위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive734

논쟁의 여지가 있는 것

WölffReik과 그의 "개인 도서관" 기사.

여기서 WölffReik(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)와 킥복싱 관련 기사의 "개인 라이브러리"를 볼 수 있는가? 그 중 많은 것이 삭제된 기사(예: 사용자:Minowafan/Hero의 4, 사용자:Minowafan/SuperKombat: Fight Club ,사용자:미노와판/로컬 콤바트).Mtking ^(edits) 01:49, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

이 페이지들 중 십여 장을 열었는데, 모두 비슷한 이름의 기사들(예: User:Minowafan/SuperKombat:파이트 클럽은 슈퍼콤바트의 카피오였다.파이트 클럽) 그래서 나는 그들 모두를 삭제했다.나머지를 확인할 시간은 없지만, 내가 확인한 모든 기사가 카피비오인 만큼, 나는 나머지는 카피비오라고 강하게 의심한다; (1) WP로 인해, 나는 단지 사본처럼 보이지 않는 개별 페이지를 제외한 모든 하위 페이지를 삭제하려고 한다.IAR; (2) 내가 확인한 모든 것의 카피비오 상태, (3) 차단된 양말은 일반적으로 하위 페이지가 필요 없다는 사실.모든 것을 개별적으로 열어 삭제하지 않고 삭제할 수 있는 방법을 아는 사람?나는 이미 이 페이지들이 너무 오래되어서 nuk이 될 수 없다는 것을 알았다.Nyttend (대화) 02:11, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

그런데, 만약 당신이 이것들을 빨리 삭제하는 방법을 알고 있다면, 내 토크 페이지에 메모를 남겨라; 나는 그것들을 삭제하느라 바쁠 것이다. 페이지 상단에 오렌지색 배너가 없으면 나는 답장을 알아차리지 못할 것이다.Nyttend (대화) 02:14, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 자동 뷰어 상태를 삭제했는데, 이렇게 많은 카피비오 문제를 가진 사람에게는 적합하지 않아 보인다.--SP힐브릭(Talk) 03:07, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

잘 왔다.삭제는 끝났고, 내 계산이 맞으면 433개의 하위 페이지가 있었고, 샌드박스를 제외한 모든 페이지를 삭제했다. 다른 모든 페이지의 디렉터리인 것 같다.Nyttend (대화) 03:18, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

한 명 이상의 사용자:WölffReik/Sandbox는 K-1 World MAX 2011 -70kg Japan 토너먼트 Final과 K-1 World MAX 2011 -63kg Japan 토너먼트 Final이 혼합된 것으로 보인다(Wikipedia에 따라 삭제된 경우:삭제 조항/K-1 월드 MAX 2011 -63kg급 일본 토너먼트 파이널).Mtking ^(edits) 07:52, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

이 사용자의 문제는 이 콘텐츠를 유지하기 위해 다양한 양말과 ip를 사용한다는 것이다.이 DRV와 AfD 직후 나는 이 포럼에 이러한 샌드박스와 계속되는 게임 행동을 몇 가지 가져왔다(변명의 블록을 요청). 그러나 편집자가 정책과 지침을 적극적으로 위반하고 있지 않았기 때문에, 그 당시에는 아무것도 하지 않았다.다른 사용자 계정이 노출되는 것을 볼 수 있는 다른 이유가 없다면, 언젠가는 관리자가 이 계정을 차단해야 한다고 생각하고 싶다.이 편집자는 전용 교란자지만, 그 교란은 비록 합의에 어긋나더라도 순수하게 이 콘텐츠 영역을 구축하고 홍보하기 위해 행해진다.Kickboxing/MMA wiki편집자가 그러한 공간에서 지식과 의지를 활용하도록 하는 것이 더 나을 수 있다; 삭제하는 대신에, 우리는 트랜스위키를 할 수 있고 사용자는 WP의 간섭을 거의 받지 않고 그곳에서 의미 있게 기여할 수 있을 것이다.버스터D (토크) 14:14, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

WölffReik의 샌드박스는 삭제되었다. 이것은 순전히 이름 목록인 Minowafan의 샌드박스와 구별된다. 따라서 도서관 카드 카탈로그만큼 카피비오에 지나지 않는다.그래, 누군가 여기를 차단해 줘; 나는 아마도 이 프로젝트를 충분히 해왔고 삭제에 있어서 그/그들과 순수하게 행정적인 역할로 상호 작용하는 것을 지나쳤다는 의견을 충분히 표현했을 거야.나이튼드 (대화) 15:08, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 무한정 차단됨.다른 계정의 마지막 몇 개의 IP 주소도 간단히 확인했는데도로의 엘렌 (대화) 17:35, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

Talk할 IP 읽기 자료:두 관리자의 경고 후 무함마드

• 71.17.188.133 (토크 · 기여 · WHOIS)

이 사용자는 Talk에 논쟁적인 내용을 추가하는 것에 대해 나에게 경고를 받았다.무함마드.그 후 그들은 오노이츠자미, 더그웰러로부터 계속 재첨부하면 차단될 것이라는 경고를 다시 받았다.자료를 다시 추가했고, 토크페이지에서 차단 요청까지 했다.[2] 행정관이 좀 도와주시겠습니까?Mathsci (토크) 23:54, 2011년 12월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

48시간 차단 - 보잉! 제베디(토크) 00:03, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

프랑스에서 감사하고 새해 복 많이 받으세요.Mathsci (토크) 00:07, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 용어가 적절히 처리되어 기쁘다; 그러나 나는 그러한 통지에 "혼잡"이라는 용어는 본질적으로 WP를 구성하기 때문에 사용하지 말 것을 제안하고 싶다.NPOV 위반. --12.232.7.194 (대화) 00:10, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

이런 스마트한 알렉 글립 댓글을 다른 곳에서 만들어줘.고마워, Mathsci (토크) 00:15, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

"깜빡이"를 금하는 정책이나 지침을 인용하십시오.에디슨 (토크) 00:42, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

그는 토크 페이지를 방해해서 차단되었다. 만약 당신이 좀 더 주의 깊게 관찰한다면.Mathsci (대화) 01:27, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

1300년 전에 사망한 논란이 많은 사람에 대한 비판은 위키백과에서 용납되지 않고 왜 이렇게 노골적인 반유대주의적인가?— Foreigndave284 (대화 • 기여) 00:50, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]에 의해 추가된 이전의 서명되지 않은 논평

사람들은 모든 종류의 바보 같은 비사감들을 그들의 토크 페이지에 올린다.그것은 사실로 제시되지 않고 횡설수설하는 사이비-역사적 비논리적 소란처럼 읽힌다.별일 아니야.--Adam in MO Talk 01:07, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 동의하지 않는다.나는 그것이 불쾌하고 불필요하며 WP를 위반한다고 생각한다.업#폴러믹.편집자 토크 페이지에 ([3] 제거하라는 글을 올렸다.--Bb23 (토크) 01:12, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

다른 사람이 옮겼어.역사가 말해주듯, 에릭 폰 다니켄만큼 유효하다.도로의 엘렌 (대화) 01:26, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

위키피디아는 유효한 소싱과 공명을 기반으로 한다."블라스페미"는 그것에 포함되지 않는다.【베이스볼 버그스카라스틱^{What's up, Doc?}】→ 01:17, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

헤헤, 당신은 단지 신성모독을 즐기는 것을 좋아하기 때문에 그렇게 말하는 것이다. :-) --Bb23 (대화) 01:23, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

이 차단막은 두 명의 행정관으로부터 분리된 경고 후 토크 페이지를 방해하기 위한 것이지, 신성 모독을 위한 것이 아니었다."대규모 살인자와 페도"라고 쓰인 요약본을 편집하는 것은 좋은 징조가 아니다.게다가 새로 만들어진 계정인 Foreigndave284는 거의 확실히 차단된 IP의 속편이다.오, 그리고 실타래로 선택한 제목을 바꿔서 네 재미를 망쳐서 미안해.Mathsci (대화) 01:24, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

오우, 하지만 그게 사실이야?그렇다면 이미 기사에 나와 있고, 그 이유가 아니라면?--JOJ^Hutton 01:28, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

컨트리데이브284(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)도 이제 Jpgordon의 삭푸펫으로 무한정 차단되었다.Mathsci (대화) 21:09, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

난 야구 벅스랑 같이 있어문제의 IP 편집자는 잘 행동하지 않았지만, 신성 모독이 결코 내용을 삭제하는 이유가 될 수는 없다.순전히 중립적이지 않은 POV 입니다.HiLo48 (대화) 01:28, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

그의 의견이 토크페이지에서 삭제되기 시작했을 때 IP가 조금 망가진 것 같다.그리고 의심의 여지없이 신성모독이다.만약 누군가가 그것을 나의 편집 내용을 삭제하는 이유로 사용하거나, 내가 나의 의견을 주장하지 못하게 하는 이유로 사용한다면 나는 약간 화가 날 것이다.위키피디아는 검열되지 않았다.싫어하는 사람이 있다면, 터프한 사람, 다른 취미를 얻거나, 검열된 위키(wiki)를 직접 시작하라.--JOJ^Hutton 01:33, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

첫 번째 문제 편집 요약을 보면 "인도주의적인 벌거벗은 에티오피아 여성들을 재미로 죽인다"고 적혀있기 때문에 그것은 틀렸다.Mathsci (대화) 01:40, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

정말이야?--JOJ^Hutton 01:42, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

IP는 또한 내가 이슬람교도라고 주장했다.Mathsci (대화) 01:44, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

Mathsci가 옳다, IP는 분명히 트롤링하고 있었다.비록 여기 ANI의 헤더가 "blasphemous"라는 단어를 포함하지 말았어야 했지만.차라리 '파괴'가 됐더라면 더 좋았을 텐데.IP가 차단되었으니 우리 모두 그냥 헤엄쳐 갈 수 있을까?--엘론카 01:45, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

맞아, IP는 트롤에 불과했고 그를 옹호하는 건 의미가 없어.그는 무함마드에 대한 비판을 무함마드 기사에 포함시킬 것을 제안하는 데 있어서 예의 바르고 진지할 수도 있었지만, 그렇지 않았다.그는 의도적으로 공공연히 대립했고, 반 이슬람 POV를 추진했다.그는 이슬람 POV를 추진하려고 하는 누구보다도 못하다."위키피디아는 검열되지 않는다" "블라스케미는 POV"에 대한 불평은 그 편집자의 행동을 전혀 모른다.Ian.thomson (대화) 01:49, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

내 글을 읽지 않았지?HiLo48 (대화) 02:18, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

응, 그랬어.그의 행동을 취소한 이유를 불문하고, 그의 행동은 받아들여지지 않았고 꽤 트롤적인 것으로 시작되었다.만약 주어진 이유가 "이 편집자가 처음부터 혼란을 겪고 있다"라고 한다면, 그 금지령은 여전히 유효할 것이다.IP를 옹호하거나 그의 블록에 호소할 사람이 있는가? 그렇지 않다면 불평은 불필요하다.이안.thomson (대화) 02:29, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

내 글을 읽으면 절반은 무시했잖아.나는 모독이 결코 내용을 삭제하는 이유가 되어서는 안되며 IP 편집자의 행동은 용납될 수 없다고 말했다.내 생각에 넌 두번째 순간을 놓친 것 같아.두 부분 모두 나에게 중요하다.HiLo48 (대화) 02:34, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그것에 대해 내 요점을 과감히 말했다.어떤 이유가 주어졌든 그것은 아무것도 바꾸지 않는다.이안.톰슨 (대화) 02:41, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

ip가 한 일을 진정으로 방어하는 것에 대해 신경 쓰는 것이 아니라, 그들이 한 말, 그리고 왜 ip가 언어를 톤 다운할 때에도 그것을 제거하고 되돌리는가에 대해 더 신경을 쓰는 것이다.Mathsci의 첫 번째 복귀는 아무런 설명도 없이 다가왔다.마쓰시가 이 구절을 모독적이라고 생각했다면 이유조차 밝히지 않은 채 개인적으로 불쾌하다고 판단한 댓글을 조직적으로 삭제하지 말고 ip에 다시 말하거나 명확히 해 달라고 요청했어야 했다.나는 개인적으로 그 구절에서 전혀 불쾌한 것을 발견하지 못했고, 사실 더 많은 잠재적인 잔학행위를 발견하려고 애쓰는 것이 내 호기심을 최고조로 끌어올렸다.만약 사실이라면, 900명의 사람들을 죽이는 것은 몇몇 사람들의 인생 이야기의 하이라이트 중 하나가 아니다.9살짜리 여자아이와 잠자리를 했다는 의혹은 덜 걱정된다.평균수명이 29세였던 시절, 아기 만들기로 첫발을 내디딘 것은 많은 의미가 있었다.사실이라면 그에게 큰 패스를 주어야 할 것이다.--JOJ^Hutton 02:10, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 여기 있는 마쓰시의 동기는 투명하다.그는 지장을 초래하는 편집자를 보고 그를 처리했다.나는 그것을 다르게 처리했을 것이지만, 이런 것들은 어려운 결정이다.확실히 말해줄 수 있는데, 마쓰시는 이슬람에 관해서 어느 쪽이든 치우쳐 행동하지 않고 있다. --Anthonyhcole (대화) 02:45, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 마오쩌둥, 또는 아마도 아돌프 히틀러에 관한 기사가 그가 인도주의적이고 박애주의자라고 진술했다고 상상해보라.우리는 IP가 그 기사들에 있는 그러한 설명의 부적절함에 대해 토크 페이지에서 비슷하게 가열되는 것에 대해 그렇게 블록-행복해질 수 있을까?아마 아닐 것이다.I don't think the IPs edits were disruptive at all – the way I see it is 1) the IP made a comment on a talk page 2) an editor/some editors didn't like it, removed it, and told him he wasn't allowed to add it again (despite the fact it contained no personal attacks or BLP violations) 3) the IP, quite rightly, wouldn't take that lying down and re-ad그의 논평에 대해 추론한다(아마도 누군가가 그것이 신성모독이라는 이유로 내가 한 발언을 삭제하려 했다면) 4) 더 경험 많은 편집자들이 ANI의 기병대를 불러들인다, 우는 반칙 6) IP는 단지 그가 먼저 ANI에 도착하지 않았다는 이유만으로 차단된다.내가 틀렸다면 누가 고쳐줘.바살리스크 _berate½:29, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
• 딩, 딩, 딩, 딩...선생님 말씀이 옳으십니다.몬티에게 줄 건 뭐 있어?--JOJ 02:42, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

그래도 큰 차이네.마오와 아돌프는 결코 "누구든 살인이 목적이거나 땅에 장난을 퍼뜨린 것이 아니라면, 마치 온 백성을 썰어 놓은 것 같다"고 말하지 않았을 것이다.또한, 마오와 아돌프는 유럽이 앞으로 1200년 동안 주지 않을 여성과 종교적 소수자들에게 권리를 주었던 광범위한 평화롭고 존경받는 종교의 창시자가 아니다.너의 환원 애드 히틀러움은 무효다.이안.thomson (대화) 02:48, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

축하합니다, 이안, 나는 누가 먼저 내 주장을 ad hominem으로 오인할지 궁금했었습니다 – 히틀러를 언급하는 모든 진술이 ad hitlerum은 아니다.나는 "무함마드도 히틀러와 같은 일을 했고 히틀러가 한 모든 것이 잘못되었으니 사람들이 무함마드가 틀렸다고 말할 수 있도록 해야 한다"는 것이 아니라, IP의 편집에 대한 반대는 그가 비판하고 있는 주제에 대한 광범위한 국제적 지지에 근거하고 있다고 생각한다는 것이다.무함마드가 히틀러 같다고 말하는게 아니야바살리스크 _berate½ 03:01, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

좀 더 명확히 하자면, 만약 그가 전달하려는 의견이 논란이 덜했다면(예: 그가 히틀러와 같이 훨씬 더 널리 비판적인 주제를 비판하고 있었다면) IP의 편집 내용을 우리가 그렇게 빨리 받아들일 수 없다고 깎아내릴 수 있을까 하는 궁금증일 뿐이다.불일치가 있어서는 안 된다. IP가 히틀러 대화 페이지에서 비슷한 비판을 했고 그것에 대해 검열을 받지 않았다면, 우리도 여기서 그를 검열해서는 안 된다.이해 하셨나요?바살리스크 _berate½ 03:05, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 IP 편집자의 토크 페이지에 언급된 바와 같이:만일 무함마드를 히틀러에 비유하고 있지 않다면, "마오쩌둥에 관한 기사, 아니 어쩌면 아돌프 히틀러에 관한 기사를 상상하라"는 것은 전혀 쓸모없고 관계없는 비순서적인 것이다.이안.thomson (대화) 03:03, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

"대부분의 평화롭고 존경스러운?"나는 정말로 평화롭고 다른 사람들의 믿음을 존중하는 많은 이슬람교도들을 알고 있다.그리고 이란, 사우디아라비아 등 탈레반과 알 쿠에다, 신권파들이 있는데 이들은 전혀 평화적이거나 존경받지 못하며 종교의 이름으로 악을 저지른다.이와 유사한 비판은 평화롭다고 주장하는 다른 세계 종교에 기초한 운동과 신정치를 겨냥한 것일 수 있다.에디슨 (토크) 03:23, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

(충돌 편집)탈레반과 알카에다를 인용하는 것은 기독교가 인종적으로 개방되어 있다는 주장에 대항하기 위해 KKK를 인용하는 것과 같다.대부분의 이란인들은 전쟁을 원하지 않는다. 대부분 그들의 대통령이다. (빈틈없는 위협을 하는 것 외에는 아무것도 할 수 없는 일을 하기 위해서는 성직자들의 몇몇의 승인을 받아야 한다) 그는 보편적으로 끔찍한 지지율을 가지고 있고, 미국이 이란에 어떤 관심을 기울이도록 할 수 있기 때문에 현직에 남아 있을 뿐이다.당신은 또한 세계 무슬림 대다수가 살고 아무런 문제도 일으키지 않는 말레이시아와 동남아시아를 전반적으로 잊어버렸다. 세계 무슬림 중 %98은 테러리스트에 가깝지도 않다(다른 종파가 되고 모든 것이 됨) 아랍의 봄은 비슷한 숫자의 수가 동등한 권리를 중시하고 신권 탄압에 반대한다는 것을 보여준다.'대규모 평화'라고 해도 무방할 것 같아. 이안.톰슨 (대화) 03:34, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 여러분, 여기서 중요한 것은 IP, 복귀한 사람들의 행동과 내 블록이다.나는 IP의 행동이 (내용과 요약에 의해 판단되는) 의도적인 도발이라고 생각했고, 그것이 내가 차단한 이유라고 생각했다 - 검열이나 신성 모독 때문이 아니다(나는 종교를 따르지 않는다).누가 히틀러나 무함마드나 그 누구에 대해 생각하는 것은 여기서도 관련이 없고, 또 이것은 그들을 논할 장소도 아니다.(그리고, 평소처럼, 다른 어떤 행정관도 나에게 묻지 않아도 적합하다고 생각되는 대로 행동하는 것을 환영한다) -- 보잉! (대화) 제베디 (대화) 03:28, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
• 좋은 차단, 그리고 열 대 조명 비율이 왜곡되고 있으므로 이 논의를 보관할 것을 제안한다. - 부시 레인저 03:33, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지 블록.그리고 이 줄기의 내용 관련 논의를 Talk와 같이 보다 적절한 장소로 이동시킬 것을 권고한다.무함마드에 대한 비판. --엘론카 03:50, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

메이데이, 메이데이, 차단방침범

어떤 사람이 블록을 피하고 마키 인신공격은 다시 나를 괴롭히고 나를 이용했다.다음 위키백과 대화를 참조하십시오.AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, 위키백과:SOPA 이니셔티브, 나의 토크 페이지와 마카톤 그리고 그것은 관련 IP를 위한 토크 페이지 입니다.관리자인 에드존슨은 뭔가를 시도했지만 효과가 없었다.어떻게 해야 할 지 모르겠어!라마수드2000 (대화) 04:46, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

응답:네 진술에 대한 정당한 반박에 이의를 제기하는 거야, 라마크수드2000당신은 당신이 말하는 것과 어긋나는 것을 삭제하거나 그것에 대답하지 않는다.여기 아주 일방적인 그림을 그리고 계신데, 그게 위키피디아의 목적이 아니에요.단순히 누군가 관점이 다르다고 해서 관리자에게 어필하지 말라 85.237.211.90 (대화) 04:53, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

IP가 던진 부메랑.노골적인 인신공격.이 IP 사용자는 분명히 IP를 hops하기 때문에 여기서 범위(85.237.192.0/19 또는 덜 대담해지기를 원한다면 85.237.211.0/24)시스템을 게임하는 것은 당연하다.재스퍼 덩(토크) 04:55, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

이 모든 것을 되돌리려 하지만 내가 다 찾을 수 있을지 모르겠어.Calabe1992 04:58, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

ip에 보낸 메시지: 당신이 나를 인신공격한 후에도 우리는 당신의 주장을 심각하게 받아들일 수 없을 것 같다.라마수드2000 (대화) 05:33, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

좀 더 넓은 범위 블록을 시도하고 있어.에드존스턴 (대화) 13:53, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

효과가 있었던 것 같아...라마크수드2000 (대화) 17:39, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

EdJohnston이 사용하는 CIDR 표기법은 그가 85.237.211.0에서 85.237.211.127까지의 모든 주소를 일주일 동안 그리고 85.237.211.176에서 85.237.211.191.191.191까지의 주소를 한 달 동안 차단했음을 의미한다.이 사람이 미개척지에 들어가지 않을 거라고 장담할 수는 없지만, 우리가 할 일은 더 큰 범위의 블록을 만드는 것뿐이야.재스퍼 덩 (대화)20:24, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

POV 내용 삽입을 계속하는 편집기

사용자 페펠리바는 경고를 받은 후에도 작가 존 크라카워에 대한 개인 해설과 POV를 여러 기사에 계속 삽입하고 있다.여기서 차이:

• 존 크라카워 기사: [4]; [5]; [6]
• 에베레스트 산 기사: [7]
• 아나톨리 부르케예프 기사: [8]
• POV 위반에 대해 편집자에게 [9]; [10] 경고를 받았다.
• 3RR 위반에 대해 편집자에게 경고: [11]
• 편집자와 대화했다: [12]; [13]
• 내 토크 페이지 편집자와도 소통했다. [14]
  

그의 계정 아래 편집자 수를 보면 편집자는 비교적 새롭고, 언어 장벽(글에 근거한) 가능성이 있어 보이며, 확실히 WP의 심각한 사례를 보여주고 있다.IDHT는 다른 편집자들과도 의사소통을 시도했다.(talk→ LesHB ←track) 20:03, 2011년 12월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

다른 편집자가 이 사용자에게 NPOV 콘텐츠는 필수적이며 POV 콘텐츠는 정책 위반임을 밝힌 후(여기 및 여기 참조), 사용자:페펠리바는 현재 IP 양말(사용자:201.130.205.234)을 사용하고 있으며, 여기에 동일한 POV 콘텐츠를 삽입하고 있다.그는 지금 도전적으로 WP를 전시하고 있다.IDHT는 이 보고서가 제출된 이후 다른 편집자들이 그와 함께 작업하려고 노력했지만,그리고--누군가가 시간을 내어 왜 아무도 이 보고서를 제출하지 않았는지 설명해줄 수 있을까?신고하지 말았어야 했나, 아니면 다른 이유가 있었나?(talk→ LesHB ←track) 17:35, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

레스HB가 옳다.애프터 레스HB는 되돌아가서 페펠리바에게 경고했다. IP 편집자는 논쟁의 여지가 있는 자료를 존 크라카워와 아나톨리 부크리브에 다시 추가하려고 했다.레스HB가 한 명을 잡았고 나는 다른 한 명을 잡았다.큰 우연의 일치거나 아니면 아마 좀 심한 우연의 일치일 수도 있고.나는 (에베레스트 산을 포함한) 세 개의 기사를 모두 내 감시 목록에 올려 놓았고, 다른 편집자들도 똑같이 하도록 격려했다.고마워 LesHB.컬런³²⁸ 2012년 1월 2일 03시 45분 (UTC) 토론하자[응답하라]

왕따, 유세, 포럼 쇼핑, 철도 여행?

토크에서 무슨 일이 벌어지고 있다.글로벌 자동차 회사 협회.한 회사가 위키백과 기사를 쓰기 위해 고용한 편집자는 (성공적으로) 조사와 포럼 쇼핑으로 공범들이 들어와 기사의 정확성과 균형에 의문을 제기하는 모든 사람들을 괴롭히고, 철도를 치고, 소리를 지르게 한다.

12월 21일, 세계 자동차 회사 협회는 WWB Too (대화 · 기부)에 의해 시작되었는데, 그는 그가 그 회사에 고용되었다고 선언한다(예를 들어, 여기, 여기, 여기, 여기, 여기, 여기, 그리고 여기). "they" 기사를 쓰기 위해서.WWB Too는 기사 토크 페이지와 자동차 프로젝트 페이지를 포함하여 기사를 토론하는 여러 영역에 대한 자신의 ("잠재적인" 그가 보는 바와 같이) 이해충돌을 공개한다.

12월 22일, 제노바20(토크 · 기고)은 내가 보기에 적절한 편집 요약처럼 보이는 것을 기사에 보증된 템플릿처럼 보이는 것을 추가하고, 토크 페이지에서 토론을 시작했는데, 그 아래 WWB Too는 기사를 쓰고 글을 올리려는 의도를 자동차 프로젝트 페이지에 진술했다는 이유로 템플릿에 반대했다.사용자 공간에서 초안 버전에 대한 링크를 삽입하십시오.12월 28일에 합류한 꽤 사적인 대화가 있었다.비커 비커 비커(토크 · 기여)가 토론에 참여했다. 제노바20처럼 그와 나는 그렇게 하기 위해 고용된 편집자가 쓴 노골적인 홍보물처럼 보이는 것에 눈살을 찌푸리게 한다(그리고 템플릿의 포함을 지지한다). 대상 조직에 따뜻한 빛을 비추는 내용보다 덜 비커 비커 비커는 우리의 눈살을 찌푸리게 한다.

12월 29일, WWB Too는 Youreycan (talk · concidents)에 지원을 요청했는데, 기사 토크 페이지에 가서 두 명의 잘못된 편집자(나 자신[15]와 비커 비커 비커[16][17])가 템플릿 추가에 대해 공격적으로 비난하고, 템플릿의 실제 출처를 보여주는 차이를 두 번 무시했다.

한편 유리얼캔은 합의 없이 일방적으로 제거된 템플릿을 재설치하는 것은 처음부터 템플릿을 추가하는 것과 같다는 입장을 취한 것으로 보이며, 그 의견에 대한 모든 의견 불일치(예: [18])를 거부하는 것으로 보인다.내 토크 페이지 [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]에 나와 있는 나를 반복해서 괴롭혔는데, 내 자신의 토크 페이지에서 "신의성 토론"을 삭제하는 것을 중단하라는 이상한 요구와 토론에 대한 나의 기여를 무시하라는 이상한 위협(이것은 믿음의 모습을 보여준다).그는 결정권자 또는 다른 종류의 특권 편집자)이며 유사한 방식으로 자신의 토크 페이지 [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31].기사토크 페이지에서 YouReallyCan은 COI 템플릿을 징벌적 장치로 잘못 표기 [32], 다른 편집자는 템플릿을 추가하지 말라는 명령을 내렸으며 [33] [34] [35], 편집자가 원래 배치한 템플릿이 광범위한 편집에 일시적으로 사용할 수 없다고 했음에도 불구하고 템플릿 보존에 대한 지원은 없다고 선언했다.ng 휴일 [36] 및 나를 포함한 다른 편집자들은 위키백과 정책에서 오는 것이 아니라 기사를 처음 구입한 기관에서 오는 것을 제외하고는 템플릿 제거에 대한 시간표나 마감일이 없다고 지적한다. [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

YouReallyCan은 [42]에서 "템플릿은 프로젝트에서 거의 가치가 없다"고 언급했고, 그 다음, 템플릿이 배치된 지 불과 몇 시간 만에 단방향으로 템플릿을 제거하고 [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [49]를 복권한 편집자들과 함께 2시간 이내에 7번이나 전쟁을 치렀다.이 편집 전쟁은 비커 비커 비커 (그리고 아마도 유러피칸; 나는 말할 수 없다)에게 검은 마크가 찍힌 3RR 보고서와 그 기사의 임시 PP를 낳았다[50].

또한 12월 29일, WWB Too는 Tagishsimon(토크 · 기여)에 백업을 요청했는데, Tagishsimon(토크 · 기여)은 자신의 요구가 48시간 내에 충족되지 않으면 템플릿 제거에 대한 일방적인 의도를 선언하고 WWB Too([51], 스크롤 다운)에 고개를 끄덕이며 윙크를 보냈다.

나는 Jimbo의 토크 페이지에서 그의 2009년 구매 및 지불 편집에 대한 의견이 어떻게 바뀌었는지 또는 어떻게 바뀌었는지 알아보기 위해 접선적인 대화를 시작했다; 이 대화에는 YouReallyCan, WWB Too, Tagishsimon, Ebikeguy 등이 참여했고, 이 글에서 Jimbo는 아직 관여하지 않았다.그 논의에서 WWB Too는 GFDL/CC BY/CC BY-SA 콘텐츠에 대한 독립된 쓰기 서비스를 누군가가 설치해도 괜찮다는 짐보의 의견을 준수하고, 다른 곳에 게시하는 것, 그리고 완전히 독립된 위키백과 전문의가 유용하다는 것을 발견하는 것을 목적으로 자신의 사용자 공간을 "다른 곳"으로 간주하는 것으로 보인다. 어떤 면에서는나는 짐보가 "다른 곳"에서 의미한 것이 그것인지 확실하지 않다; 나는 그가 아마도 위키백과에서 떨어진 어딘가를 의미했을 것이라고 생각한다. 하지만 나는 짐보가 아니기 때문에 확실히 말할 수 없다.

나는 또한 템플릿에서 제기된 몇 가지 이슈를 다루기 위해 기사에 실질적이고 신뢰성 있게 지원되는 콘텐츠 기고를 했다[52]; 이것들은 유료 기사 작성자 WWB Too를 화나게 한 것으로 보인다. WWB Too는 그 문제에 대한 추가 조사와 백업 쇼핑의 외관을 주는 일을 했다[53].

