위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive680

조치 가능하고 방해가 되는 공공 기물 파손 행위, 빠른 시일 내에 대응하십시오.

산크리스토발76번길 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 페이지 이동 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)

사용자 산크리스토발76은 페티시즘적인 복장을 한 자신의 이미지를 여러 기사에 올리고 있다.

• 여기
• 여기
• 여기
• 여기
• 여기

이것들은 모두 지난 30분 정도부터입니다.그는 11월 30일부터 이러한 자신의 모습을 삽입하려는 그의 반복적인 시도에서 증명된 것처럼 이것을 한 이력이 있다.그를 금지하다.에어로빅폭스 (대화) 03:17, 2011년 3월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

공공장소에서 자주 볼 수 있는 바보 이름과 얼굴들에 대한 옛말의 새로운 포스터 보이로 자신을 만드는 것 외에도, 나는 "원래 연구"가 규칙에 어긋난다고 생각했다.←베이스볼 버그스카르당^{What's up, Doc?}→04:03, 2011년 3월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

낮은 화질로 포토obombing과 셀프 프로모션도 그렇다.에어로빅폭스 (토크) 04:12, 2011년 3월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

같은 표현이야, 레더호센에서든...난 레더호센에서 마족 멱살잡이를 하는 게 더 행복했을 거야Doc talk 04:23, 2011년 3월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

범주:좀비433의 위키백과 삭푸펫 의심

좀비로433번길 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 페이지 이동 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)

범주:좀비433의 위키백과 삭푸펫 의심

이 사람은 WP에 있는 우리들에게 오랫동안 성가신 존재였다.그리고 며칠마다 새로운 IP를 가지고 계속해서 다시 나타나는데, 그 범주에 있는 것들은 우리가 겨우 잡은 것들일 뿐이고, 얼마나 더 많은 사람들이 있는지 신이 알고 있다. 우리가 레인지 블록 같은 것을 얻을 수 있는 기회가 있을까?자이언트 스노우맨 14:07, 2011년 3월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

• 내가 그걸 어떻게 바라겠어, 친구들.그는 "일"을 계속하며 스노우맨의 말대로 겉으로 보기에 아주 근사해 보이는 애논 IP를 가지고 있다.더 나쁜 것은 다음과 같은 경우, 사용자:Parararubbas, Mobby는 오직 하나의 계정만 가지고 있는데, 이 "사용자"는 양말 계정 다음에 양말 계정을 만든다(여기 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Pararubbas과 여기 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Pararubbas), 참조). 또한 "양말"로 여러 개의 aon IP를 가지고 있다.둘 다 대화 페이지 대화에 전혀 관여하지 않고(좀비가 심하게 위협을 받았을 때, 파라루바는 결코 하지 않았다) 0개의 요약을 쓰지 않는다.

레인지블록, 가능하다면 확실히 - --Vasco Amaral (대화) 14:54, 2011년 3월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

그의 모든 IP는 같은 일반 지역 출신이다.그는 학교나 도서관의 컴퓨터를 좀비로 사용하고 있을 것이다.레인지 블록은 그것을 다루어야 한다.에어로빅폭스 (토크) 21:46, 2011년 3월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

아무도 우릴 도와줄 생각 없어?지난 1월 위키피디아 토크에서 내가 요청한 사항:'장기 해결책'을 위한 삭푸펫 조사도 무시됐다...자이언트 스노우맨 12:56, 2011년 3월 12일 (UTC)[응답]

이 사용자는 1000개의 BLP 사용자 wrwr1 [1]이(가) 일부 손상을 복구하려고 시도했지만 몇 년이 걸릴 것이다.캣티비 (대화) 2011년 3월 12일 13시 30분 (UTC)[응답]

그가 추가한 정보가 모두 잘못되었나?Pelmeen10 (대화) 22:20, 2011년 3월 12일 (UTC)[응답]

전부는 아니지만, 10~20%는 그의 생생한 상상력의 산물일 수도 있지만, 이 사용자가 편집한 횟수는 여전히 많다.적어도 50%는 괜찮고 나머지는 모두에게 인정받지 못한다.그리고 그것은 단지 엔만이 아니다.위키백과, 다른 위키백과의 카피 en.wiki, 그것들은 또한 검토될 필요가 있다, 심지어 클럽웹사이트와 같은 '거짓말'의 출처도 복사된다.위키백과 카티비 (대화) 01:31, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

아니, 나는 그의 편집의 대부분이 BLP에 잘못된 정보를 추가하는 것이었다고 말할 수 있다. 그것은 사소한 위법행위가 아니다. 그래서 그가 외설된 것이다.자이언트 스노우맨 14:06, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

그를 차단한 관리자로서, 나는 그가 편집한 내용이 모두 날조된 것이라기보다는 우리가 그의 편집 내용을 믿을 수 없어서 차단되었다는 것을 분명히 하고 싶다.그럼에도 불구하고, 그는 막혔고, 이상적으로는 세게 때리는 것을 막아야 한다.Chris Cunningham (사용자:thumperward: 직장이 아님) - 토크 18:16, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

리스트에 나와 있는 한, 2개를 제외한 모든 것이 79.213.64.0/18의 범위(79.213.64.0-79.213.127.25)에서 나온 것이다.문제는, 그의 행위가 16384개의 IP를 차단할 정도로 심각하고, 이 범위를 벗어난 IP에 어느 정도 접근할 수 있다는 것을 알고 있는가?עודדהododOd Mishehu 06:33, 2011년 3월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

가나, 나이지리아, 카메룬에 살고 있고, 이들 국가의 (스포츠) 신문과 잡지에 대해 약간의 지식을 갖고 있는 믿을 만한 위키피디아 사람들에게 물어보면, 그의 공공 기물 파괴의 규모에 대해 알 수 있을 것이다.좀비가 불명확한 축구선수들을 멋있게 보이도록 하기 위해 축구 에이전트들에 의해 이용될 가능성이 있다, Cattivi (토크) 11:48, 2011년 3월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

대화 페이지의 주석

새 사용자를 질책한 경우:임페리움켈레스티스는 자신의 토크 페이지에 위키백과 규정과 지침을 지키지 않고, 이들의 저작권을 주장하면서 허위 라이선스로 이미지를 업로드한 혐의다.그런 만큼 삭제 태그도 달았고 사용자에게도 알렸다.그는 예의 바르게 행동하고 자신의 잘못을 인정하는 대신, 비도덕성과 이름 부르기에 대한 비난에 맞서 방어적으로 의지한다.내가 그에게 더 이상의 이름이 여기에 보고될 것이라고 경고한 후에, 그는 감히 나에게 그렇게 하라고 재촉한다.나아가 그는 앞선 메시지의 마지막에 "백발보다 백발의 우위에 대한 나의 믿음은 오직 당신으로부터 받은 편지 한 통에 의해서만 높아진다"는 다음과 같은 진술로 나를 은근히 모욕한다.이와 같이 관계 행정관이 다음과 같이 할 수 있다면 감사하겠다.

• 앞으로 그런 행동에 탐닉하지 않도록 그에게 경고하라.
• 다음의 우리 사이의 서신을 읽고, 그의 행위와는 반대로, 내가 미개하다고 느끼고 사용자의 인격을 부당하게 공격했다고 생각하는 사람이 있다면 나에게 알려주기 바란다.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ImperiumCaelestis#Question

조이슨 노엘 ^{Holla at me!} 10:50, 2011년 3월 12일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 사용자인 조이슨 노엘이 처음부터 그의 피드백을 제시했던 방식으로 나의 항의를 제출한다.그의 의사소통 방식은 위키백과와는 극명하게 상반된다.IMT-2000 3GPP-하지마_tear_others'_heads_off.기술적 불규칙성이란 것은 확실히 당신이 훔치고 있는 것과 같은 단어의 사용을 정당화하지 못했다.' 그리고 당신은 우연히 루이 고디뉴라는 이상한 이름을 가진 힌두교인이다.

만약 당신이 친절하게 Talk:Kanara_(Canara)_Konkani를 사용한다면, 당신은 내가 PratikMalya, Aoghac^2z , 'Yes Michael?그리고 애쉬린과 그들에게 관심을 가져왔고 그들이 일을 처리하는 방식을 감사해했다.

조슨 노엘의 통신 공세 언어를 발견한 것은 나뿐 아니라 사용자 애슐린이다.[2]을(를) 친절히 숙독하십시오.

사용자 AshLin은 또한 User_talk를 사용하는 언어에 대한 그의 짜증스러움을 전달했다.Joyson_Noel#Anout_your_post_at_User_talk:임페리움켈레스티스.

애이슨 노엘의 언어는 베테랑답지 않고 새로운 사용자에게는 달갑지 않은 경험이라는 것을 알리고 싶다.나는 관계 행정관에게 인식과 필요한 조치를 취할 것을 호소한다.맙소사!임페리움 11:32, 2011년 3월 12일 (UTC)[응답]

이제 너희 둘은 서로 좋아하지 않는 것으로 알려졌어.나는 여기서 어떤 행정 개입도 필요하지 않다고 생각한다.나는 어떤 끔찍한 인신공격도 보지 않는다.아마도 카피비오 고발은 더 자세히 볼 수 있을 것이다. 하지만 사용자들은 관리자가 성숙한 어른들을 손가락질하기 시작하기를 기대하지 않았으면 한다.다른 이용자들이 사이가 좋지 않을 때는 편을 들거나 혼쭐을 낼 수 없고, 우리가 할 수 있는 일은 위키백과가 붕괴되지 않도록 보호하는 것뿐입니다. -- 12^™ 12:01, 2011년 3월 12일 (UTC)[응답]

오케이....

조이슨, WP를 위반했다.NPA 및 WP:물어봐. 그러한 종류의 경고 메시지는 심지어 완전한 반달의 경우에도 받아들여지지 않아; 그것들, 우리는 그냥 차단해.내가 처음 보는 접촉에서 지나치게 대립적인 톤을 채택하셨는데, 그건 괜찮지 않아.그만 좀 해

임페리움 - 여기 다른 사람의 이미지에 대한 저작권을 주장하는 것은 이곳에 기여하는 것을 영구적으로 차단하는 훌륭한 방법이다.타인의 지적 재산권을 침해하는 것은 옳지 않다.비록 자료가 지금 공공영역에 있다고 해도, 원작자를 제대로 신뢰하지 않고 저작권에 가까운 곳에 당신의 이름을 올리는 것은 지극히 의심스러운 일이다.어떻게든 변형시켜도 원래의 소유권과 신용은 존중되고 제대로 기록될 수밖에 없다."자기 일"은 그런 상황에서 전적으로 받아들일 수 없다.

조지윌리엄허버트(대화) 12시 3분, 2011년 3월 12일 (UTC)[응답하라]

관리인 œ과 조지윌리엄허버트, 나는 당신에게 감사하는 것으로 나의 노트를 시작한다.나는, 이전에도 그랬듯이, 내가 올바른 저작권 템플릿을 찾고 인포박스에서 사실 정보를 작성하는 데 문제가 있었다는 것을 인정한다.

내 토크 페이지를 친절하게 숙지하면, 당신은 내가 이전에 업로드한 특정 이미지의 저작권 상태에 대해서도 질문을 받았으며, 관리자(예: B)는 나의 의견을 읽고 그에 따라 제안할 수 있을 만큼 예의가 바랐음을 알게 될 것이다 [3]분쟁 중인 이미지들은 페이스북에서 다운로드 되었고, 나는 같은 내용의 세부사항을 구글에서 검색해야 할 핵심 단어가 없었다; 나는 또한 그러한 이미지들을 업로드한 후, 베테랑 사용자들에게 기사를 숙독하고 (문책 반대) 그들의 비판을 할 것을 호소했다[4].나는 지적 재산권을 침해하는 것을 목표로 하지 않는다는 나의 분명한 확신을 너에게 준다.나는 이제 막 인포박스를 채우는 것에 익숙해지고 있다; 저작권 템플릿을 사용자 정의하는 것은 여전히 장애물이다.인도와 관련된 PD와 저작권 템플릿은 거의 없고 토론과 후속 편집을 거쳐야 한다.이것은 계몽적인 경험이며 앞으로 비슷한 실수를 피할 수 있도록 도와준다.내가 장담하건대, 내가 애쉬린과 연락을 취해서 거래의 요령을 배우고 모든 이미지를 사실적으로 다시 작업할 수 있게 될 거야.

내가 조슨 노엘에 대해 개인적인 의혹을 가지고 있는 것은 아니다.나는 대화에서 환영하는 자세를 유지했다.나는 그의 관심의 온유함을 고맙게 생각한다. 나는 그의 표현에 문제가 있다.이것은 내가 그와 처음 주고받은 서신의 두 가지 단점이다.

콘카니 언어 동요 페이지와 관련된 유일한 이슈는 열성적인 비버 관리자가 내가 페이지를 만들고 있는 것과 마찬가지로 스텁(stub)의 기준에 맞지 않는다는 이유로 삭제 표시를 했다는 것이다. 다른 문제들도 많이 들어줘 조이슨 노엘, 난 적수가 아니야 그 기사는 너와 나 모두에게 공통적인 역사를 말하고 있어. 그리고 만약 있다면 그 기사 페이지에 건설적인 비판을 제출했으면 좋겠어. 우리는 카나라와 카나라 콘카니가 널리 퍼져있는지 아닌지에 대해 의견이 갈릴 수 있다. 우리는 또한 팀을 이루어 우리의 마효대가 잿더미에서 살아나도록 도울 수 있다. 그건 네 재량에 맡기겠다. 스타일링의 매뉴얼은 너 또한 도울 수 있는 것이다. 모그 아소!!

친애하는 콘카니 조이슨 노엘, 그 기사들은 우리 모두의 것이다.그것들은 우리의 공통된 역사다.나는 이유가 있는 한 사용자들이 정보를 편집하고 기여하는 것에 문제가 없다.누군가 토론 없이 자신의 기여를 삭제하고 제시된 증거를 간과하는 것은 사람을 죽이는 일이다.너의 충고는 매우 잘 받아들여질 것이다.질문을 받기를 기다리지 말고 그냥 시류에 편승해라.

친절히 숙독 [5]

따뜻한 안부, 임페리움 12:45, 2011년 3월 12일 (UTC)[응답]

임페리움은 거짓말을 하고 있고 의도적으로 그 진술을 잘못 인용했다.내가 말했지, 네가 루이 고디뉴라는 이상한 이름을 가진 힌두교인이 아니라면.이는 임페리움이 이미지 소유권을 거짓으로 주장하는 것에 대한 대응의 일환이었는데, 실제로 이미지는 루이 고디뉴의 것이다.더군다나 임페리움이 자신의 것이라고 주장하면서 비자유 이미지를 부정직하게 표절한 것을 정확하게 묘사하는 데 사용되었기 때문에 나는 '도박'이라는 용어가 불쾌하게 생각되지 않는다.더군다나 사용자와 접촉한 것은 이번이 처음이 아니다.내가 처음 접촉했을 때, 나는 그가 기본 규칙에 대한 지식이 부족한 신참이라는 것을 발견하면서 그에게 도움이 되는 조언을 해주었다.잠시 후, 나는 그에게 여기서 편집하는 것을 잠시 쉬고 그가 무시한 규칙들을 연구해 달라고 간청했다.여기 봐.만약 나의 질책이 가혹했다면, 그것은 그가 나의 충고와 규칙을 노골적으로 무시한 것에 비추어 볼 때였다.우리의 서신 중 어느 곳에서도 나는 전화, 거짓 비난, 개인적인 모욕에 대해 이름을 밝히지 않았다.나는 그의 도움 요청을 받아들였고, 나는 그 대가로 무엇을 얻는가?내가 그의 태도를 바로잡을 의도로 질책할 때, 힌두교를 모욕한 죄와 함께 그를 질책한 죄로 비난받는 '유다스 이스카리오트'라고 불리게 된다.자신의 잘못을 인정할 만한 성숙함조차 보이지 않는 것은 고사하고 말이다.인격적 공격으로부터 멀리하라고 경고한 뒤에도 그는 앞서 나가 내 지성에 대해 미묘한 모욕을 한다.실수하지 마!나는 단지 옳은 일을 하고 앞으로 이런 행동을 하지 말라고 경고하기 위해 그에게 어떤 엄중한 조치를 취하라고 부탁하지 않는다.

애슐린에 의한 나의 진술에 대한 모욕에 대해서는, 여기 나의 토크 페이지에서 토론을 보아주십시오.오해가 풀렸다.그는 내가 임페리움의 분노를 자신에게로 가져가고 있다고 느꼈는데, 그렇지 않았다.

그는 나를 나쁘게 보이게 하기 위해 우리의 서신을 조작하고 있다.이것은 그를 향한 나의 서신 중 발췌한 것이다.무례하게 들리거나 물어뜯는 것처럼 들리는가?:

“

그렇다면, 나는 카나라 콘카니 기사가 남아있을 것을 제안하고 싶다. 그 기사는 언어적 차이만을 강조하기 위해 개편되었고, 기사의 중요한 영역(예를 들어 역사 부분)이 콘카니어의 주요 기사와 병합되었다.'카나라와 고안콘카니의 차이'로 삭제·교체되는 것에 비해 훨씬 좋은 발상이 될 것이다.기사는 카나라 방언들이 표준 콘카니(폰다 방언)와 어떻게 다른지 자세히 설명해야 한다.나아가 카르나타카 곤카니 기사와 병합한다.이 땅이 현재의 이름인 만큼 '곤카니 카나타카'라는 말이 더 어울릴 것이다.이제 아무도 그것을 카나라라고 부르지 않아!임페리움 카엘레스티스, 니고이카르와 어떤 의견의 차이가 있더라도 애초에 별도의 기사를 만들지 말았어야 했다. 앞으로는 그런 행동을 삼가라!필요하다면 고아, 카르나타카, 케랄라의 각각의 콘카니 방언에 더 많은 기사가 만들어질 수 있다.조이슨 노엘 Holla at me! 06:54, 2011년 3월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

”

“

넌 여기 처음이야!따라서 콘텐츠에 대한 논쟁을 피할 수 있는 두 가지 방법을 지적하고자 한다. * 논란이 될 수 있는 사실 또는 인용문이 적절히 제공되었는지 확인하십시오.WP 참조:자세한 내용은 CS를 참조하십시오.또한 참조가 신뢰할 수 있고 검증 가능한지 확인하십시오.WP 참조:RS 및 WP:검증. 그래야 관련 진술에 이의를 제기할 수 없다. * 당신이 편집한 내용은 잘 모르지만, 만약을 위해서라도 계속하여 이 말을 할 것이다.원본 연구에 참여하지 마십시오!기사는 전문가들의 사실과 기존 의견을 반영해야 한다. * 작성한 문서가 공신력 기준을 충족하는지 확인하십시오(WP:참고) 및 기사의 텍스트가 출처와 다르게 표현된다는 것(WP:표절. 다음 번에는 서로 의견이 맞지 않아 편집 전쟁을 하지 말고 관련 토크 페이지에서 논의하십시오.특정 사용자에 문제가 있는 경우 WP:ANI. 기존 기사에 문제가 있다고 판단되면 분쟁에 휘말릴까 봐 별도의 기사를 작성하는 대신 과감하게 작업하라.마지막으로, 나는 당신이 편집에서 시간을 내서 내가 당신에게 보낸 링크에서 기본적인 규칙들을 배우기를 제안하고 싶다.또한 이미지 업로드에 대한 다양한 정책을 배우십시오.이것은 당신이 더 나은 위키백과 전문가가 되도록 도울 것이고 당신의 편집의 질뿐만 아니라 당신의 삶을 크게 향상시킬 것이다.표준 '웰컴' 페이지는 수백 개의 규칙으로 머리를 때리는 큰 벽돌과 같아서 어디서부터 시작해야 할지 모르는 것으로 알고 있다.하지만 내 충고를 참작해라.때때로, 기본 규칙과 정책을 알지 못하거나 잘못 해석하는 것은 사람을 바보처럼 보이게 할 수 있다.궁금하신 점이 있으시면 언제든지 메시지 보내세요.

”

“

물어봐 줘서 고마워!나는 너를 돕고 싶다.나는 내일이나 모레 기사의 토크 페이지에서 나의 리뷰를 제공할 것이다.나의 비평은 건설적이다.나는 훨씬 더 많은 경험을 가진 나이든 위키피디아 사람이기 때문에, 너는 그것이 무엇인지에 대해 내 충고를 받아들여야 해.나는 어떤 식으로든 너를 얕잡아 보려는 게 아니야.우리는 모두 자원 봉사자들이다.조이슨 노엘 Holla at me! 19:49, 2011년 3월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

”

조이슨 노엘 ^{Holla at me!} 14:03, 2011년 3월 12일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 조슨 노엘의 이름과 종교가 몹시 불쾌하다고 생각한다.나는 무슬림 말콤 X를 본 적 있는 가톨릭 신자 출신이다.프라탑 나이크와 힌두교인 줄리아 로버츠.나는 관리자들에게 인지도를 가져달라고 호소한다.그가 다른 사용자들과 통신할 때 성경적 용어를 사용하는 것과 둔감한 추론은 끔찍하다.나는 그에게 영어의 공식적인 글쓰기 능력과 언어적 추론에 대한 강좌에 참여하라고 조언해 줄 것을 간청한다.나는 나이든 베테랑들이 내 의견을 잘 받아들이기를 기도한다.또한 사용자들은 위키피디아에서 3년 동안 종신 재직했던 것을 주요한 직업적 업적으로 간주하고 있는 것 같다; 나는 그가 이것을 끊임없이 반복하면서 그의 이전 편지들을 통해 나를 압도하려고 노력해왔기 때문에 이렇게 말한다.나는 그가 나를 나쁘게 보이게 하기 위해 우리의 서신을 조작하는 것과 같은 문구를 사용하여 자기혐오를 하는 것을 자제할 것을 제안한다.

이미지에 관한 한, 나는 위키피디아가 내부 메커니즘을 가지고 있고 그에 따라 처리되고 있다고 생각한다; 나는 그가 이것을 이해하기를 기도하며, 이미지 문제에 대한 그의 우려를 표명하기 위해 이 페이지를 사용하지 않는다.

나는 반복한다, 나는 조슨 노엘과 개인적인 문제가 없다.나는 그의 사용자 프로필을 보았고 그는 나에게 젊고 꽤 열정적인 사용자로 떠올랐다.내 제안은 그가 지시적인 언어와 대립적인 어조의 사용을 자제하는 것뿐이다.앞으로 자제하지 않을 경우 사용자의 관리자 및 자동제어 권한을 철회해 줄 것을 요청하도록 귀하를 통해 사용자에게 제출하고자 한다.

임페리움 07:11, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)에 대해 따뜻한 안부[응답]

너네 둘 다 너무 말이 많아.미안하지만, 너는 건설적인 것 같지 않다.또한, 항상 그의 색깔 있는 서명을 베끼는 것으로 상대의 이름을 강조하는 것을 그만두십시오.왜 이런지는 모르겠지만, 내 경험상 다른 사용자에 대한 불만 사항을 논의하면서 이렇게 하는 것은 거의 변함없이 비파괴적이고 적대적인 입장을 보여주는 것이다.Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

하하하...나는 인도 국민이고 나를 위해 요점을 말하는데, 나의 동포들은 (식민지 잉글랜드와 마찬가지로) 편집, 취소, 폐지, 그리고 명제의 장황한 과정이다.따라서 장황한 것이다.우리가 물려받은 영국의 법은 개론성명의 과정을 따르며, 뒤이어 논쟁과 반론이 뒤따른다 위키백과의 초보자인 나는 같은 시간 시험적 접근법을 따르는 것이 가장 좋다고 생각했다.너의 요점이 지적되었다.나는 의견 차이가 있는 사용자들의 복사된 서명을 사용하지 않을 것이다.맙소사!임페리움 08:16, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

그래서, 당신은 프리랜서 사진작가 루이 고디뉴라고 주장하고 있고, 사용자 페이지에서 주장했듯이, 힌두교도라고?인도인이 아닌 이름을 가진 사람들이 힌두교도일 수 없다는 게 아니라, 얼마나 많은 고안 힌두교도들이 포르투갈 이름을 만나는가!아주 드문 일이다.내가 알기로는 바르데즈 마을에는 그런 이름을 가진 힌두교도 몇 명이 있었다.그러나 1961년 이후 그들 대부분은 다시 인도의 이름으로 되돌아갔다.가톨릭 가우다 몇 명은 20~60년대 힌두교로 다시 전향해 루시타니아 이름을 유지했다.하지만 이 잘 알려진 사진작가는 가우다가 아니에요!나는 그의 종교적 성향에 대해서는 잘 모르지만, 그는 힌두교 신자가 아닐 가능성이 높다.유명한 고안 언론인 프레데릭 노론하가 내 연락처에 있으며 고디뉴의 친구다.그래서 임페리움이 고디뉴라고 우기고 있다면, 나는 노론하로부터 고디뉴의 이메일 아이디를 입수하고, 임페리움의 계정이 자신의 것이냐고 묻는 것만으로도 사건의 진상을 확인할 수 있다.

나는 임페리움이 내 민족성에 근거한 종교적 편협함을 동시에 비난하면서 다시 나에게 "종교 카드"를 연주하는 것을 혐오스럽게 생각한다.결국 나는 망갈로레아 가톨릭 신자니까 나도 로마 가톨릭 신자인가 보다.그렇지?......틀렸어! 나는 15살 때부터 무신론자였어.더군다나 나는 반독재주의자인데, 이는 내가 종교를 전반적으로 싫어하고 기독교에 찬성하지 않는다는 것을 의미한다.더욱이 그 인용된 진술을 반힌두/반힌두주의로 구속하는 사람은 제정신이 아니었을 것이다.그 문장을 사용함으로써 반힌두보다 내가 반포르투갈인이라고 더 쉽게 비난할 수 있었다.물론 우리는 그러한 가정이 터무니없을 것이라는 것을 알고 있다.그렇다면, 분별 있는 사람이 왜 이런 터무니없는 주장에 주의를 기울여야 하는가?

나처럼 완고한 무신론자, 반무신론자가 애초에 왜 성경 용어를 쓰겠어?임페리움이 그런 용도의 예를 제공할 수 있을까?내가 하원의 이미지들을 삭제하려고 태그를 붙인 후, 아마도 나의 인종적 배경에 비추어 볼 때, 누가 나를 "유다스 이스카리엇"이라고 이름 붙이기에 의지했는가?임페리움, 너 아니었어?그러니까, 내가 아니라 네가 종교적인 거물일 가능성이 높구나.

둔감한 추론에 대해서는, 그것에 대한 증거를 보기 위해 단지 이 페이지에서 당신의 의견을 보면 된다.예를 들어, 나의 코멘트를 반힌두적 편협성이라고 해석하는 것, 우호적인 조언과 기본적인 위키백과 정책에 대한 당신의 집요한 무시에 대한 나의 질책의 주장, 당신의 이미지 도용과 그것들의 저작권을 주장하기 위한 "스틸링"의 사용에 대한 반대 등의 많은 예들 중 하나이다.나는 이것에 대해 계속 말할 수 있다.

일반적인 예의상, 나는 당신이 스스로 기권할 윤리적 견해가 부족하다면, 당신이 무죄라고 여겨지는 종교적 편견과 둔탁한 추리에 대해 나를 질책하는 것을 자제할 것을 제안하고 싶다.그런 일은 네가 할 일이 아니다.

그리고 왜 나는 위키피디아에서의 3년간의 재임 기간을 성과로 보아서는 안 되는가?재임 기간 동안 79편의 기사를 만들었고, 수백 개의 더 많은 사람들에게 경미하고 중요한 기여를 했다.그것을 위키백과의 규범과 규칙에 대한 인식 부족과 무시 등을 포함하는 당신의 제한된 경험과 당신 자신의 편집과 비교해 보십시오. 그리고 당신은 왜 내가 당신보다 훨씬 더 나은 위키백과인 모든 권리에 있는지 알게 될 겁니다.이제, 당신은 아마 이것에 대해 이의를 제기할 것이다."이봐, 헛간별을 받았어.그건 내가 위키피디아에 능하다는 뜻이 아닌가?"단순히 사용자가 당신에게 헛별을 주었다는 사실이 그가 그것을 주었다는 것을 의미하지는 않는다. 왜냐하면 그는 당신의 편집에 감명을 받았기 때문이다.위키피디아 사람들이 보통 그렇듯이, 그는 아마 당신에게 동기를 부여하기 위해 그것을 주었을 것이다.당신이 만든 기사를 한 번 보면(캐나다 콘카니, 1986년 고아 콘카니 언어 동요 - 나의 몇 가지 수정과 제목이 바뀌기 훨씬 이전보다 훨씬 더 심각하다) 소스가 없는 독창적인 연구와 편집이 많이 드러난다.당신이 접촉한 모든 편집자에 의해 편집이 논쟁의 대상이 되었다는 사실은 당신을 평범한 위키피디아 사람으로 만들지도 않는다.편집자는 동기부여 목적으로 받은 단 한 개의 헛별과는 달리 편집의 질로 판단된다.

