Hungary, and wouldn't consider the .ro government to speak for them. Under NPOV the question might only be resolvable with a careful study and weighing of all available sources. Gdánzig anyone? ;) 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UDMR(Hungarian party) is participating every Romanian government since the fall of communism. Their official attitude toward this is only some form of cultural autonomy, and after all they represent the Hungarians in Romania (6.6% of the population of Romania or 19.6% in Transylvania verify). Don`t start with that kind of unsubstantiated statements. You are saying that Romanian constitution has no power in parts of Romania? Parts of Vojvodina are basically 100% Hungarian populated and would be happy to break away and to join Hungary, and wouldn`t consider the .rs government to speak for them, and this changes what? We have Slovakia like this city where we have the same issue like in Romania. Why should in every autonomy in Europe, in Slovakia,Vojvodina and Croatia use normal naming policy WP:PLACE and only in Romania, where there is no autonomy or legal status of the Hungarian language bee any different? The Romanian constitution is the highest law of the R.of Romania and it is respected in every part of Romania, Hungarian populated or not. Under NPOV the question is to compare similar cases around the world where there is some kind of autonomy comparing to Romania where there is a clear law and no form of autonomy. Yes, it is a miniature Balkan-like dispute , started by Hungarians, by forcing Hungarian names in Romania. All available sources states that Hungarian names have no legal use or Hungarian language no legal status, and comparing to other parts of the world, i think this problem is more than crystal clear. Gdańsk is not a good example to this problem. "Gdańsk, formerly known by its German name Danzig " ? First names in Romania or Transylvania were the Romanian names, even in that format, in this case , that example has no connection with Hungarian names in Romania.iadrian (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

66.127.52.47 The Romanian constitution is the supreme law in legal matters and is one of the most import deciding factors regarding this dispute. I am inclined to say that the constitution has priority over the biased opinion of an anonymous editor which shows contempt for the laws of an European state like yourself. The 2002 census clearly shows the ethnic balance in Transylvania and there is not a single settlement holding a 100% Hungarian majority. The Romanian citizens which you mentioned, those who would be happy to "break away" are violating Romanian law, the same law that guarantees them equal rights with the rest of the population and surprisingly enough they seem to be absent from the Romanian political scene. Besides, from the declarations of the leaders of the Hungarian and Szekler communities in Romania, there is only talk about some form of cultural autonomy, no independence and certainly no "union" with Hungary. Your views shamelessly promote Hungarian irredentism, and are in clear violation with international and Romanian law. I suggest you stop your attacks and improve your behavior or you will be reported. Accept the political realities of the 21st century and stop speaking in the name of the Hungarian community, which, as shown above has other priorities than those stated by yourself. And lastly, the movement for autonomy will slowly fade away as it doesn't possess the necessary ingredients for its success, mainly a lack of rights for the Hungarian community in Romania, a community which in actuality enjoys quite a few political and cultural liberties and has -also mentioned by Iadrian yu- formed a part of the ruling governmental coalition in most of the last 20 years. Amon Koth (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, if anyone knows of a better venue feel free to move the discussion. Edit warring is a user conduct issue. In this case, I feel that prevention is better than cure - i.e. if we can prevent an edit war breaking out then it is better for all than admins wielding banhammers. Mjroots (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to discuss everything, even a matter clear like this. The discussion is in the right place, centralized and public.iadrian (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rokarudi, I want to say that this is an artificial conflict and we can solve the problem by ourselves (me, Iadrian and you), without the involvment of anyone else

I don't see why you feel offended when Iadrian tries to insert the standard format, because the Hungarian name has the same visibility if it is in Italics or bolded

I think it is confusing and not fair to give the same proeminence to the Romanian and the Hungarian name, because the only official name is Romanian

For example in Basque Country, which is an autonomous region and the Basque language is even official, the format is this Bilbao (Basque: Bilbo) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilbao; ; Alegría de Álava (Dulantzi in Basque) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alegr%C3%ADa-Dulantzi

Kind regards and i hope you will be cooperative (Umumu (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

This discussion is entirely unnecessary for several reasons, chief among them being the status of the Hungarian language in Romania. It is not an official language and Transylvania is not an autonomous region, therefore until the UDMR political party reach their declared goal of changing the Romanian constitution and making Hungarian a compulsory language for the Romanians living in Hungarian majority areas, the names of Romanian localities where minorities are substantial should follow the first variant: Romanian name (Minority name 1, Minority name 2 etc). This variant also respects the naming policy of Wikipedia. Amon Koth (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please find here picture gallery with bilingual placename signboards from Central-Europe:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IM3NlCcgHCA/ShDoCoMi4dI/AAAAAAAABl0/f25FN2dcECo/s400/bogr%C3%A1csmaj%C3%A1los+041.jpg (from Romania)
http://blog.poznanici.com/test/files/2009/10/c09tabla.jpg (from Serbia)
http://archiv.nyugatijelen.com/2002/2002%20november/nov.%207%20csutortok/f0511-06.jpg (edit war in real life, alternative name deleted)
http://archiv.magyarszo.com/arhiva/2005/11/19/images/52_szenttamas2.jpg /(Serbia)
http://blog.poznanici.com/test/files/2009/10/c09tabla.jpg (edit war in real life, alternative name deleted)
http://www.ketegyhaza.hu/site/images/stories/cikkek/tabla.jpg (from Hungary)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Oberwart_-_Fels%C5%91%C5%91r.JPG/250px-Oberwart_-_Fels%C5%91%C5%91r.JPG (from Austria)

From the above examples, the question arises: If the use of bilingual signboards for a specific city or village is authorized by the respective country, why should we impose restrictions on Wikipedia? By the way, I do not dispuite the right of User:Amon Koth speak out his political opinion but since he has not yet edited any single article, I would kindly advise him to practice on less controversial topics.User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 19:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rokarudi, please assume good faith here. Amon Koth has as much right to contribute to this discussion as you do. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC
) Sorry, for the sarcasm. I do not mean to offense anyone. I think, with your help, we are on the good track to cool down differences with Iadrian and Umumu. Do not be afraid, it is not so serious between us. We simply like to dispute over and over again on the same topics, this is part of the game. By the way, Iaaasi (from the paralel sockpuppet case) and I were on good terms, we had a lot of good chats and joint work. He was unlucky and was blocked for 48 hours when he helped me editing Hungarian placenames. Since he is out, I have no one to discuss Daco-Romanian continuity. If Umumu likes this topic, he is welcome. Rokarudi 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wring with bilingual tablet names but we should mention that other language name on the tablets have only an informative meaning, nothing else, witch is expressed on Wikipedia in a form DefaultName (First name, Second name, etc..). iadrian (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rokarudi, In Romania the use of bilingual/multilingual signboards for a settlement is compulsory where a minority is over 20%; the name of the settlement as it appears in the minority language is a purely informative one, it is not in any way an official one. Furthermore, there is nothing controversial about this issue other than your disruptive editing which ignores the Wiki rules and (probably the least of your concerns) the Romanian law regarding this matter. Amon Koth (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, It is not correct that bolding alternative names is against wikipedia rules. WP:Naming Concvention (geographic names) provides that "Wikipedia articles must have a single title, by the design of the system; this page is intended to help editors agree on which name of a place is to appear as the title. Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out, although non-Latin scripts - Greek, Cyrillic, Chinese - are not bolded because they are distinguishable from running text anyway; transliterations are normally italicised. This is the general rule that was applied to Transylvania by a great number of Hungarian and Romanian editor sin the 2007 Odorhei Secuiesc discusssion, in which 14 editors voted and many more gave an opinion.

I do not think it would be a good idea to deviate from the aforementioned status quo.User:Rokarudi --Rokarudi 21:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, i saw that discusson and that was 3 years ago, i don`t know the parties involved, looks like some of the members just gave up from the discusson and left the others to make a consensus , i don`t know, and i don`t want to speculate, as this matter is clear, i gave one example this city in my previous post and made some good points that any other place use standard naming policy Standard name(Other name,Other name. etc..) and only in Romania we should make an exception since the Hungarian minority makes 19.6% of the population in the geographical region of Transylvania? We have many other examples in Europe to follow concerning this matter (Catalonia, Basque Country,Vojvodina,Slovakia, etc..) and there is no reason to use a special rule just for Romania. You mention the [this section] that states "in the case of controversial names" - " Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out, although non-Latin scripts - Greek, Cyrillic, Chinese" , but here we have only one alternative name, Hungarian names and there is nothing controversial in Romania about names in the region of Transilvania. And it continue "If there are more names than this, or the first line is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea. It will serve neutrality to list the names in alphabetical order by language (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). Local official names are often listed first, out of alphabetical order." - This section you proveded [section] does not deal with the problem we have here. I think that the General guidelines should be folowed , Foreigh Language rule and First sentence rule that clearly address to the problem we are discussing. iadrian (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Slovenia, see Lendava, in Austria, see Oberwart. in Hungaria, see Kétegyháza or even Gdansk. And also in Romania, there have been hundreds of places intactly this way for 2-3 years until you started deleting Hungarian names. In Europe at leat, as a genaral rule, in the infobox, you always have the alternate name. As to boldfacing, there is no universal practice and guidelines are not clear-cut. Moreover, in South-Tirol you do not have this problem, as the article title itself is in German, wherever local majority is German. The Basque name is a historic or cultural name, taking into account that the majority of Basque speak Spanish as their fisrt language, so placenaming is not so relevant User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 00:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lendava as i can see follows the standard wiki naming policy, and that is OK. Oberwart example has that form since is the cultural capital of the small ethnic Hungarian minority in Burgenland, living in the Upper Őrség or Wart microregion. The cultural center of the Hungarian minority in Romania can have that format also, since it is very significant, but that is only one location, not hundreds, but i don`t know if even that is right since in Austria Hungarian is one of the official languages. The third example you provided Kétegyháza, i don`t know if we can take it into consideration since you made changes specifically for the sake of this argument. South Tirol and Basque land are high level autonomies. And i agree with the info boxes, there should be present alternative names. iadrian (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, Not also in Romania, since it is changed ignoring all rules. You can`t use as an a example the matter we are discussing about. Just for the record, i did`t erased Hungarian names, i just erased the Romanian_name OR Hungarian_name(romanian,hungarian) form -the "OR Hungarian_name" from the article and the Hungarian names of every location mentioned on that page that it is not the location the article represents. As i said before in explanations of my edits, Official names please/other language names can be present on that town\village article, not when ever that location is mentioned. For example, on the article about [Miercurea Ciuc] we mention location Ciba , that is written like this "Ciba (Hungarian: Csiba)" witch is wrong, since the article is about Miercurea Ciuc and can have other language names present in the standard form, but when mentioning other locations, we use ONLY the official names. On the page about location Ciba we can represent the Hungarian name also in the standard format, but not on other articles when ever we mention that particular location, when we are pointing to other locations we should use ONLY offical names. This is one example of that violation. Also this , another violation, Hungarian names should not be present in that form, we can verify that in every other conty seat in Europe for that. Only here, the Hungarian names are "forced" witout any valid reason or rule. I also want to mention that we should take a look in Slovakia since it is the most similar situation we have here. We can see that in Slovakia, in the same places,example1 example2, Hungarian names are not "forced" and it is respected the standard naming policy, and when pointing to other locations, counties, the official names are used, without other language names. In Romania we should respect the same rules, like it is respected all over Europe on wikipedia.iadrian (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of similar cases:
- In the French province Pyrénées-Orientales (Northern Catalonia), where Catalan is an official language, the format is Saint-Hippolyte (Catalan: Sant Hipòlit de la Salanca)
- in Basque Country, which is an autonomous region of Spain and the Basque language is even official, the format is this Bilbao(Basque: Bilbo)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilbao; ; Alegría de Álava (Dulantzi in Basque) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alegr%C3%ADa-Dulantzi
- in Transnitria, which is an autonomous region of Moldova, and Russian + Ukrainians = 60%, Moldovans = 30%. the Russian-Ukrainian name is presented in Italics, between parantheses: Popencu (Russian: Попенки, Popenki)
- in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, where the majority is composed of indigenous Turkish Cypriots, the format is Kyrenia (Greek: Κερύνεια, Turkish: Girne) (Turkish name in Ialics, between parantheses) (Umumu (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

With the risk of repeating myself, this discussion is unnecessary. On one side there are users which have attempted to remove the alternative names altogether and keep only the official one. This is definitely not a viable option. On the opposite side are users like User:Rokarudi which have overridden Romanian law and Wiki rules and made the alternative name official along with the Romanian ones. I believe the validity of this variant of naming is clearly obvious. Now, on the middle ground there is the variant Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name) recommended by the mediator Mjroots of this issue which not only respects the Wiki rules but also complies with Romanian law. Now I would like to ask what is so bewildering in this whole naming issue? I find it a little strange that Umumu, iadrian and User:Rokarudi have bothered to use as arguments examples of localities in other countries, especially when said localities were in an autonomous region. These examples are irrelevant, as the law of the country in which that specific locality lies has no saying matter in Romania, where Romanian law applies and there is no autonomous region and no other official language other than Romanian. The wiki rules in correlation with Romanian law have the final say in this matter. I would also like to draw the attention toward the user User:Rokarudi which insofar has not presented a single valid argument to sustain his point of view but nonetheless his disruptive edits have continued. He has also committed several grave errors including but not limited to:

1) Has personally edited articles and then presented them as evidence to sustain his POV as in the example of Kétegyháza; now I am pretty sure that by this action alone he/she has overstepped some boundaries.

2) He/she keeps referring to some compromise reached some time ago regarding this issue but does not dispute its validity considering it credible only because it was applied for a few years. The longevity of this compromise is irrelevant, it is in contradiction with Wiki rules and Romanian law, as I have already stated several times.

3) He/she keeps confusing the English Wiki with the Hungarian Wiki. I don't believe anybody will stop him/her from using the Hungarian names of the settlements in Romania on the Hungarian Wiki, however this is the English Wiki and the rules pointed outed several times by iadrian apply here.

I would like to ask again what is so unclear about this issue? Amon Koth (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iadrian yu started an edit war on John Hunyadi article which is permanently taken care of by some editors who seem to be opposed to the idea of emphasizing a proven Romanian ethnicity. Iadrian yu was soon blocked for 55 hours. When he came back he said good-by to John Hunyadi aricle on its discussion page and looked for a new conflict zone. 20th March, he asked an opinion on multiple name use regarding Novi Sad on his talk page. He did not receive the answer that official name is above all. On the 23rd, he left me a message, what I think about the use of Hungarian names in Romanian pages and reccommended to have a look at his work at Sfantu Gheorghe. I answered I will check it out and come back with an answer. I chesked his work and I saw that violating consensus and overthrowing a 3 years delicate practice, within 24 hours he deleted mass of information from dozens of articles regarding settlements in Romania with a majority or significant minority of Hungarian population. This is per definitionem vandalism, so had to be reverted. Paralelly, Umumu and Dicocodino were putting up the same questions as to Hungarian names to other admins and editors. Then came you, exposing false information mischarectarizing my activity, like the above (the same was said by Umumu in his sockpuppet investigation): The fact is: 1.) The Kétegyháza (Hungary) article has had for 3 years bolded names for both Hungarian and Romanian placenames. I only gave equal treatment for the Romanian name and arranged the clumsy appearance, but the bolding was not changed. I simply restored the version which lived between 3 january 2007-31st August, 2009 instead of the funny looking last version. 2.) I constantly refer to a compromise as it has been the basis of a period of constructing editing. Which has been challenged by Iadrian yu and friends with zero or close to zero edits. I really do not support violation of consensus. 3.) No comment Sorry, but I do not want to be involved in wikilawyering nor mutual accusations, neither in violation of consensus. In delicate issues, the once reached consensus, even if partial, is very important otherwise, it is impossible to edit User:Rokarudi

I don`t see what does John Hunyadi article and my edit war i had there has anything to do with this ? I violated the 3RR and i goth punished and that`s it, i learned my lesson not to argue with nationalist, and that`s it, i haven`t made a singe edit on that article since the edit war ended. I asked for your opinion since i was not sure if there is some special rule for this matter, in the meanwhile i asked some administrators about this and they all confirmed Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name) this format. In the meantime i also found 3 rules regarding this that states this CLEAR. Having in mind several administrator`s answers, other examples in simmilar areas in Europe and wiki rules i started to edit the article`s we are talking about. Rokarudi , you still haven`t made a single argument to prove your POV , also no wiki rule for your POV, while others have presented a number of examples of the standard naming policy, the standard naming policy WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage and the Romanian constitution that addresses this matter. I think this discussion is over and since i sense that we can`t make a consensus i would kindly ask for the administrator to make a rulling on this matter. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rokarudi, an alleged 3-years old agreement made between a few particular editors on a talk page can not override wikipedia rules which specify very clearly that Romanian_Name' (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name) is the appropriate format. We must respect the guidelines. If we would insert everywhere custom formats, it will be chaos on wikipedia. We need to use the standard format (Umumu (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The chaos already started since there are more than half of these articles(In Romania,Transilvania) in violation with all we mentioned so far. iadrian (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rokarudi , since the discussion is "drained out" and you are mainly the only person who opposed, i think we talked about every aspect of this problem. I am interested in your opinion, after this discussion and the facts that were presented. Do you agree with the standard naming policy? And with the use of the official names when it is pointed to another location, (not in bilingual form). Thank you.iadrian (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is drained out as no one is interested in discussing over and over again what was once settled. I hope you do not mean that User: Umumu and User:Amon Koth with their less than 10 edits (together) can validly overthrow the compromise reached in 2007 by established editors with tens of thousand of edits. Wikipedia is built on consensus and compromise. No one is entitled to start large-scale editing in a delicate matter without reaching consensus. And consensus means what was once reached regardless of the fact whether the editors who participated are currently active or not. My answer to your specific question re:

With respect to Transylvania, standard naming policy should be applied with the specific rules according to the 2007 Odorhei Secuiesc compromise, that is:

1.) With respect to Transylvanian settlements, or settlements in Romania if you prefer, the article title should always be the Romanian placename, if Hungarian population > 20%, the Hungarian placename should be boldfaced in the lead and put into the info box as well (always after / below the Romanian name), everywhere else in Transylvania, even if Hungarian population is < 20%, Hungarian (and German names, if applicable) should be in parenthesis. 2.) As to the way of mentioning Hungarian names in the body of the text, we do not have a specific compromise ( unlike: the Elonka-compromise with respect to Slovakia), so I personally always distinguish between different cases:

a.) Geographic names: as a general rule Romanian name should be used, but if the placename does not have an article, the Hungarian name may be mentioned at first occurrence, or otherwise if helps the reader in obtaining the relevant information. My problem with your deletion is that "communes" in Romanian consist of several villages. These villages usually do not have a separate article, so they are only mentioned in the article of the commune. As this is their single occurrence, the Hungarian name may be mentioned as encyclopedic information. It is useless to create a page for the sub-villages, when the 'commune' to which they belong is only a stub.

b.) In historical context and/or in case of biographies of clearly Hungarian / Romanian persons, we have to be careful which name to use. E.g. In case of biographies of clearly Romanian people from Transylvania, I would use Romanian placenames, regardless when they lived. reference may be made to the Hungarian historical name if the content recommends it (and vice versa). User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 18:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is drained because the matter is too clear to discuss it this much. The "compromis" from the 2007 was against wiki rules and it was ended by an abbandament of the topic more than a consesnus. That is invalid, and it is important to say that not me, you, or anybody else make this kind of rules, it is clearly regulated by WP:PLACE and i intend to respect it, as you should also.