나는 기사의 유통 유급 소유권을 성공적으로 시도하려는 것처럼 보이는 것과 느끼는 것에 대해 편치 않으며, 그 권력을 장악하기 위해 사용되는 전술에 대해서도 편치 않다.이 보고서에 이름이 붙여진 모든 편집자들은 이 현재 토론에 대해 통지받고 그것에 연결되었다.—Scheinwerfermann _C·04:41, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 짐보의 토크 페이지에서 그 공지를 보았다.사용자: 다른 편집자와 인시던트에 대해서는 언급하지 않는다.Scheinwerfermann은 참조하지만, 나는 User:WWB 투.지금까지 그는 완전히 부패한 것으로 보이며 위키피디아를 편집해서는 안 된다.이것은 예쁜 머리 기르기 물건이며, 신속하고 과감한 조치가 요구될 수 있다.헤로스트라투스 (대화) 06:50, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

최소 2명의 편집자가 COI가 적용된 동일한 편집을 유지하도록 강요하는 것은 잠재적인 WP만큼 나를 놀라게 한다는 점에 유의하십시오.TAGTEAM의 노력, 특히 한 편집자가 개별 상대 사용자 대화 페이지를 대상으로 하고 경고(3분 내에 여러 번!)를 사용자 대화 페이지에 다시 게시할 때 해당 사용자가 자신의 대화 페이지에서 경고를 다시 삭제했을 때(특히: 편집자의 잘린 대화 페이지를 다시 삭제하여 게시된 경고 렘을 주장하도록 편집 diff-5507 편집)사용자 대화 페이지에 있음).사용자들에게 최소한 2명의 COI 조작 편집 내용을 유지하기 위한 노력으로 그들의 대화 페이지에 경고를 계속하도록 강요하는 것은 매우 놀라운 일이다.나는 더 자세한 언급을 연기할 것이다. 어떻게 하면 덜 모호한 WP가 될 수 있는지에 대해 여기서 "자문"을 하지 않을 것이다.TAGTEAM 멤버. -Wikid77 (대화) 12:56, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그 글에 대해 편치 않고, 누군가 그 글을 쓰도록 돈을 받는다는 생각에도 편치 않다.특히 그들(WWB Too)은 현재 그들(또는 그들의 상사)이 보기 좋아하는 모양과 형태로 기사를 유지하기 위해 많은 노력을 기울이고 있다.내 의견으로는 기사를 아예 안 쓰는 게 좋을 것 같아. ⊂ 미스터 초퍼스 ⊃ (대화) 06:41, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

괴롭힘과 괴롭힘 등의 증거로 제시된 많은 차이점들은 전혀 그런 종류의 것을 보여주지 않는다.기사 토크 페이지는 토론의 장이다. 기사에 없는 것을 얻기 위해 이 게시판을 사용하는 것은 정말 위험하다.템플릿의 문제는 항상 논란의 여지가 있으며, 여기서가 아니라 기사 토크 페이지에서 의견 일치를 구함으로써 가장 잘 처리된다.건배.수집(대화) 07:47, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

난 동의해야 해.예를 들어 템플릿 상태를 제거하기 위해 Youreycan의 "주문 발행"을 보여주는 것으로 알려진 디프로는 다음과 같다.여기 템플릿의 이유를 설명해 달라는 나의 요청에 응답한 사용자는 단 한 명도 없었다. Youreycan (talk) 22:41, 2011년 12월 30일 (UTC)이건 내게 명령처럼 들리지 않는다.소위 "주문"의 또 다른 차이점은 다음과 같다.템플릿은 거기에 없었다 - 추가한 - 아래에 개별 템플릿을 추가해야 하는 이유를 설명하거나 추가를 중지하십시오 - 템플릿은 다시 추가해야 할 이유가 없다. Youreycan (talk) 21:19, 2011년 12월 30일 (UTC)다시 말하지만, 나는 이것이 어떻게 "주문"으로 해석될 수 있는지 모르겠다.Δρ.κ.^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:25, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 더 많은 차이점을 보아라; 다른 차이점들은 괴롭힘과 괴롭힘의 극단적인 증거를 보여주기도 하고, 게시된 메시지들의 전체 집합으로 보아, 함께 고려된 모든 차이점들은 강박적인 행동의 패턴을 보여주는데, 누군가가 "다시 하지 않는 것이 좋겠다"라는 변형을 1시간 이내에 사용자 대화 페이지에 여러 번 다시 올리는 방식으로 보여준다.문제는 각 diff의 내용이 아니라, 별개로, 몇 시간 안에 너무나 많은 유사하고 반복적인 사용자 대화 경고의 패턴이다. -위키드777 (대화) 12:56, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• Ypu는 [54]처럼?미안해 - 난 그 차이를 다른 사람을 괴롭히는 것으로 생각할 수 있어.YMMV, 아마도.수집(대화) 15:20, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 개인적으로 누가 기사를 쓰는지, 그들이 그것을 해서 겨우 몇 달러를 벌었는지 상관하지 않는다.나는 그것을 보고 자신에게 말하는 것이 더 낫다고 생각한다 - 그것이 예전보다 더 나은가, 그리고 만약 대답이 예라면 그 때는 위대하다.이 글의 템플릿 폭파는 사용자가 몇 달러를 받아 썼다는 선언에 대한 '반박'에 가까운 것으로 보여, 이를 명확히 하고 해결할 수 있는 구체적인 내용 문제가 있기보다는 악의적인 의인화여야 하며 노출이 필요하다.아마도 어느 정도의 중요한 내용이 추가될 수 있을 것이다. 그렇다면, 그것은 완성되지 않았다. 그냥 조용히 그것을 추가하기만 하면 된다.지역사회는 유료 편집자들에 대해 "합의가 없다"고 나는 WWB가 정책에 가까운 GA 표준에 걸맞는 훌륭한 작가라는 것을 발견했다. - 그의 선의의 기여를 위해 그나 그의 작품을 악마화할 이유가 없다.만약 이 보고서에 투입되었던 에너지가 내용상의 특정한 문제가 무엇인지 명확하게 진술하는 데 투입되었다면, 지금쯤 어떤 문제라도 해결되었을 것이다.Youreycan (대화) 11시 32분, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 이해의 충돌에 개의치 않고, 내 토크 페이지에 글을 써서 선의를 취하고, 기사가 편집되지 않고 존재할 수 있도록 태그를 지우는 것이 귀찮다.

나는 이 모임에 로비 단체 이외의 다른 어떤 것을 부르는 교활한 말대꾸에 신경이 쓰인다.

나는 이제 뻔한 유세 때문에 신경이 쓰인다.

나 역시 WWB가 자신의 길을 터주기 위해 규칙을 어기고 기사로 그에게 주어진 비판을 무시하려는 분명한 의도에 신경이 쓰이고 있다(나의 토크 페이지) 그의 출구를 매료시키려 하거나(미스터 초퍼스의 토크 페이지) 비판을 무시하는 것이다.

'관심 충돌'을 인정하는 것도 좋은 일이지, 우리 조퍼스 씨처럼 존경받고 지식이 풍부한 편집자들의 제안에 따라 행동하지 않는 것도 좋은 일이다.

나는 정리나 삭제를 지지한다. 어느 쪽이든 기사는 현재 형태로 존재할 수 없고 이 관심의 충돌은 WWB의 행동의 순전히 대담함에 의해 분명히 훨씬 더 깊게 나타난다.

나 또한 여전히 궁금해하는 사람들을 위해 태그를 추가한 사람이다.

고마워 제노바20 13:08, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

아마도 당신은 토크 페이지의 내 질문에 대답하여 그들이 언급하는 구체적인 이유와 관련 내용을 명확하게 설명해 줄 수 있을 것이다. 그래서 나와 당신의 문제를 해결하고 기사를 개선하고 템플릿을 제거하기 위해 노력할 수 있다.나는 그 기사가 현재 형태로 존재할 수 없다는 당신의 주장을 받아들이지 않는다. 사소한 문제가 있을 수 있지만, 약간의 편집이 쉽게 해결될 것이라는 것 이상은 아니다. 물론 당신이 그것을 지명하는 것은 환영하지만 나는 그것을 삭제할 가능성이 있다고 보지 않는다. - Youreycan (대화) 15:55, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 글로벌 자동차 회사 협회가 제기한 소송에 대한 언급이 전혀 없는 것은 태그가 왜 필요한지를 보여주는 하나의 명백한 예다.나는 그 소송들이 "흙"인지 아닌지 모르지만, 그들은 우리에게 COI 편집자들이 일종의 근시 때문에 고통 받는다는 것을 보여준다.나는 그 이유가 그들의 활동을 부드럽게 하기 위해서라고 생각한다: 자동차 산업 그룹 또한 다른 사람들에게 무언가를 하도록 강요하거나 그들이 하고 싶은 것을 하지 않기 위해 기꺼이 법원을 이용한다는 사실보다는 단순한 옹호, 단지 우호적인 설득일 뿐이다.COI 편집자들은 전형적으로 갈등과 논쟁을 미화하고 모든 것을 따뜻하고 행복하게 보이게 만든다.

  또한 소송 뉴스의 적절한 요약에는 글로벌 자동차 회사 협회에 의해 소송을 당한 사람들의 입장이 포함될 것이다.그래서 그 페이지는 더 이상 협회의 견해에 대한 플랫폼일 뿐만 아니라 상대편의 견해에 대한 공정한 요약도 포함할 것이다.템플릿 {{COI}}은(는) 독자들에게 현재 상태에서는 이와 같은 상반된 견해가 누락되어 있음을 경고하기 위해 존재한다.

  분명히, 유지 관리 태그에 대한 올바른 대응은 페이지를 말하기 위해 뛰어다니거나 유지 관리 태그를 삭제하기 보다는 기사에서 누락된 내용을 찾는데 시간을 할애하는 것이었을 것이다.다른 사람에게 반복적으로 태그를 설명하도록 도전하지 말고 구글 뉴스에 가서 검색을 하고 적절하게 기사를 확장하십시오. --Dennis Bratland (토크) 16:59, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 유료 편집은 논란의 여지가 있는 사안이고, 내가 보기에 이상적인 상황에서는, 그런 일이 일어나지 않을 것이다.그러나 이에 반대하는 의견의 일치는 없으며, 실제로 경찰로서는 불가능할 것이다.그리고 저자는 그것에 대해 열려있었고, 그것은 좋은 일이다.전반적으로 이런 기사에 대한 결정은 전적으로 기사 내용 자체에 근거해야 한다고 생각한다.다른 사람이 쓴 글과 정확히 같은 말, 직설적인 글이었다면 같은 논란이 일었을까.아닌 것 같다.그래서 나는 여기 유레알리칸과 함께 있고, 나는 누가 그것을 만들었는지와 그들의 동기에 대해 논쟁하기 보다는 이 기사를 더 좋게 만들기 위해 노력해야 한다고 생각한다.콘텐츠의 어떤 부분에 태그를 추가하고 싶은 사람이 있다면 괜찮지만, 토크 페이지에 있는 콘텐츠가 정확히 무엇이 잘못되었는지 설명할 준비가 되어 있어야 한다. 그리고 만약 그들이 도전할 때 그렇게 할 수 없거나 하지 않을 경우 태그를 제거하는 것이 공평하다고 생각한다. 보잉! (토크) 제베디 (토크)가 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC) 16:37, 1일 (화)리]

Comment See 2011년 1월 1일 C-SPAN Q&A에서 WWB/William Beutler와 인터뷰, 위키백과에 대한 그의 연구를 논의한다.생방송으로 봤고, 녹취록과 영상은 나중에 볼 수 있을 거야.지금 라이브로 재생되고 있다. 99.50.186.111 (토크) 04:02, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

해당 COI 편집기의 주석

쉐인베르페르만이 이 주제에 대한 누군가의 "왕따"에 대해 불평하는 것은 매우 아이러니한 일이다. 왜냐하면 이것은 이 에피소드 내내 그의 행동에 대한 매우 적절한 묘사이기 때문이다.나는 관심 있는 편집자라면 누구나 글로벌 자동차 회사 토론 페이지에 있는 우리의 서신을 읽고, 그가 위키피디아(토크 페이지에서도)에서 나를 달갑지 않게 하기 위해 그의 방식에서 벗어나고 있다는 결론을 내리도록 초청하고 싶다. 원문 기사로 그의 우려에 대해 묻는 사람은 말할 것도 없다.한편, 그는 나에겐 미스터리인 이유로, 자신의 토크 페이지에서 우리 둘 사이의 친근한 서신조차 삭제했고, 그에 대한 나의 문의도 삭제해 버렸는데, 그것은 여전히 더 혼란스럽다.

다른 문제들 중에서도 그는 의도적으로 선거 운동, 즉 포럼 쇼핑의 개념을 오해하는 것 같다.그가 그의 사건을 압박하는 데 연계된 그 가이드라인은 적절하고 부적절한 지원 요청의 개요를 설명하고 있는데, 나는 내가 그 잘못된 쪽으로 결말을 맺었다는 것을 상상할 수 없다.적절하다고 여겨지는 것: "제한된 게시물" (나는 두 명의 미사용 편집자를 ping했다), "중립" (각 메시지에서 그들이 관여하는 것을 거절해도 괜찮다고 말했다), "비당파적" (이들은 내가 이전에 교감하고 내가 존중했던 편집자들이다), "열린" (최소한 아무도 내가 내 소속을 숨겼다고 비난하지 않았다.)

한편 쉐이너퍼만은 이 페이지와 관련 있는 다른 페이지에서 글로벌 자동차 회사 기사를 "그들의" 기사라고 언급했지만, 그가 인용하고 있는 사람은 누구일지 아무도 짐작하지 못한다.그가 나를 인용하는 것처럼 보이지만, 나는 내가 그런 말을 한 것 같지는 않고, 만약 그것이 나의 표현이라면 그것은 틀릴 것이다. 나는 분명히 그 기사의 소유권을 주장하지도 않을 것이고, 나 또한 그렇게 하지 않을 것이다.그것은 내가 그의 최근 기사에 대한 일부 변경에 동의한다고 말하는 것과는 다르지만, 앞으로 며칠 안에 저쪽에서 그 문제를 제기할 것이다.

글로벌 자동차 업체 토크 페이지를 넘어 확장되기 전에 이 의견 불일치의 연대에 대해 궁금한 분은 여기에 남겨둔 설명 노트를 참조하십시오.나는 셰이너퍼만의 빈정거리는 최근의 사건들에 대한 묘사들을 적절한 시각에 넣는 것이 도움이 된다고 생각한다.

어쨌든, 쉐이너퍼만이 이걸 여기서 꺼내야 할 이유가 뭔지는 잘 모르겠어.그는 내가 Global Cooperators에 관한 기사를 작성하기 위해 Global Cooperators와 약혼한 것을 좋아하지 않는 것 같지만, 그들의 평판에는 문제가 없는 것 같고, 원본 기사는 Puff picture가 의도된 것이 아니었기 때문에 이것에 관한 거의 모든 것이 나를 당황하게 한다.유료 편집이 논란의 여지가 있다는 것을 잘 알고 있으며, 그러한 이유로 나는 잠재적 COI를 공개하고 WP를 포함한 모든 해당 지침과 정책 내에서 작업하기 위해 모든 노력을 기울였다.Civil, WP:NPOV 및 WP:OR—Sheinwerfermann이 그에게 적용되지 않는다고 생각하는 것과 동일한 지침과 정책.

그리고 그것이 가치 있는 것은 아니지만, 비록 별로 중요하지는 않지만, 최종적인 내용이 아니라 기사 배치와 관련된 글로벌 자동차 회사와의 나의 동의가 그것이다.이쯤 되면 나로서는 내가 중립적이고 가치 있는 기사를 만들었다고 생각하고, 내 작품이 나쁘게 잘못 전달된 것이 전부다.나는 지금 그것을 옹호하고 있다. 왜냐하면 전환된 것은 반드시 내 고객의 목표뿐만 아니라 위키피디아의 목표에도 피해를 주기 때문이다.베스트, WWB 투 (토크) 17:38, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

업데이트

나는 YouReallyCan이 내 토크 페이지에서 나를 "살살"하는 것에 반대하는 내 뜻을 명확히 하기 위해 이 보고서를 편집했다.괴롭힘처럼 느껴지는 것은 고의적으로 반복적인 오소리였다; 그의 반복적인 게시물의 내용은 대부분 중립적이었다.—Scheinwerfermann _C·18:54, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• (대부분은 중립적이라고 말하지만) 너무 친절하게 대해주시는 것 같지만, 모두 함께 일할 수 있는 방법을 찾아야 하기 때문에 관용을 베풀어주시는 것에 감사드린다.아마도 COI 편집자들이 전쟁을 편집하고 로비스트의 기사에 POV 태그를 포함하지 못하도록 사용자를 위협하는 이 경우 "트라우트 슬래핑" :)은 적절한 제재가 될 것이다.한편, 이러한 유형의 행동이 우려를 야기한다는 것을 사람들에게 알리기 위해 사용자 행동의 문제점을 다시 한번 강조하겠다.

• 새해 전야 망각:만약 어떤 사람이 다민족 명절로 인해 더 많은 시간이 필요하다는 질문에 대답한다면, 적절한 답장은 그들의 이유에 대해 감사를 표하고 전체 답신에서 3일 연장을 받아들이되 부재 시에는 이점을 취하지 않고, 그들이 부재중인 것을 알면서도 4개의 기사 태그(diff-669)를 삭제하는 것이다.
• 새해 전야 편집 순서:삭제된 껍질 주문을 사용자 대화 페이지([55])에서 3배 이상 복원해 "이유와 구체적인 내용을 진술하라"고 요구하는 것은 적절치 않다.
• 새해 전야 비협의 태그 삭제:WP를 삭제하기 전에 새해 전날 이후 합의를 기다리는 것이 최선이다.해당 태그가 대화 페이지(diff-797)에서 논의될 때 기사(diff-669)에서 NPOV 태그 또는 {{Puffery} 태그.편향태그 템플릿의 이유를 묻는 최후통첩을 13:49(diff-084)에 올린 뒤 7시간 만에 부분적인 회신을 1회만 본다고 해서 더 폭넓은 공감대가 없이 새해 전야에 POV태그를 삭제하는 것은 불가능하다.

나는 다른 편집자들이 대화 페이지 질문에 며칠 더 답변할 수 있도록 상기시켜주는 것으로 그 세 가지 이슈에 대해 그만둘 것이다.다시 말하지만, 나는 모든 편집자들이 "Talk: Talk"에서 논의되고 있는 잠재적인 편견 문제에 대해 함께 일할 수 있는 방법을 찾을 수 있도록 관대한 태도로 이러한 사건들에 접근하기를 원하는 것에 감사한다.글로벌 자동차 업체 협회" -위키드77 (대화) 23:00, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자별 편집:브리케인 / IP 66.130.71.165

사용자들에 의한 언어학적/민족학적/역사적 기사에 대한 일련의 편집이 있었다.브리카인과 그의 IP는 여러 고대 민족의 언어적/민족적 배경에 관한 자신의 개인적인 관점을 추진하려 하고 있는데, 불행히도 학문적 연구에 의해 완전히 뒷받침되지 않고 대부분 국내적으로 성장한 것 같다.그러한 기고들이 이따금씩 올라오는 동안 브리케인은 이것을 내가 거의 보지 못한 끈기 있는 수준으로 가져왔고, 무엇보다도 베테랑 사용자들에 대한 개인적인 비난으로 그것을 자극하기를 좋아한다.노르트마누스는 특히 싫어하는 것 같은(프랑스 WP에서 더더욱 그를 모욕했다)을 취한 것 같다.그는 IP와 사용자 페이지에서 모두 충분한 경고를 받았으나 (대신 자주 되돌리는 것을 선택하는 대신) 거부하지도 않았고, 자신의 주장에 대한 출처를 제공하지도 않았으며, 토론 페이지를 건설적인 토론에 이용하지도 않았다.나 자신과 다른 사용자들은 그의 기여를 취소하는 데 상당한 시간을 투자해왔지만, 이것을 내 취미로 삼고 싶다고 말할 수는 없다.꽤 지루하다.Trigaranus (대화) 22:36, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

브리카인의 편집, IP 편집

이제 편집 전쟁, 인신공격, 다중 계정 남용으로 차단되었다.에드존스턴 (대화) 06:35, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

소유권

Bwmoll3는 악의적인 WP를 가지고 있다.자체 문제.그가 만든 비노래 곡 스텁을 재연결하려는 시도는 퉁명스럽게 풀렸다.위키백과 참조:삭제/위키드 웨이즈(Patty Loveless 곡)에 대한 추가 참조를 위한 기사.이 모든 기사들은 나와 Eric444에 의해 각각 두 번 이상 리디렉션되었고 Bwmoll3는 WP를 맡았다.IDNTHEARTHER 카드는 어떤 무볼루션 편집자가 이 곡들이 WP와 맞지 않는다고 지적했을 때 다음과 같이 말했다.NSONGS. 전에 토크에서 편집자와 함께 블록을 돌아본 적이 있다.정치, 종교, 그리고 그녀(노래)는 RFC가 만장일치로 그 노래를 리디렉션으로만 유지하기로 한 결정을 승인하도록 만들었다.10파운드 해머 • 23:43, 2011년 12월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

십 파운드 해머는 AFD 과정을 진행하는 대신 #redirect로 기사를 블랭킹한다.적절한 위키백과 과정이지만 그의 짧은 커팅은 정해진 방법론이 제 기능을 할 수 없는 판단 과정이다. 그리고 그와 에릭444가 그들이 하기로 결정한 일을 한 후 편집에 아무런 코멘트를 남기지 않고 있다가 되돌아올 때 그는 화가 난다.만약 그들이 스스로 임명한 관리자라면, 그들은 그들이 하고 싶은 일에 대해 정해진 절차에 따라야 한다.게다가 나는 위의 제목에서 보듯이 그에 의해 이 비밀스런 토론을 통보받지 못했다.Bwmoll3 (대화) 00:43, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

또한 요약 편집에 명시된 대로 병합하지 않고 일방적 리디렉트 작업을 관리자(administrators)이 페이지에 있는 Wtshymanski는 과거 Ten PoundHammer가 편집한 기사에 여러 번 이런 일을 저질렀으며, 아마도 WP의 취지에 반하는 #redirect 명령어의 오용에 의해 효과적으로 삭제된 수천 개의 다른 기사들에 대해 이 일을 저질렀을 것이다.보존. Bwmoll3 (대화) 08:40, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

"....나는 전에 이 편집장님과 토크에 관한 이야기를 나눈 적이 있다.정치, 종교, 그리고 그녀(노래)가 그 노래를 단지 리디렉션으로 유지하기로 한 결정을 만장일치로 지지한 RFC로 이어지게 된 것은…….」 이 진술들에 대해서는 사실무근이다.나는 그가 그의 억울한 누명을 써 줄 것을 요청한다.Bwmoll3 (대화) 00:45, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

병합 또는 리디렉션 시 AFD가 필요하지 않다. --MuZemike 01:37, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

10파운드해머는 #리디렉트와 기사를 병합하지 않는다.그는 RFD 프로세스 Bwmoll3 (대화) 07:10, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]을 회피하기 위해 #redirect 기능을 남용한다.

또한, 나는 여전히 Talk에 대한 나의 코멘트를 보기를 기다리고 있다.정치, 종교, 그리고 그녀 (노래)그 기사에 대해서는 한 번도 코멘트를 하지 않았기 때문에, 텐파운드해머가 Bwmoll3 (토크) 07:11, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]을 썼다고 거짓으로 나를 비난하는 것이 무엇인지 궁금하다.

Bwmoll3, 노래가 주목할 만한 시기에 대한 몇 가지 명확한 지침이 있다 - 나는 당신이 이미 WP로 향했다고 믿는다.NSONGS. 가이드라인을 충족하지 못하며 WP에 따라 별도로 주목할 필요가 없는 경우:GNG, 앨범(또는 아티스트)의 기사로 리디렉션하는 것이 올바른 과정이며 Afd. --Elen of the Roads(토크) 01:52, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]이 필요하지 않다.

그러나 이해한 엘렌은 #redirect가 사용된다면, 그것은 또한 #redirect 과정의 일부로서 곡의 기사에 있는 정보가 앨범의 기사에 병합된다는 것을 의미하지 않는가?Bwmoll3 (대화) 08:07, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

두 가지 선택이 있다: 당신이 불평하는 것과 같은 리디렉션 또는 같은 리디렉션을 초래하는 삭제 논쟁.왜 관료주의적 AFD를 강요하는가?Nyttend (대화) 03:20, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

RFD는 삭제에 대한 적절한 절차이기 때문이다.#redirect는 기사를 병합할 때, 또는 한 글의 제목이 다른 글의 다른 이름일 때 사용된다.적절한 RFD 대신 #redirect를 사용하는 것은 명령의 오용이며, 사용자가 의견을 제시할 수 있는 완전하고 적절한 RFD를 허용하지 않는다.Bwmoll3 (토크) 07:08, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

아니, 미안해, 그런 식으로는 안 돼.RFD는 리디렉션 삭제를 위한 것이고, AFD는 기사 삭제를 위한 것이다.주목할 만한 기사를 리디렉션하기 전에 논의할 필요가 전혀 없다; 그것은 대담하다고 불리며, 내용은 삭제되지 않는다. - 부시 레인저 11:17, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

"Bwmoll3는 악랄한 WP를 가지고 있다.자체 문제. 그가 만든 비노래 곡 스텁을 재연결하려는 시도는 퉁명스럽게 풀렸다. 위키백과 참조:삭제/위키드 웨이즈(Patty Loveless 곡)에 대한 추가 참조를 위한 기사. 이 모든 기사들은 나와 Eric444 Bwmoll3가 WP를 통해 각각 두 번 이상 리디렉션되었다.IDNTHEARTHER 카드는 어떤 무볼루션 편집자가 이 곡들이 WP와 맞지 않는다고 지적했을 때 다음과 같이 말했다.NSONGS. 전에 토크에서 편집자와 함께 블록을 돌아본 적이 있다.정치, 종교, 그리고 그녀(노래)는 RFC가 만장일치로 그 노래를 리디렉션으로만 유지하기로 한 결정을 승인하도록 만들었다. 10파운드 해머 • (지금 내가 뭘 망쳤지?) 23:43, 2011년 12월 31일 (UTC) "

나는 이 진술 전체가 매우 무례하고, 유치하고, 미성숙하며, 게다가 그 진술이 절대적으로 거짓이며, 거짓 진술을 사실로 제시함으로써 나의 명성을 더럽히려는 노골적인 시도라는 것을 알게 된다.이 편집자는 즉시 공개적으로 사과해야 하며 또한 나에 대한 거짓되고 비방적인 비난에 대해 엄중한 제재를 받아야 한다.Bwmoll3 (대화) 08:21, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

준법률 용어들을 잃어버리는 것이 좋을 것이다. 그렇지 않으면 위키피디아에서 쫓겨날 위험을 감수해야 한다.base야구 벅스 당근→ 11:21, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 우리가 이 문제에 대해 충분한 시간을 보내지 않았는가?기사를 리디렉션하기 전에 AfD나 RfD를 가질 필요는 없다(현재 AfD 또는 RfD가 있지만, 그 결과, 어, 리디렉션될 가능성이 있다).TPH는 이 미참조 허용오차를 리디렉션하는데 있어 옳은 일을 해오고 있다.Bwmoll3 - 이것은 당신이 생각하기에 엄청나게 중요한 것이 아니다.지침을 읽고, 파악한 후 콘텐츠 제작에 대한 확실한 열정을 더 잘 활용하십시오.딜런 프롬더북 (대화) 11:36, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

존경심을 가지고, 나는 이것을 시작하지 않았다.이 사건은 텐 파운드 해머가 이 페이지에 그의 거짓과 선동적인 논평으로 시작했다.나는 단지 그의 행동에 대해 내 의견을 말하고 있다.Bwmoll3 (대화) 16:53, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

또 다른 견해는 당신이 정책/지침을 지키지 않고, 그들이 했을 때 사람들에게 불평을 하고, 사람들이 정책과 지침이 무엇인지 당신에게 깨우치려 할 때 주의를 기울이지 않음으로써 문제를 만들어 냈다는 것이다.딜런 프롬더북 (대화) 18:02, 2012년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

---

관리자 호출.--Ankit Maity 09:58, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

---

그래서.. 문제가 생겼어

AFC에는 유료 편집자인 것 같은 사용자가 있다.그들의 사용자 이름인 Submissionalpert가 있을 뿐만 아니라, 그들은 페이지 제출에 이 웹사이트를 인용했다.나는 그들이 유료 편집자일 가능성이 가장 높다고 예상하며, 그렇지 않더라도 사용자 이름은 상당히 오해의 소지가 있으며, 어떤 행정관이 먼저 차단되어야 하는지, 경고해야 하는지에 대해 어느 정도 의견을 제시할 의향이 있는지 궁금했다.감사합니다.케빈 러더포드 (대화) 04:06, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]

현재 유료 편집자를 다루는 정책은 없다.이해충돌 가이드라인에 특정 행동을 권고하는 언급이 여기 있지만, 현재로선 특별히 유료 편집을 금지한 것은 없다.만약 사용자가 방해가 되거나, 광고/링크를 스팸 발송하거나, POV 방식으로 글을 쓰는 것이 문제라면, 그것은 문제가 된다.그런 일 있어?에어로빅폭스 (토크) 04:16, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

모두 사실이지만, 내가 처음 본 기여도는 WT였다.제품 공급업체에 대한 세 가지 "참조"가 있는 생성/케이블 러그에 대한 기사 및 스팸 외부 링크, 유용한 "경쟁력" 스텁 섹션.편집자가 생산적일 것 같은지에 대해 일주일간 토론해 봅시다.조누니크 (대화) 06:49, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

지금까지 그들이 만들어내려고 했던 모든 것들이 노골적으로 홍보용이었던 것 같다.바 1은 모두 AFC를 통한 시도였고, 모두 거절당했고, 직접 만든 바는 카피비오(Copyvio)로 삭제됐다.나는 그들의 편집내용을 지켜볼 것이고 만약 그들이 반복적으로 홍보물을 만든다면 우리는 그것에 대해 행동할 수 있다. 보잉! 제베디 (토크) 08:44, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]

관리자가 손상된 변경 사항을 Infobox로 되돌릴 필요

{{Infobox 과학자}}의 최근 편집으로 템플릿이 깨졌고, 관리자가 오프라인으로 전환했다.템플릿 대화를 참조하십시오.Infobox 과학자#이미지 이외의 필드를 표시하는 동안 문제 발생.나는 서버의 캐시가 새로 고쳐지면서 이 템플리트가 있는 각 기사는 현재 표시된 많은 필드를 숨길 것이라고 믿는다.이런 일이 일어난 예로는 알랭 콘과 빌 조이와 도널드 크누스가 있다.빨리 되돌리기만 하면 된다. 해결책은 나중에 정리할 수 있다.조누니크 (대화) 06:42, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

dab을 실제 페이지로 변경

상호 작용 금지 위반

여기를 참조한 후 [57]을 참조하십시오.체스도비 (대화) 02:46, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC) [관리자 게시판에서 여기에 게시함.03:09, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)][응답하라]

나는 이것이 어떻게 Iban 위반인지 모르겠다 – 그것은 되돌리는 것이 아니다.WP:IBAN은 상호작용을 금지한 편집자들은 서로 동일한 기사를 편집하는 것에 제한을 받지 않으며, 어떤 방식으로든 상호작용을 할 수 없다고 말한다.되돌리는 것은 상호 작용이지만, 이것은 되돌리는 것이 아니다.이 놈을 잡으려고 하는 건 그만두는 게 좋을 것 같아바살리스크립트^{inspect damage} _berate08:58, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

또한, "팔레스타인이나 이스라엘에 관한 어떤 개념과도 관련이 있는 기사에 범주를 추가하는 것이 대체로 금지되어 있다"는 이 금지에 대해 설명해주겠니?당신은 위험할 정도로 WP에 가까이 왔다.지난번 부메랑 관련 머리 부상.Basalisk½ 09:_berate00^{inspect damage}, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

어떤 이유에서인지 나는 그 다른 편집자가 마지막 편집을 하면 페이지를 편집할 수 없다는 인상을 받았다.그 지나치게 신중한 마음가짐이 이제 느슨해진 상태에서 나는 오히려 해방감을 느낀다.나는 단지 내가 그 금지가 실제로 어떤 것을 수반하는지 잘 알지 못해서 미안하다.카테고리 추가 관련:하르 하메누초트에 묻힌 것은 성스러운 기억의 히다에게, 나는 그 금지 조항이 분쟁 자체에 대한 편집 자체를 방해하는 주제와 함께 가라앉아 있다고 믿는다. 이는 사람을 팔레스타인이나 이스라엘 사람으로 규정하는 고양이들을 추가하는 것만이 금지된다는 것을 의미한다.새해 복 많이 받으십시오.체스도비 (대화) 12:37, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자 블록:와시르그

나는 지금까지 그의 회사를 위키피디아에 추가하기 위해 편집한 유일한 Wasirg(대화 · 기여)를 보고하기 위해 편지를 쓰고 있다.그의 대부분의 페이지는 빠르게 삭제되었고, 나중에 다시 추가할 수 있게 되었다.그의 페이지들은 대부분 AfD에 나열되어 있고 나는 그가 잠재적으로 페이지를 재첨부하거나 본질적으로 홍보적인 다른 페이지를 추가할 가능성이 높다는 것을 알고 있었기 때문에 그의 편집 내용을 감시해 왔다.나는 오늘 그가 자신이 만든 기사에서 AfD 통지서를 삭제했고 그가 만든 모든 기사들을 삭제했다는 것을 알아챘다.속도가 빠르지 않기 때문에 그가 이것을 할 수 있다는 것을 알지만, 나는 그가 위키피디아에 그의 페이지를 유지하기 위해 할 수 있는 모든 것을 하고 있다는 것을, 그의 이전 행동에 대해 경고를 받을 정도로 말하고 싶었다.