임페리움은 그의 끈질긴 거짓말과 부끄러운 자신의 행동에 대한 인식 부족에서 분명히 드러나듯이, 믿을 수 없을 정도로 윤리적 양심의 결여를 보여주었다.대신 반론전을 내세우며 자신과 당면한 화두(경고에도 불구하고 지속적인 인신공격)로부터 비판을 비껴가려는 것이다.이것은 그의 방어의 메커니즘이다.그는 틀림없이 다시 그렇게 할 것이다.나는 그의 동족으로부터의 모욕적인 공격과 중상모략에 계속 반응하는 것이 어떻게든 그들을 검증하는 데 도움이 되어 그와 같은 처지에 놓이게 될까 두렵다.나는 그가 앞으로 이런 행동을 자제할 것을 제안하는 것은 관리자들에게 맡긴다.조이슨 노엘 ^{Holla at me!} 10:21, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

모욕을 당했다는 것을 인식하기 위한 메시지로서 시작된 것이 이름 대 종교적 정체성의 하수구에 튀어 마침내 민족성의 어두운 색조에 물들어갔다.이봐, 정신 차려.당신의 의사소통은 논쟁의 전형적인 사례로 밝혀지고 있다.사용자 조이슨, 내가 적당히 종교적인 사람이고 실천적인 힌두교도인 만큼, 당신의 종교적 성향은, 나처럼, 이 대화의 주제와 관련이 없다는 것을 이해해야 한다.유다 이스카리오트라는 단어는 직유물로써 사용되는데, 이 직유라는 단어는, 그 직유에 의존함에도 불구하고, 그들을 실망시키는 사람을 가리킨다.나는 당신이 "반포르투갈어", "반종교" 또는 다른 어떤 반고정적인 입장을 취하거나, 위키피디아 플랫폼에서 요구되지 않는 한, 그것을 공공의 영역으로 가져오지 말 것을 촉구한다.

사용자 조이슨은 위키피디아에서 "내가 아는 바로는" "아마도" "아마도" "아마도"와 같은 문구를 사용하는 정신적 과정을 삼가야 한다. 이것들은 근거 없는 진술이라고 불릴 수 있다.

나는 관리자들이 당신의 마지막 단락에서 경시하는 자세를 주목할 것이고 책임감 있고 환영하는 편집인이라는 당신의 주장에 대해 그것을 저울질할 것이라고 확신한다.나는 당신이 위키피디아에 얼마나 효율적으로 기여했는지에 대해 논평할 수 없다; 나는 확실히 당신이 얼마나 노련한 사람이 당신 자신을 증명했는지에 대해 논평할 수 있다.나는 행정관들이 이미 그 문제에 대한 그들의 견해를 밝혔고 이 문제에 대한 심의를 계속하는 것은 현명하지 못하다고 생각한다.이것은 이 페이지에 있는 이 문제에 대한 나의 마지막 서신이 될 것이다.나는 그들의 재량권에 대해 관리자들에게 감사하다.임페리움 12시 19분, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

당신은 사람을 "유다스 이스카리엇"이라고 부르는 것이지, 그가 당신을 실망시켰을 때 부르는 것이 아니다.내가 너의 표절된 이미지들을 삭제하라고 태그한 후에 그렇게 전화했잖아.너의 추리가 매번 지나가는 코멘트로 얻어지는 훨씬 더 터무니없는 것에 나는 놀라지 않을 수 없다.게다가, 나의 "관련성"이나 "관련성"은 당신이 결정할 문제가 아니다.만약 내가 나에 대한 당신의 값싼 언더핸드 행동을 친절하게 받아들이고 당신의 비행에 대해 비난하지 않기를 기대했다면, 당신은 크게 놀랄 것이다.나는 보통 너와의 초기 교감에서 분명히 알 수 있듯이 사람들에게 매우 도움이 되고 친절하다.그러나 친절한 충고를 무시한 다음 성숙한 사람처럼 자신의 잘못을 인정하는 대신 거짓, 욕설, 비방 등의 말로 응수하는 사람들에게는 잘 받아들이지 않는다.그러니 이런 혹독한 비판에 직면했을 때 전혀 놀라서는 안 된다.그런데 "나는 조이슨 노엘과 개인적인 문제가 없다"는 임페리움의 주장을 매우 믿기 어렵다.만일 그렇다면, 특히 ANI에 보고한 후, 그가 이전에 자신의 토크 페이지에서 나와 완전히 동의한 것을 고려할 때, 정당한 이유 없이 Goa_Konkani_language_agitation_of_1986 기사의 이름을 원문으로 바꾸라고 요구하는 것은 매우 이상할 것이다.이 갑작스런 변심에 대해 다른 논리적인 설명은 찾을 수가 없다.그러나 나는 관리자들이 이 문제에 대해 숙고했다고 느끼지 않고 그들의 의견을 기다리고 있다.나는 그들이 올바른 결정을 내릴 것이라고 믿는다.조이슨 노엘 ^{Holla at me!} 12:38, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 메시지를 가지고 나온 것에 대해 사과한다. 나의 이전 메시지가 나의 마지막 메시지라고 말하는 사용자 조슨에 의한 최신 메시지는 나를 대신하여 부록에 보증한다.나는 그에게 내가 정말로 그에 대한 오해, 개인적인 문제, 편견을 가지고 있지 않다는 것을 알리고 싶다.나는 그에게서 받은 편지 한 통을 즐긴다.나는 그를 창세기 7일째 되는 날 프로비던스에 의해 창조된 독특한 표본으로 간주하고 그의 글과 견해는 내가 그를 더 잘 알게 하는데 도움을 줄 뿐이다.나는 그에게 나의 사용자 페이지에서 이 주제나 이 문제에 관한 그의 의사소통을 계속해 줄 것을 호소한다.통찰력 있는 관리자(독서 제3자)가 요구하지 않는 한 이 문제에 대해 이 페이지에 대한 나의 견해를 전달하지 않을 것이다.나는 사용자 조곤의 노력이 성공하기를 바란다.방송 나가기...임페리움 13:48, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

임페리움은 자신의 과거 행실을 따라 부끄럼없이 자신의 이름을 부르고 또 다시 모욕하는 행동을 계속한다.

나는 그를 창세기 7일에 프로비던스가 창조한 독특한 표본으로 여긴다.

증거가 얼마나 더 필요한가?이번이 세 번째야!조이슨 노엘 ^{Holla at me!} 13:58, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

충분히 본 것 같다.나는 문제의 두 편집자와 상호작용을 해 보았는데, 내 경험상 두 편집자는 모두 성숙하고 합리적인 편집자다.그 문제를 부풀리지 말자.위 편집자가 언급한 바와 같이, 관리자는 편집자를 징계할 수 없다.콘카니는 우리 모두를 위한 것이고, 위키피디아는 우리 모두를 위한 것이다.정말 문제가 있다면 원만하게 해결합시다.네 마이클? •^Talk 19:22, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자 Mike, 이건 Much Ado About Nothing의 간단한 케이스야.이 페이지에 있는 다른 기사들을 읽고 나서, 나는 이 페이지에 내 주장을 제출하는 것이 부끄러웠다.이것은 너무 사소한 것으로서 여기에 제시될 수 없다.나는 이 페이지를 통해 내 편을 들어주도록 지시받았기 때문에 홉슨의 선택에 맡겨졌다.그럼에도 불구하고, 로마 카톨릭 신자 Gaud Saraswat Names의 Lusitanization과 delusitanization에 관한 흥미로운 기사를 읽으세요.자서전과 자화자찬도 읽어라.대화의 언덕길을 즐기십시오.그게 다야. 임페리움 19:37, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC) 따뜻한 안부 전해줘[응답]

임페리움, 유일한 희극은 당신의 터무니없는 "합리화"와 논쟁에서 찾을 수 있다.예를 들어, 다른 많은 예들 중에서 이미지 도용과 그 이미지들에 대한 저작권을 주장하기 위해 내가 "스틸링"이라는 용어를 사용하는 것에 대한 당신의 반대 의견을 들어보자.나는 이것들이 단지 조롱당하고 불쌍하게 여겨져야 한다고 말할 수 없다.게다가, 나는 몇 명의 힌두교도들에 대한 정보를 언급했는데(내가 읽은 믿을 만한 책에서 얻은 정보), 특히 힌두교 가우다스는 루시타니화 성(Lusitanization)과 로마 가톨릭 가우트 사라스와트 이름(Gaud Saraswat Names)의 망각화가 아닌 루시타니아 성을 가지고 있다.몇 번이고, 당신은 당신이 무슨 말을 하는지 모른다는 것을 증명했다.기본적인 위키백과 가이드라인을 공부하는 것뿐만 아니라 코멘트를 주의 깊게 읽는 것이 너무 게으른 것은 이해하지만, 이것은 전혀 변명이 되지 않는다!거듭 말하지만, 나는 어느 행정관에게도 편을 들라고 요구하는 것이 아니라, 단지 그가 뻔뻔하게 의지한 끈질긴 인신공격에 대해 그를 질책하기 위해서일 뿐인데, 이는 WP를 위반하기 때문이다.PA. 마이크는 이곳의 누구의 잘못인지 잘 알고 있지만 임페리움을 문책한다고 해서 중립이 되는 것은 아니라고 믿기 때문에 그들을 무시해 왔다.누구에게도 내 편을 들라고 하는 게 아니라 옳은 일을 하라는 거야!이런 질문은 이제 지겹다.관리자가 반복적으로 선을 넘었을 때 편집자를 징계할 수 없는 경우, 누가 할 수 있는가?시기적절하고 정의로운 행동을 취하는 관리자의 능력에 대한 믿음이 약해지고 있다는 것을 인정해야겠다.조이슨 노엘 ^{Holla at me!} 06:08, 2011년 3월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

경고

양측 모두 폭언과 인신공격에 대해 최종 경고를 받았다.더 이상의 적개심은 차단을 초래할 것이다.나는 이 두 사람이 앞으로 서로 피하기를 진심으로 바란다.조지윌리엄허버트 (대화) 07:38, 2011년 3월 14일 (UTC)[응답하라]

좋은 사람을 계속 실망시킬 순 없어

방문자10001 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

이 사람 기억나?떠난다고 해서 이것저것 막히지 않은 사람?그가 떠난다고 해서 다른 편집자들을 "멍청이들"과 "멍청이들"이라고 불렀던 것을 기억하는가?자, 충격에 대비해라. 그가 돌아왔다.하지만 기다려봐, 더 있어.지금 그는 자신이 좋아하는 기사를 쓰지 않으면 속일 의사를 밝히고 있다.

여기 뒷이야기가 있다: 상환 이론은 당신이 법적으로 세금을 납부할 의무가 없다는 바보 같은 세금 증명 사기 중 하나이다. 그리고 만약 당신이 어떤 불명확한 절차를 따른다면 당신은 법적으로 면제된다.진짜 미치광이 짓이야방문객들은 FBI, 재무부, 법무부(요컨대, 현실에 기반을 둔 공동체)가 말하는 것과 동일한 대우를 해야 한다고 주장하기 위해 동등한 타당성의 오류를 사용해 왔다.여기 그가 "사기꾼 미국 정부"에 대해 계속 언급하고 있는 내 토크 페이지에서 그의 생각의 한 예가 있다.잘 아시겠죠.그것은 아무 데도 좋은 일이 아니다.그 기사에 대한 그의 최근 편집은 이것을 신뢰할 수 있는 출처로 사용하려고 시도하고 있다.이 보고서는 연방 교도소에 수감되어 있는 한 남자가 작성한 보고서인데, 그는 이 보고서에서 그가 하는 것과 같은 나쁜 충고를 따랐기 때문이다.

지금 나는 이것이 다소 콘텐츠 논쟁처럼 보일 수도 있다는 것을 알지만, 그의 최근 차이점을 좀 더 확인해봐.그리고 기억하라, 이것은 대부분의 것보다 더 많은 결과를 가지고 있는 변두리 이론이다.셰익스피어의 작품을 누가 썼는지, 그리고 잃어버린 아틀란티스의 대륙이 실제로 존재했는지에 대한 논쟁과 달리, 만약 그 기사가 "면책론"에 어떤 신용이나 타당성을 부여하고 우리 독자들이 그것을 따른다면, 그것은 연방 교도소로 가는 짧은 경로로 그들을 데려갈 것이다.우리는 그것보다 독자들에게 더 많은 빚을 졌다. --Steven J. Anderson (토크) 10:22, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 그가 양말을 신어야 한다고 맹세한다면, 그는 그 기회를 받을 자격이 있다!—제레미 10:28, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

이건 좀 까다롭다.나는 이 편집자가 가까운 미래에 그를 차단하지 않을 어떤 일을 하지 않을 것이라는 것을 믿을 수 없지만, 그의 복귀 이후 그가 한 일은 정책을 위반하는 것이다(양말 협박조차도 그것이 수사적인 음해로 더 보여지기 때문에 그렇지 않다).지금쯤이면 블록 기간이 만료됐을 가능성이 높기 때문에 과거 PA의 블로킹도 경계할 것이다.나는 우리가 WP와 관련하여 그와 민간적으로 관여하는 것을 기다릴 것을 제안한다.그가 부적절한 발언을 하고 그 당시 그것을 다룰 때까지 필요한 곳에 합의를 보았다.LessEnard vanU (대화) 10:49, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 블럭이 예방적이어야 한다면, 그들의 진술은 완전히 하나를 정당화한다.그들은 자신들의 뜻대로 될 때까지 위키피디아를 교란할 생각임을 분명히 하고 있다.IMO, 이것은 NLT 블록과 유사하게 다루어져야 한다: 그들이 위협으로부터 물러날 때까지 변명의 여지가 없다.결연한 19:28, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이성적인 세계에서는 WP를 기반으로 한 이 남자를 차단할 수 있다.LOON, 갑자기 나타나서 똑같은 POV를 계속 밀어붙이는 계정을 차단하고 우리 삶을 살아가도록 해.이런 어리석은 짓을 하는 사람은 결코, 존경할 만한 백과사전을 만드는 데 결코 도움이 되지 않을 것이다.그러나, 이것은 이성적인 세계가 아니다, 이것은 위키피디아다, 그리고 이런 환경에서는 LHvU가 맞을 것이다: 우리는 단지 편집 전쟁 POV를 밀어내는 룬이 되지 않는 것에 대한 우리의 복잡한 정책을 설명하는 문제인 것처럼 행동할 필요가 있다. 그리고 전구는 그가 FA를 추려내기 시작할 것이고, 극한은 그와 같이 될 것이다.이런 일이 일어나는 것은 다른 모든 사람들을 혼란에 빠뜨릴 만한 가치가 있다. --Floquenbeam (대화) 15:10, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 이것을 더 좋게 생각하고 그냥 막으려고 했는데, FPaT가 나보다 더 빠르고 일주일 동안 막았구나.나는 그 블록을 지지한다. --Floquenbeam (대화) 15:23, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• FPAT? 티타임의 미래 완벽?LessEverned vanU (대화) 15:51, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

• • 비록 이것이 이성적인 세계가 아니지만, 지난번 내가 끈질기게 꾸민 편집은 차단할 수 있었다.1주일간 봉쇄됐지, 시작부터.Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

참고로, 막히기 전 마지막 편집은 내 토크페이지에 나오는 조롱거리였어.

질문도 있고.위키백과 기사에서 잘못된 정보를 얻거나 의심받을 경우 누구에게나 발생할 수 있는 심각한 법적 결과 때문에 조세검증 관련 기사에 대해 어느 정도 특별 수준의 조사가 있어야 한다고 생각하는 것이 말이 되는가? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:50, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

위키피디아는 법률 자문에 의존할 수 없다는 것을 많은 곳에서 분명히 밝히고 있다.수백 개국의 편집자들이 기고하는 상황에서 어떻게 우리가 할 수 있을까? --넬리블라이모바일 (대화) 18:14, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

그래, 이건 확실히 동갑내기야.Corvus cornix_talk 21:28, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

블록이 무기한으로 변경되었고, 대화 페이지 권한이 철회되었다.LessEverned vanU (대화) 13:43, 2011년 3월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

알려진 IP 편집 전사가 돌아왔다

편집자는 서로 다른 IP에서 오랜 기간 동안 중단, 편집, 결과적 블록의 역사를 가지고 있지만, 가장 최근의 것은 다음과 같다.

• 213.6.4.208 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 82.213.38.2 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

사용자는 이 게시판에서 다음과 같이 3번 토론되었다.

• 2010년 9월: 위키백과:관리자_noticeboard/IncidentArchive637#사용자:213.33.31.120 @ 가자 전쟁
• 2010년 9월: 위키백과:관리자_noticeboard/IncidentArchive640#사용자:213.6.11.49
• 2010년 10월: 위키백과:관리자_noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#213.6.27.118 및 213.6.11.49

전체적으로 이 사용자가 사용한 IP는 다음과 같다.

• 213.6.11.49 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 213.6.27.118 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 213.6.29.97 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 213.6.36.81 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 213.6.4.208 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 213.6.46.197 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 82.213.38.2 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

지금까지 사용자는 24시간에서 7d에 이르는 7개의 블록을 마주했다.동일한 쓰기 방식과 동일한 행동 패턴, 즉 편집 전쟁, 경고 무시, 자체 토크 페이지 공백, 관심 영역, 지리 등을 고려하여 IP 간의 연결을 설정할 수 있다.가장 최근 심각한 위반사항은 팔레스타인-이스라엘 기사 1RR이다.

1. 미라 아워드에서 1, 2위가 22시간 이내에 복귀한다.
2. 팔레스타인 기독교인 기사에 대한 1차(1차, 2, 3차), 2차([6차, [7]) 연재.

사용자는 단순히 경고와 차단을 무시하는 것 같은데, 그 때문에 행정 조치를 요구하는 것이다.--ElComandanteChe (대화) 19:30, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

다음 연결된 IP를 고려하여 총 블록 수를 10개로 늘리십시오.

• 213.6.29.226 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 213.6.13.32 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 213.6.7.107 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

대단히 죄송합니다만, 사용자의 첫 번째 문제는 WP:역량. --ElComandanteChe (대화) 19:45, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 위의 ips 중 어떤 것도 알지 못하며 그것들 중 어느 것과도 연관성이 없다! 당신은 다른 ips나 심지어 국가에서 온 몇몇 사람들의 연결을 생각해 낼 수 없다. 심지어 다른 사람들이 동의하지 않는 어떤 것에 동의할 수 없다. 당신의 비난은 말이 되지 않는다. 그리고 나는 그것이 매우 불쾌하다고 생각한다! 당신은 나에게 빚지고 있다.n 사과!--213.6.4.208 (대화) 19:50, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답하라]

"institutes ips 또는 심지어 국가가 동일한 기사를 편집함"

당신은 이것을 모를 수도 있지만, 당신은 다양한 웹사이트를 통해 모든 IP를 일반 영역으로 추적할 수 있다.213.6을 시작하는 모든 IP는 에센독일산이고, IP 82.213.38.2는 뮌헨독일산이기 때문에 이들 IP는 다른 나라에서 온 것이 아니라는 것은 분명하다.에어로빅폭스 (토크) 21:59, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

이 IP들도 얼마 전 이곳에서 보고된 바 있다.수심(토크) 19:56, 2011년 3월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

같은 사례와 관련하여, 몇 가지 나쁜 믿음의 AIV는 편집한 내용을 되돌린 사람들을 상대로 다음과 같이 보고한다. 이 보고서는 3RR 게시판에 있는 나의 보고서와 그들의 POV를 반영하기 위해 변경된 이름을 적은 보고서로, 위키피디아 토크에 관한 보고서에 대해 불평하고 있다.공공 기물 파손에 대한 관리자 개입 및 페이지에 있는 내 의견 제거([8] [9] [10] 참조), 사용자가 내 의견을 처음 삭제한 경우:쿠비굴라는 우발적이었고 자기반복적이었다).또한 수심의 중재 요청에 대한 그들의 반응은 심각한 이해 부족이나 협력에 대한 순수한 관심 부족을 의미한다고 생각한다.자칼레쉬(대화) 19:32, 2011년 3월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

ip와 다른 ip를 상대로 제기한 '보고서'에 대해 잘 모르는데, 내가 아는 것은 그 중 누구와도 연관되거나 연관되지 않고, 어쨌든 이게 무슨 일인지 모른다는 것뿐!--82.213.38.2 (토크) 07:46, 2011년 3월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

IP가 편집 패턴의 현저한 유사성에도 불구하고, 그들 사이의 연결을 부정한다면, 이것을 양말 인형극으로 취급하고 SPI 케이스를 여는 것이 적절한가?--ElComandanteCe (토크) 10:52, 2011년 3월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:여름 방학이 막바지에 이르렀을지도 모른다...

여름 휴가(토크 · 기여 · 삭제 기여 · 페이지 이동 · 블록 유저 · 블록 로그)와 나는 짧지만 다사다난한 역사를 함께 해 왔다.우리의 상호작용은 큰 범주의 변화에 대한 의견 일치를 보지 못한 채 대량 반전으로 시작되었다.위키백과에서 이에 대한 논의:분류#워터파크..다른 기고자들에 대한 모욕과 인신공격은 그곳에서 일어났다.

그리고 캠프 ASCCA에 대한 기사를 정리한 후, Summer Bacrow는 도로의 Elen의 토크 페이지에 글을 올렸는데, 도로의 Elen이 답장을 하고 나서 나에게 알려주었다.이어 "사용자가 선의로 행동하고 있다고 당시 믿고 있었다"고 설명하며 WP와 관련된 하계휴가 관련 사항을 다음과 같이 표시했다.소유 및 WP:내가 고민했던 시민.

일요일, 캠프 ASCCA에서의 나의 정리를 확인하면서, 나는 인포박스에 남겨두었던 이미지가 삭제된 것을 알아차렸다.나는 그 흔적을 따라 다시 하원으로 돌아왔고, 여름 휴가 때 이미지의 대량 삭제가 일어났다는 것을 발견했다(하원의 실 참조).여기서 나는 여름 방학의 나머지 이미지들이 카피비오일 가능성이 높다는 것을 발견했다.이로 인해 다음과 같은 공통점이 생겼다.공용:사용자가 업로드한 삭제 요청/Camp Farwell 이미지:여름 휴가 및 공용:공용:삭제 요청/사용자별 나머지 파일 모두:여름 휴가, 저작권 우려를 인용하다.

오늘, 위키피디아에 앉아서 이 글이 내 토크 페이지에 올라오는 것을 발견했는데, 여기 저기 몇 군데 수정을 한 것과 같은 메시지가 여기, 여기, 여기, 여기, 여기, 여기, 여기, 여기, 여기, 여기, 그리고 여기, 여기, 그리고 여기, 여기, 그리고 여기, 여기, 여기, 여기, 여기, 여기, 그리고 여기, 그리고 여기, 여기, 여기, 여기, 여기, 여기, 여기, 그리고 여기, 여기, 여기,

나는 최근에 위키피디아에 대해 꽤 많은 것을 참아왔지만, 이것은 심각하게 지루함을 넘어서는 것이다.나는 여름 방학이 막바지에 이르렀다고 믿으며, 나는 이 사용자들이 다음에 무엇을 할 지에 대해 걱정하기 시작했다.슈민웹(Talk) 05:06, 2011년 3월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

The same off-the-deep-end rant was also cross-posted here and here on Commons. Will be notifying Commons' equivalent of ANI as well. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

얕은 곳에서 사라진 것 같군...하이보드에서. :( ←Baseball Bugs 당근→05:48, 2011년 3월 14일 (UTC)[답글]

나는 그가 그 정도의 운동신경을 가지고 있다고 믿지 않을 것이다.Ps. 나는 작은 글씨를 위한 템플릿이 있는지 몰랐어, 위에서 그것을 사용하는 것에 대해서 말이야.에어로빅폭스 (토크) 06:52, 2011년 3월 14일 (UTC)[답글]

다른 사람이 쓰는 걸 눈치챘을 때 처음 썼어.아쉽게도 누군지 주목하지 못했다. :(<야구 벅스 당근→07:03, 2011년 3월 14일 (UTC)[답글]

다른 사람이 쓰는 걸 눈치챘을 때 처음 썼어.아쉽게도 누군지 주목하지 못했다. :(<야구 벅스 당근→07:03, 2011년 3월 14일 (UTC)[reply]

"How could anyone that ugly upload a picture of himself? No wonder he has no life."

Is a clear violation of WP:NPA. I recommend warning and/or temp block. Admins! I summon you!AerobicFox (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the other guy didn't upload his own portrait, just imagine how he must look, compared with the guy who did. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't show my face after a 30 ft. dive into 12 in. water.AerobicFox (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been involved with this user and I believe a temp block would work best. The user started out being friendly and accepted comments as seen here however since the reversion of his category changes by SchuminWeb, Summer Vacation's attitude changed. I posted a message on his talk page after he began the attacks in an attempt to commend him for some of his earlier edits (adding coordinates on hundreds of articles etc) and to advise him to continue with some smaller changes to learn the ropes. I also offerred my assistance if he required it. Summer Vacation replaced all of the content on his talk page with "Positive, Creative and Constructive Notes Only - All others piss off. HA!". I feel the user had the right intentions and would be of great benefit to Wikipedia if he took the time to learn the ropes and to understand that there are guidelines and procedures that we follow. Despite WP:COOLDOWN I think WP:IAR may come into consideration here and a cooloff block could be implemented. Themeparkgc Talk 08:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His userpage (prior to him replacing it with another version of the rant and Floq blanking it [11]) does not inspire me with confidence that he is prepared to work with us. I advised him yesterday [12] that SchuminWeb was not a vandal and that saying he was could cause problems. I have left him what I consider to be a final warning [13] - if he goes off like that again, I will block him myself if someone else doesn't get to him first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have everyones attention, I would like to make a point about respect. The procedure here at Wikipedia is to destroy and justify. Not a single person asks the author first, or tries to reach a consensus about a large change first, prior to undoing a lot of work. Do you people really understand the impact that this has on an author or someone who is trying to help clean up Wikipedia. You slap someone in the face, and then expect them to say thanks. SchuminWeb and Themeparkgc know that I posted my purpose and scope on my user page first, and they could have contacted me at any time about the changes that I made. I also made it clear that what they are doing is arbitrary and that the rules are not being applied evenly, especially in summer camp and amusement park articles. All of these articles are ads, and have no educational value whatsoever. Amusement park articles have surplus photos that should be deleted exactly as the Public Domain photos were deleted at Belvoir Terrace. Amusement park ride descriptions should be deleted exactly as the activities were deleted at Belvoir Terrace. Themeparkg will fight to the death to prevent this from happening, since this is his hobby. A strict application of the rules would wipe out all amusement park, waterpark and summer camp articles, as they are nothing more than promotional ads. And they duplicate what is on the park website. And the photos are not educational. So, until you people get your act together, and show some respect for others, Wikipedia is not worth my time. Summer Vacation (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, where to start. First, do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Also, please attempt to remain civil with your communications and be aware that personal attacks are never acceptable, discuss content and contributions, not personal opinions on the person's looks, living conditions, lifestyle, etc. Next, you do not own the articles, changes are made by community consensus in line with site policies and guidelines - you seem to feel that you can make all the changes you wish, but that others must follow your personal processes instead of Wikipedia guidelines and processes. Others have attempted to assist you, yet you proceed in your actions , continuing as if you didn't hear them, either misunderstanding the advice given or not reading the assistance given. Also be aware that other articles not following appropriate content guidelines does not mean that a new article can avoid those guidelines - Wikipedia is a big place, and some articles can go quite a while before being cleaned up. Wikipedia also has policies and guidelines that distinguish appropriate content structure and notability, most of which revolve around verifiability using reliable sources while maintaining an objective neutral point of view. --- Barek(talk) - 14:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot - users who make bold changes should expect to be reverted from time to time. TThe correct course when this happens is to discuss the changes on the talkpage, and reach a consensus with other editors. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to resolve the issue on his talk page a few days ago but gave up after it became clear that he was simply too worked up to accept any form on conciliation. It's a shame because I think his heart is (or perhaps was) in the right place and we collectively failed in communicating tactfully to avoid this mess. As it stands though, I can't really see options that don't involve a block. Pichpich (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• He says he has retired on Commons [14] but his original userpage had the same 'my way or the highway' approach - [15]. Bit like my dad building IKEA furniture - never stopped to read the instructions. It would be a shame if he's gone, as he probably does have a lot of resources if he can get those photos properly released. Not so sure about some of the articles though. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a block is needed right now, and placing one while the disruption has ceased would simply act to inflame him more. Basically three paths from here: Either he follows through on his intent to not edit here - which would be a shame as he does seem to have acces to some useful resources if he would take the time to follow the copyright requirements to get propper release authorization; or he takes a wiki-break to relax a bit, hopefully reconsiders some of the tips that had been given, and begins to contribute again with a recognition of the concerns that have been presented; or he returns and continues his disruption, in which case a block would likely result.
For either of the first two options, a block would not be preventative, and would at best be meaningless and at worst counter-beneficial to Wikipedia. If they continue with disruptive edits, we may be forced into a block as a next step - but for now, lets wait and see, and hope for the best possible outcome for everyone involved. --- Barek(talk) - 16:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• He's started back up again, with someone bending over backwards to help, shows no sign of getting it, nor of wanting to get it, so I've blocked him indef. While I suggest that he not be unblocked until there is some hint of a significant change in approach, I'll explicitly say that anyone who wants to overturn this, or change it to a block of fixed duration, doesn't need to talk to me first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An indef block sounds like a fine solution to me. There comes a point when one has to say that it's terminal, and that whatever we do, we're just wasting effort. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:oknazevad

[16] A wholly unwarranted, threatening talk page message. I simply removed a recently added header I thought was unneeded (and clearly explained such in my edit summary here), merging the material in the header above it, in line with WP:BRD. Instead of proper discussion on the talk page (where previous concerns of mine have never been addressed), I get a clear threat from someone trying to WP:OWN the article.