1.) The article title should always be the Romanian nameplace with other language name in brackets. 2.) a) I agree, if that particular village does not have an article, the Hungarian name can be present in that form. Sorry, but i can`t stand and take a look on the "other" side while you violate 3 wiki rules and the Romanian constitution in Romania related articles. I am stunned by your continuous attitude toward this matter after this discusson. Al places in Europe use the standard naming policy, but by you, only in Romania we should do otherwise. As a sensed , there is no compromise, and you still did`t presented a single valid argument to prove your POV.. I would kindly ask the administrator to make a rulling in this matter since we can`t agree. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI opened

For information, Rokarudi has opened a SPI on Umumu. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:Rokarudi opened this investigation because we were not sharing his POV. As it can be seen below, it was proved that the accuser is the one who was not respecting wiki policies (Umumu (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Time to close this

I see a lot of arguments about what Romanian law states. This is not Romania, this is Wikipedia. There are also arguments about an agreement reached by consensus three years ago. Consensus can change over time. It is pretty clear to me that per WP:PLACE guidelines the correct method is that the article is housed at the Romanian placename, with the Hungarian placename in the infobox and lede. Exceptions would be where the place is better known in English under a different name, such as Bucharest (Romanian: București). There seems to be consensus by all except Rokarudi that the above is how the issue should be dealt with. If any uninvolved editors disagree with my reading of consensus please say so, and explain why this is not the case. Other than that, I propose that the discussion be closed with the consensus outlined above being declared. Further disruptive editing can then be dealt with by admins if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For absolute clarity consensus is this, article title to be at the Romanian name, lede to state "xxxx (Hungarian: yyyy) is a (type of place) in Romania" (or similar wording) unless the English language name is better known. Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of Behavior of User:Mk5384

(copied in part from previous thread regarding unwanted comments on my user page -OberRanks (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

As the original poster of the dispute, there have been no further postings on my talk page, so that matter is resolved. The issue at the John Pershing article is under debate and a vote is in progress to determine the need for a nickname containing a racial slur in the infobox. Its an interesting debate and we are making good progress. Mk5384 has not been too disruptive there, as far as I can tell, and is welcome to continue to post opinions in the debate. I will advise all concerned, though, that there is a pattern to Mk5384 which might need an administrator to take a close look at. Basically, if someone disagrees with Mk5384, the user will post a notice to the talk page stating why he is right and they are wrong. If the user continues to disagree, the user will escalate the posts into more aggressive language. If the posts are removed or the user is asked to stop, then actual personal attacks will begin to be posted. Here is an example of a string of recent edits where Mk5384 left notes on users who either warned him he was violating policy or asked him to desist from bad practices: [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144]. The "mother of all attack edits" was where Mk5384 made a statement on my talk page that I was lying about serving in the United States military [145] - not only a very serious charge but also a personal attack to call another user a liar without cause. On top of this, we have a string of statements that I have been removing sourced material from the John Pershing article when in fact I restored disputed material in order to have a consensus vote and, in fact, removed nothing [146]. A few things should happen here, I feel: an administrator should alert Mk5384 that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. You cannot hound and h arras other users on thier talk page if they disagree with you or point out you perhaps broke a policy like NPOV, CIV, or NPA. Second, it should be made clear that this is not a witch hunt and that Mk5384 is welcome to continue editing and participating in article discussions. Third, all concerned should state there are no bad feelings and that if this behavior stops, there will be no grudges or anything like that. -OberRanks (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an ongoing issue, it is best taken up at WP:RFCU where community opinion and advice for Mk5384 can be solicited in a structured venue. –xeno^talk 14:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tendency to go after anyone who crosses him in some way, as pointed out by OberRanks, certainly bears watching. He also states on his user page that he's a newbie, so maybe he hasn't got things all figured out yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a neutral admin stating to Mk5384 that the behavior is in fact unacceptable will go a long way. If it continues after that, then, yes, a RFC/User Conduct should be initiated. -OberRanks (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mk5384 has helpfully provided me with a first-hand example of the behaviour you highlight [147]. –xeno^talk 14:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to suggest a posting at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but what you have there is pretty much a smoking gun. As I said, an admin talking strongly to the user to desist the behavior is what is needed, I feel, perhaps also with a block (I hate to say it). -OberRanks (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A block? Mon Dieu!! Whatever will I do if I can't edit Wikipedia? I'll have nothing to fill my time, except white supremecist meetings, and my thrice daily ritual of masturbating to my over-size blow-up of General Pershing in black face and assless chaps. I've already told you, now that it has been proven that Wikipedia is, in fact, censored, I have no interest in participating. You can rewrite history and enjoy your whitewashed, vanilla versions to your hearts content. Block or no block, I won't be here.Mk5384 (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extremely crass nature of the above post, especially the subtle suggestion that users involved with the Pershing article are masturbating as well as the blatant racial remark about "black face", I do formally request that an administrator block Mk5384 for uncivil edits and disruptive editing. Mk5384 has posted angry, uncivil talk page remarks against no less than five users, including a very neutral an unbiased admin who simply protected the John Pershing article to prevent an edit war which MK5384 started. We now have have angry remarks here with racial and sexual overtones. A block is more than warranted I feel at this point as this user has more than demonstrated that they are unwilling to work with others and, despite the claim of leaving Wikipedia, may return to do future inappropriate and harassing edits. -OberRanks (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... that was sarcasm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it may have been sarcasm, those were racial and sexual comments directed at other Wikipedia users and should not in any way be condoned, even in jest or in a mere simple fit of anger. The user, in my view, is very lucky to not have been blocked or even banned. Had the user directed those on a talk page towards another specific person, we would be looking at a much more serious affair; as it stands, it simply appears to be a mere rant on the ANI against "the system" so it can probably be overlooked for now. -OberRanks (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Frequently in sarcasm one over-exaggerates the perceived arguments of the other side, in an attempt to deflate those arguments by showing their ridiculousness. It's sort of like a reductio ad absurdum. In this case by drastically overinflating the viewpoints that he or she feels are being erroneously attributed to them, Mk5384 is saying "If I was the person you're painting me to be, this is what I would be like, but I'm not that awful person at all."

Of course, such a tactic is lost if your audience is unable to recognize sarcasm, and takes the cartoonish statements literally. In such a case, it makes one wonder what else is perhaps being misunderstood. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much point for a block at this point. They have claimed they're leaving and won't be back. The user has been somewhat disruptive but not to an extreme extent that suggests a block is necessary just in case they come back. If they come back and continue their poor behaviour then sure block away. Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been suggested the user might be a sock. Hard telling for sure, especially as to who he would be a sock of. More info would be needed before an SPI could be filed. But if some other editor turns up, taking the same approach, that could open the SPI door. If not, then everything is peachy. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 17:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really seeing any red flags for sockdom here. Seems to be a normal instance of touching the third rail on a hot button topic. Considering the subject matter we're a bit lucky that no user blocks have been needed. It's better when an editor realizes they've been starting to see red and pulls back without admin intervention. Let's give this person breathing space and dignity. Durova⁴¹² 20:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern was knowledge of advanced Wikipedia procedures with "apparently" only 8-12 weeks of editing since January. But, I agree, there are no huge red flags. The main issue to watch is the re-emergence of a second account expressing the same views and tendencies after this one "retired"; that would be a clear sockpuppet issue. -OberRanks (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing what was written there, I feel compelled to take one last stab at this. As Beyond My Ken points out, that was sarcasm in its most extreme form, brought about by frustration in its most extreme form. Since OberRanks took that edit literally, I'll assume good faith, and entertain the possibility that he honestly thought that I was continuously adding the word "nigger" to the John Pershing article because I'm some horrible racist. I was, of course, adding it because that was his nickname for the majority of his military career. I haven't any idea what would give anyone the idea that my account is a sock, and as far as my having "advanced knoweledge of Wikipedia", I have constantly sought (and needed) the help of others. Perhaps I did cross the line with some of my posts, but again, it was brought on by frustration. Perhaps I should have AGF'd and realized that the editors who were against me thought that I was trying to put that word into the article to be an asshole. ( Which, of course, is not true.) So I will apoligise if I have truly offended anyone, and will reiterate that my insistence on having that word in the article was solely in the interest of historical accuracy. With that having been said, if, after the smoke clears, the censored version is the one that is allowed to stand, I will, in fact, no longer be a participant in this encyclopedia. But, in any case, I am no racist, and I wish to make that clear.Mk5384 (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that he has un-"retired", he has promised to continue edit-warring as soon as the page's protection expires. I'm guessing that is not sarcasm. (See below) ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 14:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about edit warring. You have mistaken protection of the page for endorsement of you version. The admin. stated clearly that it was protected only to stop an edit war,and he had no opinion on it. I have promised only to return sourced, extensively explained information to the article. And if you disagree, then you can remove it. And then we can go to mediation and finally settle this.Mk5384 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mk5384

Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After having been talked out of "retirement" which followed failing to get his way on the Black Jack Pershing article, that user has now "promised" to resume disruption [edit-warring] once that page's protection expires:[148] Can something be done about this? [I have notified the user already about this posting.] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read both posts that I put on the talk page. I apologised for crossing the line with my heated edits. I stated my case clearly, and politely. I offered an olive branch to all concerned (see my post in another section above). The olive branch was ignored. I did indeed, say that I will be returning both names immediately upon unprotection. I stated why I will be doing this. I said nothing about disruption. The administrator who protected the page has stated that he or she has no opinion on the matter, and does not endorse the current version over the other. The protection was simply to stop an edit war. The information was properly cited, and I gave extensive reasons why I intend to return it. I also suggested mediation. Baseball Bugs' case does not hold water.Mk5384 (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that Mk5384 will "return both names immediately upon unprotection" does indeed sound like a promise to ignore the consensus building on the talk page and resume edit warring. Apparently the "spark" that set this off was my edit here, with a statement that I had "ignored the olive branch" [149]. At the time, I did not even realize Mk5384 had "returned" and I was responding to statements made by other users. This user has shown time and time again a refusal to work with others, angry statements agaist those who disagree, and the unresolved issue of the comments made under this thread. -OberRanks (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, he has asserted again here that he fully intends as soon as the protection is lifted that he is going to reinsert the disputed content that started the edit war, whether or not there is a consensus to do so. Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The dif points to:"Perhaps this should just proceed to mediation, because I'm not going anywhere, and I'm not backing down."

Mk, I must tell you that this has already generated more input than most RfC's I have seen. If you are unwilling to participate in forming and unwilling to accept ("I'm not backing down") consensus in Wikipedia, why are you here? WP runs on wp:consensus as WP uses the word. If one wants one's content in an article, one must convince the interested editors to support it. After reading the arguments and a comment at talk:Nigger Jack, I am unsure about the issue, but the none of the editors with strongly held opinion on inclusion have responded with information to back up the argument.

The offtopic sections on the article talk page focusing on Mk5384 IMO are distracting and don't belong there at all... they will simply make it harder to reach consensus and should be redacted. The focus needs to be on the article.- Sinneed 14:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mk5384 is now also removing comments of other users from the John Pershing talkpage. That is a very serious affair, in my opinion. -OberRanks (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has done it twice now. -OberRanks (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had reverted his deletion, and he deleted it again. So he is now edit-warring on the talk page. He's practically begging for a lengthy block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And even with diffs to back up the removals, Mk5384 approaching the warning admin and said this [150] and this. -OberRanks (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Durova's comment by accident. I got an "edit conflict" message whilst I was attempting to post something, and didn't understand it. It has now been explained to me, and I know what to do if that situation should arise again. Given the fact that I have not one incident of vandalism in my history, I find it appaling the way I was attacked here. As I have said, this is turning into a witch hunt.Mk5384 (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least on this I think he could be correct, I have seen this occasionally happen before, that one editor attempts to post when multiple editors are also attempting to post and it can occur that this happens, a glitch in the system. Off2riorob (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, and Mk5384 is saying it was an edit conflict. Based on his past editing history, I'd be willing to believe him and have pointed him towards the Edit Conflict Help page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then he needs to try his post again (or any post at all) and if "edit conflict" pops up, he needs to read all the instructions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, check my history. I have never, ever vandalised Wikipedia. My last post before that was apologising to OberRanks for not AGF'ing; why in the world would I follow that up by removing a comment from Durova? This needs to be resolved. I stand by what I said about intending to return the info to the article. But I absolutely did not remove anything.Mk5384 (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you are here perhaps you would like to retract you intention to reinsert the disputed content the moment the article is unlocked and make a commitment to accept the outcome of discussion and consensus that arises on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you "stand by what I said about intending to return the info to the article" then you are repeating (yet again) an intent to resume edit warring, returning disputed material, and ignoring the consensus building on the talk page. And, if you do in fact engage in that kind of behavior in April, your edits will probably be reverted by no less than 3 to 4 users who have already posted here, you will be quickly marked as breaking WP:3RR and you will most likely be blocked from editing. At worse, the article would be protected again. I urge you to cease insisting that you will return this material against the consensus of others. -OberRanks (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus of others. The vote was 7 for and 8 against. Not even close to consensus. But, as I said, we can go to formal mediation.Mk5384 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not retract it. I will reiterate it. As I will reiterate the fact that I did not remove anything.Mk5384 (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mk5384, you're not helping yourself. As we discussed on your talk page, you removed the comments by accident because you weren't sure how to handle an edit conflict. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's for sure. Declarations of war won't help. That statement alone is good enough grounds for a block. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mk5384 left a note at user talk saying that it was an accidental edit conflict. If the time stamps check out (I haven't looked) then let's chalk this up to good faith. Informal mediation doesn't appear to be helping the underlying dispute, though. Bowing out with a recommendation this go to Medcom or Meccab. Durova⁴¹² 15:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I blocked Mk5384 for 48h for disruption since the argumentation has continued past your comment above. He needs to realise that the rhetoric is not helping. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question posted an unblock request then removed the original reason for blocking [151], placing in effect the unblock notice underneath the already resolved issue of the removing other comments from the article talk page which was deemed a computer error. I believe this may be deliberate so as to confuse the original issue of why this editor was blocked. I really do hate to keep slamming this editor, and I am trying to keep my own behavior here in check to avoid an appearance of impropriety. I simply feel this is unacceptable behavior. -OberRanks (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have this. Further action may be needed. -OberRanks (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the unblock and endeavored to make the facts apparent to any other admin reviewing the situation in the future. Hopefully he will just take the week off at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this [152] I have reblocked him for one week with talk page and email access disabled, and warned him that further socking will result in an indef block. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a loose understanding that we don't lengthen blocks for individuals sounding off on their talk page. Restricting talk page access may be warranted, but I think setting the length to 72h (+24h to account for block evasion) would be in order. –xeno^talk 23:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OberRanks

On Baseball Bugs' talk page, OberRanks has said that I have promised to put material into an article again and again no matter what else anyone thinks about it. This is a lie. I simply stated that I would return the material that was sourced and explained to the article immediately upon unprotection. OberRanks has apparently mistaken the protection of the current version as administrative endorsement of that version. Whilst I have said, " I'm not going away, and I'm not backing down", I never once said anything about repeatedly reverting other editors, violating 3RR, or disobeying any other Wikipedia policy. OberRanks suggested to Baseball Bugs that numerous editors get together, revert me, and then report me for 3RR. He is canvassing, and requesting the assistance of other editors in conspiring against me.Mk5384 (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This posting is in my opinion a "revenge post" for the numerous comments I, Bugs, and others have made towards a repeated pattern of disruptive editing. I do not feel my actions broke any policies, especially since this was a single posting on a single user page and not contacting multiple editors as Mk suggests. I don't think any further comments are needed. -OberRanks (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user has now gone off the deep end, in my opinion as evident by this posting [153]. Administrator action is needed here and quickly. -OberRanks (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I hold to my view that he needs to be away from this place for a couple of days. He's already logged out, changed IP address and posted to my talk page, which is not a good sign, and he seems to expect instant responses to everything (which may be part of the problem). I don't think anything further need be done right now, I am a big boy and can take a fair bit of name-calling. I suggest those commenting above see if they can distil anything worthwhile from his comments so far - I don't really have an opinion as to whether his complaint is valid or not - and I will leave him some more advice on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is enormously ironic about all of this, is that the original dispute which set off Mk to this destructive pattern, that of displaying somewhat offensive nicknames in the John Pershing article, may very well come to the conclusion that Mk desires. It does look more and more like we will have those nicknames displayed in a bio info box, but with appropriate reference notes explaining the context. I was at last won over to this way of thinking because yes it is cited and yes, Wikipedia is not censored. So, in the end, Mk may really acted this way for nothing since in the end the user gets what is wanted after all. -OberRanks (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked the article does include the term. That's one of the more bizarre aspects of the whole thing. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat

I've just removed a legal threat. Since I'm involved in an on-going dispute (vandalism of my user space; threats on my talk page) with the anon-editor concerned, whom I have also referred to WP:3RR; I invite independent review and, if necessary, please revert me. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I warned the IP about the legal threat. Feel free, anyone, to elevate to a block if he persists. –MuZemike 16:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking about a short rangeblock on that range for edit warring, but it looks like Black Kite semi-protected the article. –MuZemike 16:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, although whoever published the list may have breached the UK Data Protection Act (and then only 'may' - organisation member lists are a bit of a grey area, as the DPA data holder rules were never applied to lists of members or subscribers, to avoid deluging thousands of voluntary Secretaries for every kind of club and society with paperwork), no offence is committed by individuals repeating the leaked secrets. Also, I can find no evidence that Glover sued anyone (successfully or otherwise) over the allegation.

• And what made you think this was a good idea, Andy? Is being a member of the BNP really one of the most significant facts about this person? That article seems to be on a see-saw between hagiography and hatchet-job. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article Andrew Mabbett was created earlier today by User:Anticom1 (which self-identifies as 80.47.85.227) [154] and was speedy deleted as a G10 attack page by myself. Given that, the legal threat, and sundry other vandalism I have blocked the IP for a month (it's dynamic) and the account indefinitely. Black Kite 19:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pound says this ends up at OTRS, though. And another pound says Angelicum7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same person. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm marking this unresolved, there is a user conduct issue. Andy Mabbett considers that [155] is an acceptable version of the article and reverted to this or similar more than once, then requested a revert to this version on Talk. His preferred version says:

Andrew Glover (born 1962) is a composer and an alleged British National Party member, born in Birmingham, England. He studied in Nottingham and gained his Doctorate in 1994 from Keele University after studying with Dr George Nicholson. He has been a Composition Tutor at Birmingham Conservatoire[1]. [header] In November 2008 Glover was named as a member of the far right British National Party, with an interview with him confirming his membership appearing in the national press [2]. He then denied any connection with the BNP in a later interview [3].