나는 그가 방해되는 편집에 대해 경고를 받았고 그는 분명히 멈추지 않고 있기 때문에 그를 차단하기를 원한다.(사용자 대화:와시르그와 [58].)토쿄걸79 (토크) 05:30, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)토쿄걸79[응답]

경고 후 AfD 배너를 계속 제거하기 위해 차단됨.에드존스턴 (대화) 06:17, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

참고로 토쿄걸은 앞으로 WP에서 이와 같은 요청이 더 쉽게 이루어질 수 있을 것이다.AIV. Erpert^{Who is this guy? Wanna talk about it?} 07:47, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

나도 몰라. 반달족이 아니라 스팸 발송자 같아.이틀이 지난 후에 그가 스팸메일을 재개하지 않기를 바란다.독톡 07:57, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

닥이 말한 것처럼 그가 자기 회사를 위해 스팸을 보내려고 하는 것만큼 그렇게 많이 파괴하고 있다고는 생각하지 않는다.그는 (내 의견으로는) 훼방꾼이지만, 다른 기사들은 사실 파편으로 보일 정도로 편집하지 않았다.그는 그의 영화사를 여러 페이지에 추가했다. 하지만 그것 말고는 파괴적인 것으로 여겨질 만한 것은 아무것도 없다.막아줘서 고마워, BTW바라건대 그 블록이 그를 강하게 흔들어서 그가 이 모든 것을 잘못된 방향으로 가고 있다는 것을 깨닫게 해주길 바란다.신의를 존중하고 싶지만, AfD 통지서와 Readd 페이지를 속력을 얻은 후 삭제하려고 반복적으로 시도했을 때...토쿄걸79 (토크) 08:22, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)토쿄걸79[응답]

첫 번째 문장: "아크람은 저명한 학자 Md Zainul Haque와 Noorjahan Khatoon의 아들이다."[59] "공지" 부분에 대한 "주" (실제 인용)가 없을 뿐만 아니라, 한 학점 아래에 두 사람이 열거되어 있다.아마 오타였을 것이다.메모할 수 없는 스팸의 절단 및 건조 케이스.Doc talk 08:36, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

마지막 두 개의 의견 외에 더 이상 읽지 않는다면, 이러한 종류의 상황에 대한 또 다른 선택은 이해 상충 알림판(또는 WP:코인. ˜단젤 [토크 기여 ] 08:36, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 토쿄걸79가 WP에서 사건을 공개하도록 권장한다.코인. 이 일을 처리하기에 가장 좋은 장비를 갖추고 있다. --Guy Macon (대화) 09:37, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

제베디(토크) 13:22, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]는 제베디가 만든 것들 중 어떤 것도 전혀 눈에 띄지 않고, 다음 주 안에 모두 PROD나 Afd를 통해 삭제될 것이 거의 확실하기 때문에, 그럴 필요는 없다고 생각한다.

동의해, 코인은 미묘한 COI 문제야AIV는 스팸 발송자들을 다루거나, 여기서 보고될 수 있다 - 이것은 관리자의 개입이 필요한 사건이다 - AfD 템플릿을 제거하기 위한 편집 분쟁은 차단 가능하고, 스팸은 차단 가능하며, 위키피디아를 광고에 사용하는 것은 차단 가능하다.누군가는 그와 대화를 시작해야 할 필요가 있지만, 나는 그가 그의 연설 페이지를 읽는 것을 확신할 수 없다.도로의 엘렌 (대화) 13:28, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

할 때 무엇을 하는가.

새로운 사용자가 20줄 정도 되는 기사에 계속해서 거대한 이미지를 추가한다고?06:49, 2012년 1월 2일(UTC) [응답하라] 06:49

ANI의 문제가 아니다.제가 보고 있어요.다른 관점에서, 당신은 "반달리즘" 버튼에 대해 너무 자유분방하다.츄우우우히:Seb^{> haneʼ} Az86556 06:55, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워, 잘못 건드린 거야 롤백하러 가는 중이었어미안하다.어둠을 비춘다 (토크) 07:02, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]

사용자가 방해하고 이 사용자가 명백히 하고 있는 것처럼 보이는 전쟁을 편집하는 것은 확실히 AN/I의 문제다.--Crossmr (talk) 08:01, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

아니, 전혀 아니야.나는 단지 여기에 글을 올렸을 뿐인데, 나는 그 사람이 새롭고 분명히 팬인데, 만약 몇몇 사용자들이 그에게 그가 하지 말아야 할 것을 알려준다면 아마 그는 아마 들을 것이라고 생각했다.나는 그것이 효과가 있었다고 생각한다.어둠을 비춘다 (토크) 08:06, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]

문제의 사용자가 3번이나 뒤바뀐 것 같은데, 그게 바로 편집 전쟁용 줄이야.그런 행동을 하는 유저는 확실히 AN/I의 문제인데, 셉이 다른 주장을 하는 이유를 모르겠다.--크로스미르 (토크) 12:22, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

WP는 그것이 쟁점이 될 것이기 때문이다.AN/EW, 내 생각엔? - 부시 레인저 15:18, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]

미몰로보 계정

현재 사용자와의 분쟁 중:자원봉사 마렉이 진행 중인 논의를 해결하기 위해 WP:3O를 요청하자고 제안했다[60].제3의 의견을 묻는 제안을 한 지 5분 후 사용자:마이몰로보 어카운트는 처음으로 나타나 짧은 논평을 했다[61].분쟁은 나와 자원봉사 마렉의 토론으로 남아 있었기 때문에, 나는 계속하여 3O 요청을 시작했다.몰로보는 즉시 나를 따라 [62]에 올라와서, 분쟁에 관여하는 편집자가 2명 이상(세 번째 편집자는 그 사람)이라고 지적하여 3O 요청이 거절되었다.MyMolobo Account는 자원봉사 마렉(이전의 사용자:Radeksz)는 3O 요청이 언급된 직후에, 요청을 방해하고 신속하게 조정하기 위해, 분명히 고의적으로 논의를 공동화했다.MyMoloboaccount의 Marek 버전에 대한 지원 또한 WP:3RR을 회피했고, 그들의 협력 편집은 "their" 버전에 대한 구현을 보장했다.헤르쿠스몬테 (대화) 17:17, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 허커스의 30에 대한 어떤 요청보다 일찍 나의 견해를 덧붙였고, 또한 나는 2011년 12월 3일에 이미 그 문제에 대해 논평하고 편집했기 때문에 나는 3O 요청이 언급된 직후에, 그 요청을 매우 두드러지게 방해하기 위해 일부러 토론하는 주제에는 확실히 이질적이지 않다. 특히 s기사와 이슈를 수개월 전에 편집했다. --MyMoloboaccount (대화) 17:52, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

논쟁은 나와 자원봉사 마렉의 토론으로 남아있었기 때문에 이것은 틀렸다.이 두 편집은 12월 이전에 이미 분쟁이 있었다는 것을 보여준다.

• [64]
• [65]

그래서 나는 이미 이 일에 관여하고 있었고, 가능한 한 빨리, 주요 토론 페이지에 관한 코멘트를 했다.--MyMoloboaccount (대화) 17:59, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

(ec)

• 사용자:MyMolobo 계정은 처음으로 등장했지만 사실이 아니다.토크 페이지를 대충 훑어봐도 이전 기사의 토크 페이지에서는 병무청이 상당히 활동적이었음을 알 수 있다.
• MyMoloboaccount는 자원봉사 마렉과 편집 작업을 조정했던 전통을 가지고 있다 - 거짓이고 근거 없는 비난.HM에서 제공하는 링크에는 그런 종류의 것이 전혀 보이지 않는다.이는 일종의 근거 없는 공격으로서 WP를 초청해야 한다.부메랑.
• 이 요청을 방해하는 것은 아무것도 없었다.그 근거는 3O:[66]에서 사람에 의해 동의된 것으로 보인다.
• 병무청은 [67](15:55) HM이 3O 요청(16:05)을 제출하기 전에 HM과의 의견 차이를 언급했다.
• 마렉의 버전에 대한 마이몰로보 어카운트의 지지 또한 WP:3RR의 헛소리, 꽤 노골적인 거짓말을 우회했다.여기에는 3RR이 없었다.기껏해야 우리의 반전을 한 사람의 반전으로 계산한다고 해도 1월 2일은 두 번의 반전이 될 것이다.나 한 명씩.WP에 따르면 MMA는 HM과의 의견 차이를 지적했다.BOLD. HM이 솔직히 3RR 위반이라고 생각한다면 3RR 보드로 가져가세요.그렇지 않으면, 그만 지어내라.
• 그들의 공동 편집은 "일반적인" 버전의 구현을 보장했다 - 여기에는 "일반적인 편집"이 없었다.증거?우리 둘 다 전에 편집한 적이 있는 기사야.우리는 어떤 문제에 대해 우연히 동의한다.HM은 이것을 좋아하지 않는다.그래서 근거 없는 비난을 하고 있는 것이다.

이것은 정확히 WP가 다음과 같은 상황을 노골적으로 잘못 표현하는 일종의 무례한 요청이다.BU메랑이라고 쓰여있었는데.

자원봉사 마렉 (대화) 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC) 18:00[응답]

내가 3O 요청을 제안하기 전 병무청은 현재의 분쟁에 관여하지 않았고, 그는 5분 후에 나타났고, 몇 분 안에 그 요청을 "토프도" 했다.

MMA와 VM는 분쟁을 해결하려는 것이 아니라 자신의 버전을 푸시하는 방법을 찾고 있다.

상대를 3RR로 밀어 넣는 것은 WP의 입증된 방법이었다.EEML("순환"은 그것에 대한 부정확한 용어, 미안)

나는 VM가 자신과 MMA의 EEML 가입을 심각하게 부정하고 있다고 생각하지 않는데, 근본적인 격전지적 사고방식이 여기서 다시 나타나는 것 같다.

"반대자"를 상대하는 그런 방법에 직면하여 선의를 갖기란 어렵다.헤르쿠스몬테 (대화) 18:56, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

MMA와 VM는 분쟁을 해결하려는 것이 아니라 그들의 버전을 밀어붙이는 방법을 찾고 있다. 다시 말하지만, 명백히 잘못된 것이다.설명 없이 여러 기사에 걸쳐 편집한 내용을 되돌리기 시작한 후 [68] 이 주제에 대한 토크 페이지 토론을 시작해야 했던 사람이 *나*라는 점을 지적해야 할까(아마도 모욕적인 "POVpushing"[69]는 제외)?다른 사람들이 "분쟁해결"을 원하지 않는다고 비난하지 않는 한, 대화에 관한 이슈에 대해 논의조차 하지 않는 사람에게는 정말 용기가 필요하다.

나는 VM가 심각하게 부정하고 있다고 생각하지 않는다 ... blah blah blah."마녀"라고 울고, 우물을 오염시키고, 편집자들을 더럽히려고 하는 것은 모든 곳에 있는 나쁜 포브 푸셔들의 명예로운 전술이다.밑바탕에 깔린 격전지적 사고방식은 3, 4년 전 헤르쿠스의 어떤 싸움에서 여전히 승리하려고 애쓰는 것이다.

자원봉사 마렉(토크) 19:16, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

MMA는 Herkus가 틀리기 전에 현재의 논쟁에 관여하지 않았다.

• [70]16:31, 2011년 12월 3일 현재 개정 마이몰로보 계정(설명에서 미노르, 폴란드인은 누락됨)-- 그래서 나는 2011년 12월 3일에 이미 이 문제를 지적했는데, 그 나머지는 모두 근거 없는 악신공격이다.마이몰로보 계정(대화) 19:06, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

한 달 전 한 번의 편집은 현재 논의의 일부가 아니다.헤르쿠스몬테 (대화) 19:12, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

이것은 동일한 이슈, 동일한 주제, 동일한 편집에 대해 논의된 것이다.그것은 같은 주제와 같은 토론에 관한 것이다.정말 미안하지만 그것은 너의 나쁜 믿음의 비난을 완전히 부정하는 것이어서 나는 "갑자기" 토론에 나왔다.나는 이 문제에 오랫동안 관심이 있었다--MyMoloboaccount (대화) 19:48, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

ANI에서 경고한 후 빛나는 어둠의 인신공격

오거 더 오거 (대화) 18:46, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자에 의한 개인 공격:위키피디아에서 경고를 받은 후 어둠은 더욱 고조되고 있다.관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive733#동일하게 IP 편집기의 개인 공격.나는 그의 편집 전쟁을 여러 페이지에 걸쳐 보고했고, 그 결과 보호가 되었고, 이전에 기사 중 하나에 대한 개입으로 소환되어 내용 분쟁을 계속 확인하고 있던 한 관리인에게 그 보고서에 대해 말했다.이제 그가 최근에 다른 사용자들의 토크 페이지에서 나에게 한 인신공격은 아주 노골적이다[71].얼마나 더 충분한가? (이 보고서는 논쟁의 여지가 있는 모든 내용이 여기서 쏟아지기 시작하지 않도록 철저히 인신공격용이라는 점에 유의하십시오.) --lTopGunl (대화) 18:34, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

TG, 가서 차 한 잔 마셔, 스트레스가 쌓이는 것 같아.치어리더.어둠을 비춘다 (토크) 18:37, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]

다음에 인신공격하거나, 다른 편집자를 괴롭히거나, 다른 편집자의 기고를 쫓거나, 아니면 일반적으로 이 논쟁에서 차별적으로 행동하는 사람은 차단될 것이다.정말 진심이야.나는 12살처럼 행동하는 사람들이 지겨워.오거 더 오거 (대화) 18:46, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

파키스탄과 인도와 관련된 주제에 대한 이 오랜 논쟁에 대해 오거인 마곡의 노력을 본 나는 다른 행정가들이 그의 노력을 지지하고 싶어할지도 모른다고 제안한다.얼마간의 좌절감으로 나는 최근에 이 편집자들 중 몇 명이 관련된 3RR 사건을 종결했다.너무 많은 사람들이 나쁘게 행동하고 합의를 기다리지 않았기 때문에, 당시에는 어떤 블록도 논리적으로 보이지 않았다.앞으로 다양한 기사에 걸친 끈질긴 전쟁과 악행은 분명히 행정 조치를 취할 가치가 있으며, 마곡은 그가 바람직하다고 생각하는 추가 조치들에 대해 조언해 주기를 바란다.이미 관련된 편집자 중 한 명인 사용자:JCAla는 Magog가 그와 관련된 추가적인 행정 조치에서 자신을 결격시킬 것을 요청했다.내가 보기에 JCAla는 츄츠파에 대해 추가적인 신용을 얻어야 한다.최근 3RR 리포트에 관련된 모든 편집자에 대한 일련의 커뮤니티 주제 금지 조항은 미래를 위해 고려해야 할 옵션 중 하나이다.에드존스턴 (대화) 18:59, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 논쟁의 요점인 적어도 한 가지 기사에 대한 제안이 있다.Talk:Taliban#이 기사에 대해 1RR을 집행하기 위한 커뮤니티별 합의. --lTopGunl (대화) 19:20, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자에 의한 개인 공격:크리스천 히스토리가 나에게 반기를 들었다, 사용자:R-41

사용자가 허용할 수 없는 POV 푸시:플롯 스포일러

어떤 편집 전쟁이 시작되기 전에, 나를 금지시킬 수 있는, 나는 플롯 스포일러라는 사용자가, 이 편집으로 3RR을 위반하고 있는, 그러한 받아들일 수 없는 수준의 편견과 이중 잣대의 심각한 문제로 보는 것에 관리자의 참여를 구하고 싶다.이 분쟁은 이라크 보안군이 무자헤딘-에 칼크 테러 집단에 대해 감행한 급습을 전후해 진화하고 있다.미국, 영국, 프랑스, 이스라엘군이 알카에다, 탈레반, 하마스와 같은 테러 조직의 구성원들만 살해된 집단에 대한 급습을 가리켜 '대량 학살자'나 '대량 무법자'라고 하는 것은 완전히 용납될 수 없을 것이다(그리고 나는 위키피디아에 그런 라벨을 붙인 예가 한 가지도 없다). 따라서 같은 표준의 s.이란과 이라크인을 대상으로 하는 테러단체에 적용될 수 있다.그는 또 이 단체가 이란, 이라크, 미국에 의해 테러조직으로 지정돼 있다는 소싱된 사실을 기사 초반부터 없애야 한다고 주장하고 있으며, 내가 말했듯이 그는 3RR을 위반하고 있다.카테고리 페이지 "카테고리:2011년 대량 살상"은 또한 당신은 열거된 기사들을 볼 수 있다. 테러리스트 공격/폭탄 테러 또는 무작위 민간인 총격 사건이다. 무장 단체/긴급 단체에 대한 정부의 공격에 관한 기사는 단 한 건도 없다. 그리고 우리가 "범주:이라크에서의 학살"이라고 말했다. 우리는 이라크 보안군이 테러 캠프를 급습하는 것도 마찬가지로 제자리걸음을 하는 것을 볼 수 있다.해당 사용자가 타협하거나 필요한 편집을 하지 않을 것이 분명하므로 나는 전쟁을 예방하고 편집하기 위해 기사를 건드리지 않을 것이며 대신 관리자들이 개입할 필요가 있다.케르만샤히 (대화) 19:24, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

OP는 포럼 쇼핑이다.아, 그리고 나는 이 실들에 대해 사용자에게 통지했다.자이언트 스노우맨 20:34, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그것을 게시하기에 적합한 포럼이 무엇인지 정확히 알지 못했다.이거 아니면 일반?케르만샤히 (대화) 20:36, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 양쪽 모두에게 경고하면서 Kermanshahi의 Plot Spoil에 대한 3RR 불평을 종결했다.케르만샤히씨는 포럼 쇼핑이 더 이상 자신의 사건에 대한 지지를 얻지 못할 것이라는 것을 알아야 한다(3RRR + AN + ANI로 가는 것).분쟁 해결의 단계는 당신에게 열려있다.WP를 열고 싶은 경우:RFC가 더 많은 의견을 얻기 위해 네가 도움이 필요하면 나에게 알려줘.에드존스턴 (대화) 23:32, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

오늘의 인터넷 사망 소문은 피델 카스트로 입니다.

그의 죽음은 트위터에서 갑자기 유행하고 있지만, 현시점에서는 인터넷 루머에 지나지 않는 듯하다.지난번 NYE - Robert Plant에 대한 인터넷 루머가 있었을 때 - 반보호가 기사를 보호하기에 충분하지 않았다(확증된 편집자들이 주범이었다), 그래서 나는 실제 사건 보고서 제출이 필요하기 전에 여기서 시간을 보내는 사람들에게 피델 카스트로를 감시해 줄 것을 부탁하고 싶다.(아직 사건이 아닌 건 알지만, 감시도가 높은 게시판이라 맞는 것 같았어.) --넬리블리 (대화) 00:19, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

고맙게도, 그 페이지는 이미 반투명되어 있어서, 아무것도 없는 것만큼의 반달리즘은 없을 것이다.Nyttend (대화) 00:43, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

음, 그것은 정확히 공공 기물 파손은 아니지만, 그것은 파괴적이지만, 편집자들은 선의로 정보를 추가하고 있다.그들은 단지 일등이 되려고만 할 뿐 잘못된 정보로 일등이 되는 결과를 잊어버린다.--넬리블리 (대화) 00:48, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

2차 소문:그것은 컴퓨터 바이러스와 관련이 있을 수 있다.
⋙-베레앙-헌터—2012년 1월 3일 01:03, (UTC)[응답]

상업 광고가 있는 심리학 설문지 사이트들이 스팸 메일을 보냈다.

심리학 전문가 행세를 하며 구글 애센스 링크를 부착한 심리학 설문지와 함께 자신의 도메인을 게시하는 사용자도 있고, 기존의 비영리 관련 링크를 자신의 상업 사이트로 대체하려고 시도하고 있다.

이전에 양말 인형뽑기로 인해 중단되었던 이 사용자가 게시한 도메인의 블랙리스트를 제출하였다.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#psychology-tools.com_.26_psymed.info

그 기간 동안 게재된 스팸의 범위는 많은 기사에 걸쳐 있으며, 그것은 기사의 질과 위키피디아 평판에 해를 끼친다.— Booyahshakashogun (대화 • 기여) 09:52, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자 88.247.101.165 및 46.196.33.96의 문제.

다시 안녕, 저번 주에 이 사용자들에 대해 얘기했는데 네가 나를 믿지 않는다고 느꼈어.내가 언급한 사용자들은 같은 사람이다.이 사용자 하루 전: 88.247.101.165, 그리고 어제는 사용자 46.196.33.96. (그 중 한 명이 한 번 이상 경고했음!!!!!!!!!!!!)이 사용자들 중 두 명은 나에게 답변을 하지 않았거나 같은 문제에 대해 나와 논쟁했다.그들은 나에게 그들의 증거를 가져오지 않고 단순히 기사를 바꾸고, 나는 (벤 구리온 공항의 토크 페이지에 있는 벤 구리온 공항의 토크 페이지.나는 이 두 명의 사용자가 동일한 내용을 편집하고 항상 같은 기사(특히 터키 공항)를 편집한다는 것을 알게 되었다.제발 도와줘!!!--프렌즈147 (대화) 10:35, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

안녕, 나는 이 분야에 대해 잘 모르지만, 네가 위키피디아에 도움을 청해야 할 것 같아.위키프로젝트 공항, 더 많은 사람들이 이 페이지를 보고 더 강력한 공감대를 형성하기 위해.그동안 두 IP 모두 토크페이지의 경고에도 불구하고 의사소통을 시도하지 않아 1주일 동안 차단했다.--UTC(Luk 11:18, 2012년 1월 3일)[응답]

리디렉션으로 기존 템플릿 대신 올바른 템플릿을 사용하려면 image:box를 변경하십시오.

이미지를 설정하십시오.이미지 포함 Box.jpg:Image.gif on it(경고 이미지) 또는 이와 유사한 것으로, 지금처럼 리디렉션으로 존재하는 것이 아니라.바나티쿠스 (토크) 12:17, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 당신이 리디렉션을 볼 수 있다고 믿는다. 왜냐하면 그것은 하원의 그런 방식으로 설정되어 있기 때문이다. [74].대신 거기서 바꿔야 하지 않을까? -- uk 14:07, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답하라]

극소수의 지식

대화 내용:Infinitism, 12.176.152.194 (토크 · 기여 · WHOIS)는 편집자(나의 자신, Tkuvho (토크 · 기여), Throub314 (토크 · 기여), 그리고 그 밖의 몇몇 다른 특정한 살아있는 수학자들에 대한 인신공격을 추가했다.이 편집이 블록을 정당화한다는 의견이 제기되었다.동의하든 말든 나에 대한 공격이기 때문에 그것 때문에 막을 수 없다.댓글?— 아서 루빈 (대화) 04:58, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

그는 개인적인 모욕도 잊은 채 반유대주의와 삭발주의를 동시에 나타낸다.【베이스볼 버그스카라믹스^{What's up, Doc?}→05:04】, 2012년 1월 3일(UTC)[응답]

사실, 양말풀이 안 보여.그는 이전에 다른 IP에 있었지만 인정한다.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:47, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답하라]

WP:블록은 또한 차단 가능한 범죄로 "개인적, 전문적 또는 법적 위협(위키백과 사이트 외부 포함)"을 여기에 적용한다고 생각한다.사샤 (대화) 06:16, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

이 편집에는 다음 설명이 포함되어 있다.여기 내가 뉴턴, 라이프니즈, 카우치보다 우월하다. 이제 내 옆에 벌레가 된 루빈은 이미 언급된 코멘트와 함께 한 블록을 정당화하는 것처럼 보인다.Tkuvho (대화) 11:02, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답하라]

뛰어난 지성에 맞설 때마다, 당신의 마지막 절박한 대응은 한 개인의 입을 다물게 하는 것이다.루빈은 나와의 의사소통에서 경멸스럽고 모욕적이었다.자신의 지능을 공격하는 것은 인신공격이다.루빈은 찾고 있다가 말다툼을 시작했다.모든 사용자들 중에서 문제는 루빈에게만 일어났다.그리고 이것은 우리가 과거에 소통했던 것처럼 새로운 것이 아니다.이것은 모두 루빈의 겉모습이다.네가 나를 차단한다면, 그것은 나에게 아무런 의미가 없어.위키피디아는 내가 아니라 진다.루빈, 내가 너에게 제안하는 것은 이것이다. 네가 그것을 받아들일 수 없다면, 그것을 꺼내지 말아라.당신의 경멸적인 태도는 인신공격이다. 12.176.152.194 (대화) 11:31, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

이것은 교과서적인 트롤링이다.막고 넘어가라 74.98.35.216 (대화) 14:36, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 72시간 동안 항균제 트롤링과 함께 편집하는 것을 차단했다.블록이 만료된 후 같은 맥락에서 추가 편집이 있을 경우 IP를 더 오랫동안 다시 잠글 수 있다.TenOfAllTraes(대화) 14:53, 2012년 1월 3일(UTC)[응답]

상업 광고가 있는 심리학 설문지 사이트들이 스팸 메일을 보냈다.

심리학 전문가 행세를 하며 구글 애센스 링크를 부착한 심리학 설문지와 함께 자신의 도메인을 게시하는 사용자도 있고, 기존의 비영리 관련 링크를 자신의 상업 사이트로 대체하려고 시도하고 있다.

이전에 양말 인형뽑기로 인해 중단되었던 이 사용자가 게시한 도메인의 블랙리스트를 제출하였다.

http://http:///en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#psychology-tools.com_.26_psymed.info

그 기간 동안 게재된 스팸의 범위는 많은 기사에 걸쳐 있으며, 그것은 기사의 질과 위키피디아 평판에 해를 끼친다.— Booyahshakashogun (대화 • 기여) 09:52, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자 88.247.101.165 및 46.196.33.96의 문제.

다시 안녕, 저번 주에 이 사용자들에 대해 얘기했는데 네가 나를 믿지 않는다고 느꼈어.내가 언급한 사용자들은 같은 사람이다.이 사용자 하루 전: 88.247.101.165, 그리고 어제는 사용자 46.196.33.96. (그 중 한 명이 한 번 이상 경고했음!!!!!!!!!!!!)이 사용자들 중 두 명은 나에게 답변을 하지 않았거나 같은 문제에 대해 나와 논쟁했다.그들은 나에게 그들의 증거를 가져오지 않고 단순히 기사를 바꾸고, 나는 (벤 구리온 공항의 토크 페이지에 있는 벤 구리온 공항의 토크 페이지.나는 이 두 명의 사용자가 동일한 내용을 편집하고 항상 같은 기사(특히 터키 공항)를 편집한다는 것을 알게 되었다.제발 도와줘!!!--프렌즈147 (대화) 10:35, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

안녕, 나는 이 분야에 대해 잘 모르지만, 네가 위키피디아에 도움을 청해야 할 것 같아.위키프로젝트 공항, 더 많은 사람들이 이 페이지를 보고 더 강력한 공감대를 형성하기 위해.그동안 두 IP 모두 토크페이지의 경고에도 불구하고 의사소통을 시도하지 않아 1주일 동안 차단했다.--UTC(Luk 11:18, 2012년 1월 3일)[응답]

리디렉션으로 기존 템플릿 대신 올바른 템플릿을 사용하려면 image:box를 변경하십시오.

이미지를 설정하십시오.이미지 포함 Box.jpg:Image.gif on it(경고 이미지) 또는 이와 유사한 것으로, 지금처럼 리디렉션으로 존재하는 것이 아니라.바나티쿠스 (토크) 12:17, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 당신이 리디렉션을 볼 수 있다고 믿는다. 왜냐하면 그것은 하원의 그런 방식으로 설정되어 있기 때문이다. [75].대신 거기서 바꿔야 하지 않을까? -- uk 14:07, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답하라]

기사 토론 페이지/기타 사용자 대화 페이지의 Sockpuppetry 고발

사용자:Keizers는 조사를 하거나 관리자에게 알리지 않고 양말 인형뽑기를 했다고 비난하는 여러 편집자의 토크 페이지와 토론 페이지를 편집했다.사실 그의 주장은 자신의 의혹에만 근거한 것이었다.