Funny thing is that the edit wasn't even by Tomatosoup97, but User:Oanabay04, who's pattern of edits and behavior is similar. oknazevad (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A vandalism warning was clearly inappropriate, a level 4 warning all the more so, especially from an experienced editor. Rlendog (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting contrib history for Tomatosoup97. Very sparing over the years, but with a fair knowledge of WP protocols, and a suggestion of a harsher stance than someone with a similar editing history such as, for instance, Oknazevad (a couple of specific transport subjects and Billy Joel...) As for the warning, which I note you have removed, I think it can be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I don't remember editing Billy Joel. oknazevad (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oknazevad, you've notified Tomatosoup97 but not Oanabay04 - please note you must notify ALL editors you ask this board to look at - I have notified Oanabay04 for you. Exxolon (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I've never files an ANI before. oknazevad (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove me from this subject. For the sake of transparency, it should be known that I am familiar with the user with the handle of Tomatosoup97 and have communicated with the person before. But this threat did not come from me, and it does seem a tad harsh. Thank you kindly.Oanabay04 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still have concerns about your lack of communication on the talk page at SEPTA Regional Rail, but I apologize for dragging you into this. oknazevad (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are apparently familiar with this editor, perhaps you could advise them on the appropriate use of warning notices and what does and does not constitute vandalism? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

maybe i overreacted, though don’t think so. oknazevad, while knowledgable on many Wiki editing techniques, is a blowhard and suffers from WP:NICE and WP:OWN, editwise. several cases noted below: CASE #1

• do not make personal attacks

CASE #2 the Rudeness continues with the WP:OVERLINK. That entire argument was an example of nitpicking and not acepting that several editors disagreed with you. Epeefleche is respectful, you arent

• WP:OVERLINK

CASE #3. Then there’s this to oanabay04“Oh, where do I start with this load of crap?” Nuff Sed.

CASE #4: an entire set of your edits annoyed someone and i dont see any response from you unless you edited them out which based on your [page] you do alot of so you come out smelling like roses:

oknazevad fails on the following on all counts:

• WP:CON
• WP:PA
• WP:3RR
• WP:Ignore all rules (see CASE #1 Doc9871)
• WP:NPA (see CASE #1 from Prari)
• Also see talk

How oknazevad has been allowed to continue is deplorable.Tomatosoup97 (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This (most of which looks irrelevant) seems to be in response to another recent thread here on ANI. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Oknazevad that you've revived this. Tomatosoup, would you mind explaining the point of this, other than that you don't appear to like Oknazevad? lifebaka++ 15:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These were all resolved amicably, and yes are quite irrelevant. But, as background, the first was my overreaction to repeated vandalism to my talk page by a persistent vandal (who was blocked shortly after), the second was my exposure to a contentious guideline, the last was properly discussed and resolved with a larger group of editors. The third was, admittedly, in poor taste. It was a content dispute that grew over-heated. But, as I said, it was irrelevant to this discussion, and the WP:OWN issues behind it. oknazevad (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullying in academia

Can somebody close this please ? AFD has been going on for 11 days. After about 7 days (ref my comment in the AFD: "COMMENT: Thanks to User:Novickas we now have 4 text sections and 9 dfferent inline references.--Penbat (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)"), bullying in academia was given a major rescuing overhaul and ever since there has been 6 straight keeps.--Penbat (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will be closed in due course. No need for haste. There is a clear move toward keep. SilkTork *^YES! 21:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WorkingProtonk (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Closed as keep. Like I said in the closing comment please take some of the criticism raised in the AfD onboard when improving the article. Protonk (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems at Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM)

I still hesitate to do this, but I think enough is enough. I became aware of this situation recently when PPdd(talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made new section at Talk:Alternative medicine claiming that he had found a source confirming that AltMed/TCM is pseudoscience (or something like that) - a “prominent TCM practitioner” had said (in an interview with another TCM practitioner) that he thought TCM was ‘a science’ because of its complex rituals in planting, harvesting and preparing medicines, even if ‘lab science’ didn't confirm its effectiveness (I'm paraphrasing) diff. For almost two months now, he has “worked” on Traditional Chinese medicine, introducing obscure medicines (like human penis), deleting sources he didn't like as “NRS” (probably meaning non-reliable source) while admitting that he couldn't assess at least some of them because he doesn't have access to them and/or doesn't speak the language and cherry picking sources that match his POV. When others tried to revert him, he assumed it must be a sockpuppet/meatpuppet attack, opening a case and adding everyone to it who objected to the way he changed the article (SPI case); while one editor later admitted he had, unaware of WP:SOCK created two new accounts, when he learned of the policy he promptly abandoned them and - as suggested by PPdd diff - changed his user name (which by the time was his real name). PPdd added his new name to the list of suspected sockpuppets even though he was the one suggesting the re-name, so he must have known that this is not a sockpuppet but the the same account. Those who want to change the article are constantly accused of either having a COI or not knowing anything about TCM (TCM practitioners are usually accused of both, and imho he's also showing signs of ownership.
Since it was made clear to the newer/less experienced editors that simply reverting or deleting material they don't like isn't OK, the most active opponents of PPdd (Mallexikon, Herbxue and Calus) have started using the talk page instead and - in my eyes - made reasonable suggestions. An experienced editor (Ludwigs2) very early on told PPdd that his both his editing style and the results of it were less than ideal and said he (Ludwigs2) wanted to try and improve the article. When Ludwigs2 offered his help on the article talk, most of the editors there agreed that this was a good way to move forward, but somehow it made PPdd feel he had to “out” himself [17][18] to show he was competent. After Ludwigs2 started working on the article yesterday, he was reverted almost immediately by an IP user who later registered an account and another IP that had never before edited Wikipedia. In a sockpuppet case initiated by Ludwigs2, PPdd later said that the new user was a friend of him using the same internet café, that he knew her well and had told her about “what Ludwigs2 had just done after [PPdd] walked away”. After telling people for some weeks now that they should give him time to finish “his” work on the article and assuring them they'd be happy with the final result, he should give Ludwigs2 the same opportunity at least for some days and he certainly shouldn't do what he'd call recruiting meatpuppets if anyone else did it. Could an admin please have a closer eye at the article and weigh in if things get too hot? --Six words (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response, I am a fairly new editor, though my edit counts are misleadingly high and only for a handful of articles. I also note that I like Six words, and added her as one of the very first on my user page “list of helpful editors”, because she is a nitpicker for accuracy on my edits, which although frustrating at the time, help improve WP and help improve my own editing skills. I just deleted Ludwigs2, but kept her, because I still have the same opinion. Also, I responded here[19].

I add the following, point by point.

• "I became aware of this situation recently when PPdd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made new section at Talk:Alternative medicine claiming that he had found a source confirming that AltMed/TCM is pseudoscience (or something like that) - a “prominent TCM practitioner” had said (in an interview with another TCM practitioner) that he thought TCM was ‘a science’ because of its complex rituals in planting, harvesting and preparing medicines, even if ‘lab science’ didn't confirm its effectiveness (I'm paraphrasing) diff.”

• The talk alt med comment was I response to Ludwigs2 claiming no TCM person claimed it to be a science, and in this source not only overtly stated it was a science because of elaborate and meticulous occult practices, but that it did not believe in reproducing results in controlled conditions, or verifiability at all.

• ”For almost two months now, he has “worked” on Traditional Chinese medicine, introducing obscure medicines (like human penis), deleting sources he didn't like as “NRS” (probably meaning non-reliable source) while admitting that he couldn't assess at least some of them because he doesn't have access to them and/or doesn't speak the language and cherry picking sources that match his POV.”

• I never introduced “obscure” medicines, they are all either highly used or highly discussed in Chinese literature and the press. I deleted hundreds of NRS and NMEDRS things from the article, and within days restored them ALL with RS, or reworded per MEDRS. When I came to the article, it had almost no sources, now almost all lines are referenced, and no content has gone missing or been kept out that I am aware of. I did ask for translations of Chinese script sources in the footnotes, per WP:V, but I did not object to the content to go back in while the editor worked on translating them. When I first deleted the esoteric content, which was inconsistent with other RS and content, I expressly moved it to talk to discuss and get help sourcing, so it would not be lost from the article. I never deleted sources “I did not like”, but moved all unsourced content to talk and called out for RS on it, which, if not responded to, I found the RS and I moved it back in. I never “cherry picked” sources, but used sources to support what was already in the article, and for added content, based it almost solely on pro-TCM advocacy sites, the opposite of my own POV, per WP:ENEMY.

• "When others tried to revert him, he assumed it must be a sockpuppet/meatpuppet attack, opening a case and adding everyone to it who objected to the way he changed the article (SPI case); while one editor later admitted he had, unaware of WP:SOCK created two new accounts, when he learned of the policy he promptly abandoned them and - as suggested by PPdd diff - changed his user name (which by the time was his real name). PPdd added his new name to the list of suspected sockpuppets even though he was the one suggesting the re-name, so he must have known that this is not a sockpuppet but the the same account."

• I did not ASSUME it was a Sock/meat attack, they admitted it, and it WAS one, and ten accounts are tagged, five blocked, and financial COIs and SPAs admitted to. Further, in the sock/meat investigation, User:Herbxue/User:BMatson/[[User:BrendanMatson[[ admitted they all came in together as COI SPA, but based on responding to a “discussion forum” he refused to provide a link for. Recently, User:Calus provided the link[20]. The link is for AFTER they all came in, a deliberate lie in an ongoing sock/meat investigation. The editors in question deleted 3RR warnings from their talk pages after being noticed, then continued to edit war as COI/SPAs with the various accounts, some of which are now blocked. I suggested a rename for anonymity, added the new name to the Sock list to help that editor out so it would appear he was different than the first, and helpd him archive talk page discussion that might reveal his identity. In fact, the accounts were created after 3RR warnings, to continue edit warring. User:Calus deleted the 3RR warning from his talk page and continued to war. They claimed they all came to WP in response to a discussion forum, as their response to Sock/MEAT accusations. Herbxue refused to provide a link to the forum, constantly changing their story around, and just recently Calus finally provided the link [21], a post created AFTER the sock/meat accusations! No one is investigating this, and I am not familiar enogh with WP process to know what to do about this lie.

Please check the page for the sock puppet investigation. It should be closed as everything has been found to be exactly as I repeatedly explained it to be. The link you refer to is not where I heard about the WP problems. I am not part of a group with any of the other editors. Also, I have only contributed sensible posts to the talk page since my first day on the WP TCM page when I tried to remove the snake oil and "moxing" photos. You continue to try to discredit other editors who are not associated with me based on my newbie mistake of creating user jdaybreak before I knew about user namechange. There is no SP/MP attack going on. You also outed me which is not acceptable. You owe Calus and everyone else you wrongly accused of SP/MP an apology.Herbxue (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ”Those who want to change the article are constantly accused of either having a COI or not knowing anything about TCM (TCM practitioners are usually accused of both, and imho he's also showing signs of ownership.

• I did not accuse anyone of COI. Before I ever mentioned COI, the ten or so new editors in question ADMITTED they were COI and SPA practitioners, with a financial interest to alter the appearance of TCM at Wikipedia, deleting standard TCM medicines that look “shocking” or “bizarre”, images they do not like, content they do not like, and RS and MEDRS they do not like. I am not showing "signs of ownership", as can be seen by my cooperation with Mallexicon's (an admitted POV COI-practitioner) numerous edits which I have left untouched, except to ask per WP:V for translations of the citations. My "signs of ownership" are that I have defended any addition of RS content by any editor no matter what their POV, helped others find RS for their edits in a reasonable few days, and I have objected to deletion of any RS content that most any encyclopeida reader would want to know, no matter what the POV.

• "Since it was made clear to the newer/less experienced editors that simply reverting or deleting material they don't like isn't OK, the most active opponents of PPdd (Mallexikon, Herbxue and Calus) have started using the talk page instead and - in my eyes - made reasonable suggestions."

• Herbxue and Calus are admitted SPA/COI’s with a financial interest, who said the WP article is damaging their business. They admit they came to WP with 10 others “from” a “discussion forum” to create an artificial “consensus” to alter the TCM article to “better promote TCM’s image to the general public”, or something like that. When asked for the web address of the “discussion forum”, their stories were all over the map, culminating in the claim that this[22] is the forum, BUT THE DATE OF THE FORUM POST THEY CAME TO WP IN RESPONSE TO IS AFTER THE DATE THEY ALL STARTED. Mallexicon has been making a large number of edits almost continuously since at least November, and I have worked well with him, despite his admission to being a .

• "An experienced editor (Ludwigs2) very early on told PPdd that his both his editing style and the results of it were less than ideal and said he (Ludwigs2) wanted to try and improve the article."

• Ludwigs2 admits he is not experienced in this field, and yesterday he deleted almost the entire line by line RS cited lead in admitted ignorance, and tried to gut the article RS content to achieve his self admitted POV, to be later supplemented with research to back up knocking out the all of the RS content. When he first objected at talk months ago, to including anything about the “alternative anatomy” and physiology, supernaturally qi driven blood that self propelled itself not by pumping of the hear – THE essential fact upon which TCM is based, Chinese alchemy upon which TCM medicines are made, Chinese atrology as to using the day and hour of birth for diagnosis and as to planting on the solstice, sympatheic magic basing the medicines, etc. When the list of medicines showed toxic poisons as being considere helpful, not harmful, e.g., The TCM “King of the 100 herbs” is aconite, the “Queen of Poisons”, he objected to having any medicines listed at all, even though they were there since the article’s inception, only discussing their ecological impact, not use in TCM. He argued that this was a minor part of TCM. In fact, most of TCM is family practiced, and not via doctors. Among the doctor part, 75% is the medicines, a fact LUdwigs2 just deleted and falsely reworded to what he wanted it to be.

• When I pointed out that he sould read about TCM before making claims as to what it is, he did not do so, and instead did NOT help out as he said he would, contrary to what Six words was misled into believing via the false and fact omitting accusations and assertions of Ludwigs2. Instead, he advised a SPA/COI-practitioner editor that he was an expert at Wikipedia politics, and could come in after I did months of work on the article, and delete anything or any presentation of information such as images, using his political skills, so that SPA/COI need only to have patience.

• "When Ludwigs2 offered his help on the article talk, most of the editors there agreed that this was a good way to move forward, but somehow it made PPdd feel he had to “out” himself [23] [24] to show he was competent."

• The is the second of his “offers” to “help” the SPA/COI/SOCKs. As the talk page shows, “most” of the editors were the undisclosed new SPA/COI editors, who admitted to coming in to create an artificial “consensus” to whitewash the images and content of the article. In fact, Ludwigs2 overtly threatened to make huge MOS violating style changes and ridiculous UNDUE claims, WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION ON THE TALK PAGE at all, then eliminated. I “outed” myself because Ludwigs2 clearly knew nothing about TCM based on his preposterous statements in the past two months, and just admitted this after deleting the entire lead, then saying he had to do research to see if he was correct about it, even though the lead had multiple RS for each line for months, and Ludwigs2 replaced this with his own false NRS POV opinion. In addition to completely deleting the RS lead, and POV gutting the RS content to remake TCM in the pre-image he would research to find RS for, he publicly accused me over and over about not knowing anything about TCM. In fact, I am a dry-climate plant expert, and chief American scientist for a huge Chinese conglomerate that among other things, makes pharmaceuticals from TCM medicines. How else could I reply to his accusations of bad faith editing based on my ignorance of the subject, and his repeated uncivil name calling as to that, other than a partial outing, which I would like deleted where it occurs.

I will continue this point by point response after a break. PPdd (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to defend everything PPdd has done in this case, but will just make it clear that the matter is complicated and there's another side to this matter. PPdd is correct in that sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry has been involved here, with an attack by multiple new editors who responded to a short article on a website which complained about the acupuncture article. User:Herbxue is a professional L.Ac. who "teaches classes in herbal medicine, fundamental theory, and the TCM treatment of immunological disorders and oncology." He is also director of education at a large "college of oriental medicine" with multiple campuses and thus has a huge COI, as do many of the MP who are also professionals who profit from favorable articles. Most have been blocked as obvious socks and meat puppets. The SP/MP situation has calmed down and a couple have remained as editors which is okay, but they need to learn our policies. They still wish to make the acupuncture and Traditional Chinese medicine articles look more like sales brochures and Ludwigs2 is enabling them by vandalistic mass deletions of properly sourced information. Instead he should be organizing the material in a collaborative manner since PPdd's formatting may have left something to be desired (although it did make sense). Most of his content was well-sourced and that is being deleted by Ludwigs2 whose typical strong arm threats have gotten him an AE block that is contested. The situation is a mess and more eyes are needed on the situation since it's basically a mass attempt to create a non-NPOV article and PPdd has felt it rested on his shoulders alone. Others need to get involved, since so far it's mostly promoters of fringe POV who are showing up to create a fringe consensus that violates NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that Brangifer's assessment is a mischaracterization of what is happening. PPdd does not have competence in the subject and has emphasized obscurities as the main bulk of the article. The ONLY thing about the page that had multiple accused SP's actually editing were two photos that even skeptics agreed did not belong on the page. Everything else has been independent editors, include people who seem to have been around for a long time. I am a full-time academic who's job is to teach and explain TCM and I get paid the same whether there's 5 or 45 students in my classes (I prefer 5:)). I'm here because the page was VERY POV when PPdd was left to torture it, and I have only been advising on the talk page. Please read everything I've ever written and you will agree I am only here to tell you what TCM is and is not, not to up-sell its efficacy. If you look at the version of the page Ludwigs2 edited, it is more appropriate in style and more neutral in tone (I still think its hypercritical - but it is not the absurd mess that PPdd keeps reverting to). I am willing to live with a slightly hyper-critical view of TCM but not the grotesque and absurd spectacle PPdd has made it out to be. The community has taken more interest and most agree that PPdd has been disruptive, takes ownership inappropriately, and is ignoring community consensus to let someone else edit the page. In my opinion, PPdd should be limited to posting only on the talk page. Then he still gets a voice but cannot dominate and undo everyone else's efforts.Herbxue (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

• @ Brangifer: Your attempt to attack editors rather than discuss content issues is against policy and common decency. You should be ashamed. to whit:
  • Nothing I have done is vandalistic in the slightest, and accusing me of vandalism without reason or cause is offensive and disruptive. I was in fact organizing the material, but made no headway because of blanket reverts from sockpuppets.
  • Your automatic assertion that anyone who knows anything about the topic is a fringe advocate is detrimental to the encyclopedia and a deep violation of AGF. One would think that someone who actually knew something about TCM and acupuncture (such as a professional L.Ac., teacher and director of education at a larege "college of oriental medicine") would be an incredible asset to the page; claiming COI and casting him as a fringe advocate without evidence is groundless, mindless crapulence, and you should know better
  • You are in fact supporting PPdd's sock-puppetry and tendentious editing practices by attacking other editors on the page, so do not lead of with a disingenuous denial that you're doing so. I am sick to death of science editors who put in-group loyalty ahead of the project's interests.
• PPdd's "well-sourced" additions all deal with nostrums and preparations that have the same relationship to TCM that homeopathy and magnetic healing bracelets have to scientific medicine. to whit:
  • PPdd self-admits [25] that he takes his information from 'TCM advert sites' (assumedly internet sites that sell purported chinese remedies) backed up by MEDRS RS (meaning medical sources critical of these particular remedies). This is akin to writing a medical article on 'impotence research' by using the information in spam viagra emails and the sites that try to stop them.
  • more than 50% of PPdd's additions deal in glorious detail with animal penises, human and animal feces, and even the purported consumption of human organ meat, few of which are a significant aspect of chinese medicine (they are either historical curiosities that are never practiced or elements of quackery praying on sexual impotence fears). The only significant ones he lists are "ass-hide pellets" and "deer penis" (ass hide is used to make pill casings much the way that western medicine has used rendered animal fats to make gelatin tablets or use pig intestines as a casing for various products; penises of various slaughtered animals in the west are also put to use - what do you think goes into hot dogs?)
  • more than more than 90% of the remainder of PPdd's additions focus solely on materials that are poisonous, which disregards the facts that (a) many common western medicines - such as curare - are also poisonous but perfectly usable as medicines under the proper controls, and (b) few if any deaths from poisoning occur from TCM practice.

In other words, PPdd has been writing a drastically unbalanced article that only deals with topics that the western reader will view as offensive, disgusting, or dangerous, and now he is using unpleasant tactics like sockpuppetry to make sure that that unbalanced version of the article stays in place.

I don't really see why this was brought to ANI, but such is life. However, I would appreciate it if an administrator would formally caution Brangifer on civility and AGF to prevent him from indulging in further scandal-mongering or attacks on other editors. --Ludwigs2 16:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like meat puppetry/off-wiki canvassing on one side and sock-puppetry/off-wiki canvassing/meatpuppetry on PPdd's side. I don't think either case is proven, though. Both sides should simply behave better. Your opinion that the western reader will view the facts about TCM added by PPdd as offensive, disgusting, or dangerous is beside the point, Ludwigs2. The question is whether they warrant the weight he's giving them. This aspect of the dispute is over content and does not belong here. Unless someone can prove sock puppetry, meat puppetry or off-wiki canvassing, this thread doesn't belong here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't bring the issue here, and PPdd is clearly guilty of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PPdd, and is clearly editing in an agressive, tendentious manner. The other side I don't know anything about. There is no question about whether PPdd's additions warrant the weight he's given them - they don't. but you're right, that doesn't need to be discussed here. --Ludwigs2 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly there is a question over weight here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think either case is proven. The link provided by Calus sure smells like canvassing but it is dated after the article was rushed by pro-TCM editors. Probably there is another forum thread or blog post that no one is disclosing dated just before the rush of editors but, without a link, that's just conjecture. The case against PPdd is pretty ducky, but not as probable as the case against his interlocutors. Please just behave everybody, and go back to civil argument. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, there is no question of weight at all for anyone who has a modicum of knowledge about the topic or uses even a trace of common sense. Or is it your opinion that people have been using chinese medicine for something like 1500 years just for its poisonous-deer-penis-and-fecal-matter teas? Of course, the real person to ask is Herbxue, who reputedly has extensive training and knowledge in the field, but according to brangifer he's some sort of scurrilous fringe advocate. In short, the only possible way to credit PPdd's edits as reasonable and balanced is to create such a cloud of ignorance and suspicion that no one can possibly tell what reasonable and balanced is. To my mind, that's a ridiculous and anti-encyclopedic way to handle things.
      • To your other point, PPdd has admitted to knowing Daniela intimately, and discussing the article with her. the fact that she instantly sprang to reverting to his version, using his language to justify it, is more than enough evidence of meatpuppetry (and that's giving him the benefit of the doubt that this 'daniela' person actually exists)--Ludwigs2 17:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don't attack the common sense of those who disagree with you and take the content dispute to the article's talk page.
        • If she were editing to his instructions, sure. But that's not what's been admitted to. PPdd has admitted to exuberance on the part of a friend. I'm not sure I believe him. But I don't know he's making it up either. I do know that someone posted a call to action on that Wordpress blog. And the flood of editors to the page looks even more wrong than PPdd's story. Please all go back to civil argument and behave from now on. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look, if you want to play public defender for PPdd, that's your business. I can't imagine why you'd want to do that, unless you have such a poor grasp of the context of the dispute that you can actually (somehow) think that he's in the right on this issue and needs to be defended blindly and implicitly, but whatever. I suggest you let it go, unless you have something other than blind prejudice against the topic motivating you. --Ludwigs2 17:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Charming. I couldn't give a toss about the content dispute. If I did, I'd be discussing it on the article talk page. Take it there. I do care about editors canvassing, puppeting and insulting other editors. None of you comes out of this looking pretty. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human penis, pubic hair, and feces are NOT "highly discussed" in TCM literature. Please "Materia Medica" by Dan Bensky or 中药学 Zhong Yao Xue published by Shanghai U of TCM (a standard reference text for TCM Universities in the PRC). PPdd found something on the internet and called it RS. PPdd not a subject matter expert so does not have a proper sense of context for the stuff found on the internet.Herbxue (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. Please argue it on the article's talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the talk page where sockpuppetry and tendentious editing is rendering all discussion and progress meaningless? lol --Ludwigs2 17:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Try to win by force of argument and drop the personal attacks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which personal attacks are you referring to? the part where I describe what's actually happening on the page? get real. And yes, I will continue trying to se reason on the page, and I will eventually succeed in getting the point across. It's just disheartening the amount of effort I'm going to have to go through just to get a set of simple and obvious revisions into place. Thank you for being part of the problem. --Ludwigs2 17:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know. It's hard. Do not question the common sense of other editors who disagree with you. Do not play the man. Address the arguments. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, if it were a matter of winning by force of argument then it would have been settled by now. There is consensus that PPdd's approach to the subject is inappropriate. But it requires him agreeing to accept the consensus of the community. I have asked him to do that several times and have led by example - stating I would accept Ludwigs edits even though they still seem hypercritical. There has to be a mechanism to prevent ownership of the page and disregard for community consensus building.Herbxue (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only tools you have are policy and the quality and clarity of your arguments... on the article talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herb, never mind. Anthony has apparently made up his mind, and it's doubtful that any arguments you might make will change that. --Ludwigs2 18:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost two hours, and no administrator has yet cautioned brangifer about incivility, personal attacks, and AGF for this post, so I am making a second request that this be done, on the assumption that administrators missed my previous request. thanks.--Ludwigs2 18:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which words do you find problematic? I see you object to "vandalistic". Well, I call mass removal of sourced content without collaboration vandalistic. That's my term for it, whether it's done by an IP vandal or a pushy editor who has a habit of threatening (and you got an AE block for it) other editors and then marching in and deleting things. That's not very collaborative. You should have done it by discussion. I might well have supported you if I had noticed such an approach. Instead you allied yourself with editors who wanted a sales brochure of an article. Not smart.

Keep in mind that we all were - without your involvement (and your refusal to consider the matter) - just coming out of a massive sock and meat puppet attack that involved SPI and blocking of a number of IPs, and you chose to side with them. That automatically raised lots of suspicion. Fortunately the matter has settled down. My comments should be seen with that history.

I did not defend PPdd ("PPdd's formatting may have left something to be desired"), but I do object to your bully tactics, and I'll defend any editor whom you treat in that manner, and apparently I'm not the only one, since you got blocked for it. Why do you repeat it here? BTW, you are in error above ("scurrilous fringe advocate"??). I welcome professionals ("The SP/MP situation has calmed down and a couple have remained as editors which is okay, but they need to learn our policies.") when they have learned what NPOV means, but when they wish to remove criticism of sourced content, I have reservations. The matter could have been dealt with more collaboratively, rather than barging in and deleting.