This sets the issue of BNP membership (which is perfectly legal if rather unpopular) as the dominant theme of the article. I am not convinced that Andy Mabbett understands why this is a problem. Guy(Help!) 07:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the BNP issue likely falls under WP:UNDUE, but otherwise think that this is both a content dispute and a matter of AM being reminded of editorial guidelines. Has AM's reverting to their preferred versions been disruptive and drawn any warning that they have ignored? If not, then this is likely not a matter for admin action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wants to try to get Andy to understand this is welcome to try. My own past experience is that he will discount anything said by most people because it fails the Mabbett Reliability Test, i.e. it doesn't agree with Andy therefore it's wrong. You can count me as somewhat jaded on this, but I'm not alone in that as will be obvious to anyone who checks his not entirely glorious history. Guy(Help!) 11:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too am unconvinced if he understands the problem, but I'm not sure anything can be done right at the moment without more evidence of recent issues; seems like it's the 'wait and see' phase still. Hang in there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been involved in the past with AM, but I think that process needs to be followed - explain, warn, and then seek admin intervention. Wasn't AM permitted to return to editing after some agreement was made; perhaps there is something there that can be used to persuade him to reread the guidelines (and follow them)? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember exactly. I know that every time I've seen him on the noticeboards he has given the impression of being utterly unable to accept anyone else's view of anything,but that could be sampling bias since only the contentious ones come here. I know he's been arbitrated in the past and I know he has an off-wiki reputation as a troll. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flash mobs and editing in bad faith

There has been an article about Joseph Rowbottom that has existed for about nine months. Rowbottoms were spontaneous gatherings where some mayhem ensued. I added this to the article on flash mobs, User:Mkdw and I traded reversions. Mkdw just upped the ante by nominating the first article for speedy deletion. I really don't want to escalate this any further. Philly jawn (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/sigh, I saw this coming as I made a discussion for it at Talk:Flash mob. Firstly, I investigated the article Joseph Rowbottom after a reference was added to Flash mob. The person, and seemingly the 'term', are references to rioting at the University of Philadelphia. This does not coincide with the social gathering and performance art that is described as flash mobs. Also, after reading the article Joseph Rowbottom I found it was an orphan article and none of the sources asserted notability, and its sources were mainly university newspaper articles citing not really the term but a reference to the alumni. User:Philly jawn has called me out of bad faith and taken exception to these actions, but I do stand by them and was willing to discuss them. As far as being summoned here, nothing has been done to really warrant it, but I'm willing to participate in any admin moderated discussion. Mkdw^talk 02:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I suppose now it does as the editor continues to remove the A7 and maintenance tags after being instructed on the proper method of contesting tags and A7's. It appears the editor, obviously has some connection to Philadelphia, has a conflict of interest as they are now trying to barter with the article negotiating to leave Flash mob alone if I remove my A7's. Mkdw^talk 03:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mkdw is driving and edit war and is very close to 3RR. Philly jawn (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In an act of retribution, Mkdw just put a warning on my talk page ... after putting the speedy tag back on the article. Would someone please intervene? Philly jawn (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it a warranted warning considering you have removed the maintenance tags three times with out attempting to resolve their concerns and titling the edit summaries as bad faith tags... Mkdw^talk 03:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of going through an AfD, Mkdw has pushed this dispute because of the addition of the material to the flash mob article. It was in fact somewhat relevant. Mkdw wasn't really interested in discussing it. The rowbottom article was not in fact an orphan and it did have references when I took those tags off, Mkdw added them back on. I just reported Mkdw for edit warring. Philly jawn (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the time those tags were added, the only page that linked to it were its own redirects. This editor has since been adding its link to other articles and has then come back here claiming it wasn't an orphan article. Mkdw^talk 03:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It always had the references. Yes, when I took the orphan tag off, I had added links, but that's what I said. Philly jawn (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I have a proposal. Both of you, for the next week you are not to comment on each other or make any edits in respect of Rowbottom. You should both leave the AfD to run its course and allow the community to form a judgement. Once the AfD is settled you can then discuss on the article talk pages whether the content merits inclusion there. The alternative is probably less to your liking since I think this is a very silly fight and needs to stop, if necessarily forcibly. Guy (Help!) 07:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure why we're here at the AN/I when I went to Talk:Flash mob#Rowbottom openly willing to discuss this but was immediately summoned here. Considering User:Philly jawn removed the A7 from Joseph Rowbottom three times rather than letting the process run or use {{hang on}}, and that I restored the A7 is outside the WP:3RR and if Philly hadn't been a more established editor would be seen as persistent vandalism. Personally, I can't see any enforceable action that could be taken. At least none that wouldn't be uncontroversial as really this was a premature reporting. At this point, the request for the A7 was declined by an admin, which is all part of the process and has now gone to AfD. I welcome any discussion as to the merits or demerits of whether the topic will stick on Wikipedia. The results of such will determine its inclusion on its corresponding pages. Mkdw^talk 08:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? I don't really care that much. You've AfD'd the article, sit back and let process run. Then we can talk about it. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mkdw was completely driving an edit war, and was being vindictive. An enlightened editor would have opened the discussion first, before slapping the speedy on the article. This kind of behavior needs to be noted, especially since the {{speedy}} was in bad faith and an editor not trying to be a bully would have found a better way. It's outrageous to slap a speedy tag on an established article and not talk abou it first. There are a lot of other manners to deal with an article one doesn't like. You'll see that the article in question has been transformed by an enlightened editor. Philly jawn (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing statement. User:Father Goose did a fantastic job revamping the article and I have withdrawn my nomination. As for administrative actions taken here and at WP:AN3, the findings at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mkdw_reported_by_User:Philly_jawn_.28Result:_no_action.29 concluded that I was falsely and unwarrantably reported. The admin even suggests that User:Philly jawn may have been in the wrong. For myself I find this wrapped up and a situation to walk away from. Mkdw^talk 23:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudos to Father Goose. Mkdw ... "falsely and unwarrantably reported"? Hardly, but if it helps you to believe that ... what was actually said, "The listed diffs do not exceed WP:3RR, the edit war is presumably over now that the article is at AfD" Your actions have shown a lack of civility, and had you shown even a modicum of class and been more cooperative this would not have gone as far as it has. Next time, don't try to be a bully. Signing off. Philly jawn (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made the attempt to discuss it at Talk:Flash mob#Rowbottom and you never even replied nor made an attempt on my talk page and immediately reported me here and at WP:AN3. Call me a bully, but at least I tried to talk it out with you than running here to see if I could get you banned. Mkdw^talk 07:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV3 Winchester

TV3 Winchester (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) had a laundry-list of non-notable individuals (i.e. all weblinks not Wikilinks), one of which contained the fact that one individual, about whom we're unlikely ever to have an article, was dismissed over pornography charges. Someone, probably the individual, removed that; Neutralhomer chose to reinsert it and ask me to block the user and his IP. I reviewed the content and removed the laundry lists, which seems to me to be the best solution, but Neutralhomer reverted. The article currently has no independent sources, the only sources were to do with this event. I call WP:LAUNDRY, WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK, WP:BLP. Neutralhomer diagrees. Time someone else had a look. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but let's take a look at why I orignally called (what the hell was I thinking?) JzG into look at the page. I had (and still have) a slight problem with some vandalism coming from an IP and now a signed in account. User:64.252.119.50 removed the same reference 1, 2 times over the past 3 days. Today, User:Cameraman8867 removed the same reference again. It is obviously they are the same person and I asked JzG to kindly block both of them. Instead, he destroys the TV3 Winchester page to make, what he perceives, a BLP problem (even though it is sourced) go away. The lists of reporters and anchors appear on all television stations. So, enacting changes on one MUST effect all others and I don't think this is what this is about. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I was not notified of this thread by JzG, I found it on my watchlist. Kind of a violation of the ANI policy in yellow on each ANI page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however numerous people miss it and we must assume good faith in that it slipped the nominators mind, so it shouldn't be used as a point of argument. SGGH^ping! 22:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NH you can't add that child pornography thing there like that blind without any explanation to what happened and is he notable to have his own article and if so the content should be there and if not then the content should not be linked to in this list. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*buries head in hands* Seriously, on which planet was that a good idea? It doesn't matter if it's sourced, the person themselves is non-notable; the only time we'd ever need to use such information on Wikipedia is if the person is notable enough to have their own article. I've removed the reference to O'Connor; the rest of the list is trivia but I don't suppose it's doing any harm. Black Kite 23:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The story was in the local television news (a station for which he worked) and the local newspaper media. So it isn't like this is just being thrown at him out of nowhere. It can be referenced repeatedly, but then it would get a little cluttered. I think the two referenced show clearly the story and back to the statement up. BLP shouldn't be about sweeping the bad stuff under the rug, especially when it is referenced. He did the crime, likely will do the time, was reported about in the papers and on TV, it isn't something that can be swept under the rug now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what this is all about, this creation of a TV employee list of not notable people, a back door attempt to include this controversial content about a not notable person? Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, we are going to allow someone to vandalize Wikipedia....and get their way? To reuse a sentence...."Seriously, on which planet was that a good idea?"...cause it isn't. This is clearly a case of doing all that the adminship can to make something go away. To hell with BLP. Are we to whitewash every article about any living person to make it all warm and fuzzy? If it can be referenced and backed up, too bad to that person, they are getting their big day in the sun on Wikipedia with the dirty laundry already out in the air. It isn't Wikipedia's job to clean that laundry.

To answer Off2riorob...no, it isn't. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't an article about a living person. It's an article about a company they used to work at. To give an example, imagine if I took the article about my home city and added a list of every person from there that had been convicted of child porn charges ... do you see the problem? If O'Connor was notable - then fine. Put him back in the list if you wish, but lose the additional info.OK, I see that's been done. Good. Marking resolved.Black Kite 23:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the reason he isn't at the station (which is why he is on the list to begin with) is because of those charges. I readded him to the list without the information, but it seems lopsided. We are essentially whitewashing things here on Wikipedia, when anyone can go to Google and type in "Ryan O'Connor" and "TV3 Winchester" and come up with the story about his arrest and hearings. We just aren't publishing it cause of some BLP or WP:N policy...but what it seems like is whitewashing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to go to Google and do that, then that's fine. But we aren't a tabloid newspaper. If the fact that O'Connor was fired because of this case was an important fact that needed to be mentioned in the main article then we could discuss whether it was necessary per WP:UNDUE. But as it isn't, we don't need it. Remember that WP:NOT#NEWS is policy, and that's all this is, really. Black Kite 23:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) If you want it in the main article, then I am perfectly fine with that. I just don't think we should remove it entirely and call it a day. That isn't policy, that is whitewashing and cleaning dirty laundry. If you want me to move it to the main article, give me the green light and it is done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No - I said that if the fact that O'Connor was fired because of this case was an important fact that needed to be mentioned in the main article... - but it clearly isn't. It isn't majorly relevant to the station themselves and doesn't belong in the article. I am going to sleep now, but I'd strongly suggest that you don't re-insert this information. Black Kite 23:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being that it represented the station in a bad light and some of the actions might have happened at the station (investigation still ongoing there), I think it does. But you know what, I am getting a migraine. We can hash this out tomorrow after I get home from work. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that what it said about him does not match what the source said. Specifically the reason for his termination. something lame from CBW 08:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, when I brought this here I thought it was a simple matter of possibly needing to handle a BLP subject. I am now beginning to suspect that Neutralhomer wants to include this list of non-notable individuals just so that this factoid can be included. Lists of individuals who are not notable enough to have articles are not really worth having, IMO - it's just a laundry list of generic presenters. We can safely leave that to the station's own website. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AfD nominating restrictions for User:Delicious carbuncle

User:English Bobby

User:English Bobby a self confessed member of the English Defence League [156], who sole contribution to wikipedia appears to be a crusade to change English to British or initiate ethnic conflict on Turkish subjects[157]. Whenever his changes are reverted he will usually leave an insulting message on your talk page[158].

Given personal problems right now, I really don't need this. Bringing to AN/I for community consideration. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well he's certainly radical, but that's nothing dispute resolution can't resolve. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple interaction, like explaining how to cite an edit, elicits more of the same. If you're offering I'm gratefully accepting. Justin the Evil Scotmantalk 20:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[159] Even the simplest interaction is dimissed with the comment "troll". Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pot, kettle and black justin.--English Bobby (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point, supporter does not equal member. Though the rhetoric about the UAF is very much the usual far right BNP/EDL stuff you will see on their blogs - Not that this precludes one from working on wikipedia. The problem period is the one following the union of the crowns but before the formal acts of Union, where Bobby insists upon the De Jure distinction which is not acctually helpful (and not always accurate), as often forces would come from across the Kingdoms and in this period politicians and senior members crossed easily between the two (Just look at the Falkland for whom the islands are named, scottish gentleman who found success in the unified court in England). I am unsure what admin action is needed though, when he goes off reverting him isn't a problem. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for admin intervention because I am tired of the abuse heaped in my direction from this user. Hopefully it may cease as I've simply cited his edit properly, something he has consistently refused to do. Nonetheless I shouldn't have to put up with personal abuse for simply trying to put an editor on the correct path. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 09:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, all the abuse Justin you mean like you calling me an obcessed editor or a troll or questioning my political motive's (which i find very personal). Or perhaps others should look at you contribution history where your mostly arguing or reverting other people edits leaving nothing but an insulting comment in the edit summary. They may also see your dreadful abuse leveled at three Spanish users in particular before blaming them for it and making feeble excuses. You should maybe look at your own behavior before questioning others and trying to play the victim. You've never made any real effort to come and discuss the issues with me and as Narson shows above " when he goes off reverting him isn't a problem " which shows how civil they can be (this has failed elsewhere though). Also your trying to accuse me of stiring up ethnic conflict with the Turks where exactly not that thats really any of your buisness.

Justin, Narson and some others quickly accuse me of being a single purpose account (which is funny coming from users who spend their time arguing on Gibraltar and Falkand issues) and being a fanatical English nationalist yet i could argue the same about them in their almost obcessive determination to show everyone that it was alway's "Britain" despite the fact there was no UK before 1707 and the crown union was clearly not a close alliance as i've shown before. It was a minor change that i've done all over wikipedia with no problem until i started on the Gib and Falkand articles when i was unfortunate to meet user's whom not only thoght they owned the article's but seemed very hostile to what i was doing. When i first found some sources user Gibnews dismissed them and now i've found (not been told ofcourse) that the encyclopedia Brittanica is not reliable, this is despite the above using it as a source to disprove me.

All i'm doing is changing one word to improve the wording. Changing British to English makes no difference to the politics of the articles nor is it a controversial change that may offend different nationalities and yet Justin and a few other users around him seem to have taken offence at what i'm doing. Me and Justin hardly got of to the best start and it seems to have gone on from there whereas Narson has not ever talked to me other than call me a troll (three times now)--English Bobby (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Smith (prisoner activist) - multiple issues

• Russell Smith (prisoner activist) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)
• Russeldansmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 99.197.128.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've twice reverted an IP that is adding unsourced content to Russell Smith (prisoner activist). Looking through the IPs other contributions, it seems likely that the IP is a sockpuppet of User:Russelldansmith, who is blocked for legal threats. Although the person behind these accounts may be the subject of the article, it is possible that they are not. Much of that article is unsourced and contains some fairly interesting claims regarding mental illness and extraterrestrials. It is understandable that editors may be more forgiving if they believe the editor adding these claims is the subject of the BLP, but without confirmation that the editor is that person, I find the article in need of some serious trimming. WP:BLP should apply no matter who adds the information.

I'm apparently not know for my tact - is there anyone who would like to handle this with all due delicacy? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Always take care when dealing with BLP subjects. This is at a low level right now, I'd be happy to sprotect the article if he comes by again, but you should also point him to OTRS via {{blocked subject}} (I pasted this on his talk page, I will link it from the IP talk as well). Guy (Help!) 11:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Making Change Street Newspaper wants to be unblocked

She's willing to change her username but it seems as if the underlying IP is blocked. Can an admin review her talk page and make a decision? Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That will need some mentoring, her edits to date are activist and seem problematic to me. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't think she saw the decline unblock notice. I've pointed her towards it, offered more advice, and asked her if she's willing to accept mentorship. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phishing attempt on administrator accounts

An urgent ArbCom announcement regarding the above-mentioned issue is available here. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty International (Hong Kong)

Until a few days ago, Amnesty International (Hong Kong) was a redirect to Amnesty International. In the last few days, several editors with suspiciously similar User names, as well as a large number of IP editors, have begun a campaign to write an article on the subject. This article is an absoloute mess. Upper case headings, sourcing almost exclusively to amnesty international itself, extremely pro-AI POV, bad English, etc. I tried a redirect back but that got reverted, I tried discussing it with the editor who was the most active at the time and got nowhere, I tried adding rewrite and sourcing tags to the top of the page, but I'm getting nowhere. What would the next step be? I don't disagree with there being an article on the subject if the local branch is, somehow, notable enough in its own right, but right now, this article is not the way we should be going. Woogee (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RESCUE members may be able to assist here. Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had no clue as to how to proceed. Woogee (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page images

This is the third day in a row that images have been placed on the main page and unprotected. It will only be a matter of time before a vandal figures out that admins are getting lazy with regard to main page images and that they can exploit them to get goatse.cx images on the main page. Admins need to start taking more care. β^_command 00:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the WP:BEANS. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its only beans if we let it become that. Vandals know about this and have used it in the past as an exploit. There are steps in place that identify and alert when such images are on the main page to avoid bad PR, but I would prefer not to have to rely on those. β^_command 01:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beta took care not to mention this in public, until it was fixed. We now need to make sure it doesn't happen again. No beans involved. Chzz ► 01:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People who are scheduling the main page and need images protected at Commons are welcome to contact me with protection requests. Durova⁴¹² 17:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary "Article for deletion" notice: article Controversial command decisions, World War II

Nick-D has arbitrarily posted an AFD notice re article Controversial command decisions, World War II without first entering into or participating in any exchange of views on relevant discussion page. Nick-D has also attempted back-door lobbying of support for his campaign against me by making false claims about my editing, on at least one related user talk page, and without notification to me. Communicat (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the user did notify you of the AfD, and he is not required to enter in discussion before hand because an AfD is the discussion. As for "back door lobbying", I'll have a look at his contributions but if you provided diffs it would go quicker. SGGH^ping! 08:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that Communicat is referring to User talk:Nick-D#"Controversies" articles in which I was asked my opinion of these articles by another editor and responded by saying that they were POV disasters and should be deleted and my use of the standard AfD notification template to notify Communicat ([160]) and the involved editors W. B. Wilson ([161]) and Buckshot06 ([162]) when I started the AfD a few days later (it's at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II). Opinions there are currently split between whether the article should be deleted or whether it should be reverted back to a completely different version before Communicat re-wrote it from stratch; no-one is arguing in favour of the current article other than Communicat and the discussion has several more days to run. Communicat's uncivil comments here appear to be the basis for this complaint. I also posted a notification on the RfC thread where the article was being discussed [163] (as the editor who started the RfC didn't post a notification on the article's talk page I didn't realise there was a RfC until after I started the AfD nomination, but I thought it best that the nomination go ahead given that the editor who started the RfC had subsequently retired from Wikipedia and the article was still a mess). Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note that Communicat's notification of this report was rather uncivil: [164] Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I would suggest all the sudden fuss has far less to do with accurate history than with anti-communist hysteria reminiscent of McCarthyism and the Cold War" - well. I agree that you have honest and understandable concerns to bring the article to AfD, and in fact agree that it (in its current form at least) does not bring anything to the encyclopaedia but POV as evidenced by the above quote. However if another admin wants to weigh in (as I openly admit I think the article should be deleted) then that is fine. I believe the AfD should run its course as a more reliable measure of consensus than Communicat's own comments (no offence intended). SGGH ^ping! 10:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(be that AfD result delete or revert to pre-Communicat edits.) SGGH ^ping! 10:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the AFD was posted 3 days ago, and Communicat has been making many comments on it in the intervening days. However it was only today that they decided to make a complaint here. The AfD is obviously going towards a delete, but it would be bad faith of me to think that is the reason this has been posted now rather than 3 days ago. Canterbury Tail talk 15:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed and uncertified RFC against me

Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who was recently community edit restricted (among others) following a community edit restriction proposal I wrote up following a short block of her by me, created a malformed Administrator Conduct RFC ( Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Georgewilliamherbert ) and failed to certify or list it in the appropriate location ( Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/AdminsList ) or anywhere else that it would be appropriately visible for independent input. The RFC is now over 48 hours old without certification.

I would like to request an uninvolved administrator review the situation and figure out what to do with it. The options would seem to be either remove it as uncertified or list it properly and give it 48 more hours to go; I leave it to the responding admin to figure out which is appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Improperly filed RFC, and also not certified appropriately, after over 48 hours. -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serial attacks by dynamic IP address user

88.111.55.202 is the latest in a long line of dynamic addresses used by a certain person to attack me over some apparent grievance of which I have no knowledge.

Yesterday he was using 88.111.63.26 to wage an edit war in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Blackmore.