[[76]]

[[77]]

[[78]]

[[79]]

[[80]]

--Mmann1988 (대화) 17:06, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

그래서 이 사실은 다음과 같다.[[81]] 연관성이 아무 의미도 없는 것으로 보인다고?Wilding61476 (대화) 17:13, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 그들이 정책을 위반했다면 사과한다. 그러나 나는 조사를 했고 결과는 Mmann1988과 Rodeway였다.여관은 한 사람이었고 같은 사용자였다.키이저 (대화) 17:14, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

위키백과에서 논의를 계속할 수 있다.Sockpuppet 조사/Mmann1988, 아직 공개되어 있다.Checkuser가 'Likely'로 돌아왔다.에드존스턴 (대화) 17:24, 2012년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

개인 공격 및 편집 워링

관련 편집자:

• .제프 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 니테시프트36 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

Talk에서는 편집 전쟁이 계속되고 있다.블랙제프의 이 글에서 비롯된 테라노바 에피소드 목록니츠히프트36은 그 자리에 예외를 두었는데, 그는 이것을 인신공격으로 보고 있다.블랙.제프는 "이 진술은 어리석고, 당신이 바보라는 것을 나타내지 않는다"와 같은 더 많은 폄하 발언을 했다.아마도 당신은 우리가 바보라고 생각하여 당신의 바보같은 말을 믿을 것이다.","[82] 인종차별에 대한 비교와 함께.그는 내가 제안한 논평[83]을 삭제하기를 거부하지만, 니츠히프트36은 이 모든 것에 흠잡을 데가 없어, 이제 이와 같은 요약 편집에 의지하고 있다.그는 자신이 WP에 의해 보호받고 있다고 주장하면서 3RR이 이 상황에 적용된다고 믿지 않는다.BLP, [84] 반면 Black.jeff는 Niteshift36의 불쾌감을 주는 논평들을 삭제한 것이 공공 기물 파괴 행위라고 주장하며 3RR 면제를 주장하고 있다.[85] 나는 지금 두 편집자 모두 더위를 식힐 수 있는 짧은 블록을 받을 자격이 있다는 의견이고, 처음 추가된 이후 편집된 모든 관련 논평은 토크 페이지에서 삭제해야 한다는 의견이지만, 관련 편집자로서, 내가 그렇게 하는 것은 정말 적절하지 않다.두 편집자가 모두 내 토크페이지의 "토론" 전체에 대해 다소 완강하게 말하고 있기 때문에, 어떤 시도도 되돌릴 수 있을 것이라고 나는 의심한다.[86] 나는 니츠히프트36이 여기서 문제를 제기할 것을 제안하기도 했지만, 그 대신 그와 블랙.제프는 편집전을 계속하고 있다. --AussieLegend (대화) 02:12, 2012년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

• The complaint isn't accurate. Although I disagreed with a number of insults and attacks he made, I let those go. There is one thing still at issue and it's what Aussie Legend left out. Jeff made an allegation of racism: "So your argument basically boils down to racism..." [87]. That has been the on-going issue. I've never mentioned race. After I took exception to it, Jeff even stated on my talk page: " I know that technically it isn't racism..."[88]. After reverting my removal a couple of times, he dug up some poorly written definition from a UN project and changed his tune, claiming it was now did fit. I went so far as to tell him the proper term (cultural bias) and even inserted it in place of the incorrect and grossly offensive "racism". The allegation that my position is rooted in racism is extremely offensive to me and I will not tolerate it. Yes, I do claim BLP applies. WP:BLPTALK states: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories". I am a living person. Further, it says "Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space...." and that is me as well. Since libelous material being removed under BLP is exempt from the 3RR, I contend this isn't a 3RR issue.

As for being uncivil etc: I won't pretend I was civil and innocent. When I get called an idiot, I tend to push back. Is it right? No, but that's not really why we are here. We are here because an editor keeps implying that I am a racist, despite the fact that he has admitted it is not correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, describing your argument, is describing content, not neccessarily you. How am I meant to point out the problem with your comment (i.e. that it is racism), if pointing out problems with it constitutes a personal attack? If what you are suggesting is the case, then WP:PA would say something more along the lings of "Do not comment on contributors, additionally do not comment on the content that that contributor contributed, as that has the potential to indicate something about them, and thus may still be regarded as a personal attack."

At first, I thought it wasn't racism, as I had thought racism only applied to race, however it is still fairly similar, a race and a country that a company belongs to, with similar principles. When you suggested cultural bias, after I explained that racism was a similar term, I then went and looked up the actual definition of racism, which includes nationality. This means that racism is the correct word. Cultural bias is nothing like it. Cultural bias is not ignoring sources just because they are from a different country, it is expecting things to be the way they are in your culture. You have used a word that sounds "nicer" yet has a completely different meaning. Additionally, personal attacks clearly have nothing to do with it, as you have no problem with leaving in the comment explaining why it is racist, you just wont let me use the word racism. If I am fine to explain why it is racism, then why can't I label it racism? If pointing out that a comment is racist is not allowed, then why do you not also remove the explanation of why it is racism? It is only that one word that you are against. You also seem to be fine with what, (going by what I assume is your logic) would basically say "you are culturally biased". That statement should also be counted as a personal attack, yet, you don't think my comment with "racism" replaced with "cultural bias" is. So you clearly do not evaluate "Your argument basically boils down to x" as "You are x". So you should not take a comment saying that your argument basically boils down to racism, as meaning you are a racist. Your only problem is with me using the word racism.

I was planning on removing my comment saying that your statement was idiocy this morning, but I couldn't find the redaction template before I had to leave for work. I will find it once I have finished this and put it in.

And yes, I will admit, I was being somewhat uncivil, however as you said, when someone pushes, I tend to push back. When it is continually explained that things are separate entities and should not be treated as the same thing, yet people refuse to even acknowledge the possibility and tell people to stop quibbling and to just move on, I will get somewhat frustrated.

Finally, we are not here because someone is implying you are a racist, we are here because you seem to despise having the term "racism" applied to anything to do with you, and as such you continually vandalise a talk page.Black.jeff (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You spent all that time, defending something that isn't even being contested. Yes, initially I took issue with your use of "idiocy" etc, but I have left those alone for days now. The SOLE thing I have removed/replaced in that time period is "racism". Cultural bias is not offensive. If I spell "honor" in the American English and then go around replacing "honour" because I want the American spelling everywhere, that is a cultural bias. Calling it cultural bias isn't an attack. However, when you say my actions stem from racism, there is no way that isn't calling me racist. Since I never mentioned race, since Australian isn't a race and since you have already admitted that it isn't racism, you insistence on putting it back in is purely an attack. As for your claim that my refusal to agree with you about a source is "pushing you"... well, I suspect that others will disagree. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just when I thought you were going to be cooperative in this, you left a lengthy new post there that added more incivility to it, as well as added some to the existing test. You refuse to act in good faith while this is under discussion. Things are becoming clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• So one paragraph out of several, is spending all that time? Yes, that would be an example of cultural bias, however that is nothing like what is happening. With what you are trying to say is cultural bias, it would be just as bad as racism, and thus should still constitute a personal attack. When I admitted it wasn't racism, it was a mistake, as I wasn't sure of the correct term to use for discrimination based on nationality, however discrimination based on race is similar to that, and is covered by some definitions of racism, including the UN definition. When I put it back before I knew that racism covered nationality, it was because it was the closest term I knew, and what I thought it was is still very similar. Isn't describing it as racism still just as bad as saying it is racism? So wouldn't describing your comment as racism be just as bad, yet you are fine with that, it is only when I apply the label to it that it becomes bad. — Black.jeff , — (continues after insertion below.)

• Amazing how you worry so much that "cultural bias" would appear to be an attack, despite the fact that I have said I wouldn't perceive it as such, yet insist on incorrectly using a term that I have been very clear is an attack. Your "concern" appears pretty hollow. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet with what you are trying to say cultural bias is (i.e. discrimination based on nationality), it is just as bad as racism. So if you are fine with allegedly being accused of discrimination based on nationality, why aren't you fine with allegedly being accused of racism (Which I haven't yet done)? Especially considering several definitions of racism include nationality. Yes, I would not take culturally biased to be an attack, I am sure everyone is to some degree. They learn how things work in their culture, and need to relearn how it works in other cultures. However, that is only with it's correct meaning, not the meaning you are trying to say it has. If culturally biased meant what you are trying to say it does, it would be an attack, as I had explained above, which you either ignored, or dismissed, just like you have ignored and/or dismissed arguments before. My concern is not directly over "cultural bias" it is over you being so opposed to racism, yet are perfectly fine with a word which you are pretending means something which is basically the same (Yes, there would be slight differences). Additionally, when you break apart someone's post, you need to re-sign it, such as by inserting {{subst:interrupted USER NAME OR IP}}, or copying their signature from the end of their post.Black.jeff (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a minor error when I inserted the text. I don't need a lecture from you about where I should put a signature. Get over yourself already. Your bullshit claim about racism being the right word is transparent. The UN is hardly the most reliable source on defining words in the English language. I'll take dictionaries over the UN any day and Random House says you are wrong. Regardless, I won't tolerate you calling my actions racist. Period. You can spin, prevericate and make all the excuses you want. I won't tolerate it and, thus far, I'm not seeing anyone swooping in here to tell you that you are using the term correctly or that my refusal to tolerate your disgusting allegation is really that off-base. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't your refusal to agree with me about a source, it is you continually dismissing what other people say, without responding to other than re-asserting your opinion, accusing them of wanting to quibble and that they should just move on.

As for good faith, what part of good faith requires that I do not remove a section of my comment, added by you, changing my comment, with no indication that it has been changed other than the edit summary, which would make me look like an idiot, for using a term that is so incorrect it isn't funny? What part of good faith requires that I don't add a comment to the page? As for incivility, where? I had not been uncivil on that page after you started vandalising my post.Black.jeff (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I couldn't find the redaction template before I had to leave for work" - You've quoted WP:TPO a number of times in the discussion at Talk:List of Terra Nova episodes. Instructions on what to do to redact your comments immediately follow that section. You don't actually need a template. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However I wanted to use the template, if I had realised just how little time I had before I had to leave I would have just fixed it like I have now.Black.jeff (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you both agree to stop trying to edit one another's comments as they already exist on the talk page, and then try to use your very best manners in discussion with each other from here forward? Because that would effortlessly solve the problem. Nothing that you're arguing about at this point, as far as I can see, will actually result in any improvement to the encyclopedia even if resolved, so it's pure disruption.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would just like to say that I haven't edited anyone's comments other than my own, I would never do that, even if it is a blatant personal attack against me (in which case I would respond explaining why they are wrong, or just ignore it). However, I will stop bothering to restore my comment to what it was, as it achieves nothing. I will also try my best to remain civil.Black.jeff (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped editing all but a single word. I've left the rest of his incivility intact (and even answered it with uncivil remarks at times). This is solely about his improper use of "racism". I will work most things out, but Jimbo Wales himself can come to my house and ask me personally to allow that word to be used to describe me and I won't agree to it. It is vile. It is disgusting. I will not tolerate it and nobody should suggest that I should. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless or what is or is not said about you, you should not indulge in tit-for-tat incivility. - The Bushranger_{One ping only} 15:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, past the rest and ignoring it. Racism, however, is not something I will tolerate. Wikilink all the policies, guidelines and essays you want. The fact that an unfounded allegation that disgusting isn't immediately condemned is very disconcerting. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What "racism"? The English "race" vs. the American "race"? (And he's calling someone else "idiotic"???) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New sock of Xiutwel

This has to be the least inventive sock name I have ever seen. What shocks me more is that he's flown under the radar this long. If he hadn't outed himself on the September 11th Attacks talk page I wonder if he could have gone on indefinitely. Please swiftly take care of User:Xiutwel-0003 who is clearly a sock of User:Xiutwel asap. Thank you. --Tarage (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And someone already got him. Nevermind. --Tarage (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xiutwel-0003 (talk · contribs) and Xiutwel-0004 (talk · contribs) blocked and tagged. Acroterion (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JohnC

• JohnC (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Coming here after reporting at AIV page at suggestion of Reaper Eternal. Longterm and persistent issues with POV, neutrality, BLP violations, removal of content they don't agree with, and personal commentary. Most recently: [89], [90], [91], [92]. User has received numerous notices and warnings for months, and appears to edit with, among other issues, a racial agenda. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You missed [93] which removes sourced content that South Africa applied white supremacist laws up till the 1990s, which cannot be a content dispute in any sane world. The addition to the Garrett Morris article is also concerning, as is his addition to the talkpage of the Miskel Spillman article, although the sentence about Garrett Morris in the Miskel Spillman article that he refers to needs to be sourced or removed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm good, but not perfect. It's one of those 'two good edits for every disruptive one' accounts. And then there's the occasional unintended humor [94]. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a clear warning about the content issues [95]. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tombak2

Help; User doesn't listen, inserts unsourced content and is edit warring; possible conflict of interest account as well. [96]. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tombak3 (talk·contribs) was just registered. I've reported it to SPI. --NellieBly (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the WMF Stewards, who should shortly global-lock the account. No need for SPI on this one. --MuZemike 23:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you're already on top of this, but I've commented further here [97]. Thank you for helping. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

membrane mess

Sorry to distract from blocking dramas, but I need help from an admin who is good at merging and deleting stuff. Not only the mechanics but the organization. The whole section membrane is messed up. And the whole thing is a snarl (so it's not like a single merge or delete request).

1. The dab page membrane is what you come to when you google in on membrane. It is a decent dab page. I can get it a little bit better organized, but it is not bad. (The term membrane is used primarily to mean a thin selectively permeable barriar. There are some name dabs, like the band or usage for roof structures. There's also a little confusion with respect to biology, where the term membrane is used for some anatomical structures that are more enclosing sacs, not selective barriars, but they also have real selective barriars as well, like the cell membrane. Anyhow, I can unsnarl that on my own by content editing, but...

2. The darned talk page for this dab...redirects to the talk page of Membrane (selective barrier), one of the subordinate pages. That needs a fix, while I unsnarl things. Give membrane it back its own talk page.

3. The article Polymeric membrane needs to go bye-bye (merge and delete into artificial membrane. The daughter article is tiny, has been for years, and has much less info than in the parent articles section version.

4. The article membrane (selective barrier) needs to be merged into artificial membrane, but giving the title membrane selective barriar to the new merged article. The first article is miserable, almost no content, almost same sections as second article, plus duplicates the parent dab to an extent. The new article would basically have all the content of artificial membrane with addition of the title from membrane (selective barriar), plus a litle bit of the lead content, plus a short section and link to biological membrane. (which is also a decent article).

And when done with all this, the redirects and double redirects and the like should be cleared.

5. Eventually membrane technology should probably be merged into the new membrane (selective barrier). But I'm not going to worry about that for now.

TCO (Reviews needed) 22:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done 2 + 3, but I'll leave the rest to someone else. SmartSE (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Good progress.TCO (Reviews needed) 00:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard, number 4, I'm just going to have an article on artifical and an article on biological and use a hatnote betwixt them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 01:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got it all straightened out...weh. Little different hieriarchy than in this talk. Way better than the snarl we had. no on complained. Just constructrive editing.TCO (Reviews needed) 21:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email details need removing

Over-enthusiastic block?

You would have thought that Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers was a widely held precept, but look what happened here. Despite about 260 good faith, constructive edits with clear edit summaries, and a complete absence of vandalism, the moment I got into a minor disagreement about a capitalisation issue, and (when warned) suggested I might change my IP address (as happens every time my modem is turned off) I got blocked by User:Toddst1, and threatened with a range block. I'm not saying that my comments here and here were acceptable, but if you treat every IP who reacts to being treated with disdain by blocking him, is it any wonder that some feel bitten? Then, just to prove that IP efforts cannot be accepted, even when they correct an article to match the MOS, User:OberRanks weighed in to re-insert the completely inappropriate capitalisation with this edit, even though the first reverting editor admitted he had been hasty in doing so! Stunning.

On the plus side, User:Kierzek and User:Bouket were completely charming - thanks for your approach.

I know I'm hardly blameless - but then I don't have to be, since working through an IP gives me power without responsibility. Don't bother leaving any messages at my talk page - by the time you read this, my IP will have changed again. I will be somewhere in the encyclopaedia, making quality edits. 88.108.247.218 (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion is, of course, always a sign of "good faith". ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 01:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is totally incorrect in saying that I admitted being hasty in reverting his edit on John J. Pershing. What I said was that I should have given a better explanation for my revert, not that the edit was hasty or that it was incorrect.[98] In fact, I stand by the edit.

I also note on the IPs talk page, he says, in effect, "go ahead and block me, I'll just use another IP." Given the IPs edit history, I highly doubt this person is a newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal and suicide threat

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

This diff says it all. Blatant talk page abuse too.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The account is now indef blocked with talk page editing disabled. I'll email the appropriate channels regarding the suicide threat. Tiptoety^talk 01:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already DoneJasper Deng (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive behaviour of an admin

no means no.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. this appears to be going nowhere fast. In fact, it looked like it went right past nowhere into realms completely uneccessary. There is no consensus that any admin behaved inappropriately. --Jayron32 22:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] There was this pretty silly incidence at the Bikini page (see [99]), though no policy, guideline, rule or directive was violated. In fact, I tried to discuss the issue on both the article talk page (see [100], which resulted in no response from the other party, but positive response from uninvolved editors), the other party's talk page (see [101], which resulted in an inflammatory response, see [102]), and a bigger forum (see [103]). That incidence calmed down quickly. But, immediately after I was templeted by User:Toddst1, an administrator, warning me that I could be banned for edit warring. At my talk page, he also told another uninvolved editor that there was no personal attack in the inflammatory response I've referred to here. I immediately posted to his page explaining the relevant guidelines and the incidence (see [104], which generated no response from the admin, though the admin was still busily working at the Wikipedia, see [105]). I was wondering about the malevolence, and finally I have located at least on incident where the admin was at odds with me (see [106]). Even at that time I explained my stand, quoting sensible traditions (see [107], which generated no response from the admin). If this is how an admin handles someone who doesn't agree to that admin, we have something to worry about. Threatening abusively is bad enough. But, when the threat maker has the administrative powers to carry out the threat, it becomes really dangerous. Will someone see the danger here? Haven't we seen enough rogue admins already, some of whom were actually regarded in high esteem? Someone, please, see into the matter. This is not an official WP:ADMINABUSE complaint, yet. But, as off-Wikipedia sources report (see [108], [109] or [110]) abusive behaviour like this from editors with higher level access right is not just alarming, it's detrimental to everything Wikipedia stands for. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] You were given a notification using standard Wikipedia templates of a potential issue brewing - the same template being used tens of thousands of times before. Of course, edit-warring and its associated blocks (not bans) don't care if you're "right" in your content/style editing. There's nothing malevolent, and the template is pretty self-explanatory, so follow-up with the admin in question seems unnecessary. I'm hard-pressed to find anything wrong with the warning whatsoever - there's no threat. Referring to their actions as malevolence is probably pretty uncivil on your part. You're grasping at some pretty bizarre straws, IMHO. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I believe it's unlikely that the template has been used thousands of times where there is no edit-war, especially on the party who's been trying to get a discussion going and has approval of uninvolved editors. I know you're an admin and you can block me too. But, that doesn't make a wrong a right. BTW, I've been templated again with a slightly threatening note added, by the same admin. I really don't see much WP:AGF going around. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] You obviously do not understand the difference between a threat and a warning. Once again, a basic template has been used on your page - why not simply take the advice? Here's an interesting test, by the way: if you decide to reply to this thread, after you click "edit" look at the very top of the page - you'll notice a big orange box. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] In what way was there no edit war at Bikini? Note that as there was only really 2 people involved, you can't claim BMK was edit warring but you weren't. As to why BMK wasn't notified they are a regular and so are well aware of our policy on edit warring, notifying them is not necessary. Although you've apparently been here for a while, it appears notifying you of our policy was appropriate given then you then disputed you were actually edit warring. Do remember that while it is good you initated and participated in discussion, this doesn't mean it's okay to edit war to try to enforce the result of the discussion. People have already pointed out ways you can get help if you achieve consensus but continue to be reverted. Also as has been said you should have been informed both when editing this page and in the header that you need to notify people you are discussing. Since you did not do so, rather then complaining about being templated, just remember to do it next time. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] i think hes mad because the other user involved did not get a warning. also, aditya had conensus on the talk page and started a discussion, the other user involved still has not entered the discussion and consensus is completely against the way they keep reverting to. Bouket (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Frankly, if you are so sensitive, I am amazed that you have lasted so long on Wikipedia without leaving in frustration. I see nothing "inflammatory", nor any evidence of "malevolence". As for your claim that you were not edit warring, do you know what the expression "edit warring" means? If you don't then I suggest reading WP:Edit warring. If, on the other hand, you do know what it means, then I suggest looking at this edit, this one, and this one. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] BMK involvement sorry can i ask a question? it seems aditya has conensus according to the talk page. the other user involved has not even joined the discussion. what is the correct course of action for aditya to follow, when he has consensus on the talk page but is still getting reverted? Bouket (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] It appears he had the last edit on 29 December. I think his correct course of action is drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and maybe even AGF. Toddst1(talk) 03:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] maybe youre right. can i ask why you didnt warn beyond my ken? i think that is what really bothered him. Bouket (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I can't speak for Toddst1, but as I explained above, there's a good reason not to template BMK, which as this case proved, clearly does not apply to Aditya. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] i see now that you said its because BMK is 'a regular'. does this mean that if he continued edit warring then he would have been blocked with a warning? note in this case that eventually it was shown that BMK was reverting against consensus and simply saying his edits 'were better' in the edit summaries. aditya should have looked for consensus after the first revert, but can you see why even though you can justify to yourself toddst1's action, they may seem biased to aditya or to any outside observer? it looks like aditya doesnt care much anymore but i think this kind of experience he had is a negative experience and wasnt really his fault. Bouket (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I will block regulars without warning for edit warring on the "you should know better" grounds, but it is probably more productive to warn both editors, as this often starts a dialogue and can prevent the need for a block. It's not necessary to use templates to deliver warnings, particularly with a regular editor, a bit of plain text is fine to remind them not to overstep the mark. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Expanding on what Elen said, the purpose of a warning is to ensure that the editor knows there is a policy that they are violating. I have no doubt that BMK is well aware of WP:EW and WP:3RR. However, Aditya Kabir (talk·contribs) didn't and clearly still doesn't understand that he was engaged in an edit war [111]. Time to move on. Toddst1(talk) 17:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] thanks elen and todd. so if i understand what youre saying, in this case, BMK was also engaged in an edit war, you just didnt feel a need to remind him that he was doing it since you thought he already knew and probably knew he wouldnt break the 3RR policy so that his edit warring was not actually in violation, but you were worried that adityas reverting would violate the policy. is that right? Bouket (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Why do BMK get away with edit warring over his unilateral style choices go against all guidelines? No matter who ask him stop. Dalit Llama (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] i originally thought that BMK was mostly the problem but now i am feeling like toddst1 does not want to understand how he offended aditya. elen put it best when they said it is probably more productive to warn both editors, as this often starts a dialogue and can prevent the need for a block. i think this is the problem. aditya has no way of knowing what toddst1 was thinking. it could be that he didnt warn BMK because he thought BMK already knew policy (but if this is true, and according to what toddst1 said here [112] BMK was already involved an edit war and didnt get banned or warned. if hes an experienced user shouldnt he know better not even to start an edit war? but he WAS involved in one), or that toddst1 was showing bias. whatever toddst1's reasons, aditya is not a mind reader and toddst1 should be more careful about how his actions looked, for reasons like this and what elen said. i also didnt appreciate his comment here [113] which only insulted my understanding and wasnt helpful, and also think its weird how dismissive he is of aditya's concerns, like here [114]. i just think toddst1 should realize why his actions made aditya feel there was a bias even if there was none. Bouket (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Aditya is allowed to be offended if he wants. Get over it. As I said above, "I have no doubt that BMK is well aware of WP:EW and WP:3RR." Toddst1(talk) 20:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] its not that he was offended, its that you seemed to threaten him in an impartial matter. are you saying you dont care how your actions ad administrator are perceived by someone who doesnt know everything? Bouket (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] See JamesBWatson's comment above. Toddst1(talk) 22:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] i dont think yelling at people for being overly sensitive is a good way to get new editors here. i think explaining things in a calm and helpful way would be better. but maybe i am in a minority. Bouket (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Nobody is yelling. Really. Get over it. Toddst1(talk) 22:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] using condescending language like 'get over it' isnt going to help anything. Bouket (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Would someone please close this bloody discussion? Toddst1(talk) 22:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] im serious its language like that that makes admins look bad, and that makes wikipedia have the bad reputation that it has. Bouket (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Bouket, let it go. Stop trying to stir this up into something much bigger than it is, and move on. Toddst1 is a sysop on an internet project, not the President of the US. If he says things like "bloody" and "get over it", it doesn't matter. He's not bound by some super-code of conduct. Wikipedia doesn't have a bad reputation, but if you disagree, then don't type it into the address bar of your browser from now on. Just let it go. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate 22:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Hounding BMK Bouket, I see you are involved in a number of discussions where it seems that the mention of BMK brought you there. Is that correct? Drmies (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] yes i am watching his talk page now. why? Bouket (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] It looks like you've got something in for BMK and you're manufacturing a conspiracy that admins are protecting him/her. It seems like you're trying to stir up drama here. Toddst1(talk) 20:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] i never said that, thats actually what aditya said isnt it? i dont agree actually, i only found this because i was trying to get more involved, usually ive just been editing for the past 6 months. are you complaining here [115] that im not assuming good faith, and the same time youre accusing me of really bizarre things and not assuming good faith at all? and also, you dont assume good faith on the part of aditya, and dont believe that your actions could actually have seemed biased to him even if they werent. your accusation that im trying to stir up drama also doesnt agf. and you havent explained why you didnt get involved with BMK at all if you admit that he WAS edit warring. why is it its not possible im concerned, why are you now accusing me of ulterior motives instead of actually discussing issues? Bouket (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] The paraphrase was accurate [116]. Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] The issues have been dealt with except you keep agitating for action against BMK and more than one of us have noticed. No administrative actions have been taken anywhere! If you want BMK warned for something, then bloody hell, get off your arse and do it. Toddst1(talk) 20:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] i never said anything needs to be done to bmk. where did i say that? dont accuse me of things like that. i was saying that if you had warned both people none of this would have ever happened because aditya would not have thought you were singling him out. if you would acknowldge that, which elen agreed with, then we would be almost done here. Bouket (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] We would all be better off if I had warned everyone edit warring. Now stop hounding BMK. Toddst1(talk) 21:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] thanks. i hope aditya understands. i dont know why it took so much to communicate why he was upset. maybe you should try and understand how people see your actions instead of just being defensive about them and claiming you were 100% right? well ok im done here. Bouket (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Redact hi i just wanted to point out that toddst1 has been going crazy on my talk page. he made some edits [117] that violate WP:REDACT which isnt policy but shouldnt he avoid doing that? i wanted to be done here but i guess he wants to continue whatever is going on here. i reverted his edits because i thought they were misleading and then he made a bunch more edits and from his speed i guess hes annoyed at me. if so im sorry to have annoyed you it was my intention to point out how your actions looked not to get you in trouble. Bouket (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Conducting unbecoming administrators (edit conflict) Per policy Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. , and Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators have failed to respond appropriately in this instance, instead biting fairly new users to Wikipedia, here and on User talk:Bouket and User talk:Aditya Kabir. While clearly there was not admin abuse in the posting of a standard template, these users deserve firm but polite explanations, not curt dismissive answers with phrases such as for crying out loud, get over it, grasping at pretty bizzare straws, if you are so sensitive, and, ironically maybe even AGF. Bouket is a 206 edit count newbie, and the last record I found of Aditya Kabir being at ANI was an August 2009 incident reported by another editor, so neither is a ANI "regular," and while there is definitely a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies, I see no signs of malice or intentional disruption. They deserve better and Wikipedia deserves better. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct.Nobody Ent 22:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] See Jayron's closing comments above. That should have ended this, and it certainly addresses Nobody Ent's comment. Toddst1(talk) 02:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Lolz. That last one was a gem of a response. Ahahahahaaaa... too good. BTW, thanks Nobody Ent, we're all volunteers here, and we (as in all Wikipedians) don't really deserve lawful police actions by Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Columbian/whatever standards. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] The administrators are working in good faith trying to keep Wikipedia working well, so comparing them to a police force like that isn't really appropriate. Nobody Ent 03:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion history for File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.png

A discussion about this file is happening on the Wikipedia Commons and I know this used to be a file found here on en.wikipedia before it was transferred to Commons.

What I'm looking for is relevant links to previous deletion discussions for this file, whose links appear to have been removed upon the transfer to Commons. This particular image has some substantial history with this project and as a matter of fact was the seed for several substantial policy changes to Wikipedia over the years. I think this particular discussion could use the benefit of those previous deletion discussions, at least by reference.... but sadly I think it is going to take some admin tools to be able to find those discussions unless there is somebody who can help to find the previous deletion discussions in the AfD/FfD heap over the years. Some of those discussions are very early in Wikipedia history and even before the content archiving as separate pages, so it isn't a trivial task to accomplish.

I'm not asking somebody to do all of the work for me, but if there is some content history on the page of this name or a related page that has links to those discussions, I would appreciate either a comment on the Commons discussion with those links, putting those links on my talk page, or posting them here. This is a highly controversial image, and for the life of me I don't even know why it ended up on Commons in the first place, but that is a completely separate issue. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The local image has not been deleted, it is still there at File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg. Courcelles 04:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. It seems like a botched job then with its transfer to Commons. Thanks.... I appreciate it! --Robert Horning (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EEP! How did it get transferred to Commons. That should never have happened - it's still copyright.

Sandbox political spamming

99.99.156.73(talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Spamming Sandbox with political views. I have contacted the user multiple times on talk page and edit summary, with the phrases "Please stop putting your political views in the Sandbox" and—more strict—"Stop fucking with the Sandbox." Edit history.

"Diffs":

• [118]
• [119]
• [120]
• [121]
• [122]
• [123]
• [124]
• [125]
• [126]
• [127]
• [128]
• [129]
• [130]
• [131]
• [132]
• [133]
• [134]
• [135]
• [136]
• [137]
• [138]
• [139]

and more.