It's pretty amazing that right after your block for threatening PPdd you attempt to bully Anthonyhcole here. I must say he's got a very patient way of dealing with your nasty behavior, and you don't like it when I call you on such behavior. Your call for someone to caution me rings pretty hollow when the pot is calling the kettle black, but you typically season your pot with threats and bullying. I rarely comment on it, but this time I did. For that I deserve a barnstar! Defending other editors against bullying isn't wrong. You're fresh off a block for such behavior and if you keep it up, I wouldn't be surprised if you got another one. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's all well and good to talk about consensus-building and discussion at the article talk page, but as anyone who has spent much time on Wikipedia knows, it's not always possible. It's just too easy to sit there and hit revert a couple times every 24 hours until the other person has the sense of decency to stop. And that decent person's only recourse is to seek outside help. There was already a complaint at WP:NPOV/N which did not solicit much new input; Requests for Comment are broken, and so here we are. I'm not quite giving up on discussion at this point, but so far it does not look that promising, so there may be a topic ban request or an arbitration request down the line. I don't think we're quite there yet, but I'm new to the article. II (t - c) 20:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been mentioned here in a few places, so I am going to comment. However, I'm going to keep it brief since I feel the whole matter has already taken too much of my time and attention. In my inexperience as an editor I let myself be goaded into behavior I would not otherwise condone. I followed the lead of the person who was the cause of frustration and resorted to cries of vandalism and accusations of bad faith. It takes two to tango, I will not sit here and try to defend all my actions, I've come to believe that I should have tried to remain civil despite the other parties actions. I've also come to learn that there is no point in trying to defend myself, since that then becomes fuel to misquote and be used as accusations against me. (vis a vis providing a link to what made ME aware of WP articles was twisted be a link about some imaginary "group" of sock/meat puppetry- even though the timeline is totally different and I was in most likely hood one of about 20 people to ever read the blog article I posted.) My actions were wrong, and I am sorry. I am able to admit that now since cooler heads and more experienced editors are now paying attention to the article, and that makes me feel less of a sense of injustice. I know I am not alone in my views of the tragedy which is the TCM page. That being said; PPdd has made it impossible for anyone else to work on the article. He refuses to agree to any consensus and resorts to accusations mentioned above. I realize that people like me who focus on single articles are often very disruptive, but if you look at my actions, you will see that I am not to blame in this instance. I have no objection to some of the crazily absurd content on that page, but I don't feel it should comprise the overwhelming majority of the information about TCM. I understand content should be discussed on the talk page, but again, PPdd has made it impossible for any revisions other than his own to be made. He has repeatedly inferred his own bias (i.e. claiming to make TCM herbs into REAL medicine) and agenda to make a point about TCM. The simplest way to fix this is for PPdd to be banned from editing the TCM page.Calus (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think PPdd should be banned from this article. He definetely did a lot of good here - the citation level has improved and there's less esoteric blah blah in the article. However:

• PPdd, as I told you before I think you're moving too fast. You repeatedly deleted a few good edits of mine (sorry I'm too lazy to diff but I guess you remember) - in error, as you stated you yourself, but not everybody is as patient as me, and people tend to take these things hard. You consequently mistake me for other users (I am not a "COI preaticitioner with a financial interest", for example. I'm a general physician who happens to work in Shanghai. I don't practice TCM and I never said I did). These are all mistakes that typically happen if you do too many things at the same time. I know your intentions are good but this clash here was inevitable
• Yes, PPdd seems to like to emphasize the bizarre sides of TCM (astrology, human parts, animal products etc.) and I already complained about that on the talk page. As long as there are as many editors active on the article as now, however, I think those TCM-fringe-phenomenons can be put into the right perspective. Mallexikon (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Massive breach of consensus

• Fukushima I nuclear accidents (edit talk history links watch logs)
• Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant (edit talk history links watch logs)

User:Rememberway merged Fukushima I nuclear accidents back to Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant against earlier discussion, that concluded in splitting of the articles. This all happened while the events were being featured as the top current event on the main page. After the back-merge there has been massive, absolutely unanimous consensus against the merge. Given that the back-merge discussion only lasted for 45 minutes and involved only three editors, and User:Rememberway had to constantly ignore multiple editors who warned that there was no consensus to perform the back-merge, I think the decision is quite obviously a breach of clear editor consensus, and ought to be reverted. However, Fukushima I nuclear accidents is protected, and the split can not be performed before it is unprotected. --hydrox (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: I am seeking an admin to de-protect the accidents article and give a blessing that the obvious consensus is for two separate articles, and thus end the counter-productive edit war. Protecting the accidents article is one way to end it, but results in a situation that is against the wish of the majority of the editor community. Also, many other major Wikipedias have separate article for the plant and the current accident (browse to wikitext bottom for list). --hydrox (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a case of m:the wrong version being protected. I understand that consensus is, at the moment, heavily against merging, but is there any reason this cannot wait a day or two to let more users contribute to the discussion? lifebaka++ 16:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the page that is supposed to deal with the power plant is now very long and hard to follow, because it has massive amounts of info on the 2011 events. This was the original reason for the split. Back-merge was done at 08:34 UTC, and it's now closing 16:30 UTC. If absolutely required, I would say 16 hours is enough to give time to all parties on all time zones to give input in a fast-developing articles like this, but this could also be interpreted as a case of WP:SNOW, given the overwhelming opposition to the back-merge after 8 hours. This includes a comment by an independent party. --hydrox (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is pretty clear for two pages, but the revert war created a huge mess. For a while there was two separate versions being simultaneously edited, which would quickly lead to divergence and some fixes being in one version but not the other. For that reason, I think the protection should remain for a while more while we take some time to hammer down consensus and think about how to implement the split, which is harder than it sounds while the article is being heavily edited. There's no rush here, we can wait a day. Anyone think 08 UTC tomorrow seems like a good time to close the discussion and implement the result? henrik•talk 16:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to wheel war but my judgment as an editor is that the incident (at least the Fukushima I incident) need to be broken back out. There is no question in my mind that a page for the incident is merited. Protonk (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have unprotected Fukushima I nuclear accidents. Can I trust you guys to do the split. Let me know if you would like the article move protecting at the end of it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing the re-split now --hydrox (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the articles shouldn't be split right now. Contrary to what people are saying the merged article is well under the size limits, and the articles were getting grossly out of step. By breaking the article on the site from the accident on the site in practice you end up with duplication; it's essentially a copyvio about the site.Rememberway (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While there's a lot of editing going on (and there is a lot), keeping them in one article is much more sensible.Rememberway (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Copyvio? Given the back and forth on this it wouldn't surprise me if there is a copyvio as the edit history as required by our licenses is lost somewhere strange but simply splitting an article, whether necessary or not doesn't automatically lead to copyvios. Concerns of excessive duplication etc are understandable but a different thing. The way to handle any copyvio concerns is by insisting editors ensure they provide attribution in the edit history when copying between articles which is always going to be a risk anyway whether the article is merited or not. In any case, in the event of a split it's usually made clear content came from the other article which is potentially sufficient even for content later copied. Also while I haven't looked in to this particular case but in some events even if not violating the size limits, having too much on one incident in the article can lead to undue weight concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• well I opposed separating the article in the first place and supported re-merging. The combined article is nowhere near too long since the power station article had been an unnoticed stub for 3 years before this all began. They might have the potential for multiple articles, but so do lots of things. I consider it was a mistake to do the original split. Some editor have since resisted adding details about the plant to the accident article on the grounds that it is duplication, but you can hardly discuss an exploding power plant without explaining what is exploding. This was particularly true since the power plant article was, as I said, only a few paragraphs of basic information. It was also the case that whether or not the merge today was merited, at the time no one was about for hours as far as I could see to comment upon it or express an opinion. In the same way that someone today decided to merge the two articles when no one was about, yesterday someone decided that a vote of 9 for split against 7 to not split was a consensus to do so. Someone commented that the power station and accident artciles have become two of wikis most visited pages: I think that suggests anyone interested wants to read all the information in both articles. Someone needs to sort out a big history mess.Sandpiper (talk)

Sorry, not copyvio, duplication. The articles have to summarise everything in their scope, so the main article on the plant has to summarise the accident, including in the introduction; that's the policy. It all happened on the plant site. It just wasn't being updated at all. And I don't buy the undue weight thing; this is going to be the thing that everyone remembers most about the plant, and all the sources are going to be talking about for *decades* ;-).Rememberway (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure how that position leaves you in opposition to a split. If the plant article is not keeping up with the incident article then the solution is to edit the summary in the plant article to reflect information on the incident, not move the incident into the plant article. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can discuss the technical exacts of the accident on one article but still keep the details needed to understand the whole picture on two pages, if it helps the structuring of the information. Again, I point to Chernobyl disaster for reference. --hydrox (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-split done

Article has now been re-split, and I hope there will be more throughout discussion next time a previous consensus is overridden. --hydrox (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill was very similar to this, and it was split early on from both the BP article and the Deepwater Horizon article. It makes abundant sense to split the articles so they can develop, so long as a clear hatnote guides readers to the place they are most likely to go. Of course, there should be brief mention in the main reactor article that there is an ongoing incident, and it should probably be in the lead, but otherwise it should be brief and clearly linked. Ocaasi (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes Needed

With workers leaving the planet, eyes are going to be needed on the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant article and possible semi-protection if necessary. Related articles might need eyes and semi-protection as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 02:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope they're just leaving the plant, not the planet. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, "plant" not "planet". Wow...BIG mistake there. That's what I get for typing too fast and not checking for mistakes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 03:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, if a 9.0-magnitude earthquake hit my town, my house was destroyed by a 40-foot tsunami wave, my workplace had an explosion (or two), and I might have been exposed to high amounts of radiation, I'd probably want to leave the planet, too. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't forget your towel if you leave! Ravensfire (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• See Liquidator_(Chernobyl). That was the first thing I thought when I saw Neutralhomer's post about workers leaving the planet. :( 75.57.242.120 (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eyriq86

Can an admin please take a look at Eyriq86? This guy makes tons of changes to MMA wiki articles that are almost all disruptive. I'm sure he's broken the 3RR rule, resulting in edit warring, without recourse. He's been warned constantly, and never replied to the warnings or made an attempt to stop disruptive editing. There was even another ANI already filed for him before but was archived and nothing has changed as a result. Instead he continues to edit MMA articles disruptively like crazy. I mean, just look at his contribution history. He marks all his changes as "minor" and refuses to respond to warnings or talk things out. This guy makes tons of edits every day, PLEASE someone take some sort of action. There's some discussion about him at the MMA Wikiproject talk page, here. Please, please, please don't let this get archived without someone looking into it. I can't possibly revert all his changes to all the MMA articles myself and these disruptive edits and lack of response clearly shows this guy is not editing "in good faith". Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 19:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-communication is simply not an option, especially when edits are problematic and have been identified as such. I've indefblocked Eyriq86. This may seem harsh for a 'first offence' (though I agree there's quite a warning history on their talk page), but indef doesn't mean permanent and it seems to me to be the only way to ensure they can't ignore the concerns. I'm open to a suitable unblock request, though I suggest it will need to include an undertaking to constructively respond to advice and learn from it, and to edit in accordance with site policy in future. Regarding the earlier ANI thread, unfortunately stuff does get missed and archived, but it's meant you've put up with this for longer than you should have had to and for that I can only offer my thanks for your patience and commitment to the site. I hope you are now able to get back to trouble-free editing :) Best, EyeSerene^talk 10:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sambokim's IP needs blocked

Sambokim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user was previously blocked for spamming up various Anyang Halla related articles with PR related copyvios. His job is English PR for the team, his English ability is not that great, as evidenced with previous discussions with him. After the last block he's mostly edited as his seemingly very static IP address: 220.88.45.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and while he does make the odd good contribution, he simply cannot resist adding any and every news story that ever mentions Halla to any article remotely related to Halla, his own, various players, the leagues page, hallas page, etc. A week was insufficient and he sometimes edits sporadically, so I would surmise at least a month might get his attention.--Crossmr (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour of User:Nmate

The context

On 8 December 2010 I was unblocked and granted a second chance after an indefinite block, becoming again a contributor with full rights. Since then, I've been a very active wikipedian and all my edits were made in accordance with the wiki policies. The fact that I've become a trustable user was also recognized by the admin HJ_Mitchell, who gave me reviewer rights.

Nmate (who was notified about this report) may have violated WP:HARASS, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALKO, WP:NOSPADE and WP:PLACE.

In the first place he posted a message on my unblocking admin's talk page asking for details about how I was accepted back in the comnunity

Secondly , he reverted me with no explanation on János Bolyai article. When I asked for a clarification on his talk page, he refused the conversation

Next he filed a report accusing me that I fight against sock puppetry, "instead of flattening to a sequestered corner"

Nmate engaged into an edit war against me at Lajos Kossuth article. The edits he was trying to revert were explained on the article talk page, but he refused to participate at the discussion, preferring to simply revert.

He posted a message on my talk page asking me to leave WikiProject Hungary

Nmate also accused me of "trolling" and deleted my post on User:Yopie 's talk page, breaking WP:TALKO

Later, when I explained him that it is mandatory to inform other users when filing reports against them, he replied me the following "If I report anybody for edit-warring, and then I do not leave notification on the talk page of the reported person, it is my own business"

Current problem

Today, he refused to respect WP:PLACE, even if I informed him 2 times about this policy. He switched the order of alternative names in the lead of the article about Košice and engaged into an edit war on this subject: [26] [27] [28]. According to the rule: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages", but he disregards this (Iaaasi (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

My answer

I have asked the user several times to avoid my enviroment [29][30], but despite this, the user keeps clambering on to my heels, and even my talk page teems with spam messages [31] posted by Iaaasi ,even though I asked the user shun my talk page. And If I started to edit an article, the user still emerges at the same place to make "constructive" edits there, which is quite weird. And when the user was blocked for indefinite time from editing Wikipedia, his sockpuppets still followed me around on Wikipedia.[32][33] And the fact that the user fights against sockpuppetry, is the most weird thing that I have ever seen on Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99 page was opened by User:CyanMoon who was one of the comfirmed sockpuppets of User:Iaaasi--> [34] And then the second reporter was User:YellowFF0 there, who was also one comfirmed sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi--> [35] Interesting to note that Iaaasi is still often proposes checkuser requests at the SPI page of Stubes99 and Tiptoety is the most active checkuser there.

Please note that Iaaasi had made more than 10 confirmed sockpuppets [36] and administrator FisherQueen told one of his sockpuppets that " You've created so many sockpuppet accounts that it's very unlikely that you'll ever find an admin willing to unblock you, or at least, not until several years have passed without any more edits from you. You've tried often enough that you know now that any accounts you make will be blocked, and the changes you want won't be made by you." [37] And that Iaaasi is allowed to edit the English Wikipedia ,again, thanks to the fact that Iaaasi hoodwinked the administrator and checkuser Tiptoety,who does not have a soaring stature anyway, with a very extensive and steadfast IRC canvassing. According to my assumption Iaaasi had devoted six months to covince Tiptoety to handle his unblock in the background.

There is a continous ,mutual, and self confessed interaction between Tiptoety and Iaaasi via IRC, even before Iaaasi received his second chance type of unblock. "I was approached by Iaaasi"[38]"I too have interacted a fair amount with Iaaasi"[39]

Administrator Tiptoety warned user:Squash_Racket [40] and user:Hobartimus[41] on the ground that they reverted all edits of the sockpuppets of Iaaasi , and then User:Rogvaiv1 also reminded Squash Racket of that [42]. But later it came to light that Rogvaiv1 was also a sockpuppet of Iaaasi. There was even an interaction between Tiptoety and user:MarekSS here and MarekSS was also a confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi.

Interestingly enough that Wikipedia:Standard offer reqisites at least 6 months without sockpuppetry, but the WP Offer coming from Iaaasi appeared here on WP ANI, on 27 September, 2010; despite the fact that Iaaasi had 3 detected sockpuppets one month before. See:[43] ->(blocked on 9 August, September)[44]->(blocked on 11 August 2010) [45] ->(blocked on 25 August 2010) [46] At the unblock proposal, Iaaasi was supported by 3 administrators, Tiptoety [47] ,Muzemike (he was the nominator of the unblock proposal ,which based on a false pretense " He has been consistently constructive over at simple.wiki since his block this past March for disruption, and he has not shown to have socked during this period of time." when in fact Iaaasi had 3 detected sockpuppets last month, [48] and Shirik [49]. And , albeit, the community refused to unblock Iaaasi, the acces to be able to edit his own talk page was recovered [50] by administrator Slakr for inscrutable reasons and then administrator Rohnjohnes unblocked him without community discussion 3 months later. [51] Since then the user keeps following me around on Wikipedia for which I am upset.--Nmate (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it can be seen, User:Nmate did not address my accusations against him, but responded again with comments regarding my unblock from December 2010. Instead of accepting that I am again a member of the community, he keeps contesting my unblock for 3 months (instead of WP:LETGO)(Iaaasi (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: Have both parties considered the third step of BRD, Discuss? I see no discussion on the talk page (or on either editor's talk page). I do however see accusations and threats of invoking administrative intervention (WP:EW, ArbCom, etc) by what appears to be both parties. Before this becomes a thing on ANI, can we please try some of the lower tiers of dispute resolution (Talk page discussion, 3O, mediation) before asking for immediate intervention from Administrators? Hasteur (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, your wikihounding aimed at me is still pertinent. Second, if you want to resolve content disputes, then WP ANI is not a right place for it. Third, I do not give a hoot about your opinion related to anything and anybody. Furthermore, I have asked you in the past sveral times to stop following me around on Wikipedia and to stop posting any messages on my talk page but you do not want to complete my request.--Nmate (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are the one who has followed me and reverted me with no reason. Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. Which is your work and how have I inhibited it? (Iaaasi (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Iaaasi is a serial sockpuppeteer who recieved several indefinite blocks please see the following accounts each of which received an indefinite block:

1. Ddaann2 (talk · contribs · logs) 16:17, 17 March 2010
2. Nauneim1 (talk · contribs · logs) 22:16, 16 April 2010
3. Umumu (talk · contribs · logs) 06:43, 20 April 2010
4. Conttest (talk · contribs · logs) 07:16, 12 May 2010
5. DerGelbeMann (talk · contribs · logs) 03:07, 8 June 2010
6. MarekSS (talk · contribs · logs) 03:07, 8 June 2010
7. EurovisionFan2010 (talk · contribs · logs) 03:07, 8 June 2010
8. DusanSK (talk · contribs · logs) 17:07, 16 June 2010
9. Karpatia1 (talk · contribs · logs) 17:15, 9 July 2010
10. Rogvaiv1 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:57, 9 August 2010
11. CyanMoon (talk · contribs · logs) 09:09, 11 August 2010
12. YellowFF0 (talk · contribs · logs) 08:01, 25 August 2010

From the above it is clear that this extremely disruptive user never stopped editing even after this many indefinite blocks, in some cases the banned user edited for several hundred edits before being blocked. See many of them had huge number of contributions and the admins did nothing to stop him WHEN he was blocked. Now it is getting worse this user seems to believe that he is free to harass Hungarian editors all day, continuing the same thing he was blocked for so many times. This is not the case. Hobartimus (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words this block was violated two THOUSAND times easily if we add up all the edits, and all this seems to be ignored. Hobartimus (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That case is closed. You look too much in the past, all these sockpuppets were well known when I was unblocked and since then I've respected all the policies (Iaaasi (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

There is no point in continuing discussion with someone, who dedicated in wikihounding and to pick a quarrel with my edits. Once I had reported this user for a violation of 3RR [52] and soon after his interest in editing the article White Carpathians that I had edit just before I filled my 3RR report concerning Iaaasi, "resuscitated"[53]. (Nauneim is a confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi which was created on the ground that the user was unable to wait until his 3RR block comes to an end. But after the 3RR block had expired, the user also continued editing the article with an abusive 3O request there without having had an interest in editing the article beforehand.[54]Just by checking the edit history of the article Košice out[55], it plainly looks that the user hadn't had any interest in editing the article before I started to edit it, but shortly afterwards his interest in editing the same artice, enhancely increased and picked a quarrel with my edits there and went to ask for an abusive 3O request forgery, too. [56] So that it is not too surprising that if I am unwilling to accept his 3O request forgeries neither here ,nor anywhere else on Wikipedia.--Nmate (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits on White Carpathians were in February 2010, more than 1 year ago, when I was still a very beginner on Wikipedia. And since when asking for a 3O is an abuse? (Iaaasi (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Some of the socks were used to constantly follow around Hungarian editors and revert them, report them to ANI and various places, in violation of rules prohibiting harassment block evasion, with the intention to force them off of wikipedia. It seems very relevant to the present day because if the same thing is going on here (targeted attacks against Hungarian editors) just without the use of the harassment socks, than that's a direct continuation of a more than a year long pattern. Hobartimus (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used my socks for making constructive edits, anyone can check that. If we take in consideration such old events, I can also remind the admins about Nmate's blocks for Personal attacks or harassment of other users: Ethnic slurs and incivility. Let the admins decide if we can talk about targeted attacks of you and Nmate against me or vice-versa

For the record: I was blocked for ethnic slurs and incivility by Elonka, who has an interesting way of thinking, and everyone could check which were the ethnic slurs and incivility for which I was blocked here: [57]--Nmate (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I could also add that at least one of the reasons of my blocking (suspected of being a sock of User:Bonaparte) was wrong.

When I got 48h block, User:Nmate reported me on a subject where the presumed edit war enemy, User:Rokarudi, accepted that my edit was made in good faith and it was not a conflict there. Even if it was technically an edit war, it was not a proper conflict. (Iaaasi (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I think it is important to show what kind of answers I get from Nmate when trying to resolve a dispute by asking for a third opinion: [58] (Iaaasi (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: User:Nmate just got a Warning for incivility (Iaaasi (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I already told that I could not cosider your 3o requests to be serious ones but abusively used ones ,due to what you did at the article White Charpathians and for your continous Wikihounding.--Nmate (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't accept 3O you may propose any other legal way for solving the dispute (except edit warring as until now)(Iaaasi (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

As I told, I do not want you to always edit the same articles as I do.--Nmate (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a collaborative Encyclopedia. As long as the rules are respected by both of us there is no reason to avoid each other. Wikihounding means inhibiting someone else's work, so I ask you again: which is your work, and how have I inhibited it? As the policy says: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles". If you like, I am ready to compare my edit history with yours in order to notice who brought more benefits to the project between us (Iaaasi (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Nmate, this is what you are calling wiki-hounding? The correction made by me by moving the Hungarian name to the correct field in the infobox (from native_name to other_name)? (Iaaasi (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I can confirm the fact that Iaaasi indeed harassed others in the past in fact doing the same for about a year. For example please review the contributions of this attack account [59] from almost a year ago. By that time He already started to stalk, harass, revert other editors then post to ANI (as above) and communicating with various editors[60] [61] [62], attempting to mobilize them against intended targets, pretending that his harassment style attacks were just a "legitimate dispute" over "content" [63] [64], while the sockpuppet account's only purpuse was harassment. All this while being blocked. The MO was always the same, pretend that it's a content dispute while harassing his victims over and over an over reverting them and "warning" them while pretending that his sockpuppets were legitimate editors [65] [66]. Hobartimus (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your accusations, but I will not give a detailed answer. However I am not the subject of this report and these things happened months ago. Please refer exclusively to my post unblock activity (Iaaasi (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

These things happened continuously over a long period I merely gave a single example above. I will provide more examples if necessary. Hobartimus (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any complain, please file a separate report. This discussion is about User:Nmate (Iaaasi (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I would like to inform the admins that Hobartimus has broken WP:NPA, by bringing unsupported accusations: "Iaaasi lied to an admin on IRC to get him to support his unblock" {Iaaasi (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I see this report (as usual) got complicated and it is discussed everything except the reported problem about the unusual behaviour of User:Nmate, 1; 2; 3; openly refusing to work with other editors 1; 2; 3 , his usually empty edit summaries that easily(and almost by a rule) become edit wars (if you don`t explain your edits , how should the other user know what are you doing...) 1. I really think this behavior should be analyzed because we are in a situation of solving something when the other user just sits and engages in edit wars(and not talking), with empty edit summaries... The most current case in at the article Košice ,where , as I can see by now, the same behavior is applied. Adrian (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help

Can someone take a look at all this? Is it necessary for me to make a separate report for this issue? How should I understand this kind of statements , to cooperate with this kind of user and to reach a consensus??? Adrian (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it is called a block shopping ,and wikihounding on your part.(Iadrian yu is not an I.Q. champion) But, you can fill a separate report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring that you are certain to aware of.[67]

Not too surprising that I do not want to "cooperate" with Iadrian yu as it is obvious that the user followed me to that article ,to which hadn't shown any interest beforehand. But despite this, I am willing to discuss with the user, to be filled with abashment:

[68]

"Reverted 1 edit by Rokarudi; Unification of Transilvania with Romania is a fact not a POV. Because Hungarian ultra-nationalists claim Transilvania we can`t mention facts? ".--Nmate (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from name-calling and unsupported accusations. Your "evidence" is taken out of the context(by the way this happened August 2010...), if there is an opportunity/requested to explain I will, but not here(off-topic subject). If you want to accuse me of something please file a separate report and provide evidence for your statements. It would be better if you could explain your behavior than to offend other users...

Never the less your personal opinion of some user might be, if you are not ready to talk , maybe you should reconsider your presence here. I could say the same about you, but I am talking with you without any problems, so please , try to be constructive.Adrian (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, are Adrian and Iaaasi the same person? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. If it is requested I will submit to a check user verification to avoid any confusion. Adrian (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this report isn`t represented in a good manner, I will abandon this ANI and submit a new one, in light of new events and in the interest of explicitly refute the central point. I hope to avoid false accusations like above(that serve no purpose to this discussion) and to discuss the continuing problem of this user behavior. Adrian (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nmate

I am reporting the unusual behavior of user Nmate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The current problem is a long term unusual behavior that is against all principles of the cooperation between wikipedians,WP:AGF,WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. The following diffs provide evidence of openly refusing to talk to some users(even refusing 3rd opinion[69]) and in many instances even insulting while almost by a rule, all this results in edit warring with no apparent reason (blind revers).

• Unusual behavior toward User:Yopie: [70]; [71]; [72];
• Unusual behavior toward User:Iaaasi: [73]; [74]; [75]; [76]; [77];
• Unusual behavior toward me - User:iadrian yu:[78]; [79]; talking about WP:AGF where I supported this user [80]; insults -[81];

He was asked by a 4th user(User:Chaosdruid) to stop a part of this unusual behaviour (empty edit summaries that usually evolve in edit wars) [82] which wasn`t the first time to mention that this user starts to use edit summaries and to avoid blind reverts. He ignored all this and just continued. Some recent examples of this are at articles: [83]; [84]; [85]; [86]; Since talking doesn`t really solve anything (just further insults and unsupported off-topic, out-of-the-context accusations from almost a year ago), I am requesting a block for this kind of long term bad behavior. Thank you Adrian (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the diffs and Nmate does seem to have engaged in some crappy editing as Adrian describes, though most of the diffs are at least a few weeks old. Nmate seems pretty ignorant about dispute resolution viz. his/her repeated threats to take Iaaasi to arbcom.example Iaaasi is currently blocked for edit warring on John Hunyadi and elsewhere continues to make obsessive nationalistic edits on Hungarian place names[87] which is tedious enough that it is probably why nobody pays attention to this dispute any more. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but you either did`t look or you just choose to ignore some facts... This behavior is not noticed only by me, but by other editors also..This user openly insults and refuse to talk with other users which is unacceptable. Does this mean that wikipedia ignores, or even supports this kind of behavior??? Should I also behave like that??? And I never said "crappy editing" - that are your words. About the time table of this diffs, everything is recent. But if you want just from a few days ago , there are diffs for that too. If this ANI doesn`t get any attention I will use other mechanisms for resolving this. This behavior is just unacceptable, every other user would be banned a long time ago.. Adrian (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I described Nmate's edits as being crappy. Do you have a problem with that? Are you saying they are good edits? I'll leave a note asking Nmate to reply here. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should avoid comments like that. By the way, your comment is totally wrong, the diffs you provided has nothing to do with this case (Iaaasi`s block) and "obsessive nationalistic edits" which is a very subjective comment, because we have a guildline that supports Iaaasi`s edit in that case. And of course I notified User:Nmate of this discussion, but you can contact him if you insist. Adrian (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already left Nmate a note. Re the nationalist editing, you and Iaaasi seem more and more like "birds of a feather".[88] Really, the very phenomenon of the three of you getting into edit wars about what order those names are in, shows obsessive nationalism on the part of all of you. Nobody else cares about stuff like that. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is your personal opinion and please keep it to yourself. This report is build on facts only - not opinions. Please avoid name-calling. I could say the same about you...But anyway, the point is, avoid subjective comments like "nationalist" and similar because they do more harm than good - and they are usually wrong. About caring, I don`t care, but if there is a strange edit war while we have a clear guildline to resolve this it really attract attention. Adrian (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution necessarily involves subjective judgement of observers, such as "tedious nationalist edit conflict", at least between Nmate and Iaaasi (not sure about the others). That one side of such a conflict is more skillful with guidelines than the other doesn't stop the conflict from being bogus to begin with, and one should not in general expect to gain advantage in bogus conflicts by gaming and wikilawyering. Let's see how Nmate responds. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in this disussion. The fact that anybody filled a report at WP ANI concerning me means nothing in itself, and the last thing that I need to do is run to some forum and look for some type of succour to assuage my bruised ego. It looks to me that Iadrian yu does not want his wiki career to outlast that of Iaaasi. I am not in dispute over content with Iadrian yu , and at the article Košice, what happened is nothing more than a feigned content dispute commingled with edit war and abusive requested third opinion decoys ,in order to serve as a flimsy pretext for block shopping in a flabbergastingly blunt manner. My assertions are incredibly easy to prove if needed, but that won't happen here and now. Logical thinking of Iadrian yu is quite skew, and his accusations of my unusual behaviour are very fickle.User:Yopie is a edit warrior without being familiar with the English language at least at a basic level, and who has a long time edit history of wikihounding. User:Iaaasi had been blocked for indefinite time, from which got a second chance for the return. The circumstances under wich the "second chance" type of unblock was given to Iaaasi is very vulnerable (steadfast IRC canvassing happened, and there were 3 sockpuppets of Iaaasi one moth before the second chance request was launched) and the user still being blocked now. And Iadrian yu is a chum of Iaaasi. Yet, when Iaaasi was blocked for indefinite time, the user had made a lot of sockpuppets [89], and Iadrian yu was always ready to help him with derailing the checkuser requests [90] This discussion bustles with personal attacks made by Iadrian yu. And at the talk page of one another sockpuppet of Iaaasi, Iadrian yu also expressed his opinion that he is discontented with the fact that the sockpuppet was blocked. [91]. In short, Iadrian yu is not a reasonable user to be taken seriously.-Nmate (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content dispute, it is a discussion about your unusual behavior. If you are ready to explain your behavior please do so, if you don`t want to I would ask for an administrator to take a look at this report and to reconsider my request for disciplinary measures since this comment only shows that your behavior is not changing, in fact, it is only worst... Adrian (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So that it does not look like an unveiledly acrimonious attempt for block shopping.--Nmate (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nmate, there have now been two recent complaints about your behavior from two different users. Please remember to be civil as this helps promote collegiate editing. Thank you. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thornofhate's page moves. Again.