88.111.48.107 disrupted WP:AN and WP:ANI on 11 March: see these edits

Other IPs he has used include:

• 88.111.39.197
• 88.111.60.218
• 85.210.127.158
• 85.210.83.167
• 88.109.8.46
• 88.110.56.81
• 85.210.135.210

What can be done to combat a serial attacker of this nature? ----Jack ^{talk page} 23:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user - Blackjack is now taking it upon himself to decide who people are - ie; all one user and to decide who is blocked. He reverts edits by people on the basis that he knows who they are. His language is endlessly intemperate and for the good of the project he should be blocked. It really is absolutely unacceptable to be browbeaten in this way. I for example was in Poland from 10-21st March and had I used a dynamic IP it would have registered a Polish origin.10:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosebank2 (talk • contribs)

• For a report like this, you need to provide all the details, Blackjack. Who is a "certain person"? Is there any other history here that leads you to call them a "serial attacker"? What is it about the edits of these IPs in particular that makes you think they are the same individual? It's very hard for an admin with no prior knowledge to assess the merit of this complaint at the moment. CIreland (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I suggest you close this for now and I'll put together a more detailed version. I don't have enough time right now. Thanks very much. ----Jack ^{talk page} 21:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent implicit reverting

Last year I noticed administrators about arrogant bearing of Zen-in that was reverting systematically all my edits in various pages and finally he caused an edit war. Now, he begins doing the same in the Counter page trying to conceal his revertings by misleading and meaningless summaries in the subject line ("Corrected error in description", "Corrected grammar", "Repaired illogical sentence", "Syntax correction"...) Actually, he has reverted the current page to the state before my edits. Here is the history of these hidden reverting shown by the differences with the previous versions (the misleading comments are shown in round brackets): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=351577900&oldid=351519656 (Corrected error in description) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352359224&oldid=352199087 (Corrected grammar, repaired illogical sentence) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352359658&oldid=352359224 (?) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352360268&oldid=352359658 (syntax correction)

And this is the "difference" between the initial (before my edits) and the current state of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352360268&oldid=350904704

As you can see, the only "difference" is... the word "two"; the only Zen-in contribution to this page is one word?!?!?!? What does it mean? What is it?

I consider Zen-in actions as a kind of "internal vandalism" done by a Wikipedian. Such unreliable people do not deserve to be Wikipedians. Please, take the according precautions to prevent the coming edit war.

I have supplied all my edits with comprehensive comments written in the bottom subject line. But, if it is needed, I can first comment every my edit on the talk page and then to move it to the main page.

--Circuit dreamer (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You posted this yesterday, it was archived, and you've posted it again. I'd suggest you look at Zen-in's edits again. There's nothing wrong with this - he's pointing out that there are two flip-flops (which there are). There's nothing wrong with this - the sentence he's altering is tortuous, and he's made it read better. There isn't an issue here, and there also isn't an edit-war, which means no administrative action is necessary. If you have a dispute over content, the venue is that way. Black Kite 17:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you. Circuit dreamer has asked others to help him with his edits for these same reasons. I don't like it when my edits get changed, but that's what happens. A copy of his complaint was posted in Talk:Counter, including the uncivil tone. Circuit dreamer has in the past posted inappropriate content on Wikipedia discussion pages, forcing others to delete his edits. I don't think it is right for Circuit dreamer to post his uncivility on the discussion page and ask that it be removed. Zen-in (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted outing

216.241.55.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems determined to escalate some minor harassment by starting to speculate on links between WP editors and users on other sites, for example [165]. I suggest they need time away from Wikipedia to study WP:OUTING. Rhomb (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked 3 months, outing and other issues. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I've blocked the IP and the "outing" edits have been deleted. If someone can oversight them as well (the four edits are the edits to User talk:Rhomb at the top of the list here), that would be great. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility by User:TechnoFaye

No action taken on TechnoFaye and mediation on Race and intelligence prolonged for at least another two weeks, following the suggestion of Ludwigs2