71.146.26.8 (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've given them a final warning. Once more and they will be blocked--they seem to have stopped, at least for now. Next time, please report such behavior at WP:AIV. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the content's not offensive, copyrighted or libelous, surely the sandbox is an acceptable place for these posts? Colonel Tom 05:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know this was considered vandalism, sorry about that. I surely think that most—if not all—users on Wikipedia don't appreciate people screwing around. 71.146.26.8 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no—they are spamming their political views, which will influence other newcomers' experiences' at Wikipedia. Adding to that, I believe that the beans would take effect. 71.146.26.8 (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They seem disruptive enough to me. If it wasn't in the sandbox, BTW, they'd have been blocked edits ago. Then again, Colonel Tom, maybe the matter is not so clear-cut. Perhaps, since there seems to be little dramah right now, the regulars can weigh in and start a fight. Bugs, you around? ;) Drmies (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this is a form of trolling, as he has provoked many anonymous IPs into inappropriately editing his texts. 71.146.26.8 (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive behaviour of an admin

no means no.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. this appears to be going nowhere fast. In fact, it looked like it went right past nowhere into realms completely uneccessary. There is no consensus that any admin behaved inappropriately. --Jayron32 22:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] There was this pretty silly incidence at the Bikini page (see [140]), though no policy, guideline, rule or directive was violated. In fact, I tried to discuss the issue on both the article talk page (see [141], which resulted in no response from the other party, but positive response from uninvolved editors), the other party's talk page (see [142], which resulted in an inflammatory response, see [143]), and a bigger forum (see [144]). That incidence calmed down quickly. But, immediately after I was templeted by User:Toddst1, an administrator, warning me that I could be banned for edit warring. At my talk page, he also told another uninvolved editor that there was no personal attack in the inflammatory response I've referred to here. I immediately posted to his page explaining the relevant guidelines and the incidence (see [145], which generated no response from the admin, though the admin was still busily working at the Wikipedia, see [146]). I was wondering about the malevolence, and finally I have located at least on incident where the admin was at odds with me (see [147]). Even at that time I explained my stand, quoting sensible traditions (see [148], which generated no response from the admin). If this is how an admin handles someone who doesn't agree to that admin, we have something to worry about. Threatening abusively is bad enough. But, when the threat maker has the administrative powers to carry out the threat, it becomes really dangerous. Will someone see the danger here? Haven't we seen enough rogue admins already, some of whom were actually regarded in high esteem? Someone, please, see into the matter. This is not an official WP:ADMINABUSE complaint, yet. But, as off-Wikipedia sources report (see [149], [150] or [151]) abusive behaviour like this from editors with higher level access right is not just alarming, it's detrimental to everything Wikipedia stands for. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] You were given a notification using standard Wikipedia templates of a potential issue brewing - the same template being used tens of thousands of times before. Of course, edit-warring and its associated blocks (not bans) don't care if you're "right" in your content/style editing. There's nothing malevolent, and the template is pretty self-explanatory, so follow-up with the admin in question seems unnecessary. I'm hard-pressed to find anything wrong with the warning whatsoever - there's no threat. Referring to their actions as malevolence is probably pretty uncivil on your part. You're grasping at some pretty bizarre straws, IMHO. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I believe it's unlikely that the template has been used thousands of times where there is no edit-war, especially on the party who's been trying to get a discussion going and has approval of uninvolved editors. I know you're an admin and you can block me too. But, that doesn't make a wrong a right. BTW, I've been templated again with a slightly threatening note added, by the same admin. I really don't see much WP:AGF going around. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] You obviously do not understand the difference between a threat and a warning. Once again, a basic template has been used on your page - why not simply take the advice? Here's an interesting test, by the way: if you decide to reply to this thread, after you click "edit" look at the very top of the page - you'll notice a big orange box. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] In what way was there no edit war at Bikini? Note that as there was only really 2 people involved, you can't claim BMK was edit warring but you weren't. As to why BMK wasn't notified they are a regular and so are well aware of our policy on edit warring, notifying them is not necessary. Although you've apparently been here for a while, it appears notifying you of our policy was appropriate given then you then disputed you were actually edit warring. Do remember that while it is good you initated and participated in discussion, this doesn't mean it's okay to edit war to try to enforce the result of the discussion. People have already pointed out ways you can get help if you achieve consensus but continue to be reverted. Also as has been said you should have been informed both when editing this page and in the header that you need to notify people you are discussing. Since you did not do so, rather then complaining about being templated, just remember to do it next time. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] i think hes mad because the other user involved did not get a warning. also, aditya had conensus on the talk page and started a discussion, the other user involved still has not entered the discussion and consensus is completely against the way they keep reverting to. Bouket (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Frankly, if you are so sensitive, I am amazed that you have lasted so long on Wikipedia without leaving in frustration. I see nothing "inflammatory", nor any evidence of "malevolence". As for your claim that you were not edit warring, do you know what the expression "edit warring" means? If you don't then I suggest reading WP:Edit warring. If, on the other hand, you do know what it means, then I suggest looking at this edit, this one, and this one. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] BMK involvement sorry can i ask a question? it seems aditya has conensus according to the talk page. the other user involved has not even joined the discussion. what is the correct course of action for aditya to follow, when he has consensus on the talk page but is still getting reverted? Bouket (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] It appears he had the last edit on 29 December. I think his correct course of action is drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and maybe even AGF. Toddst1(talk) 03:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] maybe youre right. can i ask why you didnt warn beyond my ken? i think that is what really bothered him. Bouket (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I can't speak for Toddst1, but as I explained above, there's a good reason not to template BMK, which as this case proved, clearly does not apply to Aditya. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] i see now that you said its because BMK is 'a regular'. does this mean that if he continued edit warring then he would have been blocked with a warning? note in this case that eventually it was shown that BMK was reverting against consensus and simply saying his edits 'were better' in the edit summaries. aditya should have looked for consensus after the first revert, but can you see why even though you can justify to yourself toddst1's action, they may seem biased to aditya or to any outside observer? it looks like aditya doesnt care much anymore but i think this kind of experience he had is a negative experience and wasnt really his fault. Bouket (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I will block regulars without warning for edit warring on the "you should know better" grounds, but it is probably more productive to warn both editors, as this often starts a dialogue and can prevent the need for a block. It's not necessary to use templates to deliver warnings, particularly with a regular editor, a bit of plain text is fine to remind them not to overstep the mark. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Expanding on what Elen said, the purpose of a warning is to ensure that the editor knows there is a policy that they are violating. I have no doubt that BMK is well aware of WP:EW and WP:3RR. However, Aditya Kabir (talk·contribs) didn't and clearly still doesn't understand that he was engaged in an edit war [152]. Time to move on. Toddst1(talk) 17:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] thanks elen and todd. so if i understand what youre saying, in this case, BMK was also engaged in an edit war, you just didnt feel a need to remind him that he was doing it since you thought he already knew and probably knew he wouldnt break the 3RR policy so that his edit warring was not actually in violation, but you were worried that adityas reverting would violate the policy. is that right? Bouket (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Why do BMK get away with edit warring over his unilateral style choices go against all guidelines? No matter who ask him stop. Dalit Llama (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] i originally thought that BMK was mostly the problem but now i am feeling like toddst1 does not want to understand how he offended aditya. elen put it best when they said it is probably more productive to warn both editors, as this often starts a dialogue and can prevent the need for a block. i think this is the problem. aditya has no way of knowing what toddst1 was thinking. it could be that he didnt warn BMK because he thought BMK already knew policy (but if this is true, and according to what toddst1 said here [153] BMK was already involved an edit war and didnt get banned or warned. if hes an experienced user shouldnt he know better not even to start an edit war? but he WAS involved in one), or that toddst1 was showing bias. whatever toddst1's reasons, aditya is not a mind reader and toddst1 should be more careful about how his actions looked, for reasons like this and what elen said. i also didnt appreciate his comment here [154] which only insulted my understanding and wasnt helpful, and also think its weird how dismissive he is of aditya's concerns, like here [155]. i just think toddst1 should realize why his actions made aditya feel there was a bias even if there was none. Bouket (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Aditya is allowed to be offended if he wants. Get over it. As I said above, "I have no doubt that BMK is well aware of WP:EW and WP:3RR." Toddst1(talk) 20:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] its not that he was offended, its that you seemed to threaten him in an impartial matter. are you saying you dont care how your actions ad administrator are perceived by someone who doesnt know everything? Bouket (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] See JamesBWatson's comment above. Toddst1(talk) 22:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] i dont think yelling at people for being overly sensitive is a good way to get new editors here. i think explaining things in a calm and helpful way would be better. but maybe i am in a minority. Bouket (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Nobody is yelling. Really. Get over it. Toddst1(talk) 22:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] using condescending language like 'get over it' isnt going to help anything. Bouket (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Would someone please close this bloody discussion? Toddst1(talk) 22:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] im serious its language like that that makes admins look bad, and that makes wikipedia have the bad reputation that it has. Bouket (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Bouket, let it go. Stop trying to stir this up into something much bigger than it is, and move on. Toddst1 is a sysop on an internet project, not the President of the US. If he says things like "bloody" and "get over it", it doesn't matter. He's not bound by some super-code of conduct. Wikipedia doesn't have a bad reputation, but if you disagree, then don't type it into the address bar of your browser from now on. Just let it go. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate 22:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Hounding BMK Bouket, I see you are involved in a number of discussions where it seems that the mention of BMK brought you there. Is that correct? Drmies (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] yes i am watching his talk page now. why? Bouket (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] It looks like you've got something in for BMK and you're manufacturing a conspiracy that admins are protecting him/her. It seems like you're trying to stir up drama here. Toddst1(talk) 20:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] i never said that, thats actually what aditya said isnt it? i dont agree actually, i only found this because i was trying to get more involved, usually ive just been editing for the past 6 months. are you complaining here [156] that im not assuming good faith, and the same time youre accusing me of really bizarre things and not assuming good faith at all? and also, you dont assume good faith on the part of aditya, and dont believe that your actions could actually have seemed biased to him even if they werent. your accusation that im trying to stir up drama also doesnt agf. and you havent explained why you didnt get involved with BMK at all if you admit that he WAS edit warring. why is it its not possible im concerned, why are you now accusing me of ulterior motives instead of actually discussing issues? Bouket (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] The paraphrase was accurate [157]. Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] The issues have been dealt with except you keep agitating for action against BMK and more than one of us have noticed. No administrative actions have been taken anywhere! If you want BMK warned for something, then bloody hell, get off your arse and do it. Toddst1(talk) 20:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] i never said anything needs to be done to bmk. where did i say that? dont accuse me of things like that. i was saying that if you had warned both people none of this would have ever happened because aditya would not have thought you were singling him out. if you would acknowldge that, which elen agreed with, then we would be almost done here. Bouket (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] We would all be better off if I had warned everyone edit warring. Now stop hounding BMK. Toddst1(talk) 21:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] thanks. i hope aditya understands. i dont know why it took so much to communicate why he was upset. maybe you should try and understand how people see your actions instead of just being defensive about them and claiming you were 100% right? well ok im done here. Bouket (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Redact hi i just wanted to point out that toddst1 has been going crazy on my talk page. he made some edits [158] that violate WP:REDACT which isnt policy but shouldnt he avoid doing that? i wanted to be done here but i guess he wants to continue whatever is going on here. i reverted his edits because i thought they were misleading and then he made a bunch more edits and from his speed i guess hes annoyed at me. if so im sorry to have annoyed you it was my intention to point out how your actions looked not to get you in trouble. Bouket (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Conducting unbecoming administrators (edit conflict) Per policy Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. , and Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators have failed to respond appropriately in this instance, instead biting fairly new users to Wikipedia, here and on User talk:Bouket and User talk:Aditya Kabir. While clearly there was not admin abuse in the posting of a standard template, these users deserve firm but polite explanations, not curt dismissive answers with phrases such as for crying out loud, get over it, grasping at pretty bizzare straws, if you are so sensitive, and, ironically maybe even AGF. Bouket is a 206 edit count newbie, and the last record I found of Aditya Kabir being at ANI was an August 2009 incident reported by another editor, so neither is a ANI "regular," and while there is definitely a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies, I see no signs of malice or intentional disruption. They deserve better and Wikipedia deserves better. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct.Nobody Ent 22:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] See Jayron's closing comments above. That should have ended this, and it certainly addresses Nobody Ent's comment. Toddst1(talk) 02:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Lolz. That last one was a gem of a response. Ahahahahaaaa... too good. BTW, thanks Nobody Ent, we're all volunteers here, and we (as in all Wikipedians) don't really deserve lawful police actions by Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Columbian/whatever standards. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] The administrators are working in good faith trying to keep Wikipedia working well, so comparing them to a police force like that isn't really appropriate. Nobody Ent 03:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion history for File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.png

A discussion about this file is happening on the Wikipedia Commons and I know this used to be a file found here on en.wikipedia before it was transferred to Commons.

What I'm looking for is relevant links to previous deletion discussions for this file, whose links appear to have been removed upon the transfer to Commons. This particular image has some substantial history with this project and as a matter of fact was the seed for several substantial policy changes to Wikipedia over the years. I think this particular discussion could use the benefit of those previous deletion discussions, at least by reference.... but sadly I think it is going to take some admin tools to be able to find those discussions unless there is somebody who can help to find the previous deletion discussions in the AfD/FfD heap over the years. Some of those discussions are very early in Wikipedia history and even before the content archiving as separate pages, so it isn't a trivial task to accomplish.

I'm not asking somebody to do all of the work for me, but if there is some content history on the page of this name or a related page that has links to those discussions, I would appreciate either a comment on the Commons discussion with those links, putting those links on my talk page, or posting them here. This is a highly controversial image, and for the life of me I don't even know why it ended up on Commons in the first place, but that is a completely separate issue. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The local image has not been deleted, it is still there at File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg. Courcelles 04:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. It seems like a botched job then with its transfer to Commons. Thanks.... I appreciate it! --Robert Horning (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EEP! How did it get transferred to Commons. That should never have happened - it's still copyright.

Sandbox political spamming

99.99.156.73(talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Spamming Sandbox with political views. I have contacted the user multiple times on talk page and edit summary, with the phrases "Please stop putting your political views in the Sandbox" and—more strict—"Stop fucking with the Sandbox." Edit history.

"Diffs":

• [159]
• [160]
• [161]
• [162]
• [163]
• [164]
• [165]
• [166]
• [167]
• [168]
• [169]
• [170]
• [171]
• [172]
• [173]
• [174]
• [175]
• [176]
• [177]
• [178]
• [179]
• [180]

and more.

71.146.26.8 (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've given them a final warning. Once more and they will be blocked--they seem to have stopped, at least for now. Next time, please report such behavior at WP:AIV. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the content's not offensive, copyrighted or libelous, surely the sandbox is an acceptable place for these posts? Colonel Tom 05:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know this was considered vandalism, sorry about that. I surely think that most—if not all—users on Wikipedia don't appreciate people screwing around. 71.146.26.8 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no—they are spamming their political views, which will influence other newcomers' experiences' at Wikipedia. Adding to that, I believe that the beans would take effect. 71.146.26.8 (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They seem disruptive enough to me. If it wasn't in the sandbox, BTW, they'd have been blocked edits ago. Then again, Colonel Tom, maybe the matter is not so clear-cut. Perhaps, since there seems to be little dramah right now, the regulars can weigh in and start a fight. Bugs, you around? ;) Drmies (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this is a form of trolling, as he has provoked many anonymous IPs into inappropriately editing his texts. 71.146.26.8 (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a long-block for User: Shmayo

This user have since he became an editor here on Wikipedia, only contributed to Assyrian-related articles. He have started alot of edit- and revertwars. Just check his last contributes History, he have only been reverting articles, editing articles in order to raise a particular identity. He removes the term "Syriac" or "Aramean" in every article he finds, and replace it with "Assyrian". If the source clearly use the term "Syriac", then he either replace it with "Assyrian" or just adds the term "Assyrian" with the edit-comment "Neutralisation". He have started dozens of edit wars in Syriac related articles, but also in Chaldean-related articles. Just to describe the situation between Syriacs, Assyrians and Chaldeans; Three names for a same group. Some consider themselves "Syriacs" ad trace it roots back to the ancient Arameans. The other group consider themselves "Assyrians" and trace their roots back to the ancient Assyrians. The last group consieder themselves "Chaldeans" and trace their roots back to the ancient Chaldeans. It is an on-going war between them, especially here in Wikipedia in all articles related to this group. User Shmayo is seriously contributing to this on-going war here in Wikipedia, just check his History History and his talkpage Talk, it us full of warnings and debates from alot of users and administrators. He keeps starting editwars, he breaks the 3RR rule, he is guarding articles, he moves page without even discussing them, he is stalking users, edit warring in alot of articles. He keeps removing the name "Aramean" from articles and replaces it with Assyrian even if it was backed up with source he also removes the source, just because that name does not "fit" him 1, 2, 3 just for examples. All his edits can be found in his contribution-history, and all warnings and debates and everything can be found on his talkpage. His recent "contribution" were made on this article Syrianska FC. I was asked in January this year, to remake the whole article about Syrianska FC on Wikipedia, since the team got promoted from Second-division to first-division in Sweden. They wanted an article full with information and sources, and improvements to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. This was the version before i contributed Version 1, and this is the version after my contributions Version 2. I really made a huge improvement for the article, also with help from user Reckless. Then User: Shmayo came to this article and started his editwars. This was his contribution; Contribution. He removed alot from the intro, just becase a specific name did not fit him, without even discussing it on the articles talkpage. I everything backed up with sources on that article. Also, 2 months ago me and two other users on wikipedia agreed on the current version. We had a discussion about some things on the article, and at last we agreed to remove and rewrite some things, and then result was the current version. We did even not to ask for a third opinion notice from an administrator since we all already agreed. But this User: Shmayo, he does not discuss or provide sources, he just vandalize and have been keep doing this for the last two years. I suggest an administrator revert all his recent edits, and maybe time for a permanent ban? SYRIANIEN (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you think they missed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#I_suggest_a_long-block_for_User:_Shmayo, or what is your purpose copy-pasting this just a couple days after? Shmayo (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, i dont know how everything works if an reported incident is being archived. I suggest we let the administrators solve it, if it is wrongly replaced here then an administrator can handle it. SYRIANIEN (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for how you should do are written under "How to use this page". Shmayo (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okey. Well still waiting for an admin to read. SYRIANIEN (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins will have read it, and they've probably just ignored it. This looks to be petty nationalistic editing and content wars; I'd advise you head to WP:Dispute resolution or somewhere else for further attention. GiantSnowman 12:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Removal of POV and COAT templates on page Jehovah's Witnesses Beliefs

I have an issue on the page [181] where I placed a {{POV}} dispute template on the page as well as a {{coatrack}} template. User user:Jeffro77 deleted the template's without allowing time for discussion after I indicated a few days (December 31st) ago that I wouldn't be able to start addressing the multiple issues with the page for a few days. The template clearly says editors are not to remove the template until the dispute is settled. I would like someone to put it back forthwith and warn the editor that his actions are inappropriate. This editor has already orchestrated the removal of a AFD tag on the page after a matter of only a few hours and now feels he can remove the POV dispute tags as well without discussion. Please address asap...thanks.Willietell (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I restored them, go and start a section on the talk page. This is what you are meant to do immediately upon tagging an article. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That section has already been started, it was started immediately after tagging the article.Willietell (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk rubbish. The tag was added on December 30;[182]; only today have you initiated any real discussion about your specific concerns, following repeated requests by other users to explain your motivation. [183][184][185] You have been complaining for weeks that the article is "all lies" and should be deleted and on those occasions too, you have steadfastly refused to detail your concerns so they can be discussed and addressed. Your recent tagging the page as an attack page, and then as a coatrack, gave every evidence of being part of the same strategy -- make an accusation, then run away. People just get tired of your games. BlackCab (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has been claiming for weeks that the article is biased, and has been requested for weeks to indicate the specifics about what he believes to be biased. He refused, repeatedly, even claiming that other editors should just know what he thinks is biased.[186] He was again requested to provide specifics, and he replied that he won't do anything for another week and a half, so I removed the templates.[187]

The editor has also been disruptive, as several anonymous IPs, at Chronology of the Bible. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spudpicker_01/Archive

Willietell also cited the template use: The template clearly says editors are not to remove the template until the dispute is settled. It seemed entirely appropriate to remove the templates, because no specific dispute had been raised. Now that he's bothered to actually state his concerns with the article (when it's in his advantage to complain about me removing the templates, invalidating his prior claim that he would not be able to do so for over a week), I have no problem with restoring the templates. When I removed the templates in the first instance,I specifically stated that the templates should be re-added once any actual objections were raised.[188]--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moonshiners (TV series)

Hello, on that article that I created, it has a copyright notice(the one that blanks the whole page) that it is in violation of copyright and to fix with an admin. Only the "Cast" section is in violation and that should be removed. I had no idea until the big notice popped up and when I checked it was right. However, the notice says nothing should be modified until this is cleared up with an admin, so right now I'm requesting that the "Cast" section be deleted and the notice removed. Thank you! P.S. the revision before the cast section is here however, I recommend that it just be manually removed because some typos were fixed in the main section after that. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've compared the contents of the article to the Discovery website, and Ramaksoud2000 is correct, it's only the "Cast" section which is a copyvio and should be removed. The lede is not even a close paraphrase of the website's "About Show" section, it's a completely new description of the show. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin out there? Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage patience - there's no deadline for anything here. I have edited the pre-copyvio-tagged version, removing the CAST section, as per BMK (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Fastily

Fastily deleted article Alexey Pivovarov (he IS notable!) and ignored me and all my arguments on his talk page. He insists on speaking with me only through some strange link. Please revert his vandalism and let me rebuilt this useful and interesting article.--RussianLiberal (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Vandalism - "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." Bulwersator (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• And you should start with discussion on his talk page rather than create thread here Bulwersator (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Bulwersator (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I did!--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • you never edited User talk:Fastily except information about this thread Bulwersator (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can see, there have been no discussions between RussianLiberal and Fastily on either editor's Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I am IP there!
  • Please provide diff with your polite request Bulwersator (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Alexey Pivovarov was deleted using PROD so article will be restored on request. Bulwersator (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• So I request, claim, blame and ask.--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No claim or blame is appropriate. A polite request on Fastily's talk page is. LadyofShalott 10:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• He ignored me so I will better not come there - want to insult him--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BOOMERANG? Bulwersator (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• He has not ignored you - you have to give people at least a little response time. You never asked him nicely - your first words to him were "revenge for vandalizing the article". I suggest you delete those words, and ask him to restore the article. This thread should never have been opened. LadyofShalott 10:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See! As an IP I asked him! As an IP! So I will not delete my true words - if you want ban me. I will make Pivovarov again and bite everybody who will attack it again--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, you need to show us exactly which edit you made. It's no good just saying "IP" and expecting us to know from that. Now that you have said "Pivovarov", I presume your message was User_talk:Fastily#Alexey Pivovarov. Fastily responded with a link to User:Fastily/E#PROD, which says "This article was deleted via the PROD process. You may request that the page be restored, but you are advised to be ready to improve the article and remedy the problems for which it was originally deleted. Otherwise, you run the risk of having the article deleted again or nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, in which deletion may become more permanent". That's a perfectly reasonable response, and is most definitely not the "vandalism" that you went on to accuse him of. And if you carry on in this beligerent manner, it's *you* who is likely to be sanctioned -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you have recreated Alexey Pivovarov now. Please be aware that it currently contains no indication of importance, and neither did the previously deleted version. If you don't adjust it to at least make a credible claim of importance, it is likely to be speedy deleted. And if you do not make it comply with the notability requirements of WP:BIO, it will at the very least be taken to WP:AfD for deletion discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Nobody to write articles, everybody want to delete... bureaucrats--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously it is untrue Bulwersator (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• While we are looking at this editor, should something be done about this ? Mtking ^(edits) 10:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've deleted it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Now Pivovarov is normal? Notable? Is it time to remove ugly shield?--RussianLiberal (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss that on Talk:Alexey Pivovarov, not here. Nobody Ent 12:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low volume but persistent spammer

Check out Special:Contributions/111.118.183.121. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued a final warning - please feel free to give me a shout if you see it happen again, and I'll follow up on it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block request for user:Meryam90

Reference to the page Don2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_2:_The_King_is_Back and its discussion page .

The user Meryam90 (talk) is totally unaware of wikipedia guidelines and the meaning of the word vandalism . She has been warned by many wiki editors in the past about her continuous use of removal of others comments citing vandalism . She is the editor at Don2 page and is so ridiculous that she wants to use a tweet of the worst trade expert in India - Taran Adarsh and his pathetic site "bollywoodhungama.com" for reporting box-office collections . Consensus on the SOLE USE of BoxofficeIndia.com (BOI)- the premier site on box-office collections in India has been made long ago ; and every Bollywood movie (hindi movie ) main infobox uses BOI numbers . So using any other site or especially a tweet on the twitter-networking site from a useless trade analyst is highly unacceptable and lame . Moreover , if you observe the view history of that article closely , you can easily see that the editor is making personal comments on me and using vandalism as a totally unnecessary tool here . I deleted the BO-figures n gross from the info-box and she starts harrassing and attacking me after undoing my edits . She seems to be a huge Shah Rukh Khan( a bollywood actor ) fangirl who wants to control his every film article . So , it happens to be the obvious case here , that the INFOBOX on his 2 latest movies reads box-office numbers from useless sites other than BOI. First , she abused all editors on the Raone discussion page regarding bo figures (btw which are still not according to BOI ) and now in case of Don2 she wants to degrade the standards of Wikipedia by using a lame tweet for box-office figures that too in main infobox .

So , Ra.one and Don2 (both ShahRukhKhan movies ) have now become the only movies in Hindi cinema that are using pathetic and lame sources other than BOI ; whereas all other (THOUSANDS OF )movies use BOI . This is unfair to all those movies .

So , i request an immediate BLOCK for this user for spoiling the integrity of Wikipedia for giving out box-office collections for hindi films FROM FAKE SITES as well as for using vandalism as an unnecessary tool for deleting and undoing others edts plus attacking me .

Thanks .Seeta mayya (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has the user had at least 2 or 3 previous warnings? --Ta, Chip123456 (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You never warned them about this thread. --GuerilleroMy Talk 17:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked both of you for edit warring. This seems like a case of WP:BOOMERANG --Guerillero My Talk 17:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with a BLP violator

An IP-hopping editor continues to post stuff that refers to someone he fancies as his girlfriend on facebook or some such. The articles he's hit so far have been semi-protected. The talk pages also need to be semi'd. This includes Talk:Claudia Black and Talk:Name-dropping‎. A third talk page, about Rango (2011 film), has already been semi'd short-term. Rango is where this started, in late November or so. That article history has a number of items rev-del'd. Probably ALL of the references need to be rev-del'd on those 3 talk pages. However, they should first be semi'd, the keep the IP from re-adding it. Thank you, all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Bugs and I have some discussion on my talk page on this but probably better to carry on here. I blocked the IP most recently being used by this vandal for 48 hours, without warnings because of the long history of IP-hopping abuse.) My concern is that he's already shown through his edits on name-dropping that he's a very persistent long-term vandal, so short-term blocks aren't going to help much. And is it really appropriate to semiprotect a talk page on a long term basis? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you've seen, he's had 2 IP's just in the last 10 minutes. And he's also got a tendency to post the Nazi flag, which is why he hit up me and Tenebrae before we had our own talk pages semi'd (which is within the conventional rules). I know they hate to block talk pages, but doesn't real-life BLP concern override that rule? ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 07:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I at least semi'd the black and name-dropping talk pages for a week, to match the protection already in place for Rango's talk page. That doesn't seem so long as to be particularly harmful to me and should give us time to discuss the issue properly without being distracted by stomping out fires. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to square with Favonian's protection of Rango. He had expressed the same reservations about blocking a talk page. We need some more heads on this one. If it was gard-variety vandalism, it wouldn't matter. But this is a BLP issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs is correct in his concerns, and only giving the tip of the iceberg. As I noted at Wikipedia:Abuse response/58.178.101.246, he's been blocked five times (though because he's jumped from 58.178 IPs to a couple of other IPs, he evaded censure).

He has vandalized and harassed continually from a 58.178 and 58.179 range including:

• 58.178.101.246
• 58.178.158.6
• 58.178.143.164
• 58.179.151.44,
• 58.178.154.119, and
• 58.179.132.246, as well as 210.50.115.243, [which has made the same distinctive "Angelique Carrington" edits]

He has been blocked at

• 58.178.101.246,
• 58.178.145.167 and
• 58.178.150.189

as well as at

• 203.212.133.140, and
• on Dec. 7, 2011 at 210.50.42.209 [which have made the same distinctive "Angelique Carrington" edits]

As late as December 28, 2011, he was making Nazi-related vandal edits through yet another 58.178 IP, 58.178.158.166.

I hope this raw data helps in reaching a conclusion about the best way to deal with this persistent serial vandal who has shown no sign of relenting even after several months. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the magnitude of the problem, I guess we have to semi the talk pages. Given the persistence of this particular pest, we may even have to extend the protection, which I know will rub some people the wrong way, but Bugs is right: BLP trumps the right of IPs to edit freely. Favonian (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with this is that we can't semi every talk page on Wikipedia. Why aren't we just using the abuse filter? causa sui (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an abuse filter report may be indicated here. Further details in that regard should probably be taken to the appropriate place off-wiki (which unfortunately I don't know exactly what it is) for WP:BEANS type reasons. In addition, although we are trying to use fewer rangeblocks to avoid collateral damage, if it would be useful to explore that possibility, if the abuse-filter approach doesn't work then this possibility can be raised with the checkuser team. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I'm not aware of anywhere to process edit filter requests except WP:EF/R. I'm drafting something there now. causa sui (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a long-block for User: Shmayo

This user have since he became an editor here on Wikipedia, only contributed to Assyrian-related articles. He have started alot of edit- and revertwars. Just check his last contributes History, he have only been reverting articles, editing articles in order to raise a particular identity. He removes the term "Syriac" or "Aramean" in every article he finds, and replace it with "Assyrian". If the source clearly use the term "Syriac", then he either replace it with "Assyrian" or just adds the term "Assyrian" with the edit-comment "Neutralisation". He have started dozens of edit wars in Syriac related articles, but also in Chaldean-related articles. Just to describe the situation between Syriacs, Assyrians and Chaldeans; Three names for a same group. Some consider themselves "Syriacs" ad trace it roots back to the ancient Arameans. The other group consider themselves "Assyrians" and trace their roots back to the ancient Assyrians. The last group consieder themselves "Chaldeans" and trace their roots back to the ancient Chaldeans. It is an on-going war between them, especially here in Wikipedia in all articles related to this group. User Shmayo is seriously contributing to this on-going war here in Wikipedia, just check his History History and his talkpage Talk, it us full of warnings and debates from alot of users and administrators. He keeps starting editwars, he breaks the 3RR rule, he is guarding articles, he moves page without even discussing them, he is stalking users, edit warring in alot of articles. He keeps removing the name "Aramean" from articles and replaces it with Assyrian even if it was backed up with source he also removes the source, just because that name does not "fit" him 1, 2, 3 just for examples. All his edits can be found in his contribution-history, and all warnings and debates and everything can be found on his talkpage. His recent "contribution" were made on this article Syrianska FC. I was asked in January this year, to remake the whole article about Syrianska FC on Wikipedia, since the team got promoted from Second-division to first-division in Sweden. They wanted an article full with information and sources, and improvements to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. This was the version before i contributed Version 1, and this is the version after my contributions Version 2. I really made a huge improvement for the article, also with help from user Reckless. Then User: Shmayo came to this article and started his editwars. This was his contribution; Contribution. He removed alot from the intro, just becase a specific name did not fit him, without even discussing it on the articles talkpage. I everything backed up with sources on that article. Also, 2 months ago me and two other users on wikipedia agreed on the current version. We had a discussion about some things on the article, and at last we agreed to remove and rewrite some things, and then result was the current version. We did even not to ask for a third opinion notice from an administrator since we all already agreed. But this User: Shmayo, he does not discuss or provide sources, he just vandalize and have been keep doing this for the last two years. I suggest an administrator revert all his recent edits, and maybe time for a permanent ban? SYRIANIEN (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you think they missed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#I_suggest_a_long-block_for_User:_Shmayo, or what is your purpose copy-pasting this just a couple days after? Shmayo (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, i dont know how everything works if an reported incident is being archived. I suggest we let the administrators solve it, if it is wrongly replaced here then an administrator can handle it. SYRIANIEN (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for how you should do are written under "How to use this page". Shmayo (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okey. Well still waiting for an admin to read. SYRIANIEN (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins will have read it, and they've probably just ignored it. This looks to be petty nationalistic editing and content wars; I'd advise you head to WP:Dispute resolution or somewhere else for further attention. GiantSnowman 12:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Removal of POV and COAT templates on page Jehovah's Witnesses Beliefs

I have an issue on the page [189] where I placed a {{POV}} dispute template on the page as well as a {{coatrack}} template. User user:Jeffro77 deleted the template's without allowing time for discussion after I indicated a few days (December 31st) ago that I wouldn't be able to start addressing the multiple issues with the page for a few days. The template clearly says editors are not to remove the template until the dispute is settled. I would like someone to put it back forthwith and warn the editor that his actions are inappropriate. This editor has already orchestrated the removal of a AFD tag on the page after a matter of only a few hours and now feels he can remove the POV dispute tags as well without discussion. Please address asap...thanks.Willietell (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I restored them, go and start a section on the talk page. This is what you are meant to do immediately upon tagging an article. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That section has already been started, it was started immediately after tagging the article.Willietell (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk rubbish. The tag was added on December 30;[190]; only today have you initiated any real discussion about your specific concerns, following repeated requests by other users to explain your motivation. [191][192][193] You have been complaining for weeks that the article is "all lies" and should be deleted and on those occasions too, you have steadfastly refused to detail your concerns so they can be discussed and addressed. Your recent tagging the page as an attack page, and then as a coatrack, gave every evidence of being part of the same strategy -- make an accusation, then run away. People just get tired of your games. BlackCab (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has been claiming for weeks that the article is biased, and has been requested for weeks to indicate the specifics about what he believes to be biased. He refused, repeatedly, even claiming that other editors should just know what he thinks is biased.[194] He was again requested to provide specifics, and he replied that he won't do anything for another week and a half, so I removed the templates.[195]

The editor has also been disruptive, as several anonymous IPs, at Chronology of the Bible. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spudpicker_01/Archive

Willietell also cited the template use: The template clearly says editors are not to remove the template until the dispute is settled. It seemed entirely appropriate to remove the templates, because no specific dispute had been raised. Now that he's bothered to actually state his concerns with the article (when it's in his advantage to complain about me removing the templates, invalidating his prior claim that he would not be able to do so for over a week), I have no problem with restoring the templates. When I removed the templates in the first instance,I specifically stated that the templates should be re-added once any actual objections were raised.[196]--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moonshiners (TV series)

Hello, on that article that I created, it has a copyright notice(the one that blanks the whole page) that it is in violation of copyright and to fix with an admin. Only the "Cast" section is in violation and that should be removed. I had no idea until the big notice popped up and when I checked it was right. However, the notice says nothing should be modified until this is cleared up with an admin, so right now I'm requesting that the "Cast" section be deleted and the notice removed. Thank you! P.S. the revision before the cast section is here however, I recommend that it just be manually removed because some typos were fixed in the main section after that. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've compared the contents of the article to the Discovery website, and Ramaksoud2000 is correct, it's only the "Cast" section which is a copyvio and should be removed. The lede is not even a close paraphrase of the website's "About Show" section, it's a completely new description of the show. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin out there? Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage patience - there's no deadline for anything here. I have edited the pre-copyvio-tagged version, removing the CAST section, as per BMK (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low volume but persistent spammer

Check out Special:Contributions/111.118.183.121. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued a final warning - please feel free to give me a shout if you see it happen again, and I'll follow up on it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chairvoyance breaking 3RR (possible sock also)

The following user has constantly been reverting edits on only one article since account was created. blanked talk page of warnings, only recently created an account and only edits on C.S. Lewis, also possibly a sock.