Thornofhate(talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wooblz!(talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (previous account)
HiMyNameIsTom(talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (past sockpuppet)

Thornofhate has been brought up here before as Wooblz! ([92], [93]) for a number of issues, one of which was cut and paste moves, and has been warned 1 2 3 on his talkpage since his "clean start", yet he still continues to use copy and paste moves. There isn't a huge number of them every month, but most of his work here seems to be focused on disruption or complete ignorance of policies, despite repeated reminders of policy (see page history).--Terrillja _talk 06:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Between user accounts I think I must have tried to educate this user on the move function near a dozen times to no avail. Later having to resort to pleading him to not move pages at all, and instead request someone do it for him. This has all fallen on deaf ears as he is still as of yesterday still doing it. This was one of the reasons his main account was blocked, to me this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue the user just can't seem to get over. After his last block, he was pretty quick to create a sock and continue obliviously, but he should be very much familiar that is was not acceptable, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wooblz!/Archive. His last sock, Thornofhate, was later unblocked and has become his primary account - but he's still not getting it. Someone should rally decide once and for all if he really is a worthwhile asset to the project or not. Rehevkor✉ 14:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry please do tell me where the "move" button is. I can't find it. and please don't talk about me. It makes me feel cyber-bullied. Come on we're all friends here. The only difference is that you guys know stuff around Wiki. Plases be my teacher/s to improve my behaviours with simple explaination/s. Please don't redirect me to a page. Just please explain them to me in words. Thank you. And I find it very offensive when you call me he/his/him. -- thornofhate (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said similar to this last time, people have tried to help you but it always fell of deaf ears. How will this time be any different? You have been linked to Wikipedia:MOVE#How to move a page several times now, it gives step by step instructions. People have provided you with simple instructions in the past, also ignored. People have offered to help and teach you. Ignored. You can't call it bullying when people call you up on your blatant disregard to procedure, guidelines and polices. Rehevkor ✉ 19:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The typical article (i.e. one that's not move-protected) has a series of tabs across the top, including one that says "move". Do you see that series of tabs? Not on this page, but on a random article, or even your own talk page. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 21:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ah finally someone who makes sence User:Baseball Bugs. Thank you very much. I didn't even reconise that trinagle thing before. And for your information Rehevkor please try to be more helpful/nice like User:Baseball Bugs. It's not that I was ignoring it it's just that I didn't understand... -- thornofhate (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions indicate that the "new" look of the website has a different thing to click on than does the "old" look (which is what I use). So that might be where some confusion arose. But if you can make it work now, kudos. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 06:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, you are trualy amazing. thanks again -- -- thornofhate (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's what the wife constantly tells me (or words to that effect). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

User repeatedly reverting against admin-placed cite that has been in place for years at Kerry Katona. Nude photographs being eroneously described as 'topless'. The Sunday Sport may be trash, but it is a registered newspaper and if its veracity as an RS is to be challenged, it needs to be done elswhere. As it stands, Wolfowitz is vandalising the page. Block? Warning? Protection? --82.41.20.82 (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no Hullaballo is reverting BLP violations, stop hassling him, you're the one in the wrong, and why would you report him to AIV thats not the place--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 10:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is fairly straightforward. The cited source calls the pictures "topless," so that's the description WP:RS requires us to use, especially in a BLP. Anything stronger would require a reliable published source -- which, given the amount of ink the tabloid press has devoted to Katona, shouldn't be hard to find if it were true. The issue has been discussed repeatedly on the article talk page and on the BLP notice board [94], over a long period of time; despite a cavalcade of IPs, SPAs, and socks, the consensus that the article should be limited to the "topless" claim absent additional, RS-credible sourcing hasn't been refuted.

I'd also note that just before this IP entered the fray, there were a string of edits from other IPs and an SPA on the article making spurious claims, and that the claim about the photographs which the IP here is pressing is one which the indef-blocked sockpuppeteer Magpie1892 made repeatedly, with similar invective; that the IP has made a similarly frivolous claim of misbehavior in a current deletion discussion [95]; and that the IP, along with several apparently relat4ed ones, has a long track record of following my participation in discussions and almost inevitably casting contrary !votes with no explanation other than "per so-and-so" and an occasional direct swipe at me (eg, [96] [97]). Given the similar focus, and the fact that these accounts all began editing after Magpie1892 and related accounts were blocked [98], I think the WP:DUCK test for sockpuppetry is met. The IPs range from the UL to Qatar, making checkuser verification unlikely (see [99] and [100] for some related discussion). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sure, will look for another source then. HW, I don't know what all this DUCK nonsense is though - you're getting me confused with, it seems, several other people! --82.41.20.82 (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the least confused. You, howevr, quite curiously denied that you were connected to the sockpuppeteer in question [101] fairly soon after this account began editing (and, not coincidentally, right after you began canvassing on a deletion issue, another oddity for a "new" editor. The guilty QUACK when no man pursueth. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have denied I am a sockpuppeteer on each occasion you have falsely accused me of so being. What is your point? Actually, don't answer that, I'm not particularly interested. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Omniconsumerproducts (talk · contribs)? Is that the SPA you meant? 'Cause it sure looks like the IP to me... Doc talk 18:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jonathangluck

This user has repeatedly been reintroducing libellous material into the article on Shmuley Boteach. Specifically, he has included a report that Boteach was responsible for financial irregularities in a charity fund set up by Michael Jackson, and that funds from the charity were misdirected for Boteach's own use. See this and adjacent edits. Originally this information was attributed to a number of dubious sources: an opinion column from Fox news, a blog and a Michael Jackson fanclub website. He has now attributed it to an article in the Broward-Palm Beach New Times. That article is on a different topic altogether - the trial of an arms dealer who, perhaps, is remotely related to Boteach - but there is a one-sentence reference in the article to the Boteach charity affair.

This is, in fact, only the most recent and egregious incident of attempts to introduce libels into this article. Before extensive edits by myself, Demiurge1000, and The Interior, this article was a web of slanders, half-truths, and distortions, largely sourced to blogs, obscure Jewish newspapers, and Michael Jackson fanclub websites. Since cleaning the article up, Jonathan has been busy reintroducing the material that was deleted.

This is Jonathan Gluck's (if that is his name) second user to be involved with this article. Previously, he edited under the username User:Jonathanglick13. The only articles that these two accounts have edited are this, and an article about Ronn Torossian, an obscure advertising executive. From his initial edit, Jonathan displayed a surprisingly wide knowledge of Wikipedia editing techniques and politics. He knew, for example, how and where to complain about another editor who was trying to edit the Shmuley Boteach article, and attempted to get him blocked; he was skillful in the use of all Wikipedia markup codes. All of which suggests to me that these two usernames are not the first that this editor has created.

It is essential to prevent this editor from continued editing of this article, as the material he includes is libellous and a clear violation of BLP rules. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, this material you claim is libel comes from MSNBC, Fox News & Palm Beach Post - Those are valid sources even if you dont like the info. All of them are valid sources. Next, you make ninja edits without discussing on talk page - Why wont you discuss ? And lastly, are you saying that the vandal who destroyed this article for years shalominthehome should be allowed to keep doing so ? isnt he the person you say I wrongly complained about ? Jonathangluck (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MSNBC Fox News and Palm Beach Post all discuss this issue - Some at length some less @length - They are real concerns and should be addressed. And if you need help with them they are the ones you keep deleting - but Boteach and Jackson did set up a fund which NY Attorney General urged them to close - Fox News says for 1 reason and MSNBC for another - Those are valid sources, particularly after previous problems with charities in the UK. Jonathangluck (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) Added material appears to be properly sourced, but also is questionable as to accuracy of content. Grammar of edits lead me to think the source material has been "cherry-picked" and paraphrased to alter context. Nevertheless, the absolute defense to libel is truth, and if the material IS accurate as referenced, WP:BLP criteria are satisfied, although questions regarding notability and appropriateness remain. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Alan, please reread the text and the reference more carefully. The sentence "Boteach was accused of misusing charity money in 1999 and paid some back" is referring to a completely different incident - Boteach's L'Chaim charity, closed nine years before. The expression "ominously named 'Time for Kids'" is clearly editorial, Th information in the Palm Beach Post is completely unattributed, unsubstantiated, and incidental to the main material of thePalm Beach Post article. Furthermore, the New York attorney general did not "ask that the charity be formally dissolved for not planning "any more" activities", according to the MSNBC source, but asked that it be closed if no more activities were planned; perhaps a subtle difference but very significant. Asking that inactive charities be closed down is a routine matter in New York, and the insinuation that there was hanky-panky involved is libellous.

You are correct that the absolute defense to libel in most cases (not all) is truth, and, in fact, I personally do not doubt that wrongdoing was a possibility in the management of both the charities mentioned. But Wikipedia is not a private investigator, and the truth is irrelevant. What is relevant is the reliability of the sources, and the accuracy with which they are represented. In this case, one of the sources is not reliable and the other is misrepresented. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my comment regarding the questionable accuracy. MSNBC is, in most cases, reliable...or as reliable as any cable-news outlet in the US is these days (hork hork). But a cited source MUST be quoted accurately. WP:BLP applies here in any case. IMO, if there's any question regarding the accuracy of the material, it must be removed. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I may have misinterpreted your remarks. Sorry.--Ravpapa (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the question regarding the material ? Fox News says 1 thing and MSNBC says something similar (albeit softer)... We accepted the softer material and its backed up by Palm Beach Post. These are all acceptable sources. Jonathangluck (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact anyone who bothers to check guidestar will see Lchaim Society still exists. Jonathangluck (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made some edits to that article a few days ago, can't remember what brought me there. The article was in a very bad state when I found it. It had blogs as sources, quotations composed of two or three separate parts of an article strung together as though they were one continuous quote, stuff like that. It also pretty much comprised a list of every bad thing said about Boteach and nothing else, obviously edited from a strong anti-Boteach point of view. I fixed a few problems, but knew I hadn't done enough, so I dropped a note on WP:BLPN. I think this dispute is a result.

I think the first thing that needs to happen here is for Jonathan to explain why he can't or won't stick to one user name. I have the impression Jonathan was mostly responsible for the state the article was in when I found it (though I don't have diffs). If so, he did some highly tendentious editing there. Maybe a note at WP:JUDAISM will bring more eyes and a broader consensus. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a note there. That's how I got involved. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained that I was using the other name and am not using this name - stated it weeks ago on my talk page and apologized for anything wrong - am using this name now and understand thats acceptableJonathangluck (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seperately MSNBC Fox news and Palm Beach Post are all valid sources and accurately referenced. Jonathangluck (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact, check this entree prior to february 26 - 1 user had repeatedly vandalised the article... its a work in progress and I have no malicious intent here simply dialogue. Why not discuss rather than attack as am trying to do ? Jonathangluck (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that your two "reliable" sources do not even agree on the name of the charity in question. MSNBC calls it "Heal the Kids". The Broward paper calls it "Time for Kids". I am not even sure they are both talking about the same charity. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Na, actually Fox News is pretty clear... and you can pull up Guidestar if you think its wrong. Jonathangluck (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Jonathan, I just spent some time looking over your edits to that article and, although you're quite right that a number of redlinks have been trying to turn it into a promotional piece on behalf of Boteach, you've also done some pretty bad things there, which I'd like to point out. Before I start, I'll note that all the edits I'm going to discuss occurred before I edited the article a few days ago when you were still (giving you the benefit of the doubt) new.

First, when you made this edit you used a source called lukeford.net, a gossipy blog that doesn't even come close to qualifying as a WP:RS

Next, with this edit you deleted all mention of an award he won from the National Fatherhood Initiative with the edit summary "Fatherhood link isn't valid". While it's true that the link that was in the article now goes to a page with no information about Boteach, it took me no more than a minute to find this page on the same site which confirms all the information deleted.

Also troubling is this edit in which you quote from and link to this petition on the official Michael Jackson website. The problem is that you confected a quote by taking part of one sentence on the petition, combining it with two sentences from another part, and stringing them together as if they were one continuous quotation. Similarly, with this edit you quote from and link to this article on avclub.com and, again, you string two sentences from two different parts of the article together as though they are one continuous quotation. You also left words out of the second sentence (some of the few words favorable to Boteach in the article) without the use of ellipses to indicate the omission.

I want to be clear about this. Screwing around with quotations like this is not acceptable. You may not alter quotes in this way.

But the bigger picture is the overall pattern of your edits. Anyone who looks closely and fairly at your work on the article will be brought quickly to the conclusion that you've scoured the internet for unfavorable information on Boteach and deleted favorable information on the thinnest of pretexts.

I'd like to suggest that you leave that article alone for a while. You're quite right that there has been some tendentious editing in Boteach's favor there, but I think it's equally clear that you don't like him and it's affecting the way you edit there. There are enough eyes on the article now that the vandals and promoters can be kept under control and I think the article will be kept fair without your attention. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(somewhat tangential to the core issue) It's perhaps noteworthy that we use lukeford.net (a site sometimes owned by Luke Ford) as a reference in a number of articles. As we also use, with permission, quite a number of celebrity photos from that site, the easiest way to find those articles is probably a Google search reading site:en.wikipedia.org lukeford.net -jpg. If the site is unreliable (and at least superficially it does look like "the Matt Drudge of porn", as the Luke Ford article describes him) then we may wish to examine its use in those other articles too. 87.113.147.60 (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am receptive to discussions but am against Ravpapa simply going in gung ho sans discussion.. Maybe edits are needed so lets discuss. He's had 2 financial scandals which shouldnt be whitewashed Jonathangluck (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that the way you mis-represented quotes from those sources, was unacceptable? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you seem to like to edit without discussing 1st on talk page, that much I am aware of. Are you aware that Fox News is a valid source ? Am unaware of any misrepresention. but its mute at this point seems most of the issues are resolved right ? Jonathangluck (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "discussing 1st", I think you may have misunderstood the WP:BLP policy.

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.^[1] Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

Also, the reliable sources noticeboard at WP:RSN is there to resolve issues with sources.Sean.hoyland - talk 03:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and thats the crux of discussion - fox & MSNBC arent poor sources, supported by others. Jonathangluck (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Your misquoting of otherwise-reliable sources makes your material unusable under WP:BLP. That is the crux of the problem, and appears to be what has engendered this entire ANI discussion. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Use WP:RSN to assess reliability of sourcing for disputed claims. 2. Editorializing in Wikipedia[102] ("ominously named") is not ok; anything like that has to be quoted and attributed in-text. 3. A little googling makes me think Jonathangluck may be bringing some kind of off-wiki conflict here. Also not good, if true. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Fox and MSNBC should be treated as reliable sources, and I agree that it's completely unacceptable to edit any direct quotations and piece them together in a Wikipedia article. I haven't checked every single direct quote from the article, but I hope they have been dealt with. --Deryck C. 20:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets needing blocking per duck test

User:Spaghettiear was blocked for a week on 12th March for attempting to deal with the article's problems by repeatedly replacing the entire article with a strongly promotional version (example [103]).

User:Shalominthehome also made identical edits (example [104]). Note that "Shalom in the Home" is the title of "an American reality television series hosted by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach".

User:Balada555 is now edit warring to reinstate the same promotional version (example [105]) (User:Balada555 has just been blocked 24 hours for this).

Per the instructions at WP:SPI, I haven't opened an SPI for this, since it is a glaring case of WP:DUCK. Please would someone block the two meat/sockpuppets (Shalominthehome and Balada555) indefinitely, and extend the existing block of the master (Spaghettiear) as appropriate. You may want to choose a different account as the master, two of them have been active on the article for quite some time. Balada555 also has a nice line in legal threats on their talk page, as well as seemingly copying some of the comedy material from my user page and reposting it in the belief that it's serious :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has just been refactored to put it in a separate section, I'll clarify that "the article" is the Shmuley Boteach article referred to in the section immediately above this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin who blocked User:Spaghettiear, I'd like to raise my point in this discussion. Although all three accounts seem to share a common cause and are all rather disruptive in their editing patterns, I don't think it is obvious that the duck test is passed. I would rather go through checkuser before extending any blocks on the grounds of sockpuppetry. Even in a case of meatpuppetry, the users involved are to be dealt with separately. --Deryck C. 20:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I will open an SPI. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather, it's already been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shalominthehome. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User: Feedingtheworld

On the page Peak phosphorus the user Feedingtheworld is adding the exact text from the webpage [106]. I undid this edit and directed the user to the plageriasm wiki explaining the policy regarding this [107][108][109]. There was several problems with this edit other than plageriasm, but I was trying to address this issue first with the new user. Can someone look the matter over, undo the recently restored edit, and talk with the user regarding this policy. I'm asking here only because I think a second user explaining this policy would better serve to convey the point.Chhe (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio, rather than merely plagiarism. It has also been explained to him at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Peak_Phosphorus. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, didn't see that. Never mind then. In that case you just undo the editChhe (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also left him a longer note at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moonriddengirl/David - many thanks for the clarification - excuse my error as a beginner. I can understand the point with the long quote from the paper by Michael Mew, but I don't understand why the IFDC reference was taken out nor why the links were removed as well as the text or am I missing something? I have reinstated the link to the IFDC press release as I can't see any possible objection but will wait for further feedback on reinstating the link to the other paper until I understand what the problem is with referenceing that. Feedingtheworld (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links are OK (if they are to WP:RSs); quoting copyrighted material isn't. In general if your edit includes illegal material, the whole edit will be reverted, and other editors won't bother to sort through which parts of an edit might have been acceptable and which weren't. If you add a link, it will be treated on its merits as a relevant WP:RS, and you won't run into copyvio problems. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the clarification and all the help. I'll be very careful in future. Feedingtheworld (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles

A revert war is developing on The Beatles (edit talk history links watch logs). There has been a discussion on the talkpage regarding use of "the Beatles" or "The Beatles" in the article. There was no consensus in the discussion so the options were outlined, which included reference to the WP:CONLIMITED policy which says that wider community consensus cannot be overruled by local consensus. The wider community consensus, supported by the majority of reliable sources, is that band names should be written with a lower case definite article, so "the Beatles" would be the approved use. The guidelines are WP:MOS#Use of "The" mid-sentence and MOS:MUSIC#Names (definite article). Supported by the wider community consensus as outlined by policy and the consensus I read in Talk:The_Beatles#No_consensus for option #1, I actioned option #1 by changing the article to usage of "the Beatles" (which was the longest standing usage in the article until editors had begun to introduce "The Beatles" based on a belief that this trademark notice indicated that usage should be "The Beatles"). My action was reverted. I restored it and explained my action on the talkpage. My restoration has also been reverted. Editors involved in this issue have said they do not wish to discuss the matter any longer, so the end result could go down simply to those who fight the longest rather than those whose case is the most appropriate. This is one of those really trivial matters that Wikipedians seem to fight hardest over! I would be grateful if some neutral heads looked at this and made a binding decision so editors can concentrate on more productive matters. I wish I hadn't been asked to get involved, and would like to now disengage. SilkTork *^YES! 20:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typical wikipedia silliness, an edit war over something that doesn't matter. Forgetting "consensus" of editors, what is the common usage in the reliable sources? ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 21:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"the Beatles" is the significant majority usage in reliable sources. This has been detailed on the talkpage. All but one of the quotes used in the article when traced to the original source use "the Beatles". The situation is that most reliable sources and our own inhouse style prefers "the Beatles". Frankly, I don't care. I was asked to give my opinion. I can live with "The Beatles", but as our inhouse style and most sources use "the Beatles" that is what I said should be used. The debate resulted in an impasse. Among the options I outlined were to keep the current usage of "The Beatles" and leave a note saying that to prevent future disruption that it was decided to use "The Beatles", or that we should follow policy and use "the Beatles". Comments were in favour of "the Beatles", with no clear comments on other options other than that people didn't want to debate further. I made the call, and was reverted. SilkTork *^YES! 21:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, a quick random check of the liner notes from both the recent CD re-issues and the original CD issues from the mid-1980s both prefer "The Beatles", whether it's the start of a sentence or the middle of a sentence. I did see one spot where they said "the Beatles", and I wondered if they were making a distinction between the band as a whole vs. the individual members together, which seems like a rather fine distinction. Even if the Beatles preferred a capital "T", manual of style might say otherwise. As with the periodic arguments over Lego vs. LEGO. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 21:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite an extensive study of reliable sources on the talkpage that is worth glancing at - while it's worth people conducting their own research, it may save people time if they looked at the study because it was conducted over a wide range of sources. On the other hand you could just glance at Google Books SilkTork *^YES! 21:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just leave the indefinite article out altogether, as in Beatles for Sale? HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The isn't indefinite but definite, and it's a part of the band's name, as in The Guardian or The Sketch Show (no comments on which way of capitalisation is correct). 212.68.15.66 (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Baseball Bugs: "liner notes from both the recent CD re-issues and the original CD issues from the mid-1980s both prefer 'The Beatles'". I would also add that certain journalists that use 'the' in articles don't do so when using the name of their own publication: The Independent, The Observer, The Sunday Times (UK), etc. Also, during very many GA reviews or FACs, I can not remember one instance when a reviewer complained about the use of 'The'. The problem is always that "The group called The Beatles once performed in Paris, but the Beatles who went there on holiday were McCartney and Lennon".--andreasegde (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My reading of WP:MOSTM tells me that trademark owners want all kinds of special treatment for their brand names / attention-getting tricks, but we yawn it off and stick with common English usage. So I'd consider the trademark-based argument unpersuasive, or even as weighting in favor of doing the opposite of what it proposes. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of their early albums, With The Beatles, styled the group's name in all lower case, so you never know what they'll come up with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Lennon thought it was tough enough for him, to explain the name was spelt Beatles, instead of Beetles. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it probably didn't help that they actually called themselves "Beetles" for a short while. The name was a bit of play on words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute over whether it's "The Beatles" or "the Beatles" goes back at least 7 years.[110]A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, man, it's like deja vu; it's like deja vu. Practically the same thread as this one, 7 years ago. OK, here's a fair comparison: The Gambia, which is called The Gambia even when it's in the middle of a sentence. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 19:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a hard day's night. -- llywrch (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Request opened

My reaction to seeing this issue brought up again was to open an ArbCom request - asking that one or both groups should be determined as being disruptive for pursuing the issue. I suppose that there could be a RfC on that question. Given that SilkTork opened this discussion by claiming a sovereignty for a guideline over a local consensus, it can be seen that an RfC over the question of capitalising the letter in mid sentence may not bring the matter to conclusion; which is why I have taken the approach I did. Any suggestions about a method of resolving this issue might be addressed to the RfAR. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mutchy126

Mutchy126(talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I believe that based on this user's editing history, this user needs some guidance to improve his or her judgment as to whether an edit is helpful. I see a very high percentage of contributions that have been reverted as they did not improve the articles. What can be done to help this user improve the quality of their edits? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to the user on their talk page, then. This doesn't require an ANI thread. lifebaka++ 16:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been warned several times about adding good-faith but useless/redundant/etc edits and has yet to respond. Looks like a Wikipedia:COMPETENCE issue. I'm keeping an eye on the user and will issue a higher level warning. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP 206.123.53.1 repeatedly adding that rare coins were sold by a specific company

Could someone look at the IP's contributions and see if his adding that Heritage Auctions sold a specific coin to a number of coin articles is spam or advertising or legitimate? Due to my involvement in two of the articles, I'm conflicted out.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does look problematic, but appears to be in good faith. I'll be going through and removing unnecessary links to Heritage Auctions, but everything else looks kosher to me. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did not want to look through all the edits and prejudice you by stating my views.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see possible/likely COI editing but not the usual blatant type of spam. WP:WPSPAM is another place to bring this type of issue. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese tax nonsense

山吹色の御菓子 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

山吹色の御菓子's entire contribution history consists of posting annoying comments on Jimbo's and other users' talk pages suggesting that they are tax evaders or are aiding and abetting tax evasion [111] [112]. The user has been told a number of times to direct any such warnings/complaints to the WMF instead, but continues to post on talk pages. It's not clear to me if these are actual legal threats or simple garden variety trolling, but the user does not appear to be here to do anything useful. User notified. 28bytes (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also: It may be worth noting that that username has been indef-blocked on ja-wiki since July 2010 per a block discussion there. 28bytes (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. Account has existed for almost a year with the sole intent to harass another user. People have tried to translate for this person and for others to communicate better, but apparently to no avail. Wales himself has simply reverted some of the attempts since last year, but this guy is persistent. Indef, IMO. Tarc (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur; send him off. Favonian (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuke him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Too soon, man. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've declined an unblock request on this account - looks good to me. The badgering would be enough, even without the borderline legal threat. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the block. The guy is plainly not here to work on the encyclopedia and has spent a year harrassing Jimbo, making barely coherent accusations of one sort or another. 86.159.92.13 (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Student project

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

There have been plenty of red flags raised on this board about student projects. This one appears to be potentially legitimate, so this is just an FYI in case someone wants to keep an eye on it. I'll let the user know we're watching. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The instructor is Redcknight (talk · contribs), who has had an account for some time. I have put some advice on his talk page, and explained that each student who is to edit will need an individual account - the intention was evidently that Meaghanplatania would be shared. JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EC3Global returning

• EC3Global (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EC3 Global (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

EC3Global was indefblocked for spamming a year ago. Now he's back, with a space added but no change in agenda. Contribs and usernames leave little room for doubt. –Henning Makholm (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim LaHaye's (allegedly) pointed ears

207.34.115.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (which is a shared library IP) has an anon who repeatedly insists on inserting an alleged fact that author Tim LaHaye (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) has pointed ears. I have no idea whether LaHaye actually does, but I consider this repeated editing irrelevant and unencyclopedic, even if sourced (the anon does cite one source). So far, I have been reverting without additional actions, but I'd like an opinion as to whether the IP should be warned and/or blocked (if he/she insists after warned). --Nlu (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As there has not been a single productive edit from the IP since the expiration of their last (6 month) block, I see no reason not to reinstate a block. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also concur. I blocked for another 6 months. Feel free to modify the block time if necessary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of Tim LaHaye, and in going to Google images, it's a bit startling that in a number of photos taken head-on, he does look like he has Spock ears. However, a side photo indicates they're normal. I think it's just an optical illusion due to the style of his haircut. In any case, sounds like a good block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks. --Nlu (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Dogg

IP addresses keep removing the fact that he died from the article. I have a ref that proves that he died [113]. Would it be appropriate to semi-rptoect teh article? hbdragon88 (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It already is semi-protected (BTW, it is confirmed that he is dead). However, I don't think full-protection is in order, yet, as the editing, while hot and heavy, is not disruptive or is not in a war of any sort. –MuZemike 08:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The latest meme

Over the weekend, a YouTube posting by someone named Rebecca Black became a meme [114]. We've had a variety of postings: Rebecca Black, Rebecca black, "rebecca black", Rebecca Black (Ark Music Factory), Ark Music Factory and Friday (Rebecca Black). The subject is apparently a 13-year-old whose performance has been poorly received, and some of the articles have been created with BLP problems - there appears to be a little 4chan help. I've salted these; perhaps there's room for an article, but given the nastiness surrounding the meme and the fact that it's three days old, I'm reluctant to lift the protection. Suggestions? Acroterion _(talk) 02:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is on knowyourmeme.com. It's official! - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 02:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it protected. If it is as new as you say, there's no way it's notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. LiteralKa (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thought would be to leave them salted for a little while. If it fades away quickly, as these YouTube fads so often do, the problem will be gone. But if it does prove notable, then there'll be more chance of someone writing an NPOV sourced article when the initial obsession has cooled down a bit. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. In the meantime, we'll have to watch for articles created to skirt the salting. The ARK Music Factory article was created in good faith - I've userfied it. Acroterion _(talk) 03:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some may wish to keep an eye on the current DRV then, as some try to nudge it towards recreation. Tarc (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted and salted Rebecca Black (artist) as an attack page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found mentions of it at:

• Clarence Jey
• Friday (동음이의)
• Friday (Rebecca Black song)

--67.183.232.99 (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nom'd Friday (Rebecca Black song) for speedy deletion per CSD A7. Suggest it be SALTed once it is deleted. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 03:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to continue this discussion is at the DRV. Acroterion _(talk) 03:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the article on Jey, and done some basic copyediting, but it needs attention from someone who know the field. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the song has ongoing BLP problems, so I've started a thread on the BLP noticeboard about it. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statsheet spam

See also: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist § statsheet.com_and_associated_sites

VinKilborn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

CraigScully (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

TaylorMitchell21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I am bringing this here because this is at least slightly complicated. There is a network of sports statistics sites called statsheet.com. They have a hoard of domain names - probably one for every NCAA team. It appears that their marketing campaign involves adding information to Wikipedia articles and citing it with their sites. Several weeks ago, I noticed TaylorMitchell21 (talk · contribs) adding links to Statsheet sites in bulk, when he would not stop, I blocked the account as a spam-only account. Today, I saw VinKilborn (talk · contribs) and CraigScully (talk · contribs) popping up on my watchlist. Their contributions consist exclusively of adding one-liners, giving statsheet.com-affiliated sites as references. When I brought this several weeks ago to the spam blacklist talk page, an objection was raised because Statsheet contains useful information that good-faith Wikipedia editors may wish to be able to cite. So I am bringing this here. Do we want to (a) ignore the marketing campaign and let Statsheet promote themselves to their heart's content, (b) blacklist all statsheet domains, making them unavailable even for legitimate use, (c) block and revert spamming SPA's, while leaving other users free to use Statsheet if desired (note: a checkuser hard blocking their IPs would be helpful here), or (d) something else? --B (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All three above-listed accounts are Confirmed to be the same person plus:

• SkinsNoles21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 21:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have blocked them. --B (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have blacklisted statsheet.com. If they have other domains that don't include the string "statsheet.com", those can still be spammed. Any requests to link to specific pages can be handled over at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. A list of their domains would be helpful.