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have previously created a thread here but was referred to WP:WQA. However the thread to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:TechnoFaye has not been taken seriously. It is not the first time, WQA has numerous problems and at present is not adequately equipped to handle civility problems. I am aware of the policy on forum shopping but I have felt it necessary that this issue be handled at ANI, because there are many more experienced editors here. My main complaint is that TechnoFaye keeps on saying "Blacks are stupid". I find these comments offensive, and have tried to ignore them and put them in context. But because she keeps repeating them, I felt it necessary to get outside input. Some of the quotes include So how is R/I different? Eye color = self-reported race, and 11 toes = stupid (or whatever the polite word is). Why is this a false analogy?. [166] My best guess is that, like Gould, some well-meaning editors feel that a genetic basis for blacks being stupid should be denied 'even if it is true.'[167] "It's not about the data-centric structure; that's just the disingenuous cover story. It's about pushing a political POV, and is just like naming the article "Why Blacks are so stupid".[168] What do you think of the theory that the IQ difference is due to everyone else believing that blacks are stupid[169] No, it means it's extremely unlikely that one exists, because it would have to be something powerful enough to make a whole race of people stupid, yet hidden and secret enough that no one ever thought of it[170] These comments have been occurring over a period of at least one month. According to the user's Block log, the user has prior blocks for incivility. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would echo the comments made at WQA; these edits are not incivility. Also, it seems to me that you're putting words in her mouth when you say she "keeps on saying 'Blacks are stupid'.". An uninhibited exchange of ideas is usually a good idea during a mediation. I encourage you to disagree politely with her comments, but not characterize them as uncivil. I'd recommend no action here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Floquenbeam, TechnoFaye is not having words put into her mouth. To quote from her MySpace blog on the topic of the Race and intelligence mediation: "Why is "they're stupid" an okay explanation for everybody else's low IQ score, but blacks' score of "retarded" is due to some mysterious, unknown reason other than that they're retarded?" and "negroes are so abysmally stupid."[171]Her blog is v NSFW Repeated racism does fall under WP:CIVIL as far as I'm concerned. If she can't reign herself in to refrain from making bigoted and inflammatory language, she should be indef blocked (regardless of her autism). Fences&Windows 22:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Rubbish. It seems to me that either a deliberate misunderstanding of what she is saying is being used against her and/or the quotes are being used massively out of context. I can't see any racism or bigotry, at least not from TechnoFaye. What I do see are kneejerk reactions to non-politically correct statements of unpopular realisations. Personally I see her autism as a perfect way to be unencumbered with the pervasive and ever-present PC bollocks screwing up this project. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] All I can say is that her tale of a crazy-bum-woman-living-in-the-forest to suburban-sex-slave-who-wants-to be-raped transformation story on her blog was one of the more disturbing things I have seen in a while. I couldn't get past that to actually look into the on-wiki dispute. In fact now I think I'll sign off for a while and go take a long walk. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Whereas all I see on that page is someone wanting to do exactly what they want to do with their own life... --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] If one says "blacks are stupid" once, it may be said in context, it may be literature or a creative way to discuss something. I would be willing to overlook a one-off statement. But to repeat the same statement 6 or 7 times is no longer creative or an uninhibited exchange of ideas, its more like taking advantage of the fact that nobody is complaining. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] @Fred: Not to wander too far off topic here, but I never suggested she was not free to make those choices, just that I personally found it very disturbing, and frankly indicative of deep-seated mental health issues that cannot be explained by autism alone. But of course none of this is actually relevant to her on-wiki actions with regard to possible racist comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] As I said, I don't believe her comments are racist. They can appear so when listed like they are above, but that is of course Muntuwandi's intention to strengthen his/her case. As usual it's politically incorrect to refer to possible deficiencies in ethnic minorities and as ever there is always someone wanting to appear to be a crusading liberal. If anyone is causing disruption it's Muntuwandi with his/her forum shopping. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] To set the record straight, the complaint here is specifically about incivility. Unless there has been a major paradigm shift that I missed, but according to my understanding it is generally uncivil to refer to any individual or ethnic group as stupid. WP:CIVILITY specifically states: The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment: 1. Direct rudeness (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions; (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities; Without Wikipedia's civility policy, we would not be able to discuss difficult, controversial or politically incorrect subjects. The complaint is not about the subject matter, that remains an independent matter altogether. If we were editing an article about how to bake cookies and an editor persistently stated that an individual or ethnic group were stupid, I would still bring it up as an incivility issue, because it distracts from editing the article and creates an "uncivil environment". I have noticed a few editors want to blame the messenger for bringing this up, but I have done so not to score political points. I would like to know if it is now acceptable in wikipedia discussions to refer to any ethnic group as being "stupid". Wapondaponda (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Wapondaponda: just as an aside - the nature of this article means that we have to treat civility issues with circumspection. a few editors on the page (Faye included) stray over the line into personal attacks on other editors, and that needs to be dealt with, but Faye's racial comments aren't so much incivility as a deeply held belief that there is a biological/genetic/racial basis of some sort to intelligence. I'm pretty sure she's guilty of syntehsis from published materials on this point, but I don't think she's trying to be uncivil or racist as much as she's trying to be (what she views as) accurate. she has an extreme view, and a fairly ham-handed way of presenting her opinions which comes off a lot worse-sounding than it actually is. I'm less worried about the implicit racism than about the implicit synthesis, but I haven't yet got her to see that. --Ludwigs2 09:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I didn't realise that Faye had not been alerted to this thread. I have notified her (Wapondaponda, here's a trout slap for you) and I have given her notice that she will be blocked if she continues to make derogatory comments about groups of people. This is not about "political correctness", this is about Faye being deliberately offensive. Arguing that the average IQ of black populations is lower than that of other populations and discussing why that might be is OK. Saying that "black people are stupid" is not OK. Fred, do you see the difference? One is acceptable scholarly discourse, the other is derogatory and inflammatory. Fences&Windows 02:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Of course I understand the difference, I'm also able to read at a sufficiently advanced level to understand that she didn't actually say that "black people are stupid". She asked a question about a theory, someone else's theory, she did not say that she held with that theory or even accuse anyone, let alone Blacks, of being stupid. All people seem to be doing is seeing those 3 little words "blacks are stupid" and instantly go into paroxysms of spluttering and the equivalent of "you can't say that these days". The point is that some people DO think blacks are stupid, some of them even scientists who aren't being racist. Therefore it's, in my humble opinion, fine to ask the question she asked, It isn't fine to say that she thinks they are, it isn't fine to accuse any particular person of stupidity, but in this world there are a lot of stupid people, some of them do happen to be black. Similarly an awful lot are caucsian/asian/chinese/manchunian/blonde/freckled/female/lactose intolerant. In her defence her autism is going to be a distinct disadvantage due to the social filters not functioning properly, after all it is a communication disorder and I believe she should be given more latitude than normal. It's not her fault she doesn't have that little voice over her shoulder warning her "don't say it quite like that". It would also be helpful if there wasn't so many knees moving through 90 degrees from the faux liberals. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] My error, I apologize for that, I did inform her of the thread at WQA where the user did respond and I posted a link from WQA to this thread. But I should have specifically informed the user about this thread. I agree with Fences and windows that there is a difference between scholarly discussion of group differences and referring to certain groups in a derogatory manner. I think latitude has been given, these comments have taken place over a period of 5 weeks so this not a knee-jerk reaction. Regardless of the user's condition she is aware that she makes offensive statements. Obviously one needs a thick skin when editing controversial articles, but even with thick skinned editing, the above comments are quite unhelpful. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] A little off topic... but has anyone else noticed that User:TechnoFaye's user page displays what appears to be a giant naked photograph of her? I'm aware of WP:NOTCENSORED but as far as I'm aware user page content is supposed to be at least marginally related to Wikipedia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] yeah, I scratched my head over that too. I figured it's relatively tasteful, and wasn't overtly violating any policies, so it got filed in the 'too trivial to worry about' category. --Ludwigs2 09:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] <- TechnoFaye (talk · contribs) claims to have taken this picture [172] herself File:Bpesta.jpg. This is clearly not the case and is a copyvio. Why did she lie? Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Faye has (as should be evident, and as she herself admits) some form of mild autism (or perhaps some other minor developmental disorder - I'm not sure if her claims of autism stem from self-diagnosis). I have been trying to be tolerant of that, and guide her towards some more socially acceptable modes of interaction, with limited success. however, because of this thread (and Mathsci's complaints below) I am putting the mediation discussion on a strict civility program; I am going to start insisting on 3-day breaks from the discussion for any editor who cannot refrain from making disparaging comments about other editors. I'm going to try a firm hand for a little while on the page, and see if we can capitalize on the progress we'e made and break through the points of stubbornness that are currently plaguing the page. If you ask me, we can close/table this discussion for a week and see what progress a new approach can make. --Ludwigs2 09:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think she's likely a fantasist, that's not really relevant except in that it informs judgment of her on-wiki behaviour. Which is ... eccentric. I think there is a need for a mentor of some kind. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Criticism of mediation on Race and intelligence Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence Race and intelligence I looked at the main page to which TechnoFaye contributes and there seems to be a much deeper problem. Mediation started in November on this topic, initially under the supervision of Reubzz (talk · contribs), who shortly afterwards disappeared and had no prior experience at all as a mediator. The mediator was changed to Xavexgoem (talk · contribs) and then Wordsmith (talk · contribs). At present mediation is unsupervised - a completely chaotic free-for-all. At the very beginning of mediation last year, there were sensible statements and discussions. That does not seem to be the case now. Various users involved in the mediation are no longer present (eg myself, on wikibreak in Cambridge, and Ramdrake (talk · contribs), who hasn't edited wikipedia for 2 months). Currently the page does not seem to be serving any useful purpose. It seems to be frequented largely by WP:SPAs and a coterie of highly problematic users, with some exceptions (eg Slrubenstein (talk · contribs)). TechnoFaye's contributions and directing of the mediation page do not seem to be particularly helpful, nor her choice of language. The page is in no way a mediation page any more. Please could administrators or mediators explain what is going on and attempt to restore some order? There is no record on the page as to who is moderating at present (surely not Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs)?). Mathsci (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I am not quite sure how this kind of poorly written synthesis[173] by an anonymous IP from Brussels Race_and_intelligence#Ten_argument_supporting_the_existence_of_race_differences_in_IQ_scores_between_whites_and_blacks.5B71.5D from a single questionable source (Richard Lynn) made its way into the article Race and intelligence. I'm afraid this kind of writing reminds me of what can be read on far right websites like Stormfront (website), except their English is better. It is some of the worst writing I have seen on wikipedia to date, ungrammatical, picked from one dubious source and sometimes making little or no sense. It shows that there is a major problem with the article and mediation. The article has never been in such an unbalanced and unreadable state before. SPAs, who now seem to dominate the article, have left this unencyclopedic and completely WP:UNDUE material in the article, still claiming there is some kind of neutral mediator in their recent edit summaries. That does not seem to be the case. Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Mathsci - nice of you to ask me, but yes, I am still mediating there. I've been letting the page run a bit, for a number of reasons: (1) to save myself from burnout (it's a difficult crew) (2) to keep myself looking draconian (I have the urge to impose order severely at times, but I resist - don't see that as my position), and (3) to let some of the steam of the participants burn off. if you have a problem with my mediation style, you are free to use my talk page to discuss the matter with me, but I'd prefer that you don't go posting notices about me on ANI without notification. since you've brought it up, however, would you like to discuss the matter now? --Ludwigs2 07:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] My comments make it quite clear that I had no idea who the mediator was. It is not announced on the page. Presumably, since I was inscribed early in the mediation, you should have sought my approval. Unfortunately I think there have been many long term problems with your own edits on wikipedia, which indicate that you are not a neutral party and completely unsuitable as a mediator. Your edits are wikilawyering par excellence - you've been doing so above. From the archived talk page, you appear to have hijacked the initial stages of mediation conducted under the two experienced mediators mentioned above. I suggest the mediation be terminated and the article returned to some previous state, so that it looks slightly less like illiterate right wing propaganda. No experienced mediator would have allowed this nonsense to stay in the article for two weeks. This is just disruption, Ludwigs2, and possibly worthy of a block of some kind. This should be discussed here by administrators and experienced mediators, not hidden away on your talk page. Mathsci (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] <- Just a reminder of what you as mediator allowed in the article for two weeks: Ten argument supporting the existence of race differences in IQ scores between whites and blacks 1. The two races have evolved independently of one another and in different environments over a period of one hundred thousand years. When two populations evolve in isolation from one another during such period there are differences that appear in all areas where there are possibilities of genetic variation. The extreme environmentalist position, assuming there are no intellectual differences between races defy the general principle of biological evolution and can be seen as impossible. 2. The Africans obtain an I.Q quite similar in many different locations: this must be regarded as evidence of a strong genetic factor. 3. The high heritability found among twins in America, Europe, Japan and India shows that intelligence is largely determined by genetic factors. 4.The cranial volume differences between Caucasian and black show the existence of genetic factors, because the heritability of cranial volume is 0.9 and the correlation between intelligence and cranial volume is 0.4. 5. Many egalitarians have suggested that white racism could reduce the IQ of blacks, but there is no explanation that can explain how racism might reduce IQ, and then why the IQ of black Africans in Africa would he 67? If racism diminishes intelligence, it is curious that the Jews of America and England have an IQ of 108, then they have been exposed to racism for centuries. The high IQ of American Jews is well known since 1930. 6. Black children adopted by white parents get the same scores as predicting racial. There is still difference of 17 IQ points between whites and blacks raised in the same conditions. Being raised by white adoptive parents had no positive effect on the intelligence of blacks. 7. The IQ of hybrids is intermediate between the two parental breeds, as well as the cranial volume, which is also the intermediary between the two parental breeds. 8. It has been shown a significant difference between races in terms of reaction time. The reaction time is correlated with IQ, because both of them are eficiente signs of central nervous system. The average Caucasian react more quickly to a stimulus. 9. The more white admixture, the greater the average brain weight of an African high (genetic testing beyond the color of the skin). 10. Racial differences in cranial capacity are correlated with 76 musculoskeletal traits identified in standard works of evolutionary anatomy as systematically related to an increase in cranial capacity in hominids. Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I offered to take over the mediation a good long while ago, when the last mediator quit in frustration: there was a sizable discussion about it, and the editors who participated in the discussion all agreed. I'm sorry you missed that discussion, but there's not a whole lot I can do about it now unless you want to reopen the issue on the mediation page. I have been expecting the participants in the mediation to reach some consensus which would mean a major revision of the entire article, and I was aware that the participants were monitoring the article itself for changes. sorry this bit slipped in, but it would have been gone by now had the consensus been reached In deference to you, I've gone ahead and announced a stronger approach on the mediation page, and will begin pursuing it tomorrow. beyond that, I am not concerned with your (thoroughly misguided) impressions of me. As I said, if you have a problem with me personally, take it up on my talk page (or through one of the numerous dispute resolution processes wikipedia has to offer). However, if you just want to talk shit about me, no one is interested. --Ludwigs2 08:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] The article is in a hopeless state. I have no idea why you sought to mediate such a controversial article, given your own record on wikipedia. (It is not dissimilar to GoRight offering to act as Abd's mentor.) That you missed the above glaringly awful insertion, until I pointed it out now, is a clear sign that you don't have the qualities required to mediate. At least User:Reubzz left personal messages on talk pages and clearly edited the mediation pages to explain what was going on. You don't even seem to have bothered monitoring the article recently. Please stop treating wikipedia as some kind of game. Mathsci (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] again, this is a topic you should bring up on the mediation page. if you don't want me as mediator, I'm certainly not imposing myself on the situation, and a nice discussion of the matter there would resolve the issue. or is there some reason you keep wanting to harp on it here, where it won't do a darned bit of good? with respect to your problematic passage - if you have good reason to remove it, remove it. you don't need a mediator for that, unless it becomes a matter of contention between you and another editor. as I said, it is not my place as mediator to make content decisions for you. --Ludwigs2 09:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Incidentally, Mathsci, we have you yourself not removed this section, since you seem to object to it? I am mediating this article, which limits my capacity to make editorial decisions (I'm not here to take sides in editorial disputes, but rather to try to develop some kind of consensus). as an interested editor, you should be the one monitoring the article for inappropriate material. --Ludwigs2 08:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] In its present state I wouldn't touch the article - this was only one of the things wrong with it. I wrote above that it should be returned to a much earlier state. I see very little hope for it at the moment, given the current circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] if you are not going to touch the article, then shall I remove your name from the list of mediation participants? The possibility of reverting the article to an earlier state was discussed in mediation, but there was no consensus on the matter, and I didn't want to impose a solution. the issue will be resolved as soon as we reach a consensus in mediation, since the entire page will be revised, or you can reopen that thread for further discussion if you like. so, now, what is your reason for wanting this section removed? is it unsourced? no. is it a misrepresentation? I don't know, do you? is it clear synthesis? not that I can see, but I'm willing to be convinced (because I don't like the passage any more than you do). give me an argument for removing it and I will remove it; don't expect me as mediator to remove material that (superficially, at least) seems to conform to wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Ludwigs2 09:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I only add citations and sources to that article, and very seldom. I am aware, however, of the academic literature. I'll leave you to figure out on your own what is wrong with the above passage and why it blatantly violates several of wikipedia's core policies. As a clue, here is an article edit I made yesterday.[174]Mathsci (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] well, thanks for the hint, but I have no idea what it means. are you making some comment about referencing or complaining that the statistics in the section is bad? can race be modeled using hermite polynomials? and what does this have to do with core policies? --Ludwigs2 09:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] If you're asking questions like that, you seem clueless about editing wikipedia. The statements are improperly sourced from a single source. Statements like "The high IQ of American Jews is well known since 1930" need some kind of inline citation and exact quotation. Controversial statements, that are improperly sourced, are not normally permitted on wikipedia. Likewise the statement about the average African IQ. Honestly, Ludwigs2, your statements about editing articles are singularly clueless. With less than 1,500 article edits to your name, that doesn't seem very surprising. Your replies at the moment are verging on "trolling". Mathsci (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree with some of Mathsci's observations, some oversight by experienced editors may be necessary. I get the feeling that this mediation is taking place tucked away in a hidden corner of wikipedia and without the support of the broader community. It would be also useful if some experienced editors could evaluate whether the mediation in its current state has the potential of being fruitful. If it has no potential, then maybe as Mathsci suggested, it would be best to have it terminated. If there is still hope, then some supervision would be necessary to ensure that the mediation process and its results are consistent with the views of the broader community. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] @ Mathsci:If that's your belief, then again, I don't know why you haven't removed the passage. someone else went ahead and did it, and so the problem is obviated, but still... @ Wapondaponda: again, I'm not doing this for love or money. if you don't want me to mediate, bring it up on the mediation talk page as a matter for discussion. I'm not interested in being supervised (though I'm happy to take any advice anyone has to offer). if you want another mediator to take over, find one and suggest them Now, let's close this discussion (which is not an ANI matter in any sense of the word) and reopen it on the mediation talk page if you so desire To be precise the material was removed [175], then reverted [176], then removed again [177]. Hardly straightforward. If I hadn't pointed it out, this nonsense would still be in the article. How I edit has nothing at all to do with what is being discussed. When mediation started I made a careful statement about what should happen to the article, which had consensus. Your own actions as self-appointed "mediator" have not helped in the slightest. I only see complete disarray. Mathsci (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ludwigs, I have not made any comments concerning you being a mediator. My concern is with the process in general. With the persistent incivility, I have just gotten the feeling that the mediation is on autopilot, and nobody cares. Currently Slrubenstein is probably the only experienced editor participating in the mediation. I would be happier if there were more experienced editors who are not effectively WP:SPAs looking at the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] <- I have to agree with Muntuwandi here. Slrubenstein is one of the few experienced editors remaining in the discussions. My own feeling is that an administrator experienced in mediation, such as Shell Kinney or WJBscribe, should be consulted about the current anomolous situation. Since Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) is relatively inexperienced both as an editor and a mediator, he should certainly not be trying to suppress discussion, which involves his role amongst other things. Mathsci (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] There also seems to be an inaccessible part of the talk archives result from this edit.[178] That is now in Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence/Archive 0. It contained the opening statements amongst other things. I have no idea how that can be corrected. Mathsci (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] okie dokie. feel free to continue this discussion and let me know if I'm needed. for my part, I will ignore this thread (and and any results it produces) and wait for you to open a discussion of the topic on the mediation page, where it belongs. thanks for sharing, though. --Ludwigs2 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] For the record: Ludwigs did not "appoint himself" mediator. We held a discussion about Ludwigs taking over the role of mediator, and all of the then-active editors (myself, Ramdrake, Slrubenstein, Aprock, Alun, Mikemikev, Captain Occam, TechnoFaye) agreed to it. I think Ludwigs is doing just fine given the circumstances, and I don't think the hyper-criticism taking place here is helping anything. --Aryaman (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ludwig is not doing an unreasonable job, although he certainly has a hands off approach, and seems to be aligned with a specific faction of editors. This hasn't been a huge problem, but it does creep out from time to time. A.Prock (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] So, you're saying that the mediator is not impartial, but aligned with one of the factions involved in the mediation, and he allows stuff to go into the article without check (just curious - is it stuff that's favored by the faction he's aligned with?), but all that is just peachy with you and he's doing a bang-up job, all considered? Is that the gist of what you've just said? Who's in charge of that zoo? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] There are two things you ought to keep in mind about this. The first is that assuming Aprock’s opinion here is the same one he’s expressed on the mediation talk page, his opinion is that Ludwig is biased against his side, not in favor of it. So if Ludwig’s possible bias against Aprock’s position isn’t enough to bother Aprock, that should mean it probably isn’t enough to matter significantly. And the other thing to keep in mind is that both of the “factions” involved in this article have claimed that Ludwig is biased against them. If you look at some of TechnoFaye’s posts on the mediation talk page, you’ll see that she’s accused Ludwig of being biased against her position at least as often as Aprock has accused him of the same thing in his own case, even though within the context of this debate, TechnoFaye’s and Aprock’s positions are pretty much exact opposites of one another. Ludwig gets accused of being biased against both positions about as frequently as one another, and which it is depends on the position of the person making the accusation—everyone always claims he’s biased against them, not in favor of them. I don’t think it’s possible for Ludwig to be simultaneously biased against both of the two groups that are debating over this article. What looks more likely to me is that both of these groups are unhappy with having to compromise, so Ludwig’s unwillingness to concede to all of the demands from either side is being mistaken for bias. And that’s a problem with some of the users involved in the article, not with Ludwig. Personally, I’ve found Ludwig’s hands-off style of mediation to be bothersome on occasion (such as when he didn’t intervene in situations where we’d asked him to, or where he’d told us he was going to), but bias is one problem that I don’t think he has. I’m also expecting the inaction problem that I mentioned to improve now that he’s promised to become more actively involved in the mediation. I think that Ludwig’s ability to continue mediating the article at all says a lot about his ability in this respect, considering that two mediators with considerably more experience (Xavexgoem and The Wordsmith), working together, gave up on this after spending less time on it than Ludwig has. Based on what happened with Xavexgoem and The Wordsmith, I suspect that almost any two mediators placed in Ludwig’s position probably would have given up long before this. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] <- Ludwigs2 has longstanding problems on wikipedia. In the past on Race and intelligence, there have been a series of problematic editors. Fourdee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned by Jimbo; MoritzB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked; Jagz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was a long-time problematic editor who with Zero g (talk · contribs), was taken under Elonka's wing. Ludwigs2 was one of the few users who claimed that Jagz should return to editing (he used to make good edits to scouting articles, as Rlevse pointed out). Ludwigs2 is currently having a feud with BullRangifer/Fyslee and has a history of pushing fringe science ideas on altmed articles. His cavalier attitude to the nonsense that was inserted into R&I underlines why he is totally unsuitable as a mediator in a controversial article where the mainstream academic viewpoint has to be made crystal clear. His reaction to this material seemed to be an attempt to game the system rather than assume the reponsibilities of a mediator: he immediately personalised the discussion in a kind of wikilawyering way, asking why I didn't like the material and why I had not removed it; at no stage did he recognize it for the blatant violation of multiple wikipedia policies that it evidently is. It might be that he has been sympathetic to users pushing a certain point of view, like Captain Occam and Varoon Arya. Irrespective of this, however, his past and present activities on-wiki disqualify him from acting as a mediator. There seems to be no good reason for continuing mediation in these circumstances. It started off fine, once events had moved past the brief guest appearance of would-be mediator Reubzz (talk · contribs), but is now in a total mess. Those pushing minoritarian points of view might possibly benefit from this mess, but the article certainly won't. Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] As I see it, mediattion is not about control of a page, it is about resolving disputes among editors. So far, mediation has focused on resolving disputes among a list of editors who have been regular or active contributors to the page; the mediator has focused on disputes among these individuals, and has not focused on the article itself. I have no problem with this - I think the plan is IF we can all agree on the overal structure and contents of the article, at that point the entire article will be redrafted. Again, I have no problem with this. Ludwigs2 is mediating because no one else would. I think that the mediationis taking a long time and could use a more forceful mediator, but given the questions about Ludwigs2's sympathies, i can understand why he has not been very forceful. Mathsci, are you volunteering to take over mediation? Is there someone else who is qualified, acceptable to parties, and willing? I will tell you my major complaint about the mediation and the mediator. Several people who signed on as parties to the mediation - Wobble, Ramdrake, and Futurebird, among others - have not participated for some time. This in my mind realy delegitimizes the mediation, because it is no longer a mediation between editors who are in conflict, it is becoming a discussion board for editors who all agree with one another (Varoon Arya, Captain Occan, Mikemikev, Technofaye, to a lesser degree DJ). I am not saying that these people should in any way be silenced or their views deprecated. I am saying that when the people who have most been in conflict with the parties I just named ar not actively participating in the mediation, then it is no longer a mediation, it is no longer a form of dispute resolution - it is turning into a wikiproject run by Varoon Arya and Captain Occam and friends. I do not want Varoon Arya and Captain Occam to leave - they are important parties to the mediation. But if this is to be an honest form of conflict resolution, then the parties n conflict with Varoon Arya and Captain Occam have to participate too. I do not know why Futurebird, Ranmdrake, and Wobble are not active. There may be other editors who have contributed to the article and who have been in conflict with Varoon Arya or Captain Occam, who have not been actively participating in the mediation. (Maybe including MathSci??) I think one of the tasks of the mediator is to ensure that an environment that makes parties feel that their participatin in the mediation is worth it, be maintained. Rather than question the mediators motives or agenda, I ask him simply to contact those partices to the mediation who seem to have disappeared; find out why they are no longer active; if any of their reasons have to do with the dynamics on the mediation page, then I think themediator has a responsibility to change the dynamics so that all parties feel that the mediation is making progress and that their participation is worth it. Ludwigs2, you could start by communicationg with Futurebird, Ramdrake, Wobble, I suggest off-wiki - to learn their perceptions and views and discuss what kinds of changes could bring them 9and others) back, and then consider whether such changes really would help the mediation. But when half the parties to mediation have disappeared, I take it as a sign that there is a major problem with the diation. Slrubenstein Talk 11:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] And while the mediator is concentrating on the parties and ignoring the article, we're presenting very egegious misinformation to the public. The mediation process must take a reasonable amount of time, it can't go on for so long that the project's quality control suffers. WP:FRINGE needs to be applied to this topic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] @Slrubenstein. Thanks for commenting here. You bring up several important points. I think it is absolutely essential that mediation concentrates on the article not on the behaviour of contributors. It is also very worrying that the editors you mention have left the article during mediation (I would add T34CH): this does not help in reaching consensus, particularly if most of the participants that are left favour a minoritarian point of view. My own feeling is that an extremely experienced senior mediator is required for this kind of controversial article: someone who has contributed significantly to mainstream articles and several other mediation cases. However, since two such mediators have abandoned mediation, finding such a mediator does not seem very realistic. Mathsci (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] move to close by Ludwigs2 Allow me to point out that User:Mathsci and user:Beyond My Ken have hijacked this thread entirely to make bizarre and uncivl attacks on me and my character. let's point out some basic facts: The thread was originally about user:TechnoFaye, but that discussion seems to have disappeared The consideration of whether I should stay or step down from mediation belongs on the mediation page. I'm happy to do so if that's the consensus, and will not do so if the consensus there is that I should remain The issue of whether the mediation has failed and should be closed belongs on the mediation page The issue of the state of the article itself is irrelevant: I'm not an admin, I'm not the page watchdog, and I am trying to maintain a neutral position in any disputes. The issue of whether I have a particular bias, while relevant, belongs on the mediation page with respect to point 1. I don't personally believe I've displayed anything like a bias on the page (and have made an effort to keep my viewpoints, where and when I have them, strictly private). I have had disputes with both of these editors before, and apparently they are holding a pretty strong grudge against me, but that is not an excuse for them to go off spitting and screaming whenever they see my name mentioned in any context. If they have some actionable claim to make against me, let them make it in a proper place and context. If they don't, to hell with them both. ANI is not the correct place for a pair of editors to indulge in overt idiocy of this sort. I'd like an admin to formally close this discussion as a witchhunt, please, otherwise I will be obliged to open a new section on this page asking for sanctions against these editors under wp:NPA, and this situation will get progressively more unpleasant. --Ludwigs2 16:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ok, no response. with that in mind, I will once again archive the above section as non-ANI material. Fair warning: any editor who wants to unarchive it should first provide a detailed explanation of why this is an issue needing ANI attention, in this section, or I will ask to have you blocked for personal attacks and disruptive editing. --Ludwigs2(adding belated sig) It's unlikely that such a demand would have any effect other than to get you blocked for WP:OWN and WP:DE. 24 hours is the usual minimum time allowed for people to make comments, not five. People here come from every time zone on the planet. Guy(Help!) 09:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes. indeed. I can only say that Ludwigs2 is quite mistaken and again, by his intemperate and exaggerated response, illustrates his unsuitability for any role in supervising other users' edits on wikipedia. Since Ludwigs2 is now using intemperate words like "idiocy", here is a reminder of the opening statement in mediation, incorrectly archived in Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence/Archive_0. "I by and large agree with Slrubenstein's statement, particularly that the focus of the article should become stable and that the article talk page should not become a forum for open-ended debate. The article at present does not cover all of the recent major academic contributions to this debate and should make every attempt to do so in an even-handed way. The hereditarian point of view should be carefully outlined, but without giving a false impression of its degree of acceptance. As Slr has written the "open letter" in the WSJ by a self-selected and like-minded group of academics should not receive WP:UNDUE weight, if other distinguished academics have expressed disagreement (as is the case). At present there has not been a systematic attempt to ensure that the broad spectrum of mainstream academic opinion has been properly represented. One problem is that the very narrow topic of a possible correlation between race, whatever that means, and intelligence, whatever that means, has not been widely studied in academia. This makes it hard to write an article on it for an encyclopedia, since many aspects will remain inconclusive because they either have not been sufficiently studied or have not been deemed worthy to be studied. Scrupulous attention should be paid to not ignoring or dismissing important sources, particularly those by eminent academics. Perhaps the most important point is that all key sources should first be carefully identified. These should be carefully summarised in the article, without prejudice. If only a handful of academics favour a particular viewpoint, i.e. it is a minoritarian viewpoint, that should be made clear. There does not seem to be any evidence that "Race and Intelligence" is a major topic of research, discussion or debate in the majority of academic departments specializing in psychometrics or related disciplines. We should be extremely cautious not to approach the writing of this article with that viewpoint. Mathsci (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ludwigs2 is not assisting in any way in helping the article to become stable as I described in November. Quite the contrary - there has been a proliferation of minoritarian viewpoints. The threats, bullying language and unsupported insults that Ludwigs2 has now resorted to are inadmissible. Mathsci (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Other users - please do not edit my comments. That is a blockable offense. Mathsci (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Proposal The evidence presented by Mathsci above indicates that Ludwigs2 lacks the necessary experience to mediate such a contentious case, and some questions have been raised about his impartiality. I think we should thank Ludwigs for trying to help, but ask that he step aside and allow someone with more experience, especially in judging and weighing academic sources, to take over. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I disagree with this proposal. Two mediators with considerably more experience than Ludwig, Xavexgoem and The Wordsmith, have already attempted to mediate this article and given up after approximately a month. Whatever you think about Ludwig’s lack of experience, he’s been able to accomplish more in terms of reaching consensus than these two experienced mediators were able to accomplish working together. We now have a list of resolved points that all of the editors actively involved in the mediation have reached consensus about, and we’re also very close to reaching consensus about the article’s overall structure. And this isn’t just because certain perspectives about this topic aren’t being represented in the mediation case: even :though Alun and Ramdrake have stopped participating in the mediation, their perspective about this does not differ significantly from the perspective of Slrubenstein, Aprock and Muntuwandi, who have been included in the consensus we’ve reached about the items I mentioned. Experience evidently isn’t the only thing that matters here, since a pair of experienced mediators were able to accomplish virtually nothing with this article, while Ludwig has enabled us to reach consensus on a fair amount. If Ludwig is replaced with another mediator based on this criterion, it will most likely be a repeat of what we experienced while Xavexgoem and The Wordsmith were mediating it. Mathsci was part of the mediation for this article early on, but for some reason he dropped out of it shortly after it began. Since he hasn’t been able to influence the direction it’s taken beyond that point, some of what the rest of us have decided since then evidently differs from what he would have preferred. If he had continued to participate in the mediation over the past four months, this might not have happened. But it has, and that’s really what this discussion is about, apart from the personal conflicts Mathsci is bringing up that he’s had with Ludwig in the past. If Mathsci is dissatisfied with the direction this article’s mediation has taken, the proper place to bring it up would be in the mediation itself. He’s been signed into it for months; he’s just been choosing to not participate in it, and now he’s bringing up his resulting disagreements with it at AN/I instead. I agree that this discussion doesn’t belong at AN/I. Where it belongs is on the mediation talk page, and if Mathsci were to bring up his issues there in the same way as everyone who has expectations for this article, then Ludwig would probably listen to them in the same way that he’s listened to the same thing from everyone else there. You’ll notice that everyone commenting in this thread who’s actively involved in the mediation, regardless of the position they take, approves of the job Ludwig has been doing with this. All of us who are actually subjected to his authority think he’s using it in an acceptable manner, and the only person who thinks otherwise is someone who’s been voluntarily choosing not to participate in the mediation since before Ludwig was in charge of it. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] This series of comments beginning with Mathsci's interjection represents exactly the kind of "accusations and side-discussions within a discussion" which are supposed to be avoided on this page. I request that an administrator put a halt to this "discussion" and instruct Mathsci to discuss this issue with Ludwigs, either on his talkpage or on the mediation discussion page. --Aryaman (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree with this proposal. Mediation has gone on now too long (five months) without much to show for it, except a much worse article, and seems in disarray. It could be that Ludwigs2's participation benefits the above two editors, who appear to favour a minoritarian point of view : Race and intelligence is one of the principal articles they concentrate on in mainspace. The unchecked comments of TechnoFaye about the intelligence of population groups on the mediation page are just another symptom of the fact that the mediation process is in disarray. This is an appropriate public place to discuss this point, not in some hidden-away corner of wikipedia. Again, the problem is with the mediator and his editing history. Mathsci (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Mathsci has not tried to discuss these concerns of his in the mediation, where this kind of criticism can be properly addressed. Instead he is using AN/I as a platform to give air to his sudden lack of good faith in the goals of the mediation, to defame editors he apparently does not like and to seek support for torpedoing a mediation he chose to stop participating in some time ago. He was not pushed out of the mediation, and his views/suggestions/comments were not marginalized or disregarded. These charges of incompetency on the part of Ludwigs are unsubstantiated, and Mathsci summarily ignores all the progress which has been made during the mediation under Ludwigs' supervision. Again, I request that an administrator put an end to this "proposal" and direct interested parties to either the mediation discussion page or to Ludwigs' talkpage. --Aryaman (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Regrettably, the mediation process has run aground. That seems to be what Slrubenstein is also saying. The process is delegitimized when a large group of editors abandon the mediation process, leaving mostly those representing a minoritarian point of view. The mediation pages are not the appropriate place to discuss this - they are a hidden little corner of wikipedia, currently for the most part frequented by like minded editors. FYI, my absence is explained by a wikibreak, a reduction in editing due to the teaching of a graduate course in Cambridge - that happens each year. Although Ludwigs2 offered to be mediator in good faith, from my point of view he does not have sufficient editing/mediation experience or impartiality to act as a mediator on such a complex article. Mathsci (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] The mediation process can only "run aground", as Mathsci puts it, when disgruntled editors leave the mediation (and possibly start reproachful threads on AN/I) instead of discussing their concerns in the mediation. There is no reason to assume Mathsci's concerns would not be properly addressed in the context of the mediation. In fact, Ludwigs has invited Mathsci to return to the mediation and make mention of his concerns. If Mathsci wants the mediation to make what he sees as "improvements", it is incumbent upon him to help improve it through his active participation. At any rate, I (still) see no need for external administrator involvement at this time. --Aryaman (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think you would find that a more skilled and experienced mediator would have avoided the drift away and would also (importantly) have helped to deliver markedly better content by now. This article certainly does not show the benefit of what should have been a process of intense focus and rigorous re-examination. Far from it. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] None of the participants in the mediation have edited the article since the inception of the mediation process other than to revert contentious edits made by external parties. We decided as a group to refrain from editing the article until we were able to agree upon an outline for our first major revision (the current topic of discussion), which is likely to begin sometime this coming week. It has taken a great deal of discussion to develop an outline with which everyone agrees, but we all acknowledge that this is a key factor in the hoped-for stability of the future article. As far as I know, Ramdrake suffers from serious health issues which prevent his being able to contribute for extended periods of time - something for which Ludwigs can in no way be held responsible. Other editors indicated early on that they would not be participating, either out of a lack of interest or a lack of time. Again, this has nothing to do with Ludwigs' qualifications as mediator. The reasoning behind this proposal is specious and the proposal itself is entirely uncalled for. --Aryaman (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Mathsci apparently had believed that the article mediation was going to result in a consensus that suited him. He has not been participating in the mediation and is instead now trying to derail the mediation by complaining to administrators. While his mathematical abilities are impressive, he has a history of problematic interactions with other editors on Wikipedia. I can understand why Wikipedia administrators are loathe to risk alienating Mathsci given his contributions to certain articles such as the ones on mathematics (that only other mathematicians can fully appreciate). Ludwigs2 seems to have been doing a reasonably good job and those involved in mediation should be glad he hasn't abandoned the mediation like three other mediators have already done. Perhaps the complaints against Ludwigs2 (which Captain Occam anticipated happening in February) are an attempt by Mathsci to redirect the mediation in a direction that he had originally anticipated it would go. Why would Mathsci choose to first raise his objections on this page instead of on the mediation page? As far as any changes to the article itself since the mediation began, a note at the top of the article states, "This article is currently being discussed in mediation. Please check with the mediator or other mediation participants before making any significant revisions, as the outcome of that discussion may involve major restructuring of the article." --74.178.247.39 (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC) The comments above, the first edits by this anonymous IP, make hardly any sense. My editing history shows that I have only edited mainstream articles on wikipedia - my edits on this particular article having been restricted to sources and citations. I have created articles in several parts of the arts and sciences - in mathematics, French culture, the history of art, classical music and biography. I am not an WP:SPA. I think I have enough experience, possibly more than the commentators above, to say when attempts at mediation have collapsed. Occasionally my professional academic life prevents me from regularly contributing to wikipedia at certain times of the year. That seems quite normal. Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Proposal 2 Based on the the following observations. Undercurrent of hostility The initial mediators, Wordsmith and Xavexgoem, who I gather have some experience with mediation procedures, felt mediation was not worth pursuing. Xavexgoem specifically stated prior to leaving: "I'm having one helluva time figuring out where to go from here. The straw-poll established nothing, and I'm surprised to see the level of anger among some of you. I still have the suspicion that there's an undercurrent here that I'm not aware of. It's fairly obvious to think of what that would be. Anyone care to fill me in?"[179] I agree that the current atmosphere is not suitable for a productive mediation point. The incivility by User:TechnoFaye is also additional evidence of an environment not conducive to Mediation. This incivility has either been viewed as acceptable or may even have been tacitly supported. A few editors may have devoted most, if not all of their wiki-time to this dispute, and this may go 4 months back to before the mediation commenced. Though there is no policy against such, it is obviously not the most productive form of editing. Due to these observations, I propose the following. Suspend the mediation process Revert Race and intelligence to a stable pre-Mediation version. This is because when we signed on to the article, we agreed not to edit the article, and many of us have complied over the 4 months. Protect the article Race and intelligence for a month. There maybe editors who are itching to eidit war. Protection would allow a cooling down period, and would give editors and opportunity to reflect and asses what better ways exist to resolve this dispute. revisit the mediation in 1 month. These comments by Muntuwandi (talk · contribs) seem sensible. Mathsci (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I disagree with this proposal. I may have more to say about this later, but for now I’d like to point out that the article hasn’t existed in a stable state since late 2006 and early 2007. Lack of significant changes shouldn’t be mistaken for stability, because in this case the only reason for the lack of changes is because all of the editors who attempted to change anything became mired in endless discussions on the talk page about topics like the meaning of “race”, which made it impossible to obtain consensus for changing anything. Actual stability would involve the article being supported by consensus, rather than being uneditable because there’s never any consensus for either the article’s current state or any proposed changes. Resolving these questions is one of the purposes of mediation for this article. Most of them have been resolved by this point, which will hopefully result in the article soon becoming stable again for the first time in three years. If for some reason that ends up being impossible, I suppose reverting the article to the state it had before this became a problem would still be an improvement over the current version. However, reverting to any version more recent than that would not be any more stable than the article’s current state. Incidentally, is anyone going to respond to Varoon Arya’s point about accusations and side-discussions within a discussion being explicitly disallowed here? This thread was about possible incivility from TechnoFaye, and according to the policies for AN/I, everything we’ve been discussing that isn’t about that doesn’t belong here. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I wonder if this discussion doesn't show a certain amount of escalation that we should try to show is not necessary. If Mathsci has concerns with a mediation, then it seems these should be heard on the mediation page. Presumably then others can weigh in, and maybe solve the problem right there. If any editors wish to end a mediation, or even reject a particular mediator, isn't that their option to begin with? Requiring editors to come here, or requiring mediators to justify themselves here, don't either seem good for mediation generally. Mackan79 (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] As has been said already, Mackan79, the mediation process has been delegitimized by the fact that many editors who had initially signed up for mediation (Ramdrake, futurebird, T34CH, Wobble) had stopped participating, leaving mostly those representing a minoritarian point of view and similarly minded newcomers. Aside from any other problems, the acting mediator had apparently not taken that into account. There were other anomalies (all the opening statements were buried away in a hidden talk archive). In circumstances like that I can't see that at any reasonable discussion of the process could take place on the mediation page; which is why I brought it here for wider input from the community, The edits of TechnoFaye acted as a kind of warning flare. I thank Xavexgoem for closing the case. Mathsci (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Closing the case sounds fine to me, certainly. Mediation is supposed to be entirely voluntary, and if someone who has been involved has such strong concerns it is hard to imagine it going forward. However, I also find this discussion a bit troubling. Consider perhaps your initial suggestion, that maybe Ludwig was doing such a bad job that he should even be blocked. Does a mediator deserve that? Presumably we shouldn't have to block a mediator just to end a mediation. It should be simple, I hope you agree. My thought is that it should be in everyone's interests to make sure concerns are addressed without things going so far into mutual recriminations. Mackan79 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Closing the case I haven't read most of the thread, but I see a lot of politics. No mediation process is compatible with that, certainly not the mediation cabal. Currently, the case is so advanced that relisting it as new would be extremely taxing on the participants and the mediator (informal) that would pick it up. It's worth noting that this case went through four mediators: first Reubzz, who was run off[180]; then Wordsmith -- I can't speak for him -- then me, out of frustration. Then Ludwigs, who did get acceptance for taking over the mediation (that's why I left it open). I'm closing the case now. How editors choose to work with each other after that is entirely up to them. I'm not optimistic; show me something new. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Reubzz showed a lot of promise. That was extremely unfortunate.[reply] I am very concerned you would close this without reading it. We're really on the point of a solution, and this is a last ditch attempt by a dubious coterie of POV pushers, including Mathsci, to derail a neutral implementation. I believe, Xavegoem, that as someone who 'gave up' (in your own words), you are unsuitable to make this decision. mikemikev (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ahem, Xavexgoem is chairman of the Mediation Committee. I agree with him about Reubzz; it's a pity he couldn't have started on a less contentious mediation case. I have no idea why Mikemikev, an editor with very little experience in editing wikipedia outside this area, calls me a POV-pusher: that is a wildly inaccurate misrepresentation of both my editing record and the opening statement in mediation reproduced above. Mikemikev could get blocked if he continues making unsupportable personal attacks like that. Mathsci (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Note that Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has ignored the closure of mediation by Xavexgoem. He has left messages at several users' pages. [181], [182],[183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189]. He is acting as if mediation has not formally been closed. He describes Xavexgoem, the chairman of the mediation committee, as a "third party" [190] He is engaging in disruptive wikilawyering. Not for the first time. Mathsci (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] As Xavexgoem states, they "haven't read most of the thread", "the case is so advanced that relisting it as new would be extremely taxing on the participants and the mediator", and that several mediators have already quit. If mediator Rebuzz was run off, it was primarily because of complaints by Mathsci. Yet, Xavexgoem seems to be bowing to the complaints of a couple of squeaky wheels and attempting to close mediation without discussion on the mediation page, despite the fact that mediation was on the verge of leading to a rewrite of the article. Why scuttle mediation at a time when it was finally getting ready to bear fruit? --74.178.247.70 (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have reopened the case, yes. it's voluntary process, and there has been no discussion on the talk page about closure, and precious little deliberation about it here. what we have is one single mediation participant (Mathsci) who has not contributed anything to the mediation page in months, deciding to to play wiki-politics here instead of discussing the issues there. That is his prerogative, I suppose, but I don't see that it really matters. Xavexgoem, if you would like to discuss closing the case peremptorily, I've opened a thread on the Mediation Cabal talk page for that purpose. But as far as I a can see, if the mediation participants themselves do not want a closure and that matter has not been discussed on the mediation page at all, then there is no grounds for any action by non-participants. --Ludwigs2 11:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] MedCom has nothing to do with this; this is MedCab. I won't argue against consensus, so you can keep the case. Just don't needlessly drag it on. (I'd also like to say that Ludwigs has been doing a fine job, despite MathSci's and Guy's appraisals calling into question). Xavexgoem (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC) And I'm sorry. sigh.[reply] I reverted Ludwigs' reversion and left him a note. I think Xavexgoem is on the money, it's extremely unlikely that Ludwigs will be able to steer this to any kind of resolution at this point not least because at least some participants appear to be unwilling to accept him as mediator any more. It's not the first time a mediation attempt has failed, it's not a black mark or anything, but this one is probably in need of some new approach. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Aaaaand, predictably, he reverted again while I was typing this note. So, we have someone who is determined to try to keep a stalled mediation going forever in the face of opposition from some of the parties. Will that produce better content? Um, probably not. Guy(Help!) 17:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Allow me to repeat the same points, once again: There is no consensus here at ANI to close the mediation There is no consensus at the mediation page to close the mediation There is no discussion at the mediation page to close the mediation Every other participant in the mediation who has shown up here is arguing against closure There is only you and Mathsci suddenly appearing out of nowhere like avenging angels (though I have no idea what it is you are avenging) Now, if you want to open a discussion in the mediation about closing the mediation, please do so - if that is the consensus, then that will be fine. but please do not try to impose your will by edit-warring the case closed.--Ludwigs2 17:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] The mediation is stalled due to this disruptive ANI thread. --98.82.13.18 (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'd suggest that anyone who wants to close the mediation should register that opinion on the mediation page, where it could be discussed. Assuming it is a good faith request from someone interested in the article, I don't see how the mediation could go forward. It is a little peculiar if Mathsci wants to close it, but does not want to participate in editing the article, which isn't to say that is reasonable or unreasoanble. In that case perhaps someone who Mathsci has expressed faith in, such as Slrubenstein, could offer a meaningful thought on whether the mediation should be scrapped. I don't think it would take consensus to scrap the mediation, probably at most a single person who is interested in editing the article and rejects the mediation. Unfortunately it's hard to tell whether there is any meaningful communication taking place. Mackan79 (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't think a numerical count of votes on the mediation pages is helpful. 4 out of the original 10 who subscribed to mediation in November 2009 are no longer involved; none of them have been pushing the minoritarian point of view. I agree that Slrubenstein is one of the few editors whose views on mediation would be valuable (this is not the first time that mediation has occurred on the article). I have edited the article only to add sources and citations, but help more on the talk page with this (eg I pointed out the contributions of Richard Nesbitt and requested that the section on racial stereotypes be removed). Like cold fusion, Race and intelligence is not a properly encyclopedic article and probably never can be; however, scrupulous attention to the quality of sources can at least keep it under control. In other words the same core criteria for editing wikipedia articles should be used as on any mainstream article. Let's put it this way. The group of editors now left in mediation, with the exception of a small number including Slrubenstein and Aprock, all favour the minoritarian point of view. No meaningful consensus can be achieved in those circumstances. Since Ludwigs2 was a would-be participant in mediation and would-be editor of the article, he is more than aware that is what has happened. In those circumstances there is no legitimacy in continuing mediation. Ludwigs2 is a problematic editor, apparently now determined to keep his role as mediator, even after most of the editors who initially subscribed to mediation have abandoned it. One of my worries with most of the editors favouring the minoritarian point of view is that most of them have hardly any experience in editing normal mainstream articles. Some could be described as WP:SPAs, with an interest in articles such as Race and crime, eugenics and dysgenics. Possibly some want readers of wikipedia to be able to see some form of unqualified statement on wikipedia that some races are genetically more intelligent than others; this seems to be what for example TechnoFaye has been writing. That is the problem that has beleaguered the article since Slrubenstein or I started watching it four or more years ago (in his case longer). Ludwigs2's continued presence is simply facilitating the editing of these SPAs. This nod to fringe science was exactly the problem with Ludwigs2's edits to altmed articles and part of the reason he is currently involved in a feud with User:BullRangifer, formerly User:Fyslee. It would appear that Ludwigs2 has some kind of agenda on wikipedia and lacks the neutrality of Wordsmith or Xavexgeom. Certainly Ludwigs2's pushing for banned user User:Jagz to continue editing Race and intelligence on wikipedia a while back was hardly a good sign. There is no sign that he has changed. Nor was it a good idea for someone with an interest in editing the article, and therefore probably having an idea what content he wanted removed or added to the article and ideas on overall balance, to then suddenly switch to mediator. His dealings with Fyslee show that he is a problematic editor. On a contentious article, that and his poor mainspace edit count disqualify him as a mediator. If mediation is driving editors away from an article, that is the time to stop it. There was already an error in trying to have Reubzz (talk·contribs) as mediator, when he had no experience on wikipedia at all (barely 2 weeks). Now we have a fourth round of the mediation process which seems to be driving mainstream established editors away from the article. That is a serious problem. If Slrubenstein and Aprock are uneasy about being among the sole editors to represent the mainstream academic viewpoint in the article - which by the way is the core purpose of wikipedia - something has gone very badly wrong here. Ludwigs2 and others seem to want this unfortunate state of affairs to continue. Mathsci (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reubbz was and would have been fine. I will protect his name without exception. We all start somewhere, and if after 2 weeks he decides he wants to be a mediator -- a kind of peacemaker -- that is (was) a good thing. We learn quick. Picking up a big case is ambitious, and we would have all had his back. My first case was an Israeli/Palestinian case. My second case was a 9/11 conspiracy theory case. They didn't work out, but not because of my abilities. They didn't work out because the situations were plainly not suited to mediation. This may be one of the articles - and now that I'm hearing suspicions that supremacy is indeed one of the biases (another reason I left the case -- the ambiguity was too great, and my beliefs too strong), I really do think it would be hard to close this as successful. But Ludwigs2 has done a good job by the standards, far and above the standards folks are lowering him to. We're giving him and the case 2 more weeks. The success or failure of this case is not contingent upon him, since it's the parties to the disputes' job to actually put into place NPA, CIVIL, NPOV, etc. Not his or any other mediator. All he can do is suggest, after all. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] You had far more editing experience before starting as a mediator. As far as I can tell from your editing history, your first mediation case was on Mucoid plaque in January 2008, not a controversial article in the same way as Race and intelligence. Seeing that two experienced mediators were unable to deal with R&I (I'd stopped participating), in retrospect this was clearly not an article for a mediator to cut their teeth on. There had also been a previous unsuccessful attempt at mediation on it. I would personally wait to see what Slrubenstein thinks. I have never seen an editor of an article become a mediator before and certainly not one with an editing history like that of Ludwigs2. Unfortunately I don't quite follow why a mediation process that has been abandoned by a set of long term editors and now mostly involves those promoting a minoritarian point of view can have any validity, but we will see. Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] This helps me understand the issue, at least, although I'm still not totally clear on what makes Ludwig problematic. I don't know if he has a PhD in dispute resolution, or if Wikipedia's mediation system generally operates on a purely professional level. It seems to me that it operates (like one might expect from volunteers) on a join-in-if-you-think-you-can-help basis. If the mediation is pushing away other editors that's a concern. My thought would nevertheless be, if one believes in mediation generally, that the mediation team should get a first crack at the problem. A side benefit is that this would clarify what outsiders on a board like this might need to look at if things nevertheless don't work out. Incidentally, the "ten arguments" material you presented here obviously does look awful. I just looked, though, and it seems to have been an anon IP that briefly got it into the article.[191] The account that re-added it has been blocked. I don't know if this was mentioned above, but at least that doesn't seem to have resulted from any part of the mediation, one hopes. Mackan79 (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] If two experienced mediators have abandoned the process, along with a fair number of users initially signed up for mediation, and the remaining mediator is a former would-be editor to the article, there is a problem. I don't have very high hopes for what will happen to the article in the near future. That is probably why I stick to editing mainstream articles, even if they can be very hard work requiring a lot of thought and preparation before applying fingertips to keyboard (as at the moment). Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, the "ten arguments" section has been added several times since March 11. [192] [193], [194], [195]. The last editor (perhaps also from Belgium) was blocked on March 25 because of copyvio on the global bell curve. Mathsci (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Just a comment I would just like to note that I've been browsing the edit filter logs, as I often do, and noticed that someone tried to remove the "list of 10" from the article but was stopped from doing so by a bug in the edit filter. This particular filter would not have stopped most registered editors from deleting the text, but it did stop an IP. —Soap— 14:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Two week extension of mediation Xavexgoem's suggestion that the present mediation continue for a further two weeks seems like a fair compromise. After that I understand mediation will be ended and unmediated editing will recommence. Mathsci (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] actually, that was my suggestion, and you have misrepresented it a bit. the agreement is that I would suggest closure in two weeks if there was no significant improvement in the article (or the debate, by extension). there are, as I see it, three options: two weeks pass and the situation has not improved - that would be grounds for closure two weeks pass and the situation has mostly resolved itself - that would also suggest closure two weeks pass, decent progress has been made, but the mediation participants think that some further discussion would be helpful. in that case, they have the right to leave the mediation open if there is a consensus there to do so. just so that we are clear on the issue. --Ludwigs2 19:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Dispute resolution may be in order for Mathsci and Ludwigs2. Mathsci has criticized Ludwigs2 for something Mathsci has done.[196] --Cryptofish (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ah a diff from October 25 2008. After this edit, where and when do you think you might make your second edit to this encyclopedia? Mathsci (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I looked at the mediation talk pages to see what has gone on so far in mediation. On the basis of that I think it highly unlikely that any significant or reasonable modifications can be made to the article within the next two weeks, i.e. before April 14 2010. I could be wrong. After that I assume mediation will be closed by Xavexgoem. If even one editor (eg Slrubenstein, Aprock or Muntuwandi) disagrees with a proposed extension, I don't see how mediation could continue after that. One other thing I noticed, which surprised me, was the discussion during mediation of the article becoming "data-driven" (whatever that means). Usually when writing wikipedia articles, the principal sources are located, possibly making a selection of the best ones if there are too many, and then the article is written based on what is stated in those sources. I've never heard of wikipedians gathering or evaluating data when writing articles. Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Mathsci, as a start, you may want to revert yourself.[197] --Cryptofish (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I spoke too soon. You might like to look at this. You look a bit like a sockpuppet account don't you? Mathsci (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] This entire discussion seems to be primarily a collection of personal attacks from Mathsci against other users: me, Reubzz, Varoon Arya, (especially) Ludwigs2, and now this person who Mathsci is accusing of being a sockpuppet. This is happening in a thread that was posted about possible incivility from TechnoFaye, in which everything Mathsci has brought up over the past four days is clearly off-topic, and a violation of one of this board’s rules: “Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion”. If this were happening on any other talk page where I was participating, I would be posting at AN/I about Mathsci hijacking a discussion with repeated personal attacks, but in this case AN/I is where it’s happening already. For at least the third time, could an administrator please look at this and do something about it? --Captain Occam (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Captain Occam, please calm down. Then perhaps you can explain who this new user Cryptofish is, who appeared just over an hour ago and has made just two edits here, Special:Contributions/Cryptofish but seems nevertheless to have complete familiarity with diffs, page histories and this noticeboard. Mathsci (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] How should I know? I’ve never seen him before either. And I also don’t see why it should matter who he is, since either way it isn’t acceptable to publicly accuse another user of socking during a discussion about something unrelated. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm sorry but you're wrong there. Almost everything you've written in this section is an exaggerated misrepresentation. While I have been keeping discussions here, you have been trying to activate a wikifriend of mine User:Dbachmann against me on his talk page. User_talk:Dbachmann#Possible_abuse_of_AN.2FI Exactly as the newly arrived editor Cryptofish did above, you complained to Dieter that I had removed a message from my talk page. But surely you know that I can do that to any message on my talk page (except possibly a block message). I did some content editing today [198]. I don't think you've added any content in the last week. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] How is any of this relevant? The point of mentioning the message you removed from your talk page is just to show that you were aware of the mediation case for Race and intelligence, and had no interest in participating in it or discussing it with anyone other than in this thread at AN/I. I really don’t care whether you bash me for my lack of activity here, or accuse me of exaggerating and misrepresenting things. The important thing is that when you make personal attacks against five different users in a single thread at AN/I, none of which have any relevance to the actual topic ng of the thread (which is about TechnoFaye), you’re the person who ends up looking bad as a result. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] You're putting words into my mouth which I have never written. It's true that the current fourth stage of mediation does not seem successful at present. Even though I was on wikibreak while teaching in Cambridge, I did make this comment a day or two before a fourth mediator was chosen.[199] From your editing record, you appear to be a single purpose account. You are attacking me for no apparent reason, except that I have criticized the editing procedures of your favourite article in a public place. I also note that you have been blocked by MastCell for edit warring on the article during mediation. Good night, Mathsci (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improper DYK hook for Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories

This is a crosspost from Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Poor hook for Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories

There is a hook on the main page for Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories that reads:

... that although U.S. President Barack Obama is Christian, high-ranked al-Qaida member Ayman al-Zawahiri has falsely claimed that Obama secretly "pray[s] the prayers of the Jews"?

I don't believe that such a hook should have been approved. This hook violates the neutrality criteria required by DYK which states focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. I would also like to point out that the article Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories does not state that al-Qaida member Ayman al-Zawahiri claims are false. Am I the only one who is dissatisfied with such a hook?Smallman12q (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERRORS is the venue for this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we've got members of the extreme right claiming Obama is a secret Muslim, and we've got Muslims claiming he's a secret Jew. Priceless. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 08:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty freakin funny. I think I'll start a rumor that he's really a Hindu and plans to free all the cows... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all quite ridiculous, because the evidence is clear that he's been a secret druid for years. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to complete the circle and have Jews claiming he's a secret Christian. --Carnildo (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or worse yet, a secret Republican. :) ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 01:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know a few of those actually. They smoke weed and drink beer every night and all weekend long then go back to work and loudly complain to their co-workers about lazy liberals ruining the country. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin email phishing

Archiving per WP:DENY. NW (Talk) 17:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now resolved, Arbcom does not need further copies of the emails. Thanks all. Risker (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just received this email: “ Dear Islander, We tried to get in contact with you almost a year ago, detailing our desires to utilise your account to help rid Wikipedia of the corruption and bureaucracy at every level that continues to plague it to this very day. We are hoping that, almost a year on, your circumstances may have changed and you may be more willing to aid us in achieving our goal. At the end of the day we all want the same thing - an encyclopedia that is informative and accurate, but one that is also run in a fair manner so all can contribute on an equitable level. As a reminder, here is an extract from our original message: "We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!" Once more, thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters ” It's strange, a) because they actually think I'd give them my account, and b) 'cause I'm not actually dormant - much less active than I used to be, but not dormant. Anyway, this isn't so much a plea for help or anything, just an FYI - apologies if I should have posted elsewhere. TalkIslander 14:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Quite a concern if any admin ever took that seriously. Did the email come from an account? If so,, which one? SGGH ping! 14:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] There is a similar report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#admin phishing attempt. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] The email came from User:WFFighter and he is already blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] It should be investigated if WFFighter's account was created by Scibaby. Count Iblis (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Also blocked WikiFreedomFyta (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), and 4 others (check my log - I'm not exactly active) for the same reason. The user names aren't exactly subtle.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have a feeling it might either be a bot, or someone with too much time on their hands. I also got this exact message this morning. nat.utoronto 15:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, now this guy made User:Moresubtle. I guess that's more subtle... (X! · talk) · @742 · 16:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I also received the message from WikiFFighters (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). ~MDD4696 15:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I got the same e-mail as well, from WikiFFyta (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). VegaDark (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Blocked 6 more. Then I get a message, probably from WFF: [200] (X! · talk) · @734 · 16:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Add me to the list of people who received this. I immediately thought it looks like a phishing scam. I don't recall ever being contacted by these people before, and although I scaled down my involvement in Wikipedia by about 99% about 18 months ago (for various reasons), I still log in on occasion and so calling my account inactive is incorrect. I did a Google search and saw some bot got this same message, too. Another bit of fishiness is if this an actual movement, why would they wait "nearly a year" before following up? 23skidoo (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Me too. I blocked him immediately. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] And this is why I only use my email account for site identification purposes. HalfShadow 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Just received one of these emails too, from User:Moresubtle namely. --Angelo (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Goldfishhunting (talk · contribs) This is another one. -- Cirt (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Just got one from WikiFreedomFaccount. I don't issue blocks; could another admin please do so if the account isn't already blocked? Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I feel special. Searchingfortuna (talk · contribs) sent me one. I'm tempted to mention a random word, see if they create a username based on it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I got one from Goldfishhunting22222 (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Got one from (and subsequently zapped) UsernameinspiredbyBloodRedSandman (talk · contribs). Heh. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I whacked Goodthingsplanned (talk · contribs). DMacks (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK, so now he's just enjoying the attention, or he's truly jobless... ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 17:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Just got one from Nevergonnastopever. What confuses me is, don't you have to be a verified user to send emails? These accounts were made minutes before the emails were sent. --Golbez (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] nope, any account can--Jac16888Talk 17:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Doesn't have to be autoconfirmed as long as you have your email address verified. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 17:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I got one from WikiFreedomFighteraccount (talk · contribs). This concerns me a great deal. – Quadell (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] We might need a CU or a range block. SGGH ping! 17:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I got one from Nothingtodowithwff (talk · contribs). Could we have a checkuser identify and block the underlying IP range, please? Horologium (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes please, I've also had one from Goodthingsplanned. Maybe everyone is getting one. That would make sense. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I just got one from the same account. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] So everyone knows, the Arbitration Committee is aware of this - we've been forwarded three emails so far - and I've looked into this with checkuser. Unfortunately, these accounts are coming from a range too large to block, and in many cases too busy for checkuser to be effective in finding any unblocked accounts - although the timeline of events shown in this thread leads me to believe that there aren't any sleepers to look for, anyway (cf the BloodRedSandMan account). Sorry, all. Please don't give out your passwords - I would assume those of you blocking these accounts won't, but at the rate these emails are going out, they're bound to find someone willing to do so. Please don't add to that number. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've had one now, I don't wish to continue giving ammunition however the account (which I have indef'd) was called "100moretogo" which suggests they have some and are counting (though I doubt it). Sad. SGGH ping! 18:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] This isn't the first time that someone has tried this stunt. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Very strange phishing email Just received the following email: “ Dear active administrator, As an advanced user here at wikipedia, I am sure you are familiar with the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking out for their own interests. Heck, maybe you are one of them! Hopefully though you are not, and would be willing to help us restore fairness and integrity to the project... We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts and perhaps you could consider sharing yours with us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest! Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters -- This e-mail was sent by user "Genuinelyawikiquizzling" on the English Wikipedia to user "Masem". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents. ” Searching gives nothing for "Genuinelyawikiquizzling" or "The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters". Very very curious. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Same e-mail here, reporting the email address to google as a phishing email. --Michael Greiner 18:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I just received the same message from "Nevergonnastopever." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Email requesting my Wikipedia password I just received an email that said what you see below. It requests my password that I use for logging in to my Wikipedia user account. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Dear active administrator, As an advanced user here at wikipedia, I am sure you are familiar with the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking out for their own interests. Heck, maybe you are one of them! Hopefully though you are not, and would be willing to help us restore fairness and integrity to the project... We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts and perhaps you could consider sharing yours with us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest! Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters -- This e-mail was sent by user "Genuinelyawikiquizzling" on the English Wikipedia to user "Michael Hardy". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents. I got this too, from User:Saynotoarbcomclique. I indeffed the account; a CU is probably in order to catch other socks. Ucucha 18:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Got the same thing myself just now, except this one came from User:Adnimsarestupid. Hopefully no-one is stupid enough to actually do this... Tabercil (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#admin_phishing_attempt Equazcion (talk) 18:37, 28 Mar 2010 (UTC) I got one from User:Nevergonnastopever. Yes, a CU might help. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] This thread was archived prematurely, as I just got an email from User:Epicwin4me. It was already blocked, but a CU would be advisable to avoid even more wasted time. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I got one too! I'm special! Tony Fox (arf!) 18:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] ArbCom is aware of this (having been alerted by over half a dozen admins so far), and are looking into any possible action that checkusers could take. NW(Talk) 18:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Given phishing like this is generally illegal, might it help to have these emails forwarded to the offending user's ISP? Resolute 18:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Please forward these emails to ArbCom for tracking purposes. Hersfold(t/a/c) 18:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm monitoring the User creation log for any suspicious looking usernames, and I'll forward any that I see to somebody on IRC. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not much point; emailed every single admin with emailuser enabled now :D 86.181.40.68 (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hersfold, which address should we use? I don't think you want us all to send them to the mailing list; it'll get clogged up very quickly... Horologium (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Is it any wonder that between AN and AN/I we have five threads on this topic since they getting collapsed with a pointer toward WP:DENY? Perhaps rather than prematurely archiving all of the threads, we could have one, well named thread open where admins who have been contacted can look for and receive information for what they need to do. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Just send the emails to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org and let them deal with it. A lot of admins got it, and it seems it went by A-Z order (I was one of the last to get an email). User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 19:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Also received one, I will forward. Useight (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks to those who have forwarded their emails - at this point we've gotten the info we need, so we probably don't need any more. Thanks much! Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, just sent mine then came here. User (UsernameinspiredbyBloodRedSandman) already indefed I was happy to see. Why do they bother? This is so hamfisted and useless—as if any admin or experienced user would actually give their login details.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Email I just received this email. Not sure what if anything to do with other than ignore it.RJFJR (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Dear active administrator,[reply] As an advanced user here at wikipedia, I am sure you are familiar with the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking out for their own interests. Heck, maybe you are one of them! Hopefully though you are not, and would be willing to help us restore fairness and integrity to the project... We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts and perhaps you could consider sharing yours with us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest! Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters -- This e-mail was sent by user "Bringerofmuchlulzeth" on the English Wikipedia to user "RJFJR". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents. The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, or any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>. See the "Email requesting my Wikipedia password" or "Very strange phishing email" or "Wikipedia Freedom Fighters" threads above. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I just saw it. I was removing my post when I got an edit conflict with your reply. (Sorry, should have checked first rather than post first.) RJFJR (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] A quick google search shows that a run like this happened last may. Wikipedia Review thread --Michael Greiner 21:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Request for my inactive account. Just saw this in my mailbox. Dear KnowledgeOfSelf, We tried to get in contact with you almost a year ago, detailing our desires to utilise your account to help rid Wikipedia of the corruption and bureaucracy at every level that continues to plague it to this very day. We are hoping that, almost a year on, your circumstances may have changed and you may be more willing to aid us in achieving our goal. At the end of the day we all want the same thing - an encyclopedia that is informative and accurate, but one that is also run in a fair manner so all can contribute on an equitable level. As a reminder, here is an extract from our original message: "We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!" Once more, thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters Just thought I'd give ya a heads up KnowledgeOfSelf talk 23:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Aye, we've all had one ... look up ^^^^ Black Kite 23:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] See WP:ANI#Admin email phishing. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 01:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What to do if you receive one of these emails

• Please don't forward the e-mails to the arbitration committee mailing list. We already have enough samples and any more will not be helpful. If someone could track down all the discussions about this and redirect towards a single location, telling people what to do and retracting the previous messages to forward the e-mails to arb-l, that would be appreciated. I hear that there was also a message on IRC asking for the e-mails to be forwarded to the arbitration committee - if that could be retracted as well (or however that is done over there) that would be good as well. Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• So what should we do? Just ignore it? I'm half-tempted to send this luser a fake password for my Wikipedia account, then disable my email link & take a month-long WikiBreak. (That would give him something to do with all of that spare time.) -- llywrch (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just ignor it, and indeff the sender if not already done. Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't forget to disable email =) –xeno^talk 13:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Giggle and ignore. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Giggle, ensure that the sender is blocked, then ignore. Future commenters: please consider not commenting to this thread, as the goal is likely drama—don't feed the trolls. {{Nihiltres talk edits ⚡}} 20:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe commenting here is drama, maybe it's simply the fact some of us don't visit the Noticeboards on a regular basis, & feel compelled to say something along the lines of "WTF???" (And for any Admin who is compelled to say something else, like "Screw the ArbCom, I wanna discuss this!" go to this thread.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If whoever is doing this really wants recognition, [201] has some law enforcement links. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning User:Arthur Rubin's actions on Kent Hovind

Yep, it's me again, questioning my own actions. I reverted 96.42.14.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) a number of times on Kent Hovind, and finally blocked him. However, as not all the edits were vandalism, and I've previously been active in the article, I thought I'd put my own actions up for review. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a good block to me - the editor was appropriately warned and pretty much all their edits were vandalism. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. Taken together, I would consider all the edits vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silly vandalism on a WP:BLP. Sound block. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Younus AlGohar & MFI disputed articles

Can some administrators look on above mentioned articles, as the editors of these articles are very biased and using WP for advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.16.225 (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. All wp:SPS references have been used.
2. They using WP to preach their dogmas.
3. Above mentioned articles urgently needs a clean up.

As I have mentioned earlier that Omi & Nasir are biased & using WP for advertisement, nasir is constantly violating wp. This is the evidence, another evidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.16.225 (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See next entry: probable sock of banned sockmaster Iamsaa (talk·contribs) Esowteric+Talk 11:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong as I am not sock of banned sockmaster Iamsaa (talk · contribs).

• Younus AlGohar (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) was riddled with statements that he has performed miracles <ref>youtube video</ref> and the like, I have trimmed out some of the more obvious puffery but this clearly needs more attention and potentially redirecting to another article if the subject is as minor as he appears to me. Guy(Help!) 13:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your help, Guy. It's true that these articles suffer from a lot of puffery and substandard sourcing. — Scientizzle 13:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock of Iamsaa at it again?

Looks like an ipsock of sockmaster Iamsaa (talk · contribs)

• 116.71.15.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

and in the above AN/I entry:

• 116.71.16.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

bopping all over the place

• 116.71.2.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Reverting previously deleted malicious talk page content; etc. edit diff Esowteric+Talk 11:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sock or not, the edits are disruptive, uncivil and attack identifiable living individuals. Blocked 2 weeks. The talk page can be sprotected if necessary. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Guy and Scientizzle. The sad thing is that he does have a point, but has not been going about it the right way. "I'm watching you ..." here on my talk page doesn't help one jot. Esowteric+Talk 13:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, he has a point but that's not the way to pursue it. I have done some pruning but I really need people with much deeper subject knowledge on new religious movements and ideally understanding of the languages so that sources can be evaluated; this looks like a walled garden to me:

• Kalki Avatar Foundation (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)
• Mehdi Foundation International (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)
• Interfaith Institute of Divine Love (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)
• Younus AlGohar (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)
• Ra Gohar Shahi (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)

I don't see a lot of mainstream sources in these articles, it looks like one of those tiny cults that spring up around individual gurus, and much of the text in the articles is in-universe descriptions of wonderful works, miracles and such, cited back to YouTube or a small group of websites dedicated to promoting the movement. I get an itchy delete finger looking at this stuff so more eyes would be greatly appreciated. Guy(Help!) 16:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Have left a note at the New Religious Movements workgroup talk page here. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 18:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been accused of being related to AlGohar (maybe because of my surname) and promoting the interests of the MFI or Shahi, however, I deny it all. I've only been interested in these few subjects, hence decided to help out regarding the articles. What I've come across, whilst researching Shahi, the MFI and AlGohar is that the mentioned are not at all a petty cult, and have sprung about the world, quite a bit more than just often. E.g. Newspapers around two years ago mentioned the then President of the U.S. being in talks with the then Chief Minister of Pakistan, regarding Shahi and the MFI, however, the MFI always seems to lack coverage from the Media, hence (Help! seems to think that this is just another cult. I've witnessed some of the activities that this organization has come about with a bit closely, and my personal observation wouldn't say that they are a cult, rather promote the interests of Shahi and purport him to be the syncretic fulfillment of the mainstream religions of this era.

Try looking into their websites for a possible broader view. ---- Nasir ناصر یونس have a chat 19:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you all for comments on above. Could anybody direct me how do I pursue this matter. You can get information on MFI by clicking here. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.21.214 (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly educates the reader about the POV of "the opposition", but as Omirocksthisworld (talk · contribs) noticed, the references look impressive at first glance ... until you actually click on them. Esowteric+Talk 09:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew that Omi would refuse this article and lame reasons were presented from Omi as per my calculations, but this is up to the Wikipedia:Verifiability and you can't ignor it, as it contains true information, a lot of research work and even the author took interview of younus on telephone.--116.71.7.194 (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should take the article to the Reliable sources noticeboard and ask uninvolved parties there. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Esowteric+Talk 09:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Gloom Book War

I created the Books section on the Ruby Gloom article but it seems 142.177.43.159 she just don't like the books section because she keeps removing them. And its really starting to annoy the living crap out of me. When she had the account User:Queen kitten She removed the same freaking section and it was the BOOK section AGAIN.