See evidence here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C._S._Lewis&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chairvoyance TheFortunateSon (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe you're looking for WP:AN/EW. Being that the last actions were 2 days ago it's not an immediate need (and likely to be dismissed on grounds of being stale). Hasteur (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok thanks, if it happens again then there will be consequences. TheFortunateSon (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that sounds like a threat (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Bwilkins--let's not start throwing those kinds of threats around. This kind of thing might be more helpful. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A threat? Heavens forbid somebody gets 'threatened' with non-legal, non-violent wikipedia action as a result of their actions..., put the thinking cap on, its a warning, do I need to spell that out for some of you? I can assume that you know what happens to a sockpuppet or an editor who breaks the 3RR? I hope you do anyway, you never know with some admins these days.TheFortunateSon (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And happy new year to you too. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You too, bye now. TheFortunateSon (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Sheodred/FortunateSon is now indef-blocked by EdJohnston for "Long term warring on the nationality of BLP subjects who were born in Northern Ireland." Clairvoyance, meanwhile, has been deemed a likely match to User:Freyno, indef-blocked as a sock of User:PowerSane. That likeliness is good enough for me: I'm blocking them for quacking like Freyno and PowerSane (I've already blocked two IPs this morning). ANI brings out the best in us, doesn't it? BTW, FortunateSon was right about the socking issue! Thanks to EdJohnston and Tnxman307. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issue and legal threat

I will be logging off shortly but am in the middle of pulling out some BLP-violating material from both Kevin Gage (actor) and Talk:Kevin Gage (actor) where an editor claiming to be the subject has left a legal threat. Could another admin please take a look and I can pick it back up if need be when I'm back? Thanks, Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone passing by: please don't just blindly block. The subject is clearly acting in good faith, and I think that otrswiki:Response:En-BLP advice for article subjects-style advice might be helpful. NW(Talk) 23:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't blocked him, I have talked to him, but OTRS would be of no help here, as what he wants to add is (a) allegations about a fit-up by the local flics with regard to the hash bust and (b) information about the state of health of the actor's current wife. I note also that around this time last year, an IP editor started adding a heap of unsourced information to the article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. Thanks for stepping in Elen of the Roads. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I was suggesting a response pointing the user towards policies rather than blocking, which you seem to have handled nicely. Looks like we're all set here. NW(Talk) 02:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I misread what you said, thought you were recommending that he contact OTRS, which is of course the correct advice where someone wants something removed from an article about them. Apologies. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know where to ask this so

I'm asking here. I just removed a copyright violation from Ladies vs Ricky Bahl. Is this all that needs to be done? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I revdel'd the copyright violations.--v/r - TP 21:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you did everything right here, including reporting it (so that the copyvio could be deleted from the history). Thanks. causa sui (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by 74.56.51.128

IP address 74., Please take a moment and read all of the policies and guidelines people are quoting at you. For reference there is Verifiablity, Reliable Sources, No Personal Attacks, Civility, I didn't hear that, and 5 Pillars of Wikipedia. While Rehevkor was less than civil on a few occasions to you, your continued personal attacks and refusal to stop and understand what good intentioned editors are trying to tell you only pre-disposes other editors to believe other people over you. Please take a break from the current conflict to see if your actions have not been slightly over the top. Hasteur (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More harassment by user:JesseRafe

Previous ANI discussion

I recently reported user:JesseRafe here for wikistalking me, after he followed me around reverting my edits and referring to them as vandalism in his edit summaries. It was explained to him during the original discussion here that edits are not vandalism simply because he does not like them. I also posted a notice to his page about accusing other editors of vandalism without good cause. Now, he has gone to the talk pages of 5 different editors (so far) and told them individually that I am a vandal and to keep an eye on the page in dispute (presumably so he can circumvent 3rr by having others undo my edits for him, by misleading them into believing that I am a vandal). This is clearly harassment.

The original notice I posted to his page about not calling constructive editors vandals: [197]

The original complaint about his harassing behaviour: [198]

His recent edits to users talk pages telling them that I am vandalising a page they have contributed to: [199] [200] [201] [202] [203]. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on closing comments at previous discussion and Jesse's subsequent behavior, in my view, a block is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user has refused consensus, compromise and civility, and to boot, has resorted to wiki-stalking me! The charge he or she initially and unfoundedly levied upon me, going out of his or her way to edit articles and undo changes I have made on articles I have years of history editing. This is absurd that I should be the one blocked, look at how unnecessary this user's edits have been and poorly formatted/lazy they are to alphabetize a list, yet they have the time to follow me around the internet. Absurd. JesseRafe (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you are running all over Wikipedia labeling the editor a vandal after being told not to use that term unless it clearly applied because ...?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting entire referenced sections is not vandalism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking.2C_illegitimate What else would I call it? Notice in the history 1) that many other editors undid the anon IP's edits, and 2) the anon IP's uncivil discourse towards other editors - and I, a trusted, long-time editor should be the one to be banned? Are you serious? JesseRafe (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't deleted referenced material. Only unreferenced material. I'm not being uncivil. You are being uncivil by calling me a vandal and lazy. Other editors only undid my edits after you falsely called them vandalism in an edit summary, giving people the impression that they ought to be reverted. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not completely accurate. You have reverted material with citations. Here's one example: [204]. --Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read those links you'll see that nowhere do any of them mention nominative determinism. All they do is mention the existence of the persons listed, they do not say anything about their names leading to their professions, so they are not references for nominative determinism. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, if you read the article you would see it said it was a theory that it could be, and thus these were examples, no one ever said it was a fact that their names caused their professions. Just examples of people whom the application of the theory could be applied to. And there mere existence is a primary source, so they belong to be entered on the page. JesseRafe (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that part of policy doesn't support your position. The IP is not removing material without explaining why. Vandalism of that sort is usually clearly destructive (a silent removal of sourced material, for example). Also, I might point out that both you and the IP are edit-warring in the Nominative determinism article, and each of you has already violated WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the overall issue, but to comment only on the disputed content at the Nominative determinism article - I was looking at that article and I agree with the IPs removal - there is a OR issue there and Jesse is replacing with a reason of self-evident examples of a theory. The article intro states, "a person's name can have a significant role in determining key aspects of job, profession or even character." and then there is a list of uncited names that no one has made this association about in a reliable source. Youreallycan (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, your attitude toward the IP is condescending. First, you continually refer to him as an "anon IP", which is redundant and can only serve to emphasize that s/he is not registered. Second, you call yourself a "trusted, long-time editor", which actually doesn't help you as, if anything, you should be held to a higher standard for understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Finally, although the issues may be interrelated, the block (not "ban") you deserve, in my view, is separate from any possible sanction against the IP, but, thus far, the only thing I see is edit-warring, which you are equally guilty of.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true, when the IP made the unfounded allegations the other day I stopped out of the 3RR rule. The edits today were new edits, first based on wholesale content removal by IP and then by me with a selective amount of content restored, i.e. I didn't merely undo, but pared the list down. The IP is just continuing to delete on principle. And also, might I add, he or she is ironically enough wikistalking me, randomly undoing some of my edits on other pages, such as Ghost Dog. I'll stop using the label vandal, but is that really the problem here? Not the arrogance of the IP to insult and curse at other editors and ignore consensus? JesseRafe (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was provide a reference for a previously uncited fact in the article... A reference you promptly deleted on the grounds that it was "sloppy". 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's provably false. I undid someone else's unconstructive edit that was in poor style and not well said, and you undid my edit of that (assumedly out of spite, i.e. wikistalking because you had never edited that article before) and you undid that with a citation, but I did not remove the content because it was uncited, but because that information did not belong in the soundtracl area and in fact, already was in the right place of the article in the cast section.JesseRafe (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I count 4 reverts by you today for the purpose of the rule (and there's always edit-warring even without the rule). Stop focusing on what IP has done and focus on what you did before the first ANI topic and then in between the close of that topic and the opening of this one. How could you so quickly ignore the counsel of so many editors not to use the vandal label?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you actually looked at the edit history? The IP just says "fuck yourself" to me in an edit summary undoing my edit for the first time (which is what got me to notice the IP in the first place and think he might be a vandal because of the language used) and then you cite IDHT to me to admonish me? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. The IP refuses to get the point, because while I was away from wikipedia during the holidays no less than 3 other editors undid IP's edits only for the IP to undo them again. So which of us is not getting the point about the status of this article? And who deserves the ban? I can't believe the IP was able to manipulate this into being about me? Look at my edits, I don't engage in edit warring, but do a lot of work fixing vandalism and making underserved articles much better. JesseRafe (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "fuck yourself" comment is old and was part of the first ANI topic. The IP was admonished not to attack editors during the topic. Yet, the IP has not ignored that admonishment. OTOH, you have ignored the counsel of others.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... I told you to go fuck yourself because you referred to my constructive edits as vandalism in an edit summary. How can you possibly claim that it "is what got me to notice the IP in the first place and think he might be a vandal because of the language used". The language was used after you called me a vandal. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I assume the 2 (which is less than 3) editors that reverted me did so at least partially based on the fact that you called me a vandal, and they assumed that you wouldn't have called me a vandal without first checking to see whether I was or not. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm more than a little offended this is still happening. Look at the IP's talk page, and how he or she has a history of edit warring and warnings for other articles. Why has no warning been put there for this time? Why am I the only one targeted by the IP's viscous character attack? This is absurd that he or she breaks multiple rules and I try to maintain the integrity of wikipedia, but the IP complains first and loudest and gets what they want. JesseRafe (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're going in circles. I'll let other editors weigh in on your conduct and your self-deflecting complaints.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I commented at the last ANI discussion of this issue (to the effect that the IP is right and that JesseRafe has incorrectly used "vandal"). It is disappointing that JesseRafe shows no signs of understanding what multiple editors have tried to explain, and something needs to happen to ensure the IP is left to continue their good edits unhindered (I haven't checked many of their edits, just enough to see that the IP is at least sometimes correct, and I don't see any credible claims of a bad edit). JesseRafe has unfortunately got a little personally involved in the dispute (hint: adding unsourced examples because they are "self-evident examples" is original research—has a secondary source examined all the people named "Fish" and determined whether an unusual proportion of them are marine biologists?). Can we agree that the matter is too trivial to warrant a formal interaction ban, but there must be no further interference. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, this is completely Kafkaesque. As I explained before I was suspicious about the IP when he cursed at me and selectively (not systematically) examined some of the IP edits (because how could I know it was even one person?) and then undid some of his other more spurious edits. Then, the IP began wikistalking me! I have been making edits at the Ghost Dog page for years, and the IP out of spite then begins to undo my edits there. And I long ago apologized for calling him a vandal. I apparently misunderstood that blanking entire sections is not considered vandalism anymore. Also, please note that this IP is the only one who holds this view on ND and that other editors have also undone the IP's edits, and the IP has a history of being warned about engaging in edit wars, whereas I have not. What is the issue? OK, he's not a vandal, but he needs to be blocked from the page (or the page should be protected) because he is ignoring consensus. Let's focus on the big picture and what needs to be done to stop disruption. JesseRafe (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "I was suspicious about the IP when he cursed at me". No. I cursed at you after you called me a vandal in an edit summary where you reverted one of my constructive edits.

• "I have been making edits at the Ghost Dog page for years, and the IP out of spite then begins to undo my edits there". You need to read WP:OWN. I didn't undo any of your edits. You removed some material, which I then tracked down a reference for, and reinserted with the reference. I did not do this out of spite. You then deleted the reference.
• "IP is the only one who holds this view on ND and that other editors have also undone the IP's edits". Other editors reverted my edits (once each) after you falsely marked my edits as vandalism.
• "IP has a history of being warned about engaging in edit wars, whereas I have not". I have warned you for edit warring, and you immediately removed the warnings.
• "he needs to be blocked from the page (or the page should be protected) because he is ignoring consensus". Consensus and "the version you want" are not the same thing. By your logic, you need to be blocked because you ignore WP:OR and WP:CIV. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem, that you completely miscategorize my edits and libel me on these boards and admins who only superficially examine the issue somehow get fooled by your conniving.

1. I labeled you a vandal under a misunderstanding. Previously anyone who blanked an entire section was marked a vandal, and this must have changed. Your edit appeared to be vandalism as it was unexplained wanton deletion. I apologized for this multiple times. Furthermore, one instance of a simple mistake does not warrant being told "to go fuck [my]self" -- that's the most clear and egregious breach of wikipedia policy committed by either of us.

2. Your defense about Ghost Dog is so wrong it's almost funny. You did follow me there, how can you say you didn't? And you did undo my edits. I deleted it because it was spurious unencyclopedic content and I deleted it before I even knew it was the same person (again, you're using an anonymous IP address - how can I know who you are or bother to memorize a long string of random numbers?). I had never interacted with you on the Ghost Dog page before, and had no reason to suspect it would be the same person from Nominative Determinism following me there to undo my constructive edits out of spite. And yes, I removed the reference, because it was a reference attached to a phrase that did not belong in the article at all, as it contributed nothing to the page, was redundant information and was about the cast (where the same information was already listed) and not the soundtrack (because the sentence fragment and reference was about the cast, not the soundtrack).

3. It is conjecture on your part what the motives of the other editors were. But it is still fact that they reverted your edits, which speaks for itself, whether or not they independently found your edits inappropriate (likely) or based on my say-so (which is doubtful, as must editors examine a page's changes before reverting).

4. I don't think you know what consensus means. Other editors have also been undoing your edits. It's the version of the article they want too. You're the only one who doesn't understand consensus is not the version that they themselves want. And the policy on OR is not applicable here because it deals with primary sources that are self-evident, not research. And bringing up CIV? You? "Mr. Go Fuck Yourself"? Too ironic for me to comment on. JesseRafe (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. "I labeled you a vandal under a misunderstanding. ". You called me a vandal at least 9 times, 5 of which were after other editors had explained to you that my actions did not constitute vandalism.

2. "I had never interacted with you on the Ghost Dog page before, and had no reason to suspect it would be the same person from Nominative Determinism following me there to undo my constructive edits out of spite. And yes, I removed the reference, because it was a reference attached to a phrase that did not belong in the article at all, as it contributed nothing to the page, was redundant information and was about the cast (where the same information was already listed) and not the soundtrack (because the sentence fragment and reference was about the cast, not the soundtrack)." How is referencing information not contributing to the page? How is it spiteful?

3. "It is conjecture on your part what the motives of the other editors were. But it is still fact that they reverted your edits, which speaks for itself". The idea that reverts speak for themselves is conjecture on your part.

4. "I don't think you know what consensus means. Other editors have also been undoing your edits." Undoing my edits, once, after you labelled them as vandalism. You are the only one who reverted my edits more than once.

5 "And the policy on OR is not applicable here because it deals with primary sources that are self-evident, not research." The policy on OR is always applicable. Otherwise anyone could decide that the material they wanted to add was "self evident".

6 "And bringing up CIV? You? "Mr. Go Fuck Yourself"? Too ironic for me to comment on.". You called me a vandal before I swore at you. People don't appreciate being insulted.

7 You shouldn't keep referring to my words as "libel". Give WP:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats a read. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Right, it was a misunderstanding about how the term "vandal" was being defined. I honestly thought your edit constituted vandalism. I then corrected myself. Moot, give it up.

2. You referenced information that was deleted. Once again, read what I said. It was not removed because it was unreferenced, it was removed because it was written poorly, redundant and in the wrong place. What was spiteful was that you had clearly followed me to that page to undo my edits. I.e. wikistalking me.

3. No, it is not. Another example of misunderstanding plain meaning. No matter how you look at it, your position is conjecture based on what you surmise their motives for undoing your edits was, while my position is to merely point to the fact that others have undone your edits to that page not just me. The former is idle speculation, the latter is a verifiable fact.

4. Perhaps I am the only one who has the page on their watchlist. Also, it is the holidays. Either way, irrelevant.

5. Once again, you don't understand the gist of the article and why this is NOT original research. No one ever advocated for including anything under the guise of OR, just that the self-evident in this case means they are primary sources.

6. One was an honest mistake and not an insult - it appeared to be vandalism, a statement, not a pejorative. You knowingly and willfully used obscenities in your edit summary, and your abrasive attitude implies you may be willing to do so again as you feel so justified in having done so.

7. Now you're just grasping at straws. How could I sue you? You're being silly. "Libel" is an objective assessment about you lying about me in printed form. That's libel. There need be no lawsuit or threat of legal action to accurately categorize written lies as "libel". JesseRafe (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Will someone please close this before the hole gets too deep. I have invited the IP to ask my opinion if the view of a third person is wanted on other articles. Johnuniq (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I'd like to, but there is plenty of evidence that Jesse is badmouthing the IP as a vandal, when clearly (see the previous ANI thread) they are not vandalizing. The "fuck off" comment has been dealt with as well: it was an understandable reaction to being called a vandal. The stalking evidence is more difficult, and I do not have the inclination right now to tabulate and compare edits. I propose the following: each editor stops undoing the other's edits. Plain and simple. Stay away from each other. There is no ownerships of articles; if IP wished to edit Ghost Dog they are welcome to do so--but IP, don't undo Jesse's edits, just for the sake of appearance. Moreover, if Jesse continues to send out notifications of IP's edits, Jesse should be blocked temporarily. Even if Jesse does not use the word vandal in such canvassing notices anymore, the intent is clear: to cast dispersion.

  The phrasing "this vandal's impact" is itself blockable, and if any other admin (following Bbb23's suggestion also) finds it so, they have my blessing. I won't do it right now, since hope springs eternal, but if IP presents any more evidence of being (unjustly) called a vandal, or of the suggestion of being accused of vandalism, just one more time, Jesse should be blocked for a week or more. Err on the side of caution, Jesse--for the life of me, I do not understand why the last ANI thread wasn't warning enough. I hope a few more editors will look at this. Johnuniq, thanks for your continued interest in this unsavory matter. IP, you have my apologies. I trust that Jesse will leave you alone, and if not, I'll block them myself, appearance or not. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Drmies's idea for how to handle this disagreement. Regardless of who is right, a dispute that is constantly taking up space on the admin boards will probably be ended in some way that won't please both of the participants. Self-restraint (by either party) is a good way to head off this outcome. There are two reports open at AN3 right now about this same case. I suggest not closing those reports until we see if Drmies's advice is being listened to by either party. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is good (I was suggesting the close in the hope that a little face-saving and some time might avert further problems). However, the above comments may give the impression that the IP has a significant responsibility in the issue—it would be fairer to tell JesseRafe to keep away from the IP. Another issue is some silly content being discussed at Talk:Nominative determinism where again JesseRafe is not understanding correct procedure—I am watching that, but have little patience for edit warring, particularly over such silliness, and it would be nice if an admin were to drop a hint that the article is fine the way the IP left it (with OR removed), rather than fully protecting the article as has happened. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, I hoped I was being careful enough here, walking a fine line (since "fuck off" is also not really OK, of course). For the sake of clarity: the IP was making constructive edits, lots of them, and no one should call them a vandal. I had a brief look at the discussion but am not knowledgeable enough (or, ahem, interested enough). Perhaps you can leave a note for the protecting admin? This one needs to go to sleep. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for this to be closed and for the article protection to stay—anything for peace and quiet, and it's likely that a few days of such peace and quiet will produce positive results. Johnuniq (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, didn't know there was such a thing as peace and quiet at Wikipedia, but one can always hope.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter editwarring

Timeshifter (talk · contribs · email) has made an addition on List of countries by income equality which three people have explained why it doesn't fit, and attempted to discuss on the talk page, with little success. Timeshifter continues to revert [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] instead of engaging in constructive discussion, despite warnings [212] [213]. This has been going on for a month. We need to somehow get him to understand that this is not acceptable and that he needs to start listening to others on the talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like clear edit-warring against several other editors, from an editor who has a block history for edit warring, so I've blocked for 48 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say, the block history is old, which is why this current block is short -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and I have declined his "admin abuse - if I don't get my way I'm leaving" unblock request. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on Talk:Usage share of web browsers

Hello,

I don't actually know whether this is a correct place for such discussion, please forgive if I'm wrong.

There has been a discussion at Talk:Usage share of web browsers about keeping median of the numbers in some tables. The discussion is quite lengthy and occupies almost entire talk page starting at Talk:Usage share of web browsers#Consensus on median in summary. It follows a mediation request ( here) and a similar discussion at Talk:Usage share of operating systems which resulted in the mentioned mediation request.

After a month has been passed, it seems to me and some other editors (diff) that consensus has been achieved: 12 !votes supporting (11 in the poll and User:Schapel who apparently supports it), 5 !votes opposing. The problem is that User:Useerup doesn't agree that a consensus has been achieved: he unilaterally tries to close the poll (diff) and edits the affected article to reflect his vision of consensus while also engaging in an edit war (diff, diff, diff). This follows his previous attempts to close polls with results favouring his opinion (diff, also see similar poll at Talk:Usage share of operating systems) which disrupted the ongoing discussions.

Here I kindly ask two things:

1. An experienced editor or administrator to investigate whether the poll at Talk:Usage share of web browsers#Consensus on median in summary has achieved consensus and indicate the result of the investigation in the talk page (e.g. by putting entire discussion under the banners usually used in deletion/move/rename discussions).
2. Investigate whether User:Useerup has engaged into disruptive editing (specifically WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) by repeatedly refusing to acknowledge a consensus opposite to his opinion.

Thanks. 1exec1 (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: This has also made the rounds to WP:DRN prior to going to MedCab Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing attention to this. When the discussion on the talk page

• came to a standstill and
• the poll had been open for 1 month and
• there still were significant opposing (as in opposing use of the median calculation) editors

It was fairly obvious that there was no consensus. This is not just a content dispute, rather it is a policy dispute where WP:OR and specifically WP:CALC has been designed to require consensus for the inclusion of "routine" calculations specifically to avoid original research. This requirement is set deliberately to keep WP:OR out. While the discussion has been ongoing, editors have edited the numbers and updated the offending calculations. User 1exec1 has entered WP:IDHT with respect to WP:CALC, a core content policy. If I was the only editor who had qualms about the median (and the "correction" of the sources' numbers) I can see how 1exec1 and Daniel.Cardenas could claim that I was a single hold-out and just being stubborn. But the fact remains that we are several editors who still oppose the use of the median, i.e. there is still no consensus. Combined with the very clear requirements of WP:CALC I feel justified in demanding that we continue this debate with the median and other correcting calculations removed until a consensus for re-adding them can be reached. As it is evident during the rounds this debate has taken both at WP:DRN, mediation cabal, RFCs I have shown good faith (and patience) and even suggested alternative representations in order to build consensus without using the median (see my suggested graph). By leaving the calculations in the article until a consensus can be reached is in contradiction to the very clear intentions of WP:CALC: To err on the side of caution when it comes to original research.--Useerup (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with many of your points. Not wanting to start another lengthy discussion I will only point out that consensus does not mean unanimity (second sentence in WP:CONSENSUS), this was pointed out to you before. You still don't accept that opposing party is minority (less than third off the participants in the poll) and push through your opinion. That is what WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is about. But let's wait for a third party to explicitly say whether there is consensus or not. 1exec1 (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then please read the first sentence and the third sentence; not just the second one. I never demanded that we came to a unanimous conclusion, and if I was the only one raising objections the situation would be different. But consensus takes into account all the proper concerns raised and ideally it arrives with an absence of objections. Consensus is not a majority vote, especially not when proponents inappropriately solicited uninformed opinions from visitors. There are still many legitimate concerns: Synthesis across multiple sources selected by editors, "correcting" numbers to allow for comparison, difference in sampling methods, differences in demographics. I believe that it is you who WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with respect to 1) the very clear policy of WP:CALC and 2) a number of significant objections raised by a significant number of editors. The situation with this article is untenable, as editors continue to update the calculations in dispute. Remember, the WP:BURDEN is on the editors adding or re-inserting content. --Useerup (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Useerup also requested temporary full page protection of the affected article, claiming the usual consensus has not been reached. 1exec1 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did that when Daniel.Cardenas immediately and repeatedly reverted my edits where I 1) removed the median calculations (per WP:CALC), 2) removed the "corrected" numbers where editors had taken it upon themselves WP:SYN to "reduce" numbers to make a calculation across multiple, disparate sources possible and 3) a graph based on the median numbers. I reverted back and requested page protection. This was before this request on this board was opened (or at least before I was aware of it).--Useerup (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that 2/3s is not consensus. I don't know why this got to ANI because ANI is not part of the dispute resolution process. Consensus is not a simple majority vote. IDHT doesn't apply here. Don't confuse agreeing with hearing. This belongs at the dispute resolution noticeboard, not here. This months-old dispute is really becoming WP:LAME.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have opened an RfC at Talk:Usage share of web browsers so we don't have to argue over this.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another revdel required

[214] I can find no source[215] to back this claim. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The IP editor has put this back into the article 3 times as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP to stop them for reinserting the information and rev-deleted the blatant BLP violations. Oversight may still be required... --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, this is a rare case where we can start with a 4im warning. causa sui (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source information inquiry for OTRS ticket # 2011111410022819

I need to know the authors of the following file and any other relevant information in order to process an OTRS Ticket:

File:EmilymarilynKevinBreak.JPG

Thank you for your time, MorganKevinJ^(talk) 22:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The file was originally created by User:Suzannegawel on October 29, 2011 with the edit summary "Emily Marilyn shot by http://www.KevinBreak.com photography". Is this the information you are looking for? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I need for now thank you, MorganKevinJ^(talk) 22:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dolovis gaming the system – again

User Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has over the past year or so been involved in several disputes over the topic of diacritics (which he wants to rid wikipedia of). The common pattern has been a display of battleground mentality by move-warring, edit-warring and gaming the system (via editing redirects, so that page moves would not be possible without the intervention of an admin). For this, he deservedly received a page move ban (which seems to have been lifted since). After receiving the ban, he immediately started peppering WP:RM with move requests, which would normally have a good chance of going through if no-one opposed noticed it, thereby obtaining the same end result. For this, he was banned from making move requests for a while.

See also the latest (?) major quarrels over diacritics on Talk:Dominik Halmosi and Talk:Ľubomír Višňovský.

Dolovis is now back to his old tricks, making deliberate "mistakes" while creating redirects with diacritics, prompting him to edit the redirects again, adding template "R from title with diacritics". Diffs: [216], [217], [218], [219]. This is exactly why he received the page move ban.

It seems to me that Dolovis is set on having his way in wikipedia, no matter what, kind of a WP:OWN for the whole topic of ice hockey. He displays a total disrespect for other editors, in effect dismissing the whole idea of consensus, hoping to eventually wear other editors down. I think it's time to discuss expanding the ban on Dolovis to at least a topic ban for ice hockey (which is where his contributions are the most controversial) – and to reinstate the move ban and the ban on WP:RM, if indeed they have been lifted.

I think it's safe to say that Dolovis's pattern of behavior indicates that he will never learn.

User is notified.

HandsomeFella (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Point of order: User:Dolovis has been wp:BLOCKed from editing for 1 week (until 17:47, 8 January 2012?) and cannot respond directly to any claims made here. See section: #Replies from User:Dolovis (far below) for responses copied from User_talk:Dolovis. -Wikid77 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already being discussed: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Controversial moves Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 10:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issues are related, but not the same. Dolovis is reporting Thomas280784 for "controversial" moves, I am reporting Dolovis for gaming the system – again. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not following, sorry ... are you saying the diacritic spellings are wrong, or that he should be making the diacritic spelling the stub and the ascii-7 (non diacritic) versions the direct? Nobody Ent 13:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This report is aimed at Dolovis's behavior. On the diacritics issue, my view is that since they exist, and since there are articles on people, places, etc, that use them in en-wiki, it should reflect them (i.e. use the diacritics) in the title too. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose any type of ban, on Dolovis. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you are supporting his behavior, which is what this report is aimed at? Is gaming the system allowed for diacritics-critics, but not others? Do not the rules apply equally to editors, regardless of views? HandsomeFella (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banning editors on either side of the dios dispute, will only add to the drama surrounding the topic. In future, go the RM route & there'll be less hassle. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer the question. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support his actions if the end result is limiting or eliminating diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious. That is an unreasonable position. Having rules that don't apply to all editors ... I'm ... speechless. You're advocating anarchy, do you know that? Say, is there any breach of rules (or law) that Dolovis could commit, that you wouldn't oppose sanctions against him for, as long as that furthersif it furthered his fight (and yours) against windmills diacritics? HandsomeFella (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HandsomeFella (geez.. some ego.. lol), GoodDay is well know for his strong pro-English national sentiments and Anglo-centric ideals, whether for better or for worse, that's my observation not a criticism. Simply put.. don't get drawn into a prolonged argument with him over this, you won't change his mind. On the flip side, I don't think a ban on Dolovis is necessary either. Just a firm bollocking, and told to read Wikipedia:DIACRITICS#Modified letters. I see this in the same way as British English vs American English – either use the strongest national tie, or if that fails, use whichever version of the article was created first, for the content, and redirect the other. In the end it's the same article. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you have to interrupt? Goodday was just a few replies from defining himself as the first-ever wiki-terrorist sympathizer. ;-) HandsomeFella (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a) that would be baiting, and b) "wiki-terrorist" might be seen as a personal attack, so best not use it. I wouldn't get too smug that Dolovis has not won his argument.. things can quickly boomerang on ANI if you get complacent. Besides, GoodDay would be cautious, as he already has restrictions in other areas and wouldn't want to make his situation worse. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, Dolovis is redirecting articles about hockey players whose names feature diacritics to titles without the diacritics (which is incorrect to start with as the thread above demonstrated) and then editing the redirect which prevents his action being reversed without administrative intervention. He has been warned about this before and instructed to refrain from this practice. I have blocked him for a week while further discussion can take place about what should be done long term. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the problem here -

• Dolovis creates Tomas Matousek [220] - which isn't correct as the guy is Swiss and his momma called him Tomáš Matoušek, and we can see above that the ice hockey guys are now agreeable to the use of diacritics for players outside of the main North american ice hockey league.
• Dolovis then creates Tomáš Matoušek as a redirct to Tomas Matousek [221], and edits the page to add {{tl:R from title with diacritics}}.
• This means that his redirect cannot be reverted, so User:Kajman87 attempts to make a mend by copying the content from Tomas Matousek to Tomáš Matoušek, which is of course not how it's supposed to be done, violates Wikipedia's content release licenses, and is going to take some poor admin several minutes to clean up.

This is just disruptive. It has been the subject of previous ANI discussions and Dolovis has only escaped sanction by agreeing not to do it again. I consider the week block a mere precautionary, and would recommend that the community discuss how to deal with this long term. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the really clear explanation. A ban of some sort seems appropriate. Nobody Ent 18:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long term solution: follow MOS guidelines. Use templates — Wikipedia:DIACRITICS#Modified letters and {{R from title without diacritics}}. Most standard English keyboards don't have easy ways to add accents, and not all native-English speakers are aware of every form of accent.. never mind incapable of creating them. So non-accented alternatives are necessary for searching which then redirect to the correct versions. It should be policy under ENGVAR to have unglyphed redirections of accented names to make it easier for everyone. See also recent RFC discussion: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfCMa®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problems at all with someone properly creating unglyphed redirects to all the versions with diacritics - as you and MOS both agree, it's very useful. It is the way Dolovis does things to attempt to prevent the creation of the article at the glyphed title that is disruptive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not terribly impressed by this. Dolovis and I have rarely gotten along, but I did support his request to have his page move ban lifted because he claimed to recognize how such behaviour was disruptive, and promised to cease making such edits. Hopefully the block serves as a reminder that these kinds of actions won't go unnoticed. Resolute 19:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that these latest articles are all participants in the World Junior Hockey Championship, which is currently ongoing. Dolovis created them (typically with almost no information or value) so that he can dictate that the articles start without diacritics. If you wish to consider the IIHF's official literature for this tournament, he is potentially correct in some cases: all official programs and guides drop diacritics for Czech/Slovak names. However, diacritics are used for Finnish, Swedish, Danish and Swiss names. Russian is transliterated, and it appears Latvian names are also somewhat transliterated. Canada and the US have no names that require them. I would not care to guess whether the disuse of diacritics for the Slovaks, Czechs and Latvians indicates that dropping them is considered a proper spelling, or if they themselves just simplified for the sake of a North American audience. Resolute 19:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also this. Resolute 19:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a hideously cynical abuse of the system by Dolovis; he's just exploiting a technicality to get his own way. Regardless of whether we should use accents in titles, his behaviour, considering he's been subject to sanctions for this kind of thing before, is unacceptable. I propose a full topic ban from modifying/discussing/suggesting changes to the titles of articles about ice hockey players, or any other article titles which could contain accents, as he's just causing disruption when he edits in this area. It's time for him to move on. In response to Marcus British – we don't need to omit the accents for search reasons; you'll still get to the article even if you type it in without accents. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basalisk, you are right with one exception. The drop down / "matching suggestions" search box works by Javascript (which I just tested to confirm). Without Javascript, or with it disabled, you don't get offered accented alternatives, thus making the process harder. I know disabling Javascript based on a lot of cynicism and "more vulnerable to hacking" myths, these days, but there are people and places who still practice it. And I'm not sure how iPhone/Blackberry type handsets work with regards to searching Wiki, and Javascript, as I don't use them, but I wonder if there are more limited. So in some case there are going to be people who experience hold-ups. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I don't really know enough about such things to bolster my opinion really! I guess I just like the authenticity of writing names the way they would be presented in their native language. I still stand by my suggestion of a ban, though. Basalisk^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, there would be no issue to creating an unglyphed version and redirecting it to the glyphed version. It is creating an artificial history at the glyphed version to prevent the article being at that title that is the problem. here is the original discussion concerning Dolovis, where this behaviour has been previously discussed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC) here is the discussion from October where he asked for the pagemove ban to be reduced on a pledge of good behaviour. Dolovis is arguing on his userpage that his actions are entirely above board. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think that this is a very trivial matter. We're talking about letters here.. it's not like he's playing with fire by altering religions and nationalities, etc. This is more a matter of MOS practices and accessibility, possibly an aside to ENGVAR. However, if he has has a ban or restrictions placed previously, he should not directly aim to breach it, or indirectly the spirit of it. But again, the matter is so trivial, that imo only people with a COI or a pessimistic admin could really say there is a severe lack of "good faith" in what he is trying to accomplish. His methods may be questionable, his goal is not. Ban him? No. Stop his methods being disruptive. Yes. Perhaps a little more headway would be achieved if editors stopped trying to make a mountain out of this.. it's not a big issue. It's a few wavy lines above some letters. In the end if we can have both, accented and plain English, then we can't go about punishing an editor for trying to apply one more forcefully. We simply need to get him to adopt a more NPOV. Mentor him or some shit.. don't beat him up over it. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 20:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to try talking to him? He might listen to you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second that.

Slightly related... MarcusBritish, re bad faith. As I pointed out in the previous thread Dolovis I'm uninvolved with this but I do see them acting in poor, if not bad, faith when they level an SPA accusation at an editor that obviously isn't based on contribution record. I also see it in creating new redirects under a accented name in such a way as to block good faith editors from boldly moving articles to them. This is part of the behavior that earned the indef ban from moving pages, true. But it is as disruptive, and a little more deplorable, when they have only reason for the edit after the fact to add the category template is to "lock" the page. - J Greb (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be a first.. but will give it a go. Am not taking sides though.. from his POV I don't think he's done anything too severe, just untoward, from a Wiki POV diacritics are a pain in the ass and limit accessibility. There are solutions, and I see no reason to deny him the ability to partake in doing things the right way. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 20:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't fault you for that. The only concern I would have is if they continue to be disruptive if the "right" way doesn't match their way. We're here right now because of that. If it persists, it may become the reason for the denial of participation in some degree. - J Greb (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This matter affects such a small percentage of articles, that it seems to me to have been over-looked and only thinly tackled in MOS. That's not the fault of the editors, but the fault of the community for not closing the loophole. It only appears that he is going against policy.. but the policy on diacritics appears so thin, it's hard to say. Maybe time to tighten up the policy like ENGVAR, and make it less open to interpretation. At the moment it's his interpretation against others. I don't care either way, because both solutions can be applied. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he closed the discussion on his talk page whilst whining about something or other. To me that's an example of WP:IDHT. I know where he can shove my thoughts now. Later, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the article Tomas Jurco, Dolovis' rvts were correct. An RM to move to diacritics, had been held at that bio article & no consensus was reached. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They might have been, but then again, this issue is about his other behavior. And another RM could be opened, and then there would be a new decision.

I must say that I am very pessimistic about the chances of Dolovis complying by the rules. His history demonstrates the opposite, and still there seems to be admins ready give him more room. I don't know of any editor who has been so disruptive, and yet so cuddled by parts of the community. He adapts his tactics for the time being when he is punished, and, when he thinks nobody is looking, he resumes his previous behavior. We should have learned by now. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a section about move functionality at the Village Pump. The technical problem of the edit needed to add a template to the redirect following a move causes inconvenience after any affected move, not just in cases like this. --Mirokado (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this is that Dolovis is being deliberately disruptive despite having been told in the past that such behaviour is not wanted. In the days of typesetting, diacritics were not generally used in English language text, unless it was in a book on learning a foreign language, where such use was essential. Nowadays, we have the technology to use diacritics. As we have the technology, we should use it. For those uncomfortable with the use of diacritis or unable to use them for whatever reason, a redirect should be created from the plain text version of the title whenever an article is housed at a title with a diacritic in it.

I would support any restriction that prevented Dolovis from moving such article or creating such redirects. There are plenty of other editors around who are able and willing to do such tasks without creating controversy in doing so. Mjroots (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the issue is not the need to add a template to a redirect after a move, but that Dolovis creates an article at a non-diacritic title. At a later point, he creates a redirect with diacritics (ok), then in a separate edit, adds a template so as to frustrate any non-admin's ability to move the article. It is that last edit that is causing Dolovis his issues. Resolute 23:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand that. If Dolovis cannot play nicely, then he shouldn't be allowed to play at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by mjroots (talk • contribs)

Cut and paste moves

User:Kajman87 appears to have "fixed" some of these articles via cut and paste moves. I am going to try and clean up that mess At the risk of causing a pile more issues, if they are current World Junior tournament participants, I will move them to the version that is reflected either in the IIHF programs I have (some cases with diacritics, some without) or per the result of a recent RM discussion. Resolute 23:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2-ish¢

I'd restore the article/stub versions (plain) first to what was initially created. Check the redirects (diacritics) to see if anything points to them. If not just flat delete them. If so, delete and recreate the full redirect in one go. Then move things that need to be moved by a reliable source.

Some article won't, some diacritic redirects won't exist, and some of the moves may be yelled at, but at least the basis will be relatively "clean". - J Greb (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, it seems they only moved about four Slovakian players. I simply undid the edits rather than get complicated. As such, they are presently back at non-diacritic formats. Discussion on the proper spellings I leave to interested parties. Resolute 00:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I hope the RM route is used for those bios 'in future'. GoodDay (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite topic ban proposal for Dolovis on moving/redirecting/or otherwise changing the titles of diacritic articles

Question on scope of topic ban

Will Dolovis be able to help in restricting diacritics on North American based hockey articles? GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the idea is to ban him from anything regarding diacritics at least that is what I see from what a few supporters have said. So he wouldn't be modifying anything that involved diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad. It would've been the ideal area for Dolovis' passion. Also, I wouldn't have minded the help. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should anyone need to engage in editing that involves restricting diacritics, what encyclopedic benefit is there to following such a one-track practice except to spite languages that do use them? It is not a NPOV, it is an Anglo-centric POV, and I don't think MOS will ever change to make removal of diacritics more important than retaining them. From what I gather, more countries use diacritics, especially throughout Europe, than do not. So whether anyone likes them or not, the odds are in favour of their continued use. Removing them should not be encouraged, given that their use is not uncommon. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a part of WP:HOCKEY's compromise on the usage of diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's like GoodDay says. On North America-related ice hockey articles, player names with diacritics should be piped like this: [[Nicklas Lidström Nicklas Lidstrom]]. This is to avoid unnecessary redirecting and at the same time reflect NHL's open policy of ignoring diacritics on player jerseys, NHL web pages, etc. The exception being player articles, where diacritics are to be kept. That is the compromise. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's possible, and there is no strong need for that, since most editors who don't mind diacritics respect the project notice at WP:HOCKEY. And there's always you. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, the ban as stated looks like it would prevent:
  • Moving pages currently at diacritic titles.
  • Editing redirects currently at diacritic titles.
  • Creating pages - primarily redirects - with diacritic titles.
  • Edits that are similar in nature to the above three.

The concerns I see beyond that which it does not address are:

• Abusing RM for pages with diacritics.
• Posts as per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive734#Controversial moves.

That shouldn't prevent Dolovis from editing the text of articles. They should however be mindful of any consensus, guideline, or policy that applies to that article. Bluntly: If if a Project, consensus, or guideline states should be used in a particular article, removing them would be a bad idea.

It also should not prevent Dolovis from civily and constructively participating in discussions. The keys being "civil", "constructive", and "participate".

- J Greb (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope he'll be allowed to monitor the North American based hockey articles, as I have been doing (for years). GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he will be, since most NA hockey articles don't have diacritics, with the possible exception of teams (etc) from the Quebec area, where they are French-speakers, and hte French language has several diacritical letters. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that WP:HOCKEY says that all player articles should have diacritics, but when they are mentioned on North American hockey league articles diacritics should not be used.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, all North American hockey leauge & team articles, shall not have'em. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems rather idiotic. --Errant^(chat!) 12:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that projects are always at liberty to mandate extra work so as to reduce article quality within their own project - rather like Wikiproject Aviation's removal of citation templates. The real mistake is to extend this outside the project, as Dolovis has been doing and GoodDay appears to be advocating, to then remove diacritics on the player name articles themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to leave the player bio articles to other editors. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw...

what's this supposed to be, anyways? Sure ain't Latvian... what's the point of it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

??? Don't understand the question (insufficient caffeine). Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Dolovis made up his own diacritical version of the name. Looks more like Romanian than Latvian. At any rate, the Latvians seem to write the name entirely without diacritics, so there will be peace in our time—at least locally. Favonian (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, neither of those diacritics appear in the Latvian alphabet. The family name Siksna is written without diacritics in Latvian. Jafeluv (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the diffs I provided at the top of this section. Dolovis's purpose with first creating a redirect, and then edit it soon after, is to make it impossible move the original article – the one that the redirect is pointing to – over the redirect without the intervention of an admin. Doing so constitutes gaming the system, and that is why Dolovis has a page move ban since some time around July/August 2011. Since he did more such edits a second time around, he no also has a week long edit block.

Śikṣṇa seems to be a Latvian hockey player. Do you think it's misspelled?

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edgars Siksna is without diacritics in Latvian (and English), and this redirect is entirely bogus. IMO it meets the criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD#R3). Favonian (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is bogus, completely made up. Might as well go for Édgärs Shį́kśną or whatever... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some points of order in this ANI report

04-Jan-2011: This whole thread about User:Dolovis started with so many invalid or untrue statements. For example, the claim (at top), "Dolovis's pattern of behavior indicates that he will never learn" is an unprovable claim, and I think completely false, and bordering on an outright lie. Above that statement, there is, "Dolovis is set on having his way in wikipedia, no matter what" which is also unprovable, and I think a false claim, and indicates a pattern of character assassination against User:Dolovis by User:HandsomeFella. But let me add some more examples, such as the thread title: "Dolovis gaming the system – again" which is an example of the improper tactic of begging the question ("Are you beating your wife again?").

Also note the unfounded claim (at top): "Dolovis is now back to his old tricks" as another implied insult with no direct evidence, plus the term "old tricks" which would be very difficult to prove, especially since, the evidence I read shows that User:Dolovis has actually been following written policies by creating stubs for WP:Notable subjects and naming those articles with names clearly the most-common name used in many English-language sources, then creating redirects as accented-letter names, where there is no written policy reason to move those articles away from their original WP:COMMONNAME titles (hence any changes to the redirect page are ok because there is no written-policy reason to rename the articles to those redirected name). As for claims that there is some secret pact with WP:WikiProject Ice Hockey to violate policies and title articles with non-WP:COMMONNAME spellings, I do not think that any user should be forced into a policy-violation agreement. This whole situation is similar to a case of duress, in meaning that User:Dolovis is being forced to act in some way to support actions which violate written WP:Policy pages, and consequently, his actions are the result of being forced to deal with people pushing him to aid in the violation of written (not imagined) policies. So then people will argue that the use of diacritics and accented-letter names is not the problem, and insist to only look at what User:Dolovis did, and ignore how other people have forced the situation. Well, I am sorry, but that is not the broader reality: it is not proper to bully someone to act in a way which allows other people easier ways to violate written policies. This whole ANI thread is predicated on unprovable (and insulting) claims, and has side-stepped the reality that some people are trying to force a set of "local consensus" rules for naming articles, or limited edits to redirects, which appear to violate written WP:Policy pages, and trying to blame User:Dolovis because his actions make those policy violations more difficult for other users. I think that says it all. Dismiss this claim against User:Dolovis, but try to get other users to either amend policy WP:COMMONNAME (and rules to deny editing of redirects) or take actions against them for trying to force a user to support their improper actions. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: W77 agrees with what Dolovis has been doing. pablo 09:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replies from User:Dolovis

Copied from User_talk:Dolovis (while edit-blocked)

• In response to being blocked while this ANI thread is discussed:

"Blocks are intended to prevent disruption, and not to be used as a punishment. This is a punitive block. If writing a truthful defense is considered to be “Wiki-lawyering” then Wiki-lawyering should be permitted. I am busy in real life, and so I will not be able to take an active part in this discussion, but I will respond to say that creating valid stub articles for notable athletes is constructive, and my editing has been in full compliance with all of the policies of Wikipedia. I am an English speaking person, and I do not speak or write any other language. The articles I have created are titled according to the sources I have used to create the article. As some of these athletes are born in Europe where non-English spellings are used, redirects have been created (following the instruction of Template:R from diacritics and WP:REDCAT) if I come across a red line for the same name, but with diacritics.

There are editors on English Wikipedia who are dedicated to moving articles to titles with diacritics, without regard for WP:V or WP:COMMONNAME. It is those same editors who have made and supported these complaints against me. As a result of those complaints I am not even allowed to object to a controversial article move - not by WP:BRD (a core principle[224] which I am banned from using) or even by bringing it to the attention of another Admin (as this has been accused of using a MEAT PUPPET)[225]. The result is that I am being punished for being an English speaking editor who follows the policy of Wikipedia:Article titles (which includes WP:COMMONNAME) and I am being held to a higher standard than other editors on Wikipedia. Dolovis (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)" –copied here by -Wikid77 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Solid Crew

Clearly currently some sort of meme. Nonsense names being continually added (and have been since at least July of last year). I've cut the list out, but it won't last. ColouredSpots (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the article for now. It might be good for editors knowledgeable in this area to have a look to make sure other vandalism or nonsense hasn't crept it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent Vandalism

user Intoronto1125 appears to be participating in persistent vandalism, by adding unnecessary content to the Sri Lanka Armed Forces page after a very clear consensus was established in favor of leaving that content out. Distributor108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Good faith editing (that is, editing where the user believes themselves to be improving Wikipedia) should never be labeled vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for what vandalism is. Instead, what it appears you have is a dispute. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for a good venue to resolve this dispute, alternate methods are also noted at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Jayron32 06:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is vandalism, as you can see from the edit history, He is continuously participating in this behavior without participating in the discussion after a clear consensus was established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that user Hazard-SJ is a ghost account of user Intoronto1125; as he is immediately participating in the same behavior as Intoronto1125 within seconds of me leaving a warning on user Intoronto1125 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor108 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distributor108 was involved in unexplained content removal at Sri Lanka Armed Forces and is warning users with {{uw-delete4im}} (me included) after we reverted the user's deletion. Hazard-SJ ㋡ 06:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hazard-SJ is not a "ghost account" rather guidance from a very helpful editor on the wikipedia chat service. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 06:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The explation can easily be found on the Sri Lanka Armed Forces talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces#Do_not_add_war_crimes_allegationDistributor108 (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A section in which you started (with your opinion) and which resulted in to consensus. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 06:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distributor108 has been blocked. Hazard-SJ ㋡ 06:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...by Dark here--Adam in MO Talk

I am trying to work with D108 on his/her talk page to come to an agreement that will bring them back as a useful editor. I would appreciate feedback, help, or any interested eyes there. Am I going down the right track?--Adam in MO Talk 07:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distributor108 agrees to an indefinite topic ban on all Sri Lanka related pages, broadly construed, a 1RR on ally other edits and a promise not to sock. Should we unblock based on these terms?--Adam in MO Talk 07:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be helpful, but I have a feeling this isn't the end of this edit war. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 13:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I am inclined to agree, there seems to be two ways to deal with warring socks;You can play whack-a-mole, or you can try and fold them in. I am hoping to accomplish the latter.--Adam in MO Talk 16:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad-faith edits by User talk:Ruslik0

This has gotten out of hand. Almost any edit I make to a dwarf-planet article is reverted by User talk:Ruslik0, most recently Haumea, Makemake, Quaoar, Orcus. He's editing in bad faith; for example, he claims that I'm falsifying sources, which is silly, since they're available online and easily checked. Despite numerous accusations, he has never provided any evidence to back up his claims. I don't know what his problem is with following RS's that provide more than one POV, but it's getting ridiculous. There are other editors involved in this dispute, but Ruslik0 is acting as little more than a troll.

The issue at hand is whether or not various objects "are" dwarf planets (DPs). According to the International Astronomical Union and various leading planetary astronomers, 3 objects are known to be DPs through direct observation, 2 more have been named under IAU naming rules for DPs and are generally accepted as such (though Scott Sheppard only says that they, along with several others, are "likely" to be DPs), and several more are accepted by various individual astronomers, with many more considered likely. The articles are all FA, which IMO makes the refusal to reflects RSs egregious. — kwami (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is a continuous POV pushing by User:Kwamikagami. He continues to push his own pint of view despite a consensus to contrary on Talk:Dwarf planet. He was already blocked for this back in October. Ruslik_Zero 14:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is that User:Kwamikagami often lies about sources. Ruslik_Zero 14:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's your evidence: Ruslik has never been able to specify where I've "lied", despite repeating that claim, as he's apparently making that up.

There is no consensus at Dwarf planet. There's instead been an interminable debate as to how we should word the section headings and organize the tables to reflect our sources.

I was blocked for edit warring, not for what I wrote. The POV I'm pushing is that of several leaders in the field. Debate over how to reflect that is legitimate; pretending it does not exist is not. — kwami (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that you cite all say that some bodies are likely to be Dwarf planets, not that they are dwarf planets. I said many times to you that these two statements are not the same. However you continue to push your own point of view despite all objections. Ruslik_Zero 14:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read either the sources or the discussion, you would know that is false. And when the opposite happens, and Sheppard says that the objects you want to be DPs are only "likely" to be, you do not allow that opinion either. — kwami (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is contradictory: the first part of it claims that "this is false", while the second tacitly admits that you lied? Ruslik_Zero 14:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik, you should really closely read what those sources say, then you'd see that what you are saying is false. I can't always agree with Kwami's editing style, but I haven't caught him lying about anything. Instead, you are now inserting wordings[226] that are obviously not supported by the references. --JorisvS (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is not supported by references? That it is likely to be a dwarf planet? Ruslik_Zero 15:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is ANI. It's not the place to debate the wording. — kwami (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you know better! Your name has been mentioned so many times on this board that you have probably learned all existing rules. Ruslik_Zero 15:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please folks, ANI is not the place for resolving an editing dispute. You two clearly need to head to WP:DISPUTE. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came here because of Ruslik's behavior: any sourced edit I make is a "lie", and reverted. It's not about content. I doubt the content matters at all. — kwami (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request from Protector of Wiki

Ullink self promoting on ULLINK

--Ta, Chip123456 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ullink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
160.79.103.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Ullink has been using the article ULLINK to self promote. First it solicited sales and added its "sales" email address ([227]). Then it reverted ([228]) Xlink bot who had removed the content and warned the user. I then reverted this edit and gave the user a final warning uw-advert4im and it stopped until 4 Jan and added self-promoting content again ([229]). It seems that it also uses the IP address 160.79.103.100. Cocoaguy ここがいい 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPAMNAME reported as such at WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block. --Ta, Chip123456 (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New editor seeks support starting lawsuit against Santorum

User:Paul123.123 has been posting messages to various talk pages in violation of WP:NOTFORUM and in a sense WP:NLT. Paul wants to gather support for a notional lawsuit against Dan Savage because of his Google bomb against Rick Santorum, the event we know as the campaign for "santorum" neologism. Paul has been sticking mostly to talk pages but he also posted here in article space, asking for supporters in a "defamation of character" lawsuit to be brought against Dan Savage. The URL he posts is a self-published website in wordpress blog space. The lawsuit is not notable, and perhaps Paul is crossing some line we have against legal threats. Can we block him? Can we blacklist the wordpress URL? Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not technically a legal threat. Several editors have given him level-1, -2 and now -3 warnings about using Wikipedia as an advertising medium. --Orange Mike Talk 17:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Orange Mike says, the user has been warned not to use Wikipedia for promotion of a cause. If he continues to do so he can be blocked, and he has been informed of that fact. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mere presence of that article here on wikipedia suggests promotion of a cause. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 20:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah. Don't derail the discussion of the behavior of a new user. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah back at you. The presence of that article is a disgrace to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on things that are far more unpleasant, loathsome, and/or disgraceful than a columnist's ten-year campaign to ridicule a politician. The fact that people care about this, and that it's getting a substantial amount of news coverage, means that it's entirely appropriate for us to have an article about it. DS (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are plenty of agenda-driven editors here who are very happy to keep that garbage here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum shock rise in popularity - Santorum's views are popular and the promotion of them by D Savage has had no apparent detrimental affect on his career. Youreallycan (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find Santorum's politics abhorrent. Nonetheless, that separate article serves no purpose except to further the defamation of Santorum. It's not about Santorum, it's about that Savage character. The article should be changed to a redirect to Savage and be done with it. Its continued presence here is an affront to everything wikipedia supposedly stands for in the BLP area. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 23:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think often people overestimate the value of content in a wikipedia article - ( which is the primary reason for the battlefield position amongst editors that currently proliferates here ) although it appears at a high profile in google returns doesn't mean people are reading anything or using what they read here to develop or change their opinions. I have come to see D Savage's attack on Santorum as more detrimental on Savage's reputation than anyone else's.Youreallycan (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why it should redirect to him. It's got nothing to do with the targeted public figure - it's all about the radio guy. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 06:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the aticle-in-question will effect Santorum's campaign for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Having said that, changing it to a re-direct is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you. :) ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 06:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the overly long and sometimes volatile exchange on that page last year to get it to the current name, a unilateral move after this brief discussion is far from a good idea Bugs.Heiro 06:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article's existence is a large stain on wikipedia. Putting personal agendas ahead of wikipedia's reputation is far from a good idea. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 06:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not putting your own personal agenda ahead of Wikipedia's role as an objective source of notable information about the world by ignoring Wikipedia's rules on notability and so forth and trying to remove an article whose content you do not like? We aren't here to self-censor for reputation reasons. Besides, anyone who thinks our reputation is lessened by covering what someone else did doesn't have an opinion worth worrying about to be honest. Conservapedia already hates us for being reality-biased, and they and their ilk aren't going to change their minds because we remove an article about a term that is probably more well known than the former senator himself is. And, sorry, but the term must be growing on you somewhat if thinking of the name makes you think of a large stain... DreamGuy (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that that guy Savage is notable, this nonsense rates maybe one sentence, within his article. It's not "well-known" in the mainstream, it's a niche thing of some kind. I never heard of it until I read it on wikipedia, which stands to reason, as it's selected wikipedians who are actively promoting it and trying to give it artificial notability. I'll concede that the average adolescent probably doesn't know who his own state's senators are, let alone someone like Santorum. Among that demographic, it may well be better known than the senator. Not among actual adults, though. The sad part is how the agenda-pushers on this and other topics use alleged "notability" to justify their "Oh, boy, let's write about this!" approach. The continued presence of such juvenile garbage here leads me to believe it's part of an episode called "Beavis and Butt-Head Discover Wikipedia". ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 16:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't notable, Jon Stewart et el wouldn't constantly mention it, nor would there be news story after news story about it, all without mentioning our article. Just because you never heard of it before does not mean it has not generated significant news coverage. Heiro 16:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, Dude, stop the presses - a comedian mentioned it on a cable channel! If that's your idea of "notability", you might want to do a little extra reading on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 17:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you completely overlooked the immediately subsequent reference to "significant news coverage", not to mention the fact that what Jon Stewart deals with is -- wait for it -- news coverage. It's pretty much the entire point of his show, that unless it IS newsworthy he's not going to talk about about it. Maybe you should just do a little extra reading yourself -- you know, past the first clause of a sentence -- or just stick to recycling old Borscht Belt jokes. --CaltonTalk 19:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and SNL News (that also deals with "news coverage") is considered some form of reliable source or indicates notability/coverage now too? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Assuming that guy Savage is notable", he's an internationally-syndicated columnist who's been published in dozens of markets for over twenty years, he's published five books with major publishers (one of which was the basis for an award-winning musical), and he launched the It Gets Better project, which drew the personal participation of hundreds of celebrities including the President of the United States. What you, Baseball Bugs, have or have not personally heard of, makes no difference. You've written over a hundred articles on subjects so obscure that I haven't heard of them. DS (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping prove the point that this garbage is all about this Savage character, and should be confined to his own page. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 20:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, I've seen you comment on Dan Savage repeatedly, and I can't come to any conclusion except that you're well, a little confused. You call him "that radio guy" here and I've seen you call him a "shock jock" before. He's not a radio guy, a shock jock or any other kind of a jock. I think possibly you have him confused with Michael Savage who is a right-wing radio host who might reasonably called a shock-jock and frequently engages in detestable conduct. Dan Savage is someone who finds Santorum's politics as abhorrent as you say you do and is trying to do something about it in a way that has an element of wit to it. He's also the person who started the laudable "It Gets Better" campaign. They're not the same guy. (Note: I'm usually one of your biggest fans, Bugs.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet getting waaay out of hand

There s a persistent sockpuppeteer (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of HenryVIIIyes) who insists on adding material supporting Oxfordian theory to pages on Shakespeare, and also adding irrelevant screeds to talk pages (see Talk:William Shakespeare). This is beginning to get out of hand. He used to edit from IPs but has now created a spate of sockpuppets, usually in the form of insulting versions of the names of regular editors of Shakespeare pages (recently; user:Johnbanal, a dig at user:Johnuniq and user:Dumb Moonraker, a dig at user:Old Moonraker). This user is becoming more an more active in his obsession that the truth is being suppressed and that everyone doing so is part of a conspiracy of censorship. There are so many Shakespeare-related pages and the sockpuppeting is so prolific that it is difficult to keep an eye on all this. Any help appreciated. Paul B (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked several accounts and an IP. TNXMan 19:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and I've upped it to a rangeblock and nabbed another one. --MuZemike 00:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Fastily

Fastily deleted article Alexey Pivovarov (he IS notable!) and ignored me and all my arguments on his talk page. He insists on speaking with me only through some strange link. Please revert his vandalism and let me rebuilt this useful and interesting article.--RussianLiberal (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Vandalism - "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." Bulwersator (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• And you should start with discussion on his talk page rather than create thread here Bulwersator (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Bulwersator (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I did!--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • you never edited User talk:Fastily except information about this thread Bulwersator (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can see, there have been no discussions between RussianLiberal and Fastily on either editor's Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I am IP there!
  • Please provide diff with your polite request Bulwersator (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Alexey Pivovarov was deleted using PROD so article will be restored on request. Bulwersator (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• So I request, claim, blame and ask.--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No claim or blame is appropriate. A polite request on Fastily's talk page is. LadyofShalott 10:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• He ignored me so I will better not come there - want to insult him--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BOOMERANG? Bulwersator (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• He has not ignored you - you have to give people at least a little response time. You never asked him nicely - your first words to him were "revenge for vandalizing the article". I suggest you delete those words, and ask him to restore the article. This thread should never have been opened. LadyofShalott 10:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See! As an IP I asked him! As an IP! So I will not delete my true words - if you want ban me. I will make Pivovarov again and bite everybody who will attack it again--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, you need to show us exactly which edit you made. It's no good just saying "IP" and expecting us to know from that. Now that you have said "Pivovarov", I presume your message was User_talk:Fastily#Alexey Pivovarov. Fastily responded with a link to User:Fastily/E#PROD, which says "This article was deleted via the PROD process. You may request that the page be restored, but you are advised to be ready to improve the article and remedy the problems for which it was originally deleted. Otherwise, you run the risk of having the article deleted again or nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, in which deletion may become more permanent". That's a perfectly reasonable response, and is most definitely not the "vandalism" that you went on to accuse him of. And if you carry on in this beligerent manner, it's *you* who is likely to be sanctioned -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you have recreated Alexey Pivovarov now. Please be aware that it currently contains no indication of importance, and neither did the previously deleted version. If you don't adjust it to at least make a credible claim of importance, it is likely to be speedy deleted. And if you do not make it comply with the notability requirements of WP:BIO, it will at the very least be taken to WP:AfD for deletion discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Nobody to write articles, everybody want to delete... bureaucrats--RussianLiberal (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously it is untrue Bulwersator (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• While we are looking at this editor, should something be done about this ? Mtking ^(edits) 10:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've deleted it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Now Pivovarov is normal? Notable? Is it time to remove ugly shield?--RussianLiberal (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss that on Talk:Alexey Pivovarov, not here. Nobody Ent 12:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about framing the above discussion in my new "Wikipedia is a bureaucracy" essay. :\ causa sui (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A round of applause to everyone involved. Perhaps if Bulwersator kept the comments to himself and another admin could've spared <5 minutes to deal with this, we'd be able to retain more new editors. Swarm ^X 20:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's appropriate to put blame on Bulwersator, whose comments here seem to me to be straight-forward advice to RussianLiberal on how to proceed. Instead, it looks to me as if RussianLiberal was rather spoiling for a fight from the very beginning, and wanted to believe the very worst possible about Wikipedia. That they left isn't a big surprise, considering that attitude. Since their article is now is much better shape than it was, perhaps they will return with a better feeling about the project; if they do, they'd be advised to be more open to the advice other editors give them, which is (usually) meant to be helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, since I've posted that I read that RussianLiberal has self-admittedly been "banned" seven times from the Russian Wikipedia; pretty sure they were doomed from the start. At the end of the day, however, this was a contested PROD, and the bare minimum it required was an admin looking up the article, restoring it and shooting it over to AfD, and leaving some advice to RL. Bulwersator's comments were perfectly straightforward and spot on...and they were completely unhelpful. Frustrating new users (who are evidently speaking ESL, on top of it) by debating irrelevant points ("obviously it is untrue") citing trivial policy points ("See Wikipedia:Vandalism") and demanding they provide diffs when doing so is completely unnecessary is going to make a situation worse 100% of the time, as it did here, resulting in the apparent departure of someone who came here, in good faith, to add to the encyclopedia. Nothing to be proud of there. Swarm^X 03:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gorba

Gorba (talk · contribs) is making strange 'threats' that he will not continue to support Wikipedia financially if he doesn't get his way when editing articles.[230][231] See Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Scriptural_references.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gorba is free to contribute financially or not, just as he chooses, but financial contributions will not give him any additional say in content disputes, so those remarks on the talk page are pointless. There is nothing here that requires admin action. JohnCD (talk)

I'm perfectly well within my right to say I will not be financially supporting Wikipedia. This is NOT a threat against Wikipedia or its parent organizations. I also don't appreciate flagging my comments as some kind of "threat" against Wikipedia because it is not. I simply expressed my displeasure for what I perceive to be unfair treatment about a particular article when compared with similar articles of faith, and what I plan to do as a result. I hope this discussion about my comment is finally resolved. Gorba (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that you ever actually did financially support wikipedia? How do we know you're not trying to win the argument by employing fake extortion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats and spamming by Noncanonical

Noncanonical (talk · contribs) states on his/her user page he/she works at the Youvan Foundation. Here, here and here the suggestion of legal actions by Youvan or the Youvan Foundation is made, also talking about defamation. Further this user repeatedly --despite the conflict of interest -- adds info on books published by the Youvan Foundation on article (talk) pages, as well as original research by Youvan (at Douglas Youvan, Talk:P versus NP problem, Talk:Millennium Prize Problems). -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal treats: raspberry torts, and spam. Yum. :) The editor has only been registered since Christmas Eve, but seems to be very "knowledgeable". Obviously, an edit like this one,[232] and especially its edit summary, is unacceptable. Someone needs to 'splain' a few things to him, right after indef-blocking him for threats and accusations. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 11:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for legal threats and likely being a sock of User:Nukeh. Max Semenik (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who, surprise-surprise, is a sock of Doug youvan (talk·contribs). Good catch! ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 16:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So how far back does the socking go? Should we be doublechecking the article, or questioning notability? Shenanigans like this poison the well, certainly, but if the guy's notable he's notable - shenanigans or no. But if he isn't notable, we need an AFD. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly is notable, with 90+ scientific papers on biophysics (often cited, see e.g. this Google Scholar search: "d.c.+youvan"), as well as many patents. But since 2002 this scientific production (nearly) dried out. His additions to Wikipedia, since 2008 -- as users Nukeh, Doug youvan, MsTopeka, and probably Bridgettttttte, OoZeus, LadyJosie and Noncanonical -- were (in my opinion) largely of no use, incomprehensible or disruptive. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. I tried to work through some of this yesterday, but questions about COI were dodged entirely. Did not see the sock angle, though - good catch, that. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

user Shariq r82 adding copyright material after CCI

A CCI was opened regarding copyright infringement by User:Shariq r82 (edit talk history links watch logs). This user would add summaries of Pakistani TV shows copied directly from the show's official websites. Now, a month later, Shariq r82 is copying and pasting the same material from the same source. Since this user has not changed his behavior after a CCI and numerous warnings, a block is in order. GabrielF (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread the date of the edit - this was contributed back in December but CSD'd today. GabrielF (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any other recent examples? Note to self: update the CCI on Sunday. MER-C 13:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

irate IP

waggers (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling this IP is going to need a warning block pretty soon. Maybe another editor can get through? — kwami (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. waggers (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left them a 4im warning: this is not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question on user posting Essay/OR in User Talk/Editnotice

I noticed User talk:Hafeezanwar/Editnotice is an essay, and opinion piece that clearly does not belong in a User Editnotice. I would be bold and delete but am unsure this is warranted as a speedy, or delete outright, or it should be PRODded instead. I don't want to be overly bitey but I think this crosses a line. Guidance/opinions requested. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I just saw the user has been indeffed. This should resolve this particular instance but the question stands in general. Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable includes do not use as a forum but it does not specifically mention user space Editnotices. I would assume they would apply by extension and should be deletable on sight. Comments? -- Alexf^(talk) 14:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was some sort of essay, totally inappropriate in an edit notice, did not qualify it for speedy deletion, but it seemed to me that it was promotion, which did, so I deleted it. On the more general point, it seems to me to be common sense that anything which is unacceptable in a talk page is equally unacceptable in a page notice which in effect sh9ows up as part of the talk page. Putting a brief mention of that in the talk page guidelines would do no harm. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added mention of Editnotice to the talk page guidelines. Thanks for your comments. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihounding, attack and disruptive editing by Delicious carbuncle

Delicious carbuncle (talk·contribs)
User notified on their Talk Page

Over the last 36 hours User:Delicious carbuncle's behaviour towards myself has been very concerning and at the suggestion of an admin who has already tried to resolve one of the problems and I am starting this ANI.

Following an exchange in the BLP noticeboard in which DC questioned edits I had made which were entirely inline with articles for all other British politicians, DC also included completely irrelevant comments about an unrelated article I had worked on concerning a notable racist murder. [233]. I explained that this was inappropriate and although the discussion then largely continued without any problems, ever since I have suffered a significant amount of harassment from DC, and they have behaved in a highly disruptive manner.

Conduct has has included two "time wasting" AFD submissions of articles I created [234][235] (both of which are clearly notable, especially the later) with not one single comment in support of deletion in either case thus far. One of the AFD submissions even included a personal attack falsely alleging racism on my part[236]. Other troubling behaviours have included deleting a fully sourced material from an article.[237] and links to the Parker article.

The straw that has broken the camels back is the creation of a most bizarre request for comment.[238] In it he repeats previous insinuations concerning my editing of the Parker article. DC has shown a rather excessive facination in me by combing though my contributions, and evidence of apparent serious misconduct on my part highlighted in the RFC include diffs such as:

• Adding a Daily Telegraph ref for to support the fact that Ken Livingstone resides in North London.[239]
• Creating redirects.
• An incident resulting from me exposing a network of longstanding sock puppets.
• Adding a British person with six convictions for theft to the category "British people convicted of theft" [240]

In the document DC suggests various bans for myself would be appropriate. Uninvolved parties have so far described the RFC as "obvious and disgusting attempt at a WP:WITCHHUNT".[241]

Not that it should matter in the slightest, but for the record my interests and expertise include the BBC, equality issues, and domestic violence and these are the themes which especially stirred my interest in most of the articles in question and I have a long track record in editing such topics. I'd also note that the article DC seems to object to actually achieved Good Article status mere hours before this all started, mostly all due to my edits. In terms of mistakes I may have made, I have already accepted that one heading I restored to the Qureshi article some times ago needed slight improvement, although it was not my "creation".

To date Delicious Carbuncle has refused to remove the attack on me in the AFD even after being asked to do so by an entirely uninvolved administrator User:Postdlf [242][243] , insisting that "the RFC/U which I hope will deal with the issues". Therefore the admin was forced to remove the attack themselves.[244] Postdlf describes DC's conduct as "disingenuous" and having an "apparent unwillingness to discuss anything maturely".

I believe all the above taken together more than constitutes serious harassment, not to mention a quite astounding lack of understanding of multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm not sure what action needs to be taken, but at the very least I'd like an apology and retraction and for the attacks and wikihounding to be brought to a stop please as this disruptive behaviour is completely wasting my time and that of many others. I'd also appreciate it if people could keep an eye on the situation in future. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: "Other troubling behaviours have included deleting a fully sourced material from an article.[245]"--I call BS. Delicious Carbuncle was correct: you confused the wording of the Daily Mail with that of the subject. You should rather apologize for your editorial oversight; claiming that you being corrected is an example of a witch hunt is silly. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually even DC has admitted to being in the wrong there, it's a quote and there's no "BS" or case of me being "silly", or need to apologise, try reading the source again, it's a well known quote--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are right: I didn't see the opening quotes, and having been in the US for so long I guess I have forgotten how to read those quotes spread out over paragraphs. Please accept my apologies. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Always nice to see an apology in such incidents, but perhaps you should be more considerate in future before calling an editor a "bullshitter." It is not particularly civil considering you are an admin, especially when one remembers that mere content editors have been hauled up in front of arbcom for such "bitey" responses... Keristrasza (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I do fully accept Drmies' apology and thank him for it, but I'd echo the commits above too. This ANI is about ongoing harassment and incivility, so it' wasn't nice to come in here and make a report of it and the first response to be even more incivility.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the editor who described Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shakehandsman as an obvious and disgusting example of a WP:WITCHHUNT. I retracted my comment only because the RfC is obviously going to be deleted as ineligible. Coupled with the grotesque childishness of the accusation of racism made at [246], Delicious carbuncle has clearly stalked Shakehandsman and is seeking to disrupt his contributions by pretending to piece together an ideological position in order to project it on to him. The lack of any policy basis for Delicious carbuncle's policing of thoughtcrimes would be comical if it were not so potentially damaging to the reputation of a serious and earnest editor. To include community processes such as AfD and RfC to hound another editor in this way is not only a grievous waste of everybody's time but, surely, a very serious example of WP:HARASSMENT. Exok (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it strange to be accused of "harassment" and "stalking" merely for using the appropriate Wikipedia mechanism for addressing a problem editor. I had no knowledge of Shakehandsman prior to noticing their edits to the biography of a current British MP (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Yasmin Qureshi). Looking at some of their other edits soon lead me to realize that there was a long-term pattern of edits involving specific groups. The creation of WP:COATRACK articles designed to disparage their subjects is likely the most serious and obvious issue. Shakehandsman has previously been involved in disputes reflated to biographies of living people and poor sourcing for controversial claims. I believe an RFC/U is overdue. Note that I have not asked for a ban, but merely an agreement that Shakehandsman follow WP:NPOV and WP:BLP (with the implicit assumption that violations will result in sanctions). I have not called Shakehandsman a "racist". I characterized one of the article he created as: One of a series of articles created by the same editor that I would describe as "bad things done by brown people". I stand by that observation (which relates to the articles and not to the editor). I invite people to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shakehandsman rather than rely on Shakehandsman's self-serving comments here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all "appropriate" to nominate multiple notable articles for deletion just because you hold certain (and clearly false) views about someone's editing. It is not appropriate to constantly smear them and make personal attacks falsely alleging racism then refusing to remove these attacks even when asked to do so by an uninvolved admin. Similarly it is not appropriate to constantly assume the worst about every single thing a person has ever done here, follow them around Wikipedia and make ridiculous complaints that they have added a British person with multiple conviction for theft to the most perfectly appropriate category imaginable. Most importantly of all, it is not appropriate to do all these things all to the same person all within a 36 hour period.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I nominated a total of two articles of yours for deletion, not because you created them but because they are two of literally hundreds of similar murders in the UK every year that have had no appreciable influence on public policy or law. Murders tend to get a certain amount of press for a short time, but these are no different from hundreds of other cases that one would not expect to find in Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent similar documented case to the Cheema murder occurred in the United States in 1881, and that also has its own article at George Henry Lamson. The article clearly outlines why it is notable and even links to the Lamson case. Not a single person at the AFD has even hinted at supporting your argument and the consensus from totally uninvolved parties is that your submitting of it was "dubious" / "a waste of space" / "time-wasting" and that you were guilty of a personal attack. It's abundantly clear that either you need to re-examine Wikipedia notability guidelines, or you have simply submitted the article for deletion as a wider pattern of harassment against me.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that I just have different ideas about what meets our notability guidelines? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have different ideas to absolutely everyone else then there's a serious problem. In the second AFD you submitted you yourself highlighted myself as the common link between the two articles. Also, the subject's skin colour appears to be a strong factor in your reasons for nomination for deletion, to quote your sentence at the AFD submission "One of a series of articles created by the same editor that I would describe as "bad things done by brown people". You spelled out your position against me and against the articles very clearly, it's now as if you're suggesting you never wrote that line.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted that very statement above, so I am hardly trying to deny making it. I think I've said everything that needs to be said here. I suggest that in future you pay close attention to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (especially your choice of sources for BLPs). Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should be judged on their own merit, you really do need to start commenting on content and not on contributors as I advised you in our very first interaction. Your WP:AGF failings in relation to myself are massive and you need to stop your harassment of me immediately and apologise for this and your personal attack and start accepting responsibility for the amount of disruption you've caused not just to myself, but to many other editors as well. If some of this situation has arisen from an inability understand basic notability policies and guidelines then you need to stop nominating articles for deletion or at least seek advice first. And, it's the least of the concerns here, but for the record I'm not a "lady"[247] either.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD nom ("Unremarkable murder case") for Cheema was ridiculous, and could be construed by some as malicious. By DC's reasoning I, too, am guilty of racialism - I have written a "series of articles about bad things done by white people..." When all's said and done I think you and I both know what this was all really about, Shakehandsman, but no admins are interested and DC has just shrugged and ignored it. May as well forget about the whole thing and move on. If nothing else, it has drawn some people's attention to his ill-judged and poorly researched AFD nom. Keristrasza (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence the AFD was malicious, asserting same lacks good faith. Nobody Ent 18:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words in my mouth, thanks very much - quote: "...could be construed by some..." This is an observation, not an accusation. Keristrasza (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing evidence of any requiring intervention; OP is inappropriately WP:FORUMSHOPPING [248]. Nobody Ent 18:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A person attack was made against me in that AFD. Linking to the relevant ANI created to discuss the attack is not forum shopping.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree. Not "inappropriate forumshopping" at all. Policy allows "draw[ing] attention to the issue on noticeboards or other talk pages." That AfD originally contained a PA from DC which is very pertinent to the AfD AND the simulataneous RfC. They are linked issues. Keristrasza (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

Jsrogers24 (talk · contribs) created Anthony Mason (journalist) which appears to be a copyvio of CBS's online bio page. I remove the copyvio and go to the user's talk page to explain my action. Noticing the CorenSearchBot post, I look at the article's history to find that JSrogers24 has removed the copyvio tag the bot left without addressing the issue. Jsrogers24 reverts my correction of a minor citation blip and when asked for an explanation sees fit to make this reply. I've watchlisted the article so I find that Jsrogers24 has undone my removal of the copyvio without edit summary. I have failed in communicating with this individual and am requesting others with greater interpersonal skills to help. The only solution I can come up with would solve the short term problem but, I fear, be counterproductive in the long run. Thanks Tiderolls 01:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been blocked once already for edit warring, and they just reverted Tide rolls back to the copyrighted version. I've issued a v4 warning and also warned them that they face an indef. block if they don't stop edit warring. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jsrogers24 (talk·contribs) has a history of nasty edit summaries and edit warring - see [249] - how did he get rollback rights? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have rollback, and that's an unrelated matter anyway. I checked a lot of his edits earlier, and while this isn't a model editor yet, I don't think their history is so bad (this excepted). Drmies (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably point out that I am not a sockpuppet of this user, and I don't appreciate being labelled as one! 2.123.152.86 (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His User page says, I am a reviewer & rollbacker here on the English Wikipedia.. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably because he/she copied another user's userpage. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move problem?

I'm not sure if this was done correctly or not but if not then an admin might be needed.

The page List of murderers by number of victims was a list until it was turned into a dab a few revisions ago. However, there is no move in the history of that article. So essentially the article was unmerged via copy paste and thus the old talk page remains on the disambiguation page. Is this proper for unmerging? N^oformation ^Talk 06:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, after a look at the relevant histories:

• List of serial killers by number of victims was merged with List of murderers by number of victims on 6 January 2009‎ and remained a redirect until 8 September 2011‎, when it was "unmerged",
• List of rampage killers existed the whole time and still exists,
• List of murderers by number of victims existed before 6 January 2009‎.

Since all 3 articles existed before 2009, I think merging the histories will create a bigger mess than the current situation (tangled/mixed histories). I suggest we leave it as it is, maybe noting the "unmerge" at the top of List of serial killers by number of victims. -- Luk ^talk 09:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should tag the appropriate talk pages with {{copied}}. This gives the affected authors proper attribution as per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. --64.85.221.31 (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool I didn't know about that template, thanks. I'll post it later on. N^oformation ^Talk 19:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ruthless personal attack from User:Off2riorob

Unfounded allegations. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This user is attacking and making false accusations about me at WP:BLPN. I try to remove it from his comments but he keeps restoring it. Can I have some intervention please. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 21:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] That account hasn't been used in a few weeks. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Now goes by the name of Youreallycan (talk · contribs). Favonian (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, LGDP, I'm not seeing any personal attacks there. Diffs would be helpful. 28bytes (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] "ruthless personal attack" is yet another example of La goutte de pluie's ridiculous over-reaction to disagreement, and her battlefield and uncollegial approach to Wikipedia in general. Btw, she has not notified User:Youreallycan of this report - I shall do so now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, he's alleging I was blocked over Singaporean politics. No such block ever occurred. He insists on restoring that comment when I try to remove it. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 21:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was referred here by Calabe

I was referred here by CalabeI am a very new editor (really far more of a wiki user than editor). In my time here I have run across one editor that seems to me, POV out of line. This person is a long time editor, more edits in one day then I have ever got a chance to do in my time here. However the disturbing thing about this person is that often when they make edits they add hurtful comments. Now like I say I have not edited that much but isn’t wiki about civil debate? Anyway it is not that much about actual hits to me, nonetheless this person has said hurtful things to me, it is the comments this person posts to others. Why can this person not simply edit without feeling the need to add a rude comment. Yet this person always and I mean always levels the claim that they are being personally attacked. I think a simple review of this persons edit history will prove my point. This person is most likely a competent editor if it were not for the personal attacks. this be the persons talk page(talk) I will inform them that I have placed this here.

Thank you

Soglad Tomeetyou (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aggh, I had looked into this eariler (from the HelpDesk thread), then got distracted. I'll try to resolve this directly with the complainant. Short story: nothing really severe to see here, I think some quiet discussion would be better. Franamax (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Nobody Ent 01:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medians in Usage share of web browsers

THe RfC at Talk:Usage share of web browsers#Medians in Usage share of web browsers is the latest in the long line of such RfC mediation edit wars discussions on various notice boards etc about using medians in this an some similar articles. Is there no way for people to get some sort of arbitration about long running content disputes rather than the arguments going on for years and years? Even if the decision is against me it would stop me getting prompted about it and saying my opinion yet again on it whenever it is raised again. Perhaps something about not raising it again until six months or a year have passed if there's no way of getting to a decision. Dmcq (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really expecting this noticeboard to provide resolution to an RfC? Frank talk 20:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking if there is any way in Wikipedia of resolving or quietening down long running content disputes. Following WP:DISPUTE doesn't seem to provide a solution. Dmcq (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Wikipedia doesn't have an effective dispute resolution process. This the biggest problem with Wikipedia. There is no one in charge, there are no decision makers. Disputes can go on forever. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No they can't! <yes they will!> No they can't! <yes they will!> No they can't! <yes they will!> No they can't! <yes they will!> No they can't! <yes they will!> --Hammersoft (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um yes, I mean no - whatever :) That was my worry. I guess this RfC will be as inconclusive as any before. I certainly can see this as a reason for editors to get dispirited or ratty. Even tossing a coin and just sticking to it fr a year would very often make people happier I think. Oh well back to the ramparts and hopefully something different will occur. Dmcq (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if you toss a coin enough, eventually it will land on its edge. Don't despair! :) Seriously, major disputes that seem endless usually end up before ArbCom if all other methods of resolution have failed and disruption is still happening. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't notified of this discussion on my RfC. Seriously, this is being really WP:LAME and editors will be in the WP:STOCKS before you know it.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potential blocking of Johnsith and Geoff9115

I'm writing in because of an article currently up for delete, Never shout Nevermind. It was uploaded by what appears to be the game's creators ([250], [251]), whose sole purpose for coming onto the wikipedia was to submit an article for their game. Their sole purpose on Wikipedia is to advertise for their game. They have even created their own sources by submitting articles to news sites that allow users to create their own content, then listing them as reliable sources. They are trying to pass them off as reliable sources that show notability, although they have been called by multiple users (including myself) on the origin of the two blog/news sources. They have also posted a question to Yahoo Answers asking for people to come and vote for them, which isn't a blockable thing in itself but is just further proof of them attempting to game the system to keep their promotional article on the page.

I do want to assume good faith, but this is pretty blatant and obvious attempted advertising and manipulation of the system.16:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

They're promotionalsingle purpose accountss. At least block Johnsith as a sockpuppet of Geoff9115, as one of the "sources" "they" provide has the username "John9115." Ian.thomson (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's a sockpuppet, to be honest. I think that John is a meat puppet and one of the friends of Geoff that was asked to come on and contribute to the article and most importantly, to remove the PROD from the article. That's what really gets me about these two users: that do little things like this that show that they're aware of some of the protocol on Wikipedia, such as the original article creator not being supposed to remove the PROD from the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Either way, Johnsith should be blocked for puppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They should at least be topic banned from promoting their 'thang. Oh, and last I checked, you could decline a PROD on an article you yourself created... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban would be useful if they ever bothered contributing anywhere else. As it is, they're single purpose accounts. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything is needed right now. Once that article is deleted, I suspect they'll disappear - and if they recreate it, we have G4 at our disposal -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it as speedy G11 and A7. I am not protecting because , who knows, it might become notable when it gets released. If reinserted before that, I urge whoever deletes it to protect. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat

Possible legal threat: editor threatening to contact police and report cyber harassment of minor [252]Nobody Ent 18:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed? Why?!? Seems ridiculously harsh to me. 2.123.152.86 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the encyclopedia while a legal threat is extant is not a compatible situation. Please see WP:NLT. Considering you are under a personal attack warning yourself I don't think you quite have a grasp of Wikipedia policies. Syrthiss (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) That's the normal process - read the WP:NLT page for the reasoning and the extremely simple remedy. Ravensfire (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one was a particularly bad legal threat; I've told them they need to show a thorough understanding of why what they did was bad, not just retract it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 ... possibly one of the most brutal attempts at "chilling discussion" I have seen (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it's an attempt. But to me, an uninvolved party, it's blatantly transparent to the point of hilarity. Assuming the below IP is related to same, this self declared minor will be retaining the services of one John Phillips (jurist), who has been retired from legal service now these six years. No, what I see here is a teenager who's gone off on an emotional bender. Got involved in a dispute, grabbed his keyboard, and jumped into the deep end of an empty pool. This is routine stuff. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's kinda funny to read through, despite the LT because it was made apparently with a fair amount of sincerity and in reality would probably get any lawyer involved with it a request from a judge as to why they shouldn't be sanctioned. Ravensfire (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was sorely tempted to leave them a message telling them their grasp of cyberbullying laws was nonexistent, but I decided to let him figure it out himself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to learn something: in a similar case, should I report here at ANI or through some silent overview? -DePiep (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is good, or alternatively you can leave a message for an admin if you see they're editing; either way works. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waddle, "QUACK!", (smile for the camera)...

(probably related to the above thread)

This IP is in need of blocking...

94.8.118.132 (talk · contribs)

Quack quack quack...

The legal threats of are of course a joke, but it's obvious there's block evading going on. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it up to a CU to modify the block as needed, but I already had blocked them for 24 hours for obviousness. Syrthiss (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended the block to a week; check the ANI archives for a Mr. L Phillips, QC. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive584#Administrator's Noticeboard?
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#Notice of Intent to Sue
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#Legal Threat (including a £10,000,000,000 lawsuit)

Couldn't tell you whether or not it's the same person, though. --MuZemike 22:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

74.197.89.32 needs a smack.

Done Penyulap _talk

Penyulap _talk 06:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warn them first, and if they don't respond, use WP:AIV instead of here. --Jayron32 06:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mvd. Penyulap _talk 06:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashing of Boris Berezovsky article

Hello All,

I'd like to inform you about whitewashing of Boris Berezovsky article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29

Recently the following paragraph has been added to the article:

In 2000 Klebnikov published a book "Boris Berezovsky: Godfather of Kremlin or looting of Russia" which was a very extended version of the above mentioned article. Berezovsky did not contest the book in court.^[1]

which was blatantly immediately erased by user Collect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Collect). First he claimed the paragraph had not been properly sourced. After the source was provided, Collect erased it again claiming that such phrase cannot be in the article, because of "implying that that fact means it was not the subject of legal action or that Berezovsky does not dispute the contents". Where as the sentences actually only said that the book was published, and that it has not been contested in court, nothing else. I'm not much into Wikipedia regulation and not sure which policies Collect has violated, but think that most likely he violated Vandalism and Deletion policies, by deleting absolutely neutral in point of view and well sourced material. He also engaged in edit warring on Berezovsky page (including discussion page, you can check both. despite multiple warnings on his talkpage, which he repeatedly deleted as well). Please will administrators action this somehow, the justice should be restored in the article.

Just in case, a discussion has started already on BLPN page, which hasn't led to anything: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Boris_Berezovsky_.28businessman.29

Thank you very much anyway! 170.148.198.157 (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that justice has been restored already, with the removal of this obvious attempt to skew the article by insinuation. Collect was absolutely right to delete this, according to WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise how two above sentences violate BLP? 170.148.215.157 (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They violate WP:BLP policy as an obvious attempt to skew the article by insinuation. This has already been explained to you on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't "explain" anything. As two above sentences do not "skew" anything in the article. I would like some other people to comment as well on this. And, in any case, the 1st sentence (that the book was published which was a very extended version of the article) cannot be accused of anything at all, and is just a mere statement of fact.170.148.215.157 (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, a 'statement of fact' can be made in such a way as to insinuate things not borne out by the 'fact', and secondly, the sentence isn't 'factual': it gets the title of the book wrong. And come to that, there is nothing to indicate that this book has been seen as in any way significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a 'statement of fact' can be made in such a way as to insinuate things not borne out by the 'fact' - indeed, but it doesn't have anything to do with the paragraph in question. it does not insinuate anything, it just states a fact. it could have been phrased much stronger to insinuate something against Berezovsky, but it hasn't. if the book's name isn't correct in the sentence, then it could have been corrected instead of erasing the whole paragraph. and, again, there were several titles of the book in publishing, and i think the version provided in the article was actually correct, i.e. one of those 170.148.198.157 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big fan of WP:AGF, but your particular use of grammar has my spideysense tingling (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deepdish7 the indefinitely blocked user was fixated on these exact same issues. Youreallycan (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement of fact is not made in such was as to insinuate anything in this case. The book actually had several versions and titles in the publishing. If the title isn't correct, then please correct it, instead of removing the whole sentence. And the book actually is significant enough to be present in that section of the article. At least it does deserve so. As the fact, that Berezovsky did not contest it in court 170.148.215.157 (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is very interesting to see how people completely ignore addressing the reported violations, but instead prefer to accuse the person who reported the violations of wrongdoing. Will please some administrator have a look at the violations in question at last instead of accusing the whistle-blower? There has been a blatant violation of Delete policy. Is anybody at all going to do something about it? 170.148.215.157 (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently having a sabbatical for a few days, however, I will post more in this thread in the next 24-48 hours, because both the IP editor and Collect are being disruptive to some extent, and this article needs to be dealt with for once and for all. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the title is correct, the second sentence violates WP:BLP unless it appears in a highly reliable source. (If the title were in Russian, we'd need a reliable source for the translation, as well....) — Arthur Rubin(talk) 16:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "highly reliable source"??? Source used for the 2nd sentence is reliable indeed. If anyone has proof of Berezovsky having sued Klebnikov for his book, please provide it. But he clearly did not sure him, that's what the truth is.170.148.198.157 (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's clearly a policy violation using leading synth. I called him a murderer and he didn't sue me, so.... (add your own uncited conclusion here) Youreallycan (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is to call someone a murderer, another to publish a detailed book. And the phrasing is brief and short. There's no allegation Berezovsky didn't sue Klebnikov because he was afraid. It's just said that he didn't contest the book in court, that's all. It does not violate any policy 170.148.198.157 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I and others do, for the reasons posted above. Also as User:Deepdish7 is blocked and you appear to be him please consider requesting to be unblocked prior to returning to editing. Youreallycan (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)+[reply]

So far you have not provided any explanation on how BLP is being violated. You simply do not like any negative information posted against Berezovsky. But it doesn't mean BLP is violated in any way170.148.198.157 (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The situation around Boris Berezovsky (businessman) article is indeed quite tense. The subject is a very controversial figure who is currently involved into the enormous Berezovsky-Abramovich lawsuit in London High Court that is referred as the most expensive litigation in the history of Great Britain (BTW I am surprised by the lack of info about this case in the article as well as by the timing of the hike of interest to the article coinciding with