Where is the sockpuppet case for the above users?

Although the site may be useful as a reference, blacklisting is the inevitable result of spamming. An alternative would be to list on XLinkBot, which would permit adding statlist.com links by established editors. If that looks like it would work here, I have no objection if someone wants to un-do the blacklisting. ~Amatulić(talk) 22:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I should have been clearer - they have HUNDREDS of domains, only one of which is statesheet.com. At MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#statsheet.com_and_associated_sites, there is a collapsed partial list that you can expand by hitting "[show]". If we only blacklist statsheet.com, that leaves the rest open (and most of the spam has been with their other domains). --B (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see that now. Groan. We have some choices:

• Play whack-a-mole with the spammer's accounts (where's the checkuser report?)
• Double the size of the blacklist (each new entry to the blacklist slows down Wikipedia processing of edits)
• List them all in XLinkBot and hope for the best
• Any others?

It would be nice if there were a summary analysis of what the high-priority problem domains are, and go from there. ~Amatulić(talk) 22:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe list them in XLinkBot for a period of time (like a year) and see if they get the message? I agree that dumping them into the blacklist could have some consequences. --B (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be too concerned about blacklist performance -- 200 domains is about ~1.3% by size or ~1% by number of rules of the global and local blacklists combined. The hardware situation is much more dire with the box that runs XLinkBot and the linkwatchers. (I won't explain why on wiki.)

MuZemike is a checkuser. MER-C 04:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Mer-C, blacklist everything and don't worry about performance unless the devs say there is a problem. I'd support removing all existing links too. If a stat can't be verified except by reference to that site, it's not notable and shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Attempting to spam us like that should result in ALL links being removed. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who wants to delink sites, here is a list of their domain names pertaining to NCAA Division I teams: --B (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Craig Kilborn and Vin Scully are real people, it's not hard to imagine that CraigScully and VinKilborn are the same person using multiple ids. Corvus cornix_talk 22:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low traffic RfDs dominated by CoI SPAs

• Encyclopedia_of_the_Medieval_Chronicle (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle)
• Medieval Chronicle Society (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medieval Chronicle Society)

These RfDs need attention because they have generated so little interest so far and are being dominated by SPAs who benefit in the real world from the existence of these articles. We have two articles, Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle and Medieval Chronicle Society. Both were created by User:Doric Loon (who has also created at least four interwikis for his 'pedia), the general editor of the former and 'president' of the latter (see CoI thread). Four people have voted for deletion of the Encyclopedia article, while three have voted for keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle. One of the keeps is Doric Loon himself, another is a major contributing author of the work User:Euro (originally posting as an anon "Dr. Cristian Bratu") and the last an anon claiming to be a former Phd student of the author. Doric Loon is now calling for the discussions to be closed is canvassing administrators he believes to be sympathetic to get involved.[115][116]. For my trouble I've been having to endure several personal attacks from the SPAs. Essentially the RfD process is becoming an administrative farce and needs more involvement (esp. as I'm really sick of this now). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented there, having seen this. My experience is that extravagant support (or attack) of an article at xfd is self-defeating, and can be left to the closing admin. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the closing admin has actually bothered to read the guide to deletion, he or she should know that those votes of support mean absolutely nothing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MascotGuy active

See [117], Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/MascotGuy. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I see MascotGuy I just go to AIV. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real Bigone???

Can some admin please help here. I mean, its an article about a non-notable club and a perfect candidate for deletion, however, the delay on deliting it is making all kind of jokes on WP editors and WP in general with a group of fans cheering for the club together with some self-nominated city Major teaching lessons to veteran editors and saying we should glorify and cheer their club. I mean, all this is a joke (however some hard words have been directed towards some "deletion supporting" editors) but it should be stoped, because the WP reputation and their editors is in question here. FkpCascais (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem. There are a lot of new and unregistered users, sure. They make crappy arguments, sure. But there's very little vitriol being thrown out by them, so I see little harm in letting this continue for longer than 11 hours before snowballing it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, calling a colegue of mine to "get a life" because he voted delete, making fun of his WP barnstars, I mean, I know it´s not anything special, just unpleasent. Anyway, the article will surely be deleted, and I beleve some previous mesages were deleted, the attention on this was called, so anyone please feel free to close this tread. FkpCascais (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted (see AFD for rationale, it's too long for me to remember again). If it had been funnier, I'd have supported leaving the AFD open another day or two, but it wasn't really. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think nobody could have done a better rationale for it! Case closed. Thank you! FkpCascais (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have issued User:Dirk Valentine an NPA warning for this. Corvus cornix_talk 23:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well donne! Seing a fellow wikipedian being treated that way was really ugly. FkpCascais (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite obvious that Dirk was doing little more than trolling that AfD, and given the lack of recent contributions he could probably just be punted.--Crossmr (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Futbol Club de Real Bigone be gone, shouldn't File:Bigone logo.png be gone too? Oh and BTW if you are going to go thru the effort of creating a logo for your fictitious football club, can you at least make it an SVG? Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's on Commons. It would take me too long to figure out how to nominate it for deletion there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have rather frequently had similar problems, when, after removing a bio with zero claim to notability via speedy, or as an expired BLP prod, the photo is on commons. Any suggestions? DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Valentine possibly compromised again?

after having another look at the Dirk valentine account, I wonder if it isn't compromised. He hasn't edited in awhile, and I don't see any obvious questionable behaviour in the past, and this was some pretty blatant trolling in the AfD. And in fact this account was compromised. According to his archive someone had gotten his password in the past.[118]--Crossmr (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap. It seems to have been compromised for quite a time now. FkpCascais (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of "some time", his last contributions before this AfD debate were last summer, and those seem fine, but I think the account needs a block until there is evidence dirk is actually in control of it.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. However, see this for exemple. It goes back to April 2009! But, of course, pehaps it was the real Dirk joking around... But, I do agree on blocking the account and waiting to see which Dirk responds to it. FkpCascais (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...well now this is just bizarre. We're reverting edits to a user's own page as vandalism but we're not blocking the account. Someone wave a red flag and get an admin or check user or something in here.--Crossmr (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Took a looksee at Crossmr's request. Can't see any evidence this account is compromised. It was compromised in 2008 (guy probably let his roommate edit), but was unblocked when he evidenced himself. His first two edits this time were to take out the ref to his old Deviant Art account, which doesn't appear to be live any more. As to creating the hoax, according to his userpage he's a 19 year old student, so I'm not seeing this as wildly unlikely. (hey, you know I used to edit Wikipedia articles about footie teams. Wonder how long it'd take them to notice a hoax....). If he causes any more disruption, I am amenable to blocking him for that, but he hasn't edited for two days, since being warned about a personal attack. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did he create the article itself? I never saw it, so I didn't know that. I'm only commenting on his comments on the AfD. they're clearly of a trolling nature, which doesn't seem inline with his previous edits. Generally when we see an account make uncharacteristic edits of a disruptive nature, we have to consider it's been compromised. I only brought up the previous compromise to show he's apparently been lazy in securing his password in the past, and if he's still a college student perhaps someone got into his account again.--Crossmr (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See if he edits again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Seinfeld/Gad Elmaleh

A roving IP vandal (with IPs from a Mauritian ISP, Telecom Plus) has been vandalizing Jerry Seinfeld (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views), Gad Elmaleh (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views), and I'm Telling You for the Last Time (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) with unsourced, defamatory assertions that Elmaleh had been plagiarizing Seinfeld. I've reverted and semi-protected the Seinfeld and Elmaleh articles, but I suspect that the IP vandal will return and vandalize other Seinfeld/Elmaleh-related articles. I tend to think a range block is overdoing it, but I'd like opinions on this. --Nlu (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed a link above. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I PfD because I think...

Is this possible? I mean, it´s creating problems to all user pages that contain the nominated templates, and all without a valid rationale. The provided rationale is "I think...". Is it possible to ask some admin to close the PfD since it doesn´t provide a valid rationale and warn the user about WP:DP? FkpCascais (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm fairly sure that the nominator will be able to take the hint without anyone having to bludgeon him with an exhaustive explanation. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sounds unnecesary. I want to thank everyone who spent time on this. If there is any violation of policy regarding the useboxes I will gladly accept any upcoming decition, however the way this PfD was donne and after the expressed conclusions of several administrators, it didn´t look fair to keep it under PfD for much longer. Just one queston: should this related PfD close as well? FkpCascais (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! FkpCascais (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for IP block ban on 208.54.87.0/24 - vandalism of multiple pages

This IP block vandalized 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, which resulted in that page becoming semi-protected. The miscreant then moved on to Template:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami casualties injured and Template:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami casualties missing in order to perform vandalism that showed up on the main earthquake page, which includes those templates in several places. (There's also a template for number dead, but that was already semi-protected.) There are several IPs being used in this block, which belongs to T-Mobile USA and is thus apparently a dynamic IP range for cellphone data users. I fear if we just request semi-protection for the other templates, the user will simply move on to vandalizing other related pages. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 00:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has also made uncivil remarks on Talk:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami: 1 and 2. BurtAlert (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalized Template:Current disaster as well, after the other two template pages became semi-protected. Added "Many human beings may have been disassembled in this disaster that are not being reported about yet. Some may have been partially disassembled while others may have been fully disassembled, but this information may change rapidly.", same junk as usual; showed up on far more pages this time, of course. This IP block seems intent on vandalizing any pages associated with the Japan quake that aren't protected. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 01:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked the 208.54.87.0/24 range 55 hours, anonymous only, account creation blocked. This should stop them... —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nudity on userpages

What is the current community feeling regarding gratuitous nudity on userpages? I know this is a recurring issue, but given the many many recent discussions about why Wikipedia has trouble attracting female editors, I am not clear where the community stands presently. I ask because I came across the userpage of User:LustyRoars, who is an obvious yet unblocked troll, and User:RandomGuy202 who appears to have done no editing other than putting up a gallery of topless women as their userpage. (And, yes, I did purposely entitle this thread "Show me your tits" because it amuses me when people are offended by such things as mildly risque titles of threads but not bothered by the actual issues being raised.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted both userpages, per Wikipedia:UP#Images - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent discussion for images in mainspace that incorporated unnecessary attention-grabbing elements. [119], with consensus saying that such images are not appropriate, and modifying the Rules of Thumb #9 at WP:IUP to now read: Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article. Since we are not a webhost, I would argue that while there may be an exceptional reason to allow an editor to include a nude picture (perhaps they are a professional nude model?), the average editor never needs to include these, and such images should be removed from userpages. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was unaware of those recent changes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree w/ the nuking of userspace nudes, but as a participant to that IUP discussion I can definitely say none of us even considered images outside of the mainspace when discussing the change. Protonk (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is ANI the right place for the general question - is there something that admins can do, by application of policy? In the case of LustyRoars, possibly; we can discuss whether they are trolling, and if so whether they should be banned (in which case their userpage will be replaced with a template, thus eliminating the nudey pics, should the decision be in the affirmative.) RandomGuy202? Not really, but then there was nothing to stop you from blanking the page per IAR as it is serving no encyclopedic purpose. Any person other than the account holder reverting would need to show why it it needed for those images to be shown - and if the account holder re-activates after being moribund for so long they can also provide a rationale. It is a case by case situation, I suggest. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED but it is WP:NOTWEBHOST either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have anchored the needlessly titillating header and given a reflective title. Delicious carbuncle, please don't disrupt the wikipedia to make a point or, because as you say, it amuses you when people are offended. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not amuse me when people are offended. You have misinterpreted what I wrote, but exactly fulfilled my prediction. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't? Then why did you write "it amuses me when people are offended"? maybe you'd like to strike that? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is part of what I wrote, so I will admit to being amused when people are offended under certain specified conditions with attached clauses. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the last dozen of so edits of Lusty Roars (such gems as [120] [121] [122] trying to get Gonville Bromhead's name to rhyme with a rude word, [123] accusing park staff of murdering ducks, [124] [125] [126] preventing the removal of improperly sourced BLP material, while adding false info himself, [127] and just general vandalism) I've indeffed him. Can't see this chap is a net asset to the project. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how would you folks react to a nude picture of the user hirself? Plenty of Wikipedians have photos of themselves on their user pages, and if the user were a nudist or some variety of skyclad pagan, it might even be a religion or (legally parallel) creed issue. Given that anti-nudism is itself a religious taboo, and that the law in many places protects nudity (here in Ontario, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that women have a constitutional right to bare their breasts in public), you'd have a hard time arguing that someone should be censored for it. SmashTheState (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my first thought is I'd be highly dubious that any revealing photo was indeed of the user in question. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And mine would be "Can I have a revealing photo of User:Casliber on my page?" Bishonen talk 15:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

While it may be perfectly lawful and socially acceptable for women to go topless in public in many jurisdictions, Wikipedia is a collection of privately owned servers associated with a privately "owned" domain name. Although NOTCENSORED is frequently trotted out here as some kind of excuse for anything that people object to, it is nonsense. Wikipedia is censored, and that censorship is the right of its owners, who set the rules. Of course I mean the community sets the rules, but only inasmuch as the rules do not conflict with the aims of the owners. All of which is to say that a "constitutional right" has very little relevance here or on any website. So, I guess the answer to your question is, per WP:UP, no, a nude picture of the user would not be allowed here (although Commons would welcome it with open arms). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per NOTWEBHOST it's not appropriate for the site to let users keep any disruptive personality displays in userspace or elsewhere else. We're traditionally pretty flexible about userspace content, but if something draws significant controversy, the burden is on the user to show that it has an encyclopedic purpose if it's not to be deleted. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the conservative, would be censors here need to step back and check the rules. Nudity is not prohibited by WP:UP. Sexually provocative images are. Without making any comment on the images in question, statements like "a nude picture of the user would not be allowed here" are simply not in keeping with the rules. Take your conservatism over to Conservapedia. HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, I'm in favor of gratuitous nudity. However there is a time and a place for everything, and user pages of an encyclopedia project intended for all ages and genders might not the be best place to expose one's genitalia to anyone who wishes to leave a note. Wikipedia articles should not be censored. But user pages should show a level of maturity consistent with encyclopedia editors. Will Beback talk 10:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult area for a global encyclopaedia. Community standards on nudity vary widely across the globe. Should the encyclopaedia be forced to conform to the most conservative of those standards because some people are offended by any nudity, or should we aim for some middle-of-the-road approach? It's very possible to have some nudity with being sexually provocative. HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, you will notice I started out by asking what the current community feeling is on this, since it has changed over time. While your characterization of this as a right vs left issue is just silly, you make a good point. The guideline does not prohibit nudity, it prohibits images "clearly intended as sexually provocative" (as well as saying some other things about which are open to interpretation). Here are archived versions of the now-deleted userpages ([128] & [129]). Taking into consideration the contributions of those editors, do you think they should have been retained? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said absolutely nothing about it being a right vs left issue. What are you talking about? HiLo48 (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Take your conservatism over to Conservapedia." Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. That is a sensitive response. Sorry. I certainly mean nothing about political positions in what I'm saying here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on, did you look at the archived userpages in question? Do you think they should have been deleted? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hilo48, user pages are not "the encyclopedia"; they exist to facilitate development of the encyclopedia, which is different. Users looking for Myspace know where it is. See also NOTMYSPACE, which says "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." If someone has an encyclopedic reason for a nude image in a user page, e.g. if they are drafting an art-related article that includes some nude Rubens paintings, no problem. If they have a small, unprovocative photo of themselves as a part of their user info, that's generally accepted though I'm not a supporter of the practice myself. But in all cases, they should not turn user space into a personal photo gallery whether nude or not. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of that. That was the point of my earlier comment that it's very possible to have some nudity without being sexually provocative. HiLo48 (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I might add a comment as an uninvolved user. Short of shouting "Won't somebody please think of the children?" I am of the opinion that although Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED I think that gratuitous nudity on user pages is wrong because it serves no encyclopedic value and people hardly come on here and expect to see pictures that should be in a gentlemen's special interest magazine on someone's userpage. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does it have to do with children? Have you ever heard a child complain about nudity? And how can you possibly know what people expect to see when they come here? If people are relaxed about nudity in their own society, and many are, they will have no problem with it here. I suggest that you restrict your comments to what YOU think of nudity, rather than telling us what others think. HiLo48 (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask the question (perhaps rhetorically), the last time I heard a child complain about nudity on Wikipedia, was less than 24 hours ago. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was the specific nature of the complaint? That there was too much? Or not enough? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to boldly defy this rule once I can find a painting referenced in a certain classic animation series. The painting was about a character named Newton Figley, and was called: "Newt Descending a Staircase". ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 06:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gahhh. Now I have a mental image of a more famous Newt that I can't get out of my head. That's just wrong. Horologium (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if those who don't approve of much nudity at all can see the philosophical problem here? I actually enjoy seeing a little bit of nudity. (And no, I haven't been described as a pervert recently by anyone who knows me well.) If there is nudity here, the more conservative folks will be offended. Obviously if there is no nudity here, I won't be offended. (Just a little annoyed maybe.) Should the more conservative view prevail because of that situation? Why does the view of the more open minded not count for anything once someone with a more conservative view states their case? It seems a very one sided decision making process. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think many people, myself included, share your appreciation of nudity. There is no shortage of nudity here if that's what you are after, but this discussion is about nudity on user pages. MySpace doesn't let you put images of nudity on your user page. Facebook doesn't let you put nudity on your user page. Why should Wikipedia allow nudity on user pages? Are MySpace and Facebook any less global than Wikipedia? Incidentally, HiLo48, have yo had a chance to look at those archives of the now-deleted user pages? Do you think they should have been kept? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Haven't looked at those pics. Don't need to (I said that right from the start), because I can agree with people that some nudity is unacceptable. My issue here is the general position. It was apparent early on from expressions like "changing community attitudes" from those not wanting nudity here that some were claiming and pushing a POV that nudity was becoming less acceptable. No evidence was presented. That's obviously only ever going to be a local POV among certain parts of the global readership here. And I really don't understand the concern about user pages. On MySpace and Facebook, the user pages are the primary focus. They're not here. The encyclopaedia pages are. Novice users don't accidentally look at user pages here. It's not a valid comparison. HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really need to be seeing nudes of other editors. If they were that good looking, they'd be otherwise occupied and wouldn't have time for wikipedia. Now, if someone were to post photos of, say, the Kardashians, that could have significant encyclopedic value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, all free images should be allowed on userpages, except in a few circumstances:

• The images (or the page) is not for the purposes of disrupting Wikipedia (simply containing nudity and/or sexually explicit images is not disruptive in and of itself)
• The page is not a WP:FAKEARTICLE or similar
• Per WP:IUP, the page is not primarily a gallery of images (these should be on Commons), unless it is a non-stale draft of a section of an article that is entirely or primarily a gallery.

Whether the images contain nudity or not should be irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Novice users don't accidentally look at user pages here. Is there evidence that this is true? User pages are linked in most discussion threads: mine is, yours is. When new users receive messages on their talk pages or first engage in discussion at article talk, why would they not click those links as they do others? Beyond that, why are we focused on accidents? Don't the same concerns apply if they view them intentionally? My user page seems to average about 1,500 views a month. I presume these aren't all regular Wikipedians checking in to see if I've changed. :) My userpage is pretty static. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a middle of the road solution (in addition to the current policy) is that given that it is somewhat controversial, it should be there only when such has a valid Wikipedia purpose. This seems mild indeed; we ban all types of things from user pages such as advertisements. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may be an IP, but I've been browsing Wikipedia and related discussions for ages - I remember Jimbo Wales himself requesting for a photo shoving a shaved pubic area (not actual genitalia but close) titled "Hooray, no more Bush" be removed. It might take ages to find the pic/thread though, it was back in summer 2009 if I recall correctly. In any case, Jimbo's word's the law here, right? 212.68.15.66 (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found it [130] although Jimbo's response wasn't as strong as I remembered. My bad, but check out the conversation anyway in case it provides healthy insights. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a combination of several factors here work: WP:NOT#WEBHOST for one (as compared to a image of the editor themselves, a nude picture serves no purpose to help improve the work), and that while we're not censored we don't stick pictures of questionable moral value in places that people don't expect to find them: eg I expect to see nude pictures on Nudity but not on, say, celebrity pages, and certainly much less so on user pages. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Questionable moral value"? There are cultures where showing a woman's face is a "questionable moral value." Should we bar women from revealing their shameless hussy faces out of caution of offending the lowest common denominator? If someone had a picture of themselves barefoot (say, at the beach or with hir feet on a desk), would that be okay? Would it still be okay if the only article they edited was foot fetish? I am particularly astounded that there's any argument at all about the visibility of bare chests. If a picture of a male Wikipedian bare-chested is acceptable, then that of a female (or other) should also be acceptable. This entire argument reeks to high heaven of cultural bias. SmashTheState (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that, yes, there is a cultural bias. Given what has been reported about the makeup of Wikipedia's community, it is to be expected. Your observation neglects to take into account that as Wikipedia's community becomes more diverse, it is also likely to become less open to certain things as more cultural taboos are added to the mix. Bearing in mind that the phrase "questionable moral value" wasn't mine, your position on bare chests is wholly logical but ignores the evidence that no other top ten website allows such displays from its members. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Is anyone aware of a significant "global" website that allows such displays in public areas? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed my question as to why Wikipedia would allow women to bare their faces in their photographs here. Such behaviour would get them prosecuted or even physically assaulted in some parts of the world. If you're going to profess that this is an attempt to placate the lowest common denominator, then you need to explain why women baring breasts is bad, but women baring faces is not. Otherwise, Wikipedia needs to 'fess up and admit that it caters solely and exclusively to the bourgeois morality of middle-class, white, European-descended Presbyterians. SmashTheState (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realise that was a question. I thought it was just ridiculous rhetorical hyperbole. I would suggest that there may be more than the two options you have offered, but why argue? Wikipedia caters solely and exclusively to the bourgeois morality of middle-class, white, European-descended Presbyterians. I'm glad we were able to find some common ground here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia which we're all supposedly editing collegially, and as such, I don't see any clear purpose to any user photos of a sort that one wouldn't find in (say) the staff directory of a university. That's what I meant by "small unprovocative photo" further up—I certainly wasn't thinking of a nude photo. So, no topless pictures of either gender. There are plenty of other sites for that. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What if you are one of the main editors of the Wikiproject:Nudism or somesuch? Wouldn't a nude or semi-nude picture of yourself be perfectly appropriate on your userpage? As for the larger question of allowing nudity (or even sexually explicit pictures, which is a totally different thing) on userpages: many userpages include things like a "section of pictures I uploaded": if these include some pictures with nudity, why wouldn't they be allowed? This doesn't mean that everything should be allowed on userpages, pictures included with the sole purpose of shocking or provocating the vast majority of other editors are usually a bad idea, but a blanket prohibition or even discouragement of nudity on userpages shouldn't happen. Whatever other major websites do in this regard is meaningless, e.g. Facebook often gets criticized for being much too strict in its "no-nudity" policy, removing e.g. breast-feeding pictures from the pages of proud new mothers (or closing down the page for that reason). Fram (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even believe in user names, so you're talking to the wrong person about justifying ego displays such as user photos on the site. We can get rid of user pages altogether as far as I'm concerned. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, I didn't find a Wikiproject for nudism. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography does exist. If a Wikipedia editor who is (or was) a pornographic performer joined that project, would they be able to post images of themselves in action, as it were? You seem to be arguing that nudity on userpages is the wrong place to draw the line, and I an interested in where you think that line should be drawn, or are you, like fellow admin Thryduulf, saying that any image on Commons is allowed? Wikiproject Pornography should perhaps consider removing globally banned user Tyciol from their member list. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I REALLY don't want this to be taken the wrong way, and I mean no offence at all, but a bit of nudity has never upset me, never, and it wouldn't upset any women I've known either, whereas the very thought of a "delicious carbuncle" gives me a green pallour and the heaves. Isn't that ironic? Myles325a (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't beholden to any State's laws concerning religion or cultural coolness. Of course the laws in, say, Mars, or Ontario are meaningless. Therefore it's proper that what flies in user space--assuming it does not violate any applicable laws (Florida, or the United States, for example)--be determined by the general feeling of the community. -Digiphi (Talk) 03:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And given that Wikipedia is run by and for young, white, over-privileged, European-descended males on the autism spectrum living in the basements of suburban bungalows in the United States, this means the default moral position will always be theirs. Which is why a woman demanding the same civil liberties as a man will be treated with moral indignation, but lolicon and Family Guy references on every page on Wikipedia will not. SmashTheState (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal information?

Hello all, I'm writing this report because here there has been a user putting someone's personal name on the page (whether it's actually his or not, I don't know). I'm sure theres probibly nothing that can be done with this within Wikipedia policy but I just wanted to be sure. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything can be done unless it is proven to be another person's name. I think we can AGF and say that it is the editor's own personal information in this case. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The first name mentioned is a reference to Robin van Persie; the second name mentioned seems to an attempt by the poster to sign their own name (which is also contained in their username). In short it seems to be just a good faith but misguided attempt by User:EBettencourt to use the talk page as a discussion forum for this documented sporting event. Being a featured article, the article itself doesn't indulge in sufficient WP:RECENTISM to discuss this at all. So nothing needs doing other than very politely asking the user not to use the talk page as a forum (and maybe they were doing nothing more than implying it should be discussed in the article, in which case even more good faith can be assumed). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could an uninvolved admin please review this talk page comment - I'm concerned it's potentially libelous

Moved from WP:AN. Sandstein 07:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBowen (talk · contribs), who states that he is the James Bowen who has been involved in promoting the concept of a Battle of Australia has just posted this statement on the article's talk page which makes some pretty strong criticisms of the integrity of the prominent Australian historian Peter Stanley (who used to head the history section of the Australian War Memorial and is now the senior historian at the National Museum of Australia and has published articles and a book disputing that there was a 'battle for Australia'). These comments don't really relate to the discussion of how to change the article which I and other editors were involved in, and appear to be a continuation of the attacks made against Stanley on Bowen's Battle for Australia website here. Bowen has been heavily involved with the Battle of Australia article recently, mainly (in my view as an involved editor) to promote his views of this disputed concept. Could an uninvolved admin please review this comment and situation and take action as appropriate? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Includes such statements as "I suspect Dr Stanley knew that he was not being truthful when ...". This looks like a misuse of Wikipedia to continue a real-world scientific and personal disagreement, and should result in a block until we are persuaded that it will not reoccur. Sandstein 07:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have noted that I'd warned the editor ([131]) for previously posting unreferenced material critical Stanley into the body of the article about a month ago. I've also warned him about COI issues here and here. EyeSerene (talk·contribs) reiterated these warnings here and here. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the offending material, left a note on Bowen's talk page. Rev/del(how do you spell the past tense of this nonexistent verb?) as well. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Rev/del'd". ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 09:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Nick said :) I suspect this may be back at ANI in the near future, but I hope I'm wrong. EyeSerene^talk 12:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cask Thomson (2nd nomination)

without contacting a specific admin, just wanted this AfD closed as it's gone over 7 days. thanks. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:DragonflySixtyseven

I was shocked to see this sort of behavior from an admin. He made these 1 2 edits to a userbox I created. I don't know what the policy on editing other people's userboxes is, but it's obvious that his edits were a hostile action meant to destroy the intended meaning of the userbox. He admitted his actions were over the line, but I still felt it necessary to report it since it came from an admin. Also, he deleted a subpage of my user page. Honestly, I don't know what was on it, if anything was on it. But given those two edits, I can only interpret the deletion as a hostile instance of trolling. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• He's acknowledged his action was over the line with the userbox (and frankly the box is/was darn misleading) and used no tools, I don't see an issue for ANI there. If the deletion wasn't of a blank page, then there may well be a problem. Can any admin clarify what was deleted? Hobit (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actual userbox is a separate issue. His intentions were not to improve or correct the userbox but to hijack its meaning. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd view it as an attempt to correct a misleading userbox. In any case his edits were inappropriate IMO. He has acknowledged that. If he does something similar in the future that would be a problem. That said, the only potential abuse of his admin status would be the deletion. Hobit (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the kind of junk that should not be on any user page in any form, per WP:UP#POLEMIC. It does nothing to contribute to the project, and just serves as a thumb-one's-nose-at-my-ideological-opponents. For the record, this would apply to someone who had the attempted alternate version on their user page as well. Tarc (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a simple scientific fact. What's "thumb-one's-nose-at-my-ideological-opponents" about it? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stating "it is a simple scientific fact" is uninformative. I could list a number of "facts" from a certain point of view that would certainly be loaded rhetorically. It is a provocative statement on an emotional issue and contributes absolutely nothing to the project. Protonk (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Please delete the userbox per NOTSOAPBOX. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of User:NYyankees51/Userboxes seems like a non-issue. It contained a draft of the current userbox of interest and was blanked six minutes later, the two edits only by NYyankees51 (talk · contribs) two days ago. It fits WP:CSD#G7, so the deletion doesn't appear improper, but it can be undeleted if you want. Other than such a request, I don't see any necessary admin action. — Scientizzle 22:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Looks like a case of pro-life vs. pro-choice. I doubt this ANI would even exist if it weren't for that. Dachknanddarice (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userbox recreated by user. Deleted per WP:NOTSOAPBOX and salted. Bishonen talk 00:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Now User:Bishonen has deleted the userbox entirely, claiming consensus here and that WP:NOTSOAPBOX applies. What is going on here? How was that userbox any more controversial than the rest of them? NYyankees51 (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not generally accepted as a keep argument. In fact, I think what you've said is less of an argument for keeping your userbox and more of an argument that there are many others that ought to be nuked also. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 02:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. But in any case, there was no consensus or policy on which to base removal. Can it be restored? NYyankees51 (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe submit it at MfD? Basket of Puppies 02:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several categories of WP:NOT apply here (specifically, per Bish, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, but as pointed out in collapsed section also WP:UP#POLEMIC). MfD is the more usual and less controversial method to delete it, but admins can delete with sufficient justification without the whole process. I would have taken this to MfD just to avoid this type of lingering argument over validity of the action, but that's personal preference and not any belief that Bish did something wrong.

A Deletion Review ( WP:DRV ) can be performed, if no admins are convinced that this was stunningly wrong and just unilaterally restore it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really polemic to put one userbox on your userpage. I don't think this one is any better or worse than any of the other political userbox that could be found on a great number of other userpages. I'd rather get rid of all of them, but if we aren't going to do that, I don't see why to single out this one. But use WP:DRV. Prodego ^talk 03:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WP:DRVElen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first step is to discuss it with the deleting admin. There's an open request on the admins page to reconsider the deletion. When and if that discussion doesn't result in agreement between the parties, then it can go to DRV.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: @ Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 17 — Scientizzle 15:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Scientizzle. I have explained my reasoning on my page. Bishonen talk 15:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Claim of Impostor

Hello, IP 216.171.185.194 has made a claim [132] that User:Michelle Stewart is an impostor. Per WP:REALNAME, could this user please be blocked until her identity be verified? Phearson (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's verified or not, that article should be deleted because of a lack of notability. Dayewalker (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Stewart (talk) username-blocked and invited to CHU. JohnCD (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Its been marked for A7. Much thanks, Phearson (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disgruntled editor vandalising my userpage and now disrupting article space with POINTy edits.

I am hoping that someone could help Scarpy to put down the stick and back away from the horse.

On the Sexual Compulsives Anonymous page, there was a dispute over NPOV in the lede sentence. (Talk page discussions here and here.) A consensus was arrived at, including with agreement from Scarpy (see here). However, right after the consensus was implemented (here), Scarpy changed the lede again directly counter to the consensus (here). After discussion of the counter-consensus change (here), Scarpy decided to back out of the discussion altogether (here).

Still unhappy, however, Scarpy decided to express his opinion by vandalizing my userpage (here) and reinstituting his counter-consensus opinion (here).

Because this is one of a family of pages, any assistance would be appreciated to prevent the dispute from spreading to the other pages.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James has a point here, changing the language of the lead paragraph on his user page was bad judgment on my part. Let me say here, and I'll also post it on his talk page, I apologize for doing it.

For the record, I'd like to say, however, his description of how it went happened differs from mine in a few ways. Consensus was achieved on the kind of language to use, but not the exact language to use. I still agree with the consensus in terms of making the distinctions suggested clear, but not the exact language that's used at this point. That seems pretty clear to me from the discussion. Also, the consensus was regarding the SCA and SAA articles, James didn't make similar edits to the SLAA article until today. Either way, I'm backing out of all discussions regarding these topics. -- Scarpy (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scarpy's apology is enough for me. I do not need to belabor the issue.— James Cantor (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please block IP 64.113.185.2

64.113.185.2: All this user does is vandalize. Today, he received two "final warnings" on his talk page (one from me and one from another user). S/he has been warned multiple times to cease and desist, however s/he continues to vandalize pages. Alex (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should be reported at WP:AIV. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages while discussions are ongoing and other disruptive moves (looks like a pattern)

• Undescribed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Undescribed has just moved to Hurricane Karl to Hurricane Karl (2010), a move which I reverted (with an appropiate note in the edit log) due to an ongoing requested move discussion about this very issue. They then made the move again. Even those supporting the move agree that it is a controversial move and that it should be discussed first. I was simply going to drop them a note on their talk page but it would seem that this is not the first instance of this happening (the previous case resulted in move protection) so feel something stronger is needed. Dpmuk (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would also add that the other moves this user has just made are the same moves that resulted in page protection last time. Dpmuk (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) User has hit WP:3RR on moves. Gave warning. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who was one of the movers, probably a bad decision anyway, might want to reinstate the move protection.Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 00:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Undescribed has never participated on an article talk page. He was blocked 24 hours last October. If he continues to edit without responding here or agreeing to change his approach, some action may be needed. He is very stubborn, though his edits are not vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen this thread when I did it, but I reinstated the page protection to the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hoax article

Hi, could someone look at The Miracle of the Human Liver? I couldn't find anything online about the novel or author and the references might be fake.Jnast1 (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted as an obvious hoax. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soewinhan

Title changed, easier for navigation. —GFOLEY FOUR— 19:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soewinhan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) kept removing military related information such as battalion composition, names of former commander in chiefs 'etc. and replacing them with text copied from politically biased media sources, which are clearly unencylopedic. I have warned the users that if he wishes to include political messages, he should either put them under a section or include in other appropiate articles or sections in country article. Myanmar Armed Forces is a military stub article and should contain relevant military related information. Come someone please help? Okkar (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call the article on the Tatmadaw a stub. That being said, the article definitely has some neutrality issues as is. I'll take a deeper look into it later today, if no one else has done so by then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (??????) 19:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit added by User:Soewinhanhere, is a copyright violation of http://www.freeburmaalliance.org/burma-101/history/46-a-brief-history-of-burma (Copyright 2010. Free Burma Alliance). I have left him a standard copyvio message. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user's talk page has "I will not be able to edit until 2012. Goodbye all. See ya." added on the 1st Feb - compromised account? Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) Ronhjones, you left warnings at my talkpage about copyright violations. Actually, you should check that your sources are replicas of Wikipedia. Compare them with History of Burma. Thank you. I will remove warnings at my talkpage.

Then they are copy and paste edits without attribution. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, and I thank you for explanations. I believed that it wouldn't copyvio in copying within Wikipedia. Now, I have learnt something new. Soewinhan (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2) Okkar, you are going into unnecessary details about that particular part of history. Rarely anyone finds a military article in Wikipedia with several graphs like "Ethnic and Army Composition of Tatmadaw in 1948" and "Staff and Command Positions in War Office (1948)". Why not you also add all graphs from 1948 to 2011? On the contrary, that article has no history about post-1962 era at all. When I tried to fix, Okkar reverted my edits saying "Overt political messages / POV pushing" and "vandalism"? He didn't comment at talkpage and blatantly reverting my edits saying "vandalism".

3) I have seen several times user Okkar has accused others of vandalism and started edit-wars. Today, Okkar edit warred at May Sweet and The Irrawaddy articles with User:Hybernator. Compare this editions and decide who violated NPOV. He attacks all those who edit Junta related articles.Soewinhan (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fact 1 - The talk page of Soewinhan stated that "I will not be able to edit until 2012. Goodbye all. See ya.", however the account became active after my disagreement with Hybernator on May Sweet article. Both Hybernator and Soewinhan used the same 3RR complaints. It is highly suspectable that either Hybernator and Soewinhan are the same person or Hybernator has access to Soewinhan account, or they are working together. This should be looked into. Okkar (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fact 2 - Myanmar Armed Forces is a military article. As such it is necessary to include the composition of troops and units at the beginning of official formation in 1948 after the independance. I have made that point quite clearly on Talk page of the said article. Soewinhan have serious COI issue regarding the article as he persistently trying to include overtly political write ups copied from biased media, which are of no relevance to a Military article. No other country Military article include political messages, see Indonesia and China, both of their militaries are heavily involved in politics as well as human rights issue, but none of their respective military pages include what Soewinhan is trying to include. Regardless of political situation in Burma and alleged human rights abuses by Myanmar Armed Forces, the focus of the article was to provide background history and information relevant to "military" nature. Look, nobody likes Myanmar Armed Forces, but that doesnt mean we have to be bias - we are contributing to wikipedia and we have to be objective to the neutral policy of Wikipedia, otherwise, what is the point of having these articles? We may all as well let everyone use Wikipedia to push their own political views. Okkar (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fact 3 - The issue with May Sweet article again highlight the fact of COI issue with both Hybernator and Soewinhan. Both removed the actual video explanation link of the Singer from the article, which was essential to the hoax news issue and replaced with the version pushed out by The_Irrawaddy media from their website. This is clearly a POV as well as COI issue. However, both of them gang up and run to report me for 3RR, when in fact it was Hybernator, who reverted again after he was being warned by admin. If I have to be like them, I could also persuade other editors to report them the same way they are doing to me now, but I have not done so. So you can see, there is a bit of sock puppetry going on here. Okkar (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This will be a joke in Wikipedia. We two and others (Hintha, Chris, and many) against you because we believe you are wrong. Try to prove you are right (if you believe you are) rather than accusing and provoking others of vandalism and sockpuppetry. Why don't you surprise all other users contacted with you against you? Like User:Hintha Chris and User:Hybernator. They are well-established accounts with thousands of edits. Soewinhan (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is because I do not share the same political view as you and the people you have listed. I edit wikipedia to contribute, whereas you and the people you listed have other agenda to use wikipedia for citation in political publications - you admitted that openly in your response to Ronhjones above. It shows clearly that you edit wikipedia to include politically biased message, so that these political organisation such as, Free Burma Alliance, can cite them in their publication. If anyone care to analyse these so-called well established accounts, they will no doubt find that all has been politically bias. Chris was previously warned by admins for his political biasness Okkar (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the source cited by Soewinhan, for example: http://www.freeburmaalliance.org/burma-101/history/46-a-brief-history-of-burma, are anti-government political organisations, as such the views and information these sources contains are highly POV and highly disputable. By citing these source to include political message which has no relevance to Military nature to a Military article clearly violate Wikipedia NPOV. Okkar (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. See this edition. No citation to Free Burma Alliance. Also, I didn't write anything by myself as I have said. I drew relavent materials from History of Burma article.

It is you who cited to DSHMIR archives which constitutes original research. Soewinhan (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cite Free Burma Allaince as the source, Free Burma Alliance cite Wikipedia article Burma as the source, you and your friends edit Burma, so it is cyclic sourcing to push out your own POV. This is clearly in breach of Wikipedia Neutrality. Okkar (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to turn this into a content dispute, but I'm not sure that's quite right. Should we only include the Tatmadaw's perspective on themselves, or only include the perspective of other government organizations on the Tatmadaw? I'll make the broader content argument at the talkpage, but although cyclical sourcing is a problem it's separate from neutrality, which is what you're complaining about (and which I agree is a problem at that article, but probably for different reasons than you do). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Just in case there's any confusion; the Tatmadaw and the Myanmar Armed Forces are the same thing. I use the former because it's shorter.[reply]

@Okkar -Accusations without citations. Would anyone agree with you? I know you have a long history of accusing others, excessive use of sockpuppets, edits with COI, and civility. When I have free time, I'll open up a discussion how to deal if you. Soewinhan (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesnt excuse you from pushing your own POV, vandalising articles and having COI. Every case are considered with its merit, so please dont try to tar everything in one brush. Okkar (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. Anyone with a browser could check my contributions history and see that majority of my edits goes to Burma history before 1900s. Also, this is not a dispute forum or a forum to report editors who disagree with you. Soewinhan (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fisted Rainbow unblock request

Fisted Rainbow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
211.28.221.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was patrolling CAT:RFU and I came across this user who was blocked indefinitely for making legal threats on February 22 by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The user in question has issued a statement, as suggested by the blocking admin, retracting his legal threat. Since JamesBWatson is on leave, what do you guys think about unblocking him? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• seems fine to me. Protonk (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the socking he was doing under his IP following the block? On the flip side, is there any substance to his claim that he was subjected to personal attacks for 6 months? And if so, has anything been done about that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through all of Fisted Rainbow's contributions, and even gone so far as to search for "Fisted Rainbow" using the search box. The only relevant page I can find is Talk:Earthcore. There are some comments that could be classified as personal attacks, though they are far below the severity of Fisted Rainbow's legal threats. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC) _{(edited on 13:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC) by — Oli ^OR Pyfan!})[reply]

Maybe before he gets unblocked, he could be asked to provide maybe 3 diffs of what he considers to be the worst personal attacks? The rationale would be that he's liable to end up right back where he was, unless he can justify his previous complaints. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea, I'll ask him for a few diffs on his talk page. — Oli^ORPyfan! 09:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure he's familiar with things like diffs, so I've provided a few in response to your request. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Thanks Boing! — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 15:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who knows the backstory here, I'd ask for him to be unblocked as well. I don't think he was aware of NLT until he was blocked, and the "IP socking" was him removing those legal threats before requesting an unblock. As to the personal attacks, one can only look at the giant morass that is Talk:Earthcore and it should become rather obvious why he said what he did. I'll notify Boing! said Zebedee of this thread, since he was also involved in this earlier. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sure doesn't seem like merely "removing [the] legal threats before requesting an unblock". Not a very nice tone, either. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 15:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock. Yep, he has been subject to a lot of personal abuse, much of it defamatory allegations about him and his business (some of which is now gone). He was justifiably upset about it all, and I think the legal threat was simply borne out of frustration. I've interacted with him, and I think it's safe and fair to unblock him. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this all started when someone repeatedly added defamatory allegations to the Earthcore article itself, not just the Talk page, when I misunderstood myself and made some erroneous judgments. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the argument was all about. User:Cognitive Dissident had repeatedly added that Controversies section to the Earthcore article, blaming it all on User:Fisted Rainbow as an organizer of Earthcore - although the source did not support any such accusation. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely sounds like a personal attack. Since that Cognitive guy is still theoretically active, how likely is it that this skirmish will continue where it left off? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking the guy certainly seems reasonable at this point. The Cognitive guy, who has never been blocked and apparently sometimes edits from IP's, maybe needs to be watched also. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 15:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a few more personal attack diffs at User talk:Fisted Rainbow#Personal attacks. There has to be a strong chance it will continue, but I have the article and the two users' talk pages watchlisted now, and I'll have time to deal with any problems (sadly I didn't have time to try to help when it last kicked off). I'm surprised to see User:Cognitive Dissident has no warnings (though he has made a lot of his attacks from IPs), but I'm happy to deal with him - if he posts another personal attack, I think an "Only warning" followed by a block is probably the way to go. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copies of the diffs - [133], [134], [135] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the specifics of the case but I am concerned that the user circumvented his block to slam the blocking admin for taking a wikibreak which for all we know might've been forced by RL issues. Not very nice. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 15:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was regrettable, but it could be argued that he did get poor service from us. When this all started, I misunderstood and incorrectly reverted against him, as did others. And he got little help with the most recent spate of personal attacks on the article Talk page - actually getting blocked himself for acting out of frustration. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that simple block evasion is something we should be prepared to see in new users being blocked. Not to say that we should condone it, but we shouldn't see it as equivalent to block evasion from a long term editor who ought to know better or socking. Protonk (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - it looks like he registered to be able to defend himself against the defamation, and doesn't have much Wikipedia experience otherwise -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't see anything wrong with the unblocking, his/her complaints seem even more strange since as mentioned at the beginning JamesBWatson blocked them on the 22nd February. They made some unblock requests which were judged to insufficiently allay the legal threat concerns in the proceeding day or two then disappeared for a few weeks. In the mean time about 2 weeks after the block JamesBWatson [136] went on a wikibreak. Whatever problems in the way we dealt with them, it's clearly unreasonable to expect an admin to have hang around for ~3.5 weeks after their blocks so they can deal with any issues arising from someone requesting an unblock. So even if it was a completely planned wikibreak, I don't see anything wrong with what JBW did. I've left a message on FR's talk page informing them of this. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and unblocked him, conditional on that he stops making these attacks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I've offered on his Talk page to help should there be further defamatory claims, and urged him to let me know rather than reply in kind -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soewinhan

Title changed, easier for navigation. —GFOLEY FOUR— 19:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soewinhan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) kept removing military related information such as battalion composition, names of former commander in chiefs 'etc. and replacing them with text copied from politically biased media sources, which are clearly unencylopedic. I have warned the users that if he wishes to include political messages, he should either put them under a section or include in other appropiate articles or sections in country article. Myanmar Armed Forces is a military stub article and should contain relevant military related information. Come someone please help? Okkar (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call the article on the Tatmadaw a stub. That being said, the article definitely has some neutrality issues as is. I'll take a deeper look into it later today, if no one else has done so by then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (??????) 19:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit added by User:Soewinhanhere, is a copyright violation of http://www.freeburmaalliance.org/burma-101/history/46-a-brief-history-of-burma (Copyright 2010. Free Burma Alliance). I have left him a standard copyvio message. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user's talk page has "I will not be able to edit until 2012. Goodbye all. See ya." added on the 1st Feb - compromised account? Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) Ronhjones, you left warnings at my talkpage about copyright violations. Actually, you should check that your sources are replicas of Wikipedia. Compare them with History of Burma. Thank you. I will remove warnings at my talkpage.

Then they are copy and paste edits without attribution. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, and I thank you for explanations. I believed that it wouldn't copyvio in copying within Wikipedia. Now, I have learnt something new. Soewinhan (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2) Okkar, you are going into unnecessary details about that particular part of history. Rarely anyone finds a military article in Wikipedia with several graphs like "Ethnic and Army Composition of Tatmadaw in 1948" and "Staff and Command Positions in War Office (1948)". Why not you also add all graphs from 1948 to 2011? On the contrary, that article has no history about post-1962 era at all. When I tried to fix, Okkar reverted my edits saying "Overt political messages / POV pushing" and "vandalism"? He didn't comment at talkpage and blatantly reverting my edits saying "vandalism".

3) I have seen several times user Okkar has accused others of vandalism and started edit-wars. Today, Okkar edit warred at May Sweet and The Irrawaddy articles with User:Hybernator. Compare this editions and decide who violated NPOV. He attacks all those who edit Junta related articles.Soewinhan (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fact 1 - The talk page of Soewinhan stated that "I will not be able to edit until 2012. Goodbye all. See ya.", however the account became active after my disagreement with Hybernator on May Sweet article. Both Hybernator and Soewinhan used the same 3RR complaints. It is highly suspectable that either Hybernator and Soewinhan are the same person or Hybernator has access to Soewinhan account, or they are working together. This should be looked into. Okkar (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fact 2 - Myanmar Armed Forces is a military article. As such it is necessary to include the composition of troops and units at the beginning of official formation in 1948 after the independance. I have made that point quite clearly on Talk page of the said article. Soewinhan have serious COI issue regarding the article as he persistently trying to include overtly political write ups copied from biased media, which are of no relevance to a Military article. No other country Military article include political messages, see Indonesia and China, both of their militaries are heavily involved in politics as well as human rights issue, but none of their respective military pages include what Soewinhan is trying to include. Regardless of political situation in Burma and alleged human rights abuses by Myanmar Armed Forces, the focus of the article was to provide background history and information relevant to "military" nature. Look, nobody likes Myanmar Armed Forces, but that doesnt mean we have to be bias - we are contributing to wikipedia and we have to be objective to the neutral policy of Wikipedia, otherwise, what is the point of having these articles? We may all as well let everyone use Wikipedia to push their own political views. Okkar (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fact 3 - The issue with May Sweet article again highlight the fact of COI issue with both Hybernator and Soewinhan. Both removed the actual video explanation link of the Singer from the article, which was essential to the hoax news issue and replaced with the version pushed out by The_Irrawaddy media from their website. This is clearly a POV as well as COI issue. However, both of them gang up and run to report me for 3RR, when in fact it was Hybernator, who reverted again after he was being warned by admin. If I have to be like them, I could also persuade other editors to report them the same way they are doing to me now, but I have not done so. So you can see, there is a bit of sock puppetry going on here. Okkar (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This will be a joke in Wikipedia. We two and others (Hintha, Chris, and many) against you because we believe you are wrong. Try to prove you are right (if you believe you are) rather than accusing and provoking others of vandalism and sockpuppetry. Why don't you surprise all other users contacted with you against you? Like User:Hintha Chris and User:Hybernator. They are well-established accounts with thousands of edits. Soewinhan (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is because I do not share the same political view as you and the people you have listed. I edit wikipedia to contribute, whereas you and the people you listed have other agenda to use wikipedia for citation in political publications - you admitted that openly in your response to Ronhjones above. It shows clearly that you edit wikipedia to include politically biased message, so that these political organisation such as, Free Burma Alliance, can cite them in their publication. If anyone care to analyse these so-called well established accounts, they will no doubt find that all has been politically bias. Chris was previously warned by admins for his political biasness Okkar (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the source cited by Soewinhan, for example: http://www.freeburmaalliance.org/burma-101/history/46-a-brief-history-of-burma, are anti-government political organisations, as such the views and information these sources contains are highly POV and highly disputable. By citing these source to include political message which has no relevance to Military nature to a Military article clearly violate Wikipedia NPOV. Okkar (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. See this edition. No citation to Free Burma Alliance. Also, I didn't write anything by myself as I have said. I drew relavent materials from History of Burma article.

It is you who cited to DSHMIR archives which constitutes original research. Soewinhan (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cite Free Burma Allaince as the source, Free Burma Alliance cite Wikipedia article Burma as the source, you and your friends edit Burma, so it is cyclic sourcing to push out your own POV. This is clearly in breach of Wikipedia Neutrality. Okkar (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to turn this into a content dispute, but I'm not sure that's quite right. Should we only include the Tatmadaw's perspective on themselves, or only include the perspective of other government organizations on the Tatmadaw? I'll make the broader content argument at the talkpage, but although cyclical sourcing is a problem it's separate from neutrality, which is what you're complaining about (and which I agree is a problem at that article, but probably for different reasons than you do). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Just in case there's any confusion; the Tatmadaw and the Myanmar Armed Forces are the same thing. I use the former because it's shorter.[reply]

@Okkar -Accusations without citations. Would anyone agree with you? I know you have a long history of accusing others, excessive use of sockpuppets, edits with COI, and civility. When I have free time, I'll open up a discussion how to deal if you. Soewinhan (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesnt excuse you from pushing your own POV, vandalising articles and having COI. Every case are considered with its merit, so please dont try to tar everything in one brush. Okkar (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. Anyone with a browser could check my contributions history and see that majority of my edits goes to Burma history before 1900s. Also, this is not a dispute forum or a forum to report editors who disagree with you. Soewinhan (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fisted Rainbow unblock request

Fisted Rainbow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
211.28.221.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was patrolling CAT:RFU and I came across this user who was blocked indefinitely for making legal threats on February 22 by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The user in question has issued a statement, as suggested by the blocking admin, retracting his legal threat. Since JamesBWatson is on leave, what do you guys think about unblocking him? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• seems fine to me. Protonk (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the socking he was doing under his IP following the block? On the flip side, is there any substance to his claim that he was subjected to personal attacks for 6 months? And if so, has anything been done about that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through all of Fisted Rainbow's contributions, and even gone so far as to search for "Fisted Rainbow" using the search box. The only relevant page I can find is Talk:Earthcore. There are some comments that could be classified as personal attacks, though they are far below the severity of Fisted Rainbow's legal threats. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC) _{(edited on 13:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC) by — Oli ^OR Pyfan!})[reply]

Maybe before he gets unblocked, he could be asked to provide maybe 3 diffs of what he considers to be the worst personal attacks? The rationale would be that he's liable to end up right back where he was, unless he can justify his previous complaints. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea, I'll ask him for a few diffs on his talk page. — Oli^ORPyfan! 09:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure he's familiar with things like diffs, so I've provided a few in response to your request. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Thanks Boing! — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 15:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who knows the backstory here, I'd ask for him to be unblocked as well. I don't think he was aware of NLT until he was blocked, and the "IP socking" was him removing those legal threats before requesting an unblock. As to the personal attacks, one can only look at the giant morass that is Talk:Earthcore and it should become rather obvious why he said what he did. I'll notify Boing! said Zebedee of this thread, since he was also involved in this earlier. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sure doesn't seem like merely "removing [the] legal threats before requesting an unblock". Not a very nice tone, either. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 15:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock. Yep, he has been subject to a lot of personal abuse, much of it defamatory allegations about him and his business (some of which is now gone). He was justifiably upset about it all, and I think the legal threat was simply borne out of frustration. I've interacted with him, and I think it's safe and fair to unblock him. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this all started when someone repeatedly added defamatory allegations to the Earthcore article itself, not just the Talk page, when I misunderstood myself and made some erroneous judgments. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the argument was all about. User:Cognitive Dissident had repeatedly added that Controversies section to the Earthcore article, blaming it all on User:Fisted Rainbow as an organizer of Earthcore - although the source did not support any such accusation. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely sounds like a personal attack. Since that Cognitive guy is still theoretically active, how likely is it that this skirmish will continue where it left off? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking the guy certainly seems reasonable at this point. The Cognitive guy, who has never been blocked and apparently sometimes edits from IP's, maybe needs to be watched also. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 15:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a few more personal attack diffs at User talk:Fisted Rainbow#Personal attacks. There has to be a strong chance it will continue, but I have the article and the two users' talk pages watchlisted now, and I'll have time to deal with any problems (sadly I didn't have time to try to help when it last kicked off). I'm surprised to see User:Cognitive Dissident has no warnings (though he has made a lot of his attacks from IPs), but I'm happy to deal with him - if he posts another personal attack, I think an "Only warning" followed by a block is probably the way to go. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copies of the diffs - [137], [138], [139] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the specifics of the case but I am concerned that the user circumvented his block to slam the blocking admin for taking a wikibreak which for all we know might've been forced by RL issues. Not very nice. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 15:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was regrettable, but it could be argued that he did get poor service from us. When this all started, I misunderstood and incorrectly reverted against him, as did others. And he got little help with the most recent spate of personal attacks on the article Talk page - actually getting blocked himself for acting out of frustration. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that simple block evasion is something we should be prepared to see in new users being blocked. Not to say that we should condone it, but we shouldn't see it as equivalent to block evasion from a long term editor who ought to know better or socking. Protonk (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - it looks like he registered to be able to defend himself against the defamation, and doesn't have much Wikipedia experience otherwise -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't see anything wrong with the unblocking, his/her complaints seem even more strange since as mentioned at the beginning JamesBWatson blocked them on the 22nd February. They made some unblock requests which were judged to insufficiently allay the legal threat concerns in the proceeding day or two then disappeared for a few weeks. In the mean time about 2 weeks after the block JamesBWatson [140] went on a wikibreak. Whatever problems in the way we dealt with them, it's clearly unreasonable to expect an admin to have hang around for ~3.5 weeks after their blocks so they can deal with any issues arising from someone requesting an unblock. So even if it was a completely planned wikibreak, I don't see anything wrong with what JBW did. I've left a message on FR's talk page informing them of this. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and unblocked him, conditional on that he stops making these attacks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I've offered on his Talk page to help should there be further defamatory claims, and urged him to let me know rather than reply in kind -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles

Blackash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Slowart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have had a long drawn out dispute regarding the Tree shaping (edit talk history links watch logs) article. Various forms of dispute resolution have been tried up to MedCom, and various editors have given of their time to attempt to resolve the issue, but it continues to drag on. It has been suggested on the COI noticeboard that a Topic Ban might now be appropriate. A voluntary Topic Ban would not work as Blackash has stated she won't agree. Articles involved in the ban would include Tree shaping, Axel Erlandson, Arthur Wiechula, John Krubsack and Expo 2005. There may be others. SilkTork *^YES! 00:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and add Grafting and Richard Reames please.Slowart (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed for Formal meditation twice, the last time Slowart didn't agree. If Slowart would agree to go to Formal meditation I'm willing to go. Blackash have a chat 05:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for the reasons given at the COI noticeboard. I agree with Slowart that the ban should include the Grafting and Richard Reames articles as well, in fact all articles related to tree shaping. I think the topic ban should go ahead even if there is also an effort at mediation, since mediations often fail. In the lucky event of the mediation being successful, it will be easy to get the ban lifted. The turmoil at these articles should not continue, and a topic ban is a milder option than blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban for three editors, but allow comments I have been semi-following the Tree shaping issue since noticing it at a noticeboard in June 2010, and have found myself in agreement with Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs)—we think there has been too much effort devoted to minimizing use of the term "arborsculpture" in the article. As I recall, Martin Hogbin and I are the main contributors to the talk page who have no commercial interest in the topic. One editor (Slowart, named above) apparently has a commercial interest in "arborsculpture" and has favored mentioning that term as an "also called" in the lead (diff), while two other editors are very keen that "arborsculpture" not be used in the lead: Sydney Bluegum (talk · contribs) (diff1, diff2) and Blackash (named above) (diff). Many more such diffs over months are available. I support a topic ban for Slowart and Blackash and Sydney Bluegum: there is little point in applying a ban to only two of these editors. In a normal topic ban, the editors must completely avoid the topic. However, in this case I suggest that each be permitted to make suggestions on article talk pages, although they should be asked to not comment frequently or repetitively. These editors can make useful suggestions or point out errors, but an article topic ban should be enacted because the editors have unduly focused on the question of how "arborsculpture" is mentioned in the article—off-wiki interests seem the most plausible explanation for the vigor with which this matter has been pursued. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Question Johnuniq I noticed you have pointed to where I've supported an editor removing alternative names from the lead (my reasoning), yet you don't point out I later offer a comprise that puts alternative names (inculding arborsculpture) back into the lead diff. You also don't mention that Slowart removed a chunk of cited content about his own methods and then refused to talk. Why didn't you also point this out? Blackash have a chat 15:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest it is because Johnuniq is showing examples of editors violating WP practices - which is rather the point of commenting at ANI - rather than instances of compliance. If this were a matter of having the named editors (including you) banned from the site, your question would have relevance. Further, the tone and inference of your question indicates a possible symptom of the alleged interaction issues. Makes my decision easier. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions @ LessHeard vanU

1. An editor who removes referenced/cited content about themselves and then won’t discuss their edit, are not violating WP practices?
2. Whether someone is to be banned from the site as a whole or only part of the site it still is banning. I would have believed that the editor’s overall behavior and looking at their diffs in context would be what guilds the decision to ban in either case. Are you suggesting that the editor's overall behavior/diffs in context don't count when it comes to topic banning? Blackash have a chat 06:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On your question #2: If the problems are related to a single area, then the editor's behavior in that single area is all that matters. An editor can be a perfect angel 99% of the time, and still get topic-banned from the 1% where he or she misbehaves. Behaving well in one area does not give an editor immunity in another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my question. My edits and behavior on this topic has been as I stated below. I edit, talk giving reasons, and offer or except comprises. Any edit that may be considered a potential COI I gone to noticeboards and asked outside editors' views. It seems that because I've followed WP policy in regards potential COI I am to be banned as it is causing other editors too much grief, not because my editing/behavior is inappropriate. Please note most of the time outside editors agree with my view. Blackash have a chat 04:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is ridiculous on all sides. Phearson (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article ban for all three named editors, but allow edits to talkpages - with a view that if good faith dispute resolution process are (re)started then this ban can be revisited sooner rather than later. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article ban but permit talk page edits per what LessHeardvanU says above. I believe that both Blackash as well as Slowart have self-declared their COI on the topic and should be permitted the assumption of good faith. --rgpk (comment) 22:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It seems the only way forward. Sydney Bluegum is clearly an SPA (see contribs) and should be included in the ban. The question is, 'Then what?'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For Blackash and Slowart for reasons stated above and obvious Conflicts of Interest. Abstain for Sydney Bluegum as his support of Blackash seems like a content issue not a CoI issue to me. However I have not been taking part in the discussion for about six months so I leave it up to others who have been directly involved more recently to decide on the best course of action as far as he is concerned. Colincbn (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Sydney's contribs. This is clearly an SPA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The expertise of these editors (blackash and slowart being some of the foremost practitioners in the US and australia) slightly outweighs the constant arguing over the name. Over the last 2 years the quality and detail of the article has improved drastically, with these two doing the vast majority of the edits. The mediation committee needs to get their act together and actually send out a mediator. AfD hero (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeThis is not a simple problem, it like a game of chest. By banning me all that is happening is the players from one side are being removed leaving the lobby group for Arborsculpture. Of course Slowart is willing be banned as he still has players in the game. As has been stated on the talk page this group of editors are so hostile to anyone with a diffing view that most editors go elsewhere to edit. The result will be tree shaping and surrounding articles will become heavily weighted towards on their stated goal.
  Google Arborsculpture, it all leads to Richard Reames/Slowart. In spite Richard’s claims, Arborsculpture is not the accepted name of the art and that is why Slowart removed his methods and image of his results his bending method. And now IPs keep coming in and removing Instant tree shaping section as well.
  Comment Apart form that I believe it not right to ban me when I’ll added valuable content to the main article, I’ve always being willing to discuss content, offered or excepted comprises. Any edit I thought may have been considered pushing my view I’ve talked first, then asked at the appropriate notice board and even when been given the go ahead to completely remove the word Arborsculpture from the article I didn’t. The reason I was given to accept a voluntary ban was because editors where feeling too much grief. I’ve not been uncivil and edited in good faith and learn from my mistakes. I’ve been told this doesn’t’ matter if this is true it seems bad behavior is rewarded because topic banning appears to be the easy answer. Blackashhave a chat 23:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Blackash this is not a game of chess, there are no "sides" and we are not "players". This comment shows that you feel there is a way to "win for your side". But editting to win is not compatable with editing to help make WP better. This is the definition of a Conflict of Interest. The fact is I do not care about tree shaping or arborsculpture at all. I have never done it or even seen it in person and I know no one who has. I simply want to help make WP a better more complete encyclopedia. This is the one sole reason anyone should edit here. Colincbn (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I got involved with that page several years back through a third opinion request (before I was sysopped) and it was exceedingly difficult to get anything done. I'm not entirely surprised that this is still going on, but an edit war that long has to be put to rest. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban. I vaguely remember having offered a third opinion, like HelloAnnyong, on one of the disputes that Blackash and Slowart were having two or more years ago. They're clearly still at it from entrenched positions and won't desist voluntarily. – Athaenara ✉ 01:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban I posted about fifteen times to the tree shaping talkboard and also to the WP:NPOVN in 2010 for a few months ending in August. There was no resolution then and I do not think there is any plan to find resolution. This issue has distracted me and a lot of other good editors. I feel that all Wikipedians have a duty to compromise as they must to minimize time spent on talk pages and maximize the time spent contributing to articles. There were good, friendly debates on how to present the Wikipedia articles related to this subject but with these two editors participating in the discussion I do not feel that the debates are likely to end. Perhaps other users associated with this topic should also cease editing. I would have supported a topic ban 6 months ago and if the issue is still hot then the reasonable response is a topic ban. There could still be mediation if the parties want to arrange it but if this happens then I think the topic of mediation ought to be the conditions under which the topic ban is removed after a year. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban on anything in the mainspace related to tree-shaping for Slowart and Blackash. As this has been a long-term dispute with edit-warring issues, I believe that a long-term topic ban is proportional. As endlessly arguing with each other is also disruptive, I would also be willing to support restricting them each to a single tree-shaping-related comment on any talk page or noticeboard per day, although perhaps that's an issue for another day.
  I have not yet formed an opinion about Sydney Bluegum. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Sydney's contribs. This is clearly an SPA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it would be more productive to ban these editors from any name-related edits or discussion, since this is the only real point of contention, but allow them to continue to contribute other content. AfD hero (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two should be permanently banned from making any edits relating to the subject name or any section having a commercial connection, such as lists of practitioners of the art. Clearly they are both experts on the subject, whose views we should welcome but I think a short total ban might be useful while editors with no commercial interest try to sort things out a bit. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hogin, you may not be commercial involved but as Bluerasberry stated you are not a neutral editor on this issue. A fine example is your last edit diff on tree shaping where you removed referenced/cited content. Please note the edit he was reverting diff had only added the word "The".

Martin made a conscious decision to add or remove the rest their edit.Blackash have a chat 03:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I've asked Martin Hogin to agree to mediation with me. For more details go to Tree shaping talk page. Blackash have a chat 05:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you have been proposing mediation since 2008 (diff). Many of your edits have been excellent, and this 2008 comment provides a very reasonable point of view (it appears that certain practitioners use tree shaping methods they believe are different from those of the person who coined the term "arborsculpture", and those practitioners object to having their work associated with that term). Nevertheless, independent editors need to take control of the articles since it is not satisfactory to have them dominated by those with a conflict of interest. As recently as a week ago you were removing "arborsculpture" from the lead of the article which suggests a "take no prisoners" approach that is not helpful on Wikipedia. Mediation is not required—the editors with a COI regarding terminology simply need to undertake to not make edits regarding such terminology. Instead, make proposals on the talk page and let uninvolved editors respond (yes, that might take a long time, and it might lead to unsatisfactory results, but it would be better than the advocacy and ownership now demonstrated). Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackash, I am perfectly willing to assist in any form of dispute resolution process as a neutral editor with no commercial interest in this subject. On the other hand, you must stop making edits like this one [141] in which you added the proprietary name used by your own business for the art. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, when Slowart puts his own word into the lead you didn't comment to him about his COI. You now have twice supported Slowart's removal of cited content. Once voicing support on the talk page, the other time you made conscious decision to mirror Slowart removal of referenced/cited content. You have yet to explain why. This is not the behavior of a neutral editor. It is because of your support for the word arborsculpture and Reames/Slowart edits, that I've asked you to go to meditation. Please go to tree shaping talk page and list the issues you would like to discuss in meditation and agree there to formal meditation. I don't want to go the trouble of listing it again only to have you not reply to the listing wasting the meditations' time and mine, as happen last time I listed and Slowart didn't reply. Blackash have a chat 01:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to participate in formal mediation but have, as yet, not received any official notification on the subject. There is no requirement to list the issues I want to discuss in advance. In fact there is only one such issue, editors with a potential COI. As I say below, this might be a good case for arbitration of we can find no other way forward. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated why I haven't listed yet above your comment. When listing a formal meditation there is a section "Issues to be mediated". Would you please list the issues you have. I'm guessing from your talk page that spam is one, by your edits that the methods on the page are other and going by your comment I'm also guess which names are in the lead is also an issue. But when I file I don't want to be guessing what you are thinking. So please go to the tree shaping talk page and list what are the issues. Thanks for being open to mediation. Blackashhave a chat 11:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one proposing mediation, I have just said that I am happy to participate. If you start the process stating what issues you wish to be mediated, any editor is free to add their own. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin I'll list on Friday as I don't have the time until then. Feel free to list for mediation if you want or if you have the time. Blackashhave a chat 08:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that you may be banned from this topic. It might be better to see how you feel about the article after that ban (if it happens) expires. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin I’m ready to list, but you seem unsure. Are you still willing to go ahead with formal meditation. Blackash have a chat 12:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep asking me this question? I have made clear that I am willing to participate in any dispute resolution process. You are proposing formal mediation and it is up to you to decide what issues you want mediated the propose this formally. If it is accepted then the mediators will ask all editors if the wish to be involved. As you may be getting a topic ban I suggest that it would be better for you to wait but it is entirely up to you. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, listing now. I didn't want to go the trouble of listing it again only to have you not reply to the listing wasting the meditations' time and mine. So thank you for again confirming. [142] Blackash have a chat 13:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban again

Oppose I don't think a topic ban would work as there are more editors than just Slowart and Blackash involved. It is not that hard to have another account running as some editors do. A topic ban would not effect me at all as I came to wiki as an end user to get info. I got involved in this conflict as Blackash was the only editor providing useful information in the article while other editors were pulling her edits down. On the talk page, other editors just dont answer or talk about behaviour rather than content.This has been ongoing. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only Slowart and Blackash have a known commercial interest in this subject. That is what this is all about. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Topic Ban: Mediate title - it would be ridiculous to stop two agreed experts from editing the articles. I can however see a case for a consnsus being made by uninvolved editors as to which term is best, and then restrictions put on the editing so as to endorse that view only. Egg Centric 15:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not planing on contributing any more unless Blackash goes unchecked in describing my work, removing, redefining or watering down the word arborsculpture. Check my edit history please, I proposed topic ban for myself and Blackash as I don't need these endless battles, and to be honest, the subject deserves better. Yes the title issue should be revisited but keep me out of it please. Slowart (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is no established name yet [143] the discussion that lead to this wording [144]. Wikipedia describes not prescribes. Me and my life partner at Pooktre don't care what the name of the article is as long the title not linked to a method or leads to one artist. So Pooktre and Arborsculpture are both out as the title. Google Pooktre it leads to us google Arborsculpture it leads to Richard Reames. If you are interested here is a link to a page with the alternative names suggested for the title with references and quotes. Blackash have a chat 09:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another COI edit

Blackash has just made this [145]. Whether it is sourced or not is irrelevant, editors should not be adding proprietary names for the art used by their own businesses to this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pooktre is not registered or trademarked, its a word Pete and I created to name our own art. Different editors have put pooktre into the lead and SilkTork stated pooktre has also become generic. I suggested this change on the talk page close to two weeks ago. diff Martin I'm not a mind reader, if you had an issue with the my suggested comprise for the alternative names you should have spoke up. Blackashhave a chat 00:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackash, the argument is not about whether Pooktre should be in the lead it is about whether you should be the one to put it there (or restore it). Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about full page protection

With topic ban it is my understanding that an editor would watch the articles. There have been comments as to this conflict tying up editors time.This seems to be an issue. On the COI noticeboard EdJohnston suggested full page protection. I feel this is a valid outcome as the conflicts are centered on Tree Shaping. Page protection would free up editors to work on other topics. If this were to go ahead the article needs to have the three methods in place when it is locked. As the article is now with Tree training, arborsculpture, and pooktre, I feel this is fair. As Tree training was suggested by multiple editors as the title for the article, it is reasonable for it to go in the lead first. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether desirable or not, that's not going to happen—as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", pages are only protected for the amount of time required to prevent disruption. If particular editors repeatedly edit against consensus or Wikipedia's principles, processes such as the one being discussed here are undertaken, and problematic editors end up being blocked or topic banned (with blocks for violations). Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We need a topic ban for all WP:SPA editors and all those with a potential COI. The remaining editors can then discuss the best way to deal with the commercially sensitive issues in the article in a fair and impartial way. Once agreement has been reached and the necessary changes made the other editors should be allowed back, on the strict condition that they make no edits within a defined area.

I think this would be a good case for arbitration, as the main issues are with editor conduct rather than content in itself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact you decided to remove cited content with no discussion is not relevant? I think it highly relevant Blackashhave a chat 10:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I have already explained, the reason that I reverted was that the edit was made by an editor with a potential COI. You do not seem to understand what this means. Both you and Slowart have a commercial interest in this subject that potentially conflicts with your editing here. You should both refrain from making edits that involve the name of the art or current practitioners of it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you said, you reverted an IP,comment diff of Martin's revert. Going by your reasoning above you should have also reverted the 3 IPs who had mirrored Slowart's edits removing cite content, but you didn't.Blackash have a chat 08:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support full page protection The tree shaping article as it stands at the moment has had multiple outside editors help shape it, though my checking different points on noticeboards. Which seems to be why I'm up for topic ban. No-one is saying tree shaping article is a mess.

I think the best solution is to do a full page protection of the article for 6-12 months. That way the article is not left with only the pro arborsculpture group. Who have done:-

1. Have a stated goal of changing the title to arborsuclpture.
2. To suggest editing the article for a WP:POINT diff to help achive their goal.
3. Have already edited the article to give undue weight to Arborsculpture when they were requesting the article title be change back to arborsuclpture. For more detail
4. Multiple editors have commented to various pro arborsculpture editors about them being uncivil and/or rude, sometimes to the point of driving away neutral outside editors.
5. Are willing to support removal of cited content [146] and diff. In the second example there has been no discussion as to why.
6. When it comes to answering content related policy questions they mostly don't. Some recent examples

Note how I created points or ask questions and they are not addressed. [147] This Archive of the talk page should give a sense of the way discussions go this one is about the title [148] and this is good example of their style of argument [149]. Now times that by 5 or 7 editors who state I have COI (with no back up and other editors like SilkTork have stated I don't have COI) and you have some idea of what I've been dealing with.

As one of the issues is, this conflict is taking up to much of other editors time. A full page lock would be the best solution, as this would free up other editors. If the page was fully locked, I would be fine with not bringing things up on the talk page or noticeboards. Though I would like to reply to treads others start. I would continue to edit fortnightly on orphaned articles. There is good reason that Slowart seems eager to be topic banned. Quote edit summary "Topic ban please" diff Blackash have a chat 10:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection is not going to be enabled for anything like six months, let alone a year. Wikipedia has far more controversial articles which survive without full protection. In the end this is a relatively minor naming dispute which only gives the impression of being significantly problematic because of the number of editors with COI involved in it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It is extremely likely that the battle about "arborsculpture" has been waged on the Internet since 2008 or earlier—see northey reams pooktre arborsculpture for examples; Blackash has declared "I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI" a number of times (example). Wikipedia cannot allow those with an external agenda to decide what terminology is used in an article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I didn't suggest or ask for the arborsculpture article be moved or what the new name should be. [150]. This is where there was more discussion after the move [151] As to the google link Johnuniq put up, Bluerasberry addressed this when Colincbn brought this same issue up at the NPOV noticeboard. "[152] Bluerasberry quote "As to the links to user:blackash posting to other websites, I see nothing wrong with this and I am not sure why you think this is bad. Blackash's posting on the off-wiki message boards about arborsculpture meets WP:CANVASS because she is making an off-site RfC without pushing a particular view, without soliciting people likely to take her side, without soliciting people who are unlikely to be interested (she posted on relevant boards), and by getting a message to a group of people who might not otherwise know about Wikipedia (perhaps older gardeners who might not use Wikipedia much). Wikipedia needs more editors and I see what she did as great advertising to direct traffic to Wikipedia, and I see no way for this to lead to financial gain for anyone." reply link

As to listing for meditation Colincbn was going to list on the 23rd of Sep 2010 as there had been a consensus to on the talk page link but by 28th he hadn't so I ask him on his talk page and then I listed on the 6 Oct 2010 Blackashhave a chat 08:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest there is anything wrong with promoting your work. Nor am I suggesting a canvassing problem. What I am saying is the bleeding obvious: you have a COI and have used many Internet forums to promote your work and your POV. And now you are using articles on Wikipedia to do the same, and that has to stop—you should no longer be permitted to make edits that concern your clear COI. The Google search link shows you have conducted a campaign since at least 2008, and you will never be convinced by discussion or mediation. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I was trying to get the title change to Pooktre I would have a clear COI. But a practitioner discussing the overall name of a art form is only a potential COI if that. I'll state again, I don't care what the overall name of the art form is as long as it neutral. I would be willing to believe that I'm a tree trainer but like all other artists (with the exception of Richard Reames) in this field I don't believe I'm a arborsculptor. Blackash have a chat 11:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Full Protection - Not only is it not within the guideline of WP:FULL to protect a page because it gets vandalized, but if wikipedia fully protected pages because of vandalism or COI editing, then there wouldn't be too many unlocked pages to edit, now would there.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, but that is not the issue. The person suggesting page protection has no experience with Wikipedia other than with Tree shaping, and naturally the page is not going to be protected, as I explained above. The issue concerns the fact that Blackash in particular has a long-term interest in suppressing use of the term "arborsculpture", both off wiki (see my Google search link above at timestamp 03:20, 14 March), and on wiki. There is another frustrated editor with a COI (Slowart) who occasionally (over a long period) attempts to restore "arborsculpture" to the lead of the article, but Blackash spends more time dominating the article. The question raised at ANI is whether any editors should be topic banned (yes, of course at least the two editors with an acknowledged COI concerning the terminology should be topic banned). Johnuniq (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq. Pointing out online that arborsculpture is not the overall name or that it leads to Richard Reames is not suppressing. (Both points can be verified) Asking other editor's opinions on wiki how much weight Arborsculpture should be given in the article compared to it's references is also not suppressing. Johnuniq just what do you think my long term interest is? I haven't ever said that I have a COI about the overall name. As a practitioner discussing the overall name I only have a potential COI if that. Blackashhave a chat 01:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Google search shows you have been arguing the case off-wiki since 2008, and it is not acceptable to continue the argument on-wiki. Your edits always end up by removing "arborsculpture" from the lead of the article, which coincidentally matches your off-wiki promotions of your business which uses different terminology. Eventually sufficient editors will choose to get involved in order to support the very reasonable request for a topic ban for at least the two editors with clear COI issues. Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq Your understanding of COI is faulty like your claim that my edits always end up removing "arborsculpture" from the lead.

• My suggested compromise when arborsculpture wasn't in the lead diff Please note arborsculpture is one of the words in the compromise. My edit on the article putting the suggested compromise in place. [153] Please note arborsculpture is still in the lead.
• WP:COI Quote "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." I can give diffs to multiple instances where I've put wikipedia polices first/above pooktre. Here are a few:
  • My request to speedy delete the pooktre article. [154]
  • Where I listed pooktre article for deletion [155]
  • Where I added citation needed to Pooktre in the Alternative names on Tree shaping. [156]
    • SilkTork's comment on COI is an interesting view on COI diff

My editing about the name of the art form is not a COI because I am not pushing/promoting to have my word Pooktre as the overall name of the art form. Blackash have a chat 14:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This listing is now showing the pro arborsculpture editors tactics and its starting to look like anywhere I've gone and requested for outside editors opinion on content for Tree shaping. They come in and fill the pages with rhetoric. Mostly these editors don't answer content related questions and they throw mud. I rebut with diffs because if I don't most editors would logically believe them. Blackash have a chat 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not pro, nor anti, arborsculpture. Nor am I pro/anti pooktre. I am simply pro Wikipedia. Colincbn (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Subject Ban-including all editors porting ongoing partisan arguments into this forum, as all appear to be part of the problem. Allow TalkPage ad lib. .These are good editors facing our times as best they can- but this is a group who are apparently using the article to try to change the English language. Here in NoCalifornia there is neither "Arborsculpture" nor "Treeshaping". Disneyland has informed visitors for 60 years- the park's history is filled with magical topiaries- from promenades of Mickey Mouse ficus, to societies of anthropomorphic cacti, to gant electrified tree houses, &theyre all referred to as topiary. Not "Imagineered Sculptured Plants". With appreciation for WhatamIdoing's high-minded position elsewhere, and with respect to the volumes already written- this business offers high instruction about our resolution process- IE., it really doesnt work so well, does it? Barring "changes of heart", any *mutual* subject-banning is probly far more efficient- and ultimately most fair where any editor evidences intransigence.
B/c WP process inevitably gives 'first-strike' users a break. This has long been established within WP policy. This is exactly how WP:Edit wars are won according to the article: It pays to initiate an edit war. We've seen it pay well. Today we're seeing Israel admitting to training teams of paid WP article-seeders who'll cunningly insert pro-Zionist political content wherever possible. Why? Because it works. Because our policies give that "activism" a break. Dont look for "fair" in "resolution". It pays to start an edit war. And that's what this is, in effect.
But WP is a human system with other human faults. Our mediation process does not work. It relies on

1. Two open-minded, open- hearted adversaries and
2. a mediator able to make cogent contributions via some overall understanding of human nature as well as important technical, and any ancillary 'market' issues at stake, and then decide an authoritative yet non-binding resolution-

&How likely is that synergy? You can say "Good editors resolve disputes". Well, but not quite. I see "Good editors" who have no effect at all when there's more at stake than good editing. Apparently "good editors" also quick-delete spam and promotion.

Provided no cliques &/or puppets are involved- I suspect *mutual* WP:Topic bans of intransigents eventually results in fair articles [and Titles] overall, with less time spent re-hashing events. I'm usually for more gentleness, but WP articles should nOT become a primary resource for politics and gain. I do suggest all editors consider using mutual banning more frequently wherever intransigence is apparent. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 22:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well said, although I'm innocent and therefor unworthy of your suspicions. Topiary at Disneyland really is topiary. Proceed with topic ban IMHO. Slowart (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that we are not discussing who is "innocent" or otherwise. Discussions like this arise when normal talk page debate cannot resolve an issue (for example, there is a discussion below about whether "The Beatles" is preferable to "the Beatles"). No one is suggesting that an editor has done anything "wrong" in this case, other than it is totally impossible to achieve stability in the Tree shaping article because of the entrenched interests involved. If a topic ban were placed, it is likely that more arguments will occur, but they will be resolved in due course because they will be between experienced editors who only want what is right for Wikipedia, with no outside influence that may affect their judgment. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarleo, I think it's important to remember that topiary is not the same thing as tree shaping. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, neither does your link refer to what most arborists call tree shaping. The term 'tree shaping' does not occur in that article at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I linked it because of its pictures, not because of the text. It shows the trees by Axel Erlandson, whose important contributions to the art form you will find described in the article at Tree shaping#Chronology_of_notable_practitioners.

The fact is that a welded metal frame stuffed with sphagnum moss and covered by little houseplants—which is modern topiary, shown at the Disney link—is simply not the same thing as weaving living tree trunks into a basket shape (the first image in the Gilroy Gardens link). If you actually look at the pictures, it's obvious that they are different things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slowart, hello. I see I have may have engaged you- unlike others. Thank you.

btw, all- the topic here is a mutual editor Subject Ban. Revisiting previous disputes is essentially off-topic to this page. Please let's return any re-naming argument to where it is well-supported. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 17:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling this is going to end up burning out just like the three CoIs (one brought by Blackash herself). Where are the admins at ANI? Colincbn (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Colincbn I can only remember 2 COI: this 1, the 2nd that lead to here, I’ve searched and can’t find the 3th one. Please give a link. Blackash have a chat 12:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional Misuse of Vandalism - by administrator