If I was to remove something from the Care Bears or Rescue Heroes articles She would go off her head. And act like she did nothing wrong like SHE IS THE VICTIM....

I am really really getting tired of finding out that she keeps removing the books. Black Rose (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try talking to them about this. If all else fails, goe to WP:Dispute Resolution. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huckamike and non-free images

User:Huckamike joined the project on 11 February 2010. Since that time, non-free images have been removed from his userpage seven times, by two editors and a bot.

• 21 February 2010 [202] by DASHBot.
• 27 February 2010 [203] by DASHBot.
• 1 March 2010 [204] by DASHBot.
• 2 March 2010 [205] by Rockfang.
• 3 March 2010 [206] by DASHBot.
• 3 March 2010 [207] by Hammersoft.
• 4 March 2010 [208] by Hammersoft.

Huckamike was informed that the use of such images violates policy by DASHBot, by Rockfang, by myself and by me again. In this last post to his talk page, he was warned that violating WP:NFCC #9 again would result in me recommending he be indefinitely blocked until he agrees to stop violating our policies. He chose to ignore this warning, and placed File:Krispy Kreme logo.svg on to his userpage [209]. I have subsequently removed the image.

I am asking an administrator to please block Huckamike and prevent his editing of his userpage until such time as he agrees to abide by our non-free content policy. Huckamike has been informed of this thread. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected his user page to his user talk and protected the redirect, as a less brutal solution than blocking. I also left instructions for him on how to get the protection reversed. CIreland (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Tisqupnaia2010

Tisqupnaia2010 have called me a fascist, racist and a terrorist a several of time now. At first I ignored it, but it's starting to get annoying someone calling me these things in everything he writes to me. He have already been warned that he should not use these word, but keeps doing that. Shmayo (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this edit is hugely inappropriate and the user should be spoken to, but other than that I can't find any diffs, please provide some for us? SGGH^ping! 19:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also given a warning regarding their attack in that AfD. Regardless of content dispute, Wikipedia is not a venue to chuck around accusations of fascism. SGGH^ping! 20:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the edit summaries seem pretty harsh, but I did find these posts: [210], [211] and [212]. I wonder if there is something going on here to trigger such hostility though. Didn't look deep enough to check on that, just some quick digging for the terms the OP mentioned. Ravensfire (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did a quick read through one of the threads the diffs cover [213], and I'm not seeing too much from Shmayo beyond fairly polite disagreement. No idea about other discussions, but just not seeing anything there that Shmayo did wrong. Ravensfire (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've sort of been playing referee at Talk:Tel Skuf, but mediating a conflict with religious/ethnic overtones is not really my thing. There have been some rather nasty remarks there that more or less amount to telling users who aren't from there to go away. The underlying content dispute seems to be about what sect or ethnicity the residents of this village are considered, and I frankly have no idea who is right, which is why I have repeatedly urged them to seek some formal WP:DR, but so far that hasn't happened. I'm bowing out of this one, ethnic feuds make my head hurt. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been stumbling around at Talk:Tel Skuf and Talk:Chaldean Christians, but the main issue is at Assyrian people and how that spills over. Fundamentally, User:Tisqupnaia2010 and another user (whose username is a Syriac squiggle) are offended by the very article that subsumes their claimed ethnicity (Chaldean) under the umbrella name of "Assyrian". It's nothing specific that User:Shmayo has said other than, basically, "you're just Assyrians, everyone agrees on that". While calling someone an "Assyrian" doesn't mean anything to most of us, the Chaldeans apparently take great offense at that. That doesn't excuse Tisqupnaia's calling Shmayo a "fascist", but it explains where the vitriol is originating and why you can't find an easily identifiable trigger for the hostility. (Taivo (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Shamyo's basic problem is that he has mistaken the title of Wikipedia's article on the Assyrian, Syriac, and Chaldean groups ("Assyrian people") for actual fact and is applying it beyond just the title of the Wikipedia article. He is using the weak consensus that was built for changing the title of that article, which did not apply to any content or any other articles, to try to force through "Assyrian" as the universal name for the Chaldeans. He will have further problems with other Chaldeans (and he will have little support from non-Chaldean editors) if he persists. (Taivo (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, that seems to sum up the genesis of the hostility toward Shamyo. It doesn't, however, provide reason for the personal attacks. It seems that what needs addressing is Shamyo's improper labelling of editors ethnicity by means of a carefully worded note to their talkpage (which can then be raised to the level of a warning if continued, because deliberately doing so can only be to irritate the other party), and a straight forward level3 warning to Tisqupnaia2010 to desist from personal attacks. I am a little time constrained so cannot do it now, but will do so later if no-one else has. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got an apology to me (?!) on my talk, and advised Tq2010 to apologise to Shamyo. I then noted that he has apologies to other users which suggests he has behaved like this to more than one person. SGGH^ping! 13:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of days ago there was a very heated exchange between Tq and Shmayo at Talk:Tel Skuf or Talk:Chaldean Christians that I deleted. My edit summary told them to both shut up with the ethnic slurs. Tq's apology to me was because of that exchange (even though I was not part of the exchange). While Tq's "facsist" comments directed at Shmayo are inappropriate and the warning is justified, I haven't seen him go beyond his comments to Shmayo at this time. I can't vouch for his past. However, the Assyrian Fascism article that he created also needs to be deleted. (Taivo (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

ducky socks

Are these obvious enough for anyone or do we need an SPI?

• 70.83.96.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Babkockdood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Matgam1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For quite some time there has been a user or a couple users who have been trying to turn PlayStation Portable homebrew into a fanboy site rather than an encyclopedic article with excessive detail on firmwares and no sources. Matgam1 first added it then apparently got logged out and edited from the IP. After being reverted, the ip tried to insert it again. Couple days later the ip is back and after a few edits a couple minutes later the changes are being made from babkockdood. I'm torn between calling them ducky and filing an SPI just to make sure there aren't any other related accounts waiting to repeat the edits.--Crossmr (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the recent edits are enough to warrant page protection, regardless of the status of those accounts. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually been quite awhile since anyone has tried to push that info back onto the page, about a year and a half. Not sure what's prompted the latest go at it. But if you think it warrants protection go ahead, probably if the socks are blocked it would have the same effect.--Crossmr (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI just in case anyone thinks its necessary.--Crossmr (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• note, I brought this back. The clerk has declined it and gives some blocking instructions. if an admin could do that, that would be great.--Crossmr (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two gone, IP gone for one month with acc blocked. SGGH^ping! 11:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Crossmr (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church

POV and accuracy tags installed by me and detailed on the talk page [214] [215] were removed by an admin, UBER ^(talk) without resollving the dispute. He is edit warring with me as well. He has recently exhibited an ownership mentality of the page and his removal of these tags is further evidence of the problem. NancyHeise ^talk 16:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am not an administrator, and I cannot understand such a blatantly false assertion. The above user wants to include a POV tag in the article while the article is actively undergoing improvements and while there is an outstanding RFC on its content and structure. I reverted her twice but now I'm done. As I explained in the talk page, I don't want to get bogged down in an edit war.UBER ^(talk) 16:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy: A review of the dispute indicates that you are attempting to bend the article into a sympathetic PR piece for the Catholic Church. This does not mean that the current version of the article is perfect either, but the direction in which you are attempting to move the content, and the manner in which you are doing it, is easily construed as disruptive. Use your most recent posts on the article's talk page to flesh out the ideas that you feel are represented poorly, using reliable sources, and then begin enhancing the article. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed the items on the talk page as an alert to the article's editors of the problems that exist in the article. I resent the statement "attempting to bend the article into a sympathetic PR piece" as a violation of WP:assume good faith. I have repeatedly asked the article's editors to go see other encyclopedias articles on the Church to be able to understand my complaints about the current article's problems. The items I am asking for are already part of other encyclopedias such as World Book Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Americana as well as univeristy textbooks on the Church and scholarly sources. The present article's omissions make it a POV problem as well as the items it chooses to emphasize. NancyHeise ^talk 16:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and you have posted the same items at the RfC. So either let the issue play out in the various forums in which it is currently under debate, or return to the article and focus on building the content one issue at a time. For example, spend a week focused on just the contribution to global education by the Church. I'm a Catholic, and I can tell you that my POV is that the Church is currently lucky this article isn't solely about pedophilia at this point. I commend you for trying to expand content on the "good" still done by the Church, but bear in mind that the "evil" done by the hierarchy outweighs the good in the mind of many, Catholic or otherwise. A truly balanced and complete article on the Catholic church is going to have detailed examinations of the Church's charities, educational institutions, care for the poor and sick, hospitals, etc... but it will also have things like the Inquisition, Pogroms, warrior Popes, hereditary Popes, fascism/autocratic partnerships (see Italy, Spain, or just about any Latin American country), pedophilia, and a current Pope who in addition to fighting in the Nazi army, also appears to have been a career-long cover up artist for child abuse. The fact is, you're dealing with a complex 2000 year old institution that has been more focused on power than faith for the majority of its history. That, to me, sounds like the makings of a highly complex and interesting article, which necessarily requires a diversity of views, your's included, to be meaningful. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe this appalling list of misapprehensions and urban legends about the Church! Sounds a bit like Dan Brown's "history". The pope "fighting in the Nazi army!" A "lifelong cover-up artist for child abuse"! Catholic pogroms! "hereditary popes" ? Where do you get this stuff! This is why we need a balanced position on the article with people here who do not drink in every negative claim - however wild - made against the Church and want to publish it as true. Rigour in an article needs all sides present, and presenting information on the basis of reliable sources and consensus. Xandar 20:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. He was only in the Hitler Youth, and he only spent a few years burying evidence of paedophile abuse by priests, hard to see why anyone would criticise him for that. Oh, wait. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xander clearly knows what he's talking about: List_of_sexually_active_popes#Sexually_active_during_their_pontificate... :-) Plus, there is this, and this. Never mind this little ditty. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we have illustrations of all the issues you bring up in our long version of the article here User:NancyHeise/Catholic Church. These were cut by the present article's creators. In the long article, we provide Reader with all points of view about the issues as opposed to eliminating all mention of them entirely as the current article does do. Although I have been accused of lacking good faith for trying to include article text that meets WP:NPOV by including both viewpoints on controversial issues, I have never been accused of trying to cover up "evil" done by the Church. In fact, one of the most important issues of the 20th century that the current article omits is John Paul II's numerous apologies for past Church sins and the Church's efforts at improved relations with people of other faiths and Christian denominations. These exist in the long version (see Industrial Age section under WWII paragraph[216].) The medium version of the article listed at the RFC is the long version minus all the quotes from scholars supporting article text and some pictures.[217] I improved the sexual abuse section of that article as well. As for your assertion that the institution has been more focused on power than faith, I have tried to include mention of the summary provided by Francis Oakley that the Church's contribution to society, in spite of its corruptions of the past, were to expose the people of Western Civilization to the Gospel and that this alone was the key ingredient that transformed Western society. Francis Oakley's book is a university press and the quote is on googlebooks here [218]. I think the same situation exists today, the present scandal exists not because people were following the Gospel but because they weren't. NancyHeise ^talk 17:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)May I note that you, NancyHeise, frequently removed the exact same tags from other versions of the article? I have no problem with the article being tagged, however, I think it is disingenious to do so when there is an ongoing RfC on which version of the article to use as a base of improvements. Those tags could serve to tilt opinions toward your proposed solution and away from this version. I request that one of two things happen: a) the tags remain on the article but others may tag your proposed versions as well or b) no tags on the article or its suggested replacements until after the RfC closes. Karanacs (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that I was removing tags until the dispute had been resolved in favor of the consensus which is different from the present sitation where no attempt was made to address the issues before removing the tags. NancyHeise ^talk 17:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please address the concerns that this may be skewing the RfC? Would either of my proposal be acceptable? Karanacs (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of tags - is to alert the 5000 Readers that come to the article every day to find out information on the Church. Since the article has so many POV and factual accuracy issues, we have an obligation to alert those Readers about them until the article is fixed - an effort that everyone admits is in progress but not finished. These admissions are even part of the RFC so I don't see how they can skew it. NancyHeise ^talk 17:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per Template:POVThe purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. . If notifying readers is your sole purpose in adding the tag, then I respectfully request that you remove it as being a violation of the intended usage. Having the tag on only one of the three proposed versions in the RfC definitely has the effect of making one seem even more sub-standard than the others. As there are already admissions at the RfC that all three versions are flawed, may we then add tags to the other two proposed versions? Karanacs (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other two versions do not exist on the main article page. They are sandbox versions at present. If the RFC results in those versions being chosen, you are more than welcome to add tags and present a list of their problems on the article page. NancyHeise ^talk 17:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NancyHeise, your battle ground and ownership on the article needs to stop, and if you can't stop, it should be stopped for you. After years of complaints that the former, overly long and poorly sourced version was POV, a shorter version was put in place, and at your insistence, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church was launched-- this time, insisting that you not canvass. This effort to install POV tags-- which you wouldn't accept on your versions-- looks like yet another attempt to derail dispute resolution. I agree with Karanacs that if you want to install POV tags on the current version of the article, they also need to be installed on the older versions contemplated in the RFC, which were resoundingly rejected at mutliple FACs as POV and poorly sourced. By doing this now, in the midst of good-faith RFC, you have prejudiced yet another RFC: this behavior needs to stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, the present RFC explicitly states that there are deep flaws with all three versions. The tags do nothing but alert Readers and editors to the POV and factual accuracy issues listed on the talk page. How do we get help if we don't tag? In addition, A POV DISPUTE EXISTS - fact - thus the article needs a tag. The tagged article is the one that exsists on the main article page. I think that not having the tag makes that version appear to be more legitimate than the other two - one of which was inappropriately eliminated from the page via a straw poll that was deemed inconclusive. I started to the RFC to amend that problem. NancyHeise ^talk 17:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet again -- exactly as you did with canvassing in the straw poll-- prejudiced and undermined a good faith attempt at dispute resolution in an RFC that you called for and launched. Most clearly, tagging one version in the RFC as POV-- when the other two are resoundingly and long-condemned as POV, while the newer, shorter version is less so-- and then forum shopping to ANI during an RFC, prejudices the outcome. That you don't apparently see this is the highest hubris I have seen yet on this article, and that says a lot. The RFC that you launched is not going in your favor, so you tagged the article POV in the midst of an RFC you called for, for comparing several versions, when the other were long condemned at FAC as POV? This is utterly astounding ... it appears that you are unwilling and unable to let consensus and dispute resolution work on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line, for unvinvolved administrators: There are three versions of the Catholic Church article up for review at an RfC filed by NancyHeise. One of the versions is the current version of the article, the other two are proposals created by NancyHeise. All three versions face assertions that they do not meet NPOV and may not accurately represent their sources. Nancy just added tags to the current version of the article, and does not want them on her two sandbox versions. This appears, to me, to be an attempt to skew the RfC, yet none of us are willing to participate in an edit-war. What is the appropriate procedure? Karanacs (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox versions are not the current versions. They not be a NPOV, but they are in her userspace and technically she can have what she likes there. The current version is the one that every person sees, so perhaps it makes sense for that one to be tagged, rather than other versions. If any of the other versions were the current article, they should be tagged as appropriate too. Aiken ♫ 18:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment While I don't agree with tagging only one version of the article, I just want to point out that the RFC points at a specific version of the article as the "short version", and that version doesn't have tags on it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really administrative action called for here? I've seen this dispute going on for weeks and it seems to be like mud wrestling without the dignity. Can't it be kept to the handful of admins who have intervened and choose to get their hands dirty, without clogging up AN/I with what will be an endless stream of text?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As SandyGeorgia noted, this looks like forum-shopping by NancyHeise. There is nothing that needs to be done here, not yet at least while the RFC is ongoing. Better let admins like Karanacs & SandyGeorgia who already intervened get on with it. Aiken ♫ 18:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. If UBER and Karanacs are supporting removing valid POV tags via edit-warring, that needs to be stopped. Articles have been to RFC with POV tags on them. The POV tags actually help notifying readers and editors that there is a dispute going on concerning the drastic non-consensus changes wrongly made to the page. I'm not sure how notifying editors to the dispute can possibly be "skewing the RFC", when the whole purpose of an RFC is to attract new editors to comment. I do feel that some seem to be trying to conceal the RFC by giving it minimal publicity and trying to stop others publicising it. As far as the dispute goes, it was set off by UBER's open breach of WP procedure through drastic non-consensus changes made to the article, which weren't stopped at the time. Since then I have proposed numerous compromise suggestions, which have not been taken up by UBERs party - who have remained totally intransigent. Xandar 20:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Uber's party" being roughly equivalent to "every other editor who's looked at the article recently", yes? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. UBER's party being the group that has driven off most of the other editors on the article with their constant personal attacks on other editors, failure to Assume Good Faith and refusing to edit collegially otr attempt to come to compromise. (Diffs can be provided if necessary.) Xandar 20:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only page that matters, for anyone who's interested, is this one—you know, the one about that RFC you all wanted. 17 people have endorsed Vulcan's and Hesperian's comments about working from the current version. How many people have endorsed your comments? A grand total of two. You and Nancy.UBER ^(talk) 20:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Largely because neutral editors and others opposed to you have not yet been properly notified of the RFC's existence, while your team were there on the page at once. And your counting is faulty again anyway. Xandar 20:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about NPOV concerns should continue on the article talk page. Further discussion here seems irrelevant to me. Sunray (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help would be appreciated

Wehwalt mentioned the handful of admins getting their hands dirty, but in fact it's currently only me. Sarek was working on it, but he took part in the RfC and so can't admin the dispute now, which leaves Sunray and me to work out how to proceed. Sunray's not an admin so if the tools have to be used, it's going to be down to me, and I'm not particularly comfortable with that, given the arms and legs the thing has. Therefore if any other experienced editor, and particularly any other admin, would be willing to help oversee the dispute, that would be most helpful. Sunray and I had been discussing it by e-mail, but I set up a talk page today for us to do that publicly. Anyone willing to help would be most welcome there. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated your comment on my talk page. However, for various reasons, I think it better that I not get involved as an admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're getting to the stage where we've run out of people willing to deal with this, maybe the next stage would be appropriate? :) Aiken ♫ 19:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's inevitable that it will end up there, but my hope was that we could at least get through the RfC without further problems. SlimVirgin^{talk contribs} 20:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope that it is not inevitable that this will go to ArbCom. If it is a content-related dispute, mediation would be more appropriate, IMO. Sunray (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was the non-checking of UBEr when he started ignoring all rules. I don't want a lengthy arbcom, which would have to cover everyything that happened since March 9th, but the refusal to compromise by UBER and clan is what has led to these disputes. There are still compromise offers on the table. Xandar 20:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Article should be removed from good article status, the review was recently and it has basically failed, article is disputed and in edit wars and unstable. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's the responsibility of the reviewer (SilkTork), but any person can probably update the page. Aiken ♫ 21:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped SilkTork a note - I think our GA re-review has basically been overtaken by other events, but he's the lead reviewer so I think he should be the one to make any decision. EyeSerene^talk 08:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck some of the above - my apologies, I'd got the dates we'd look at the article mixed up. EyeSerene^talk 09:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EyeSerene, my pointing this out was to try to get editors to realise that instead of this minor point of view issue where someone thinks that some small point in the article is not in his opinion correct, this Good article status is what they all should be working on and now there is to be a lengthy arbcom case taking up even more of quality editors time while the article loses its good status? Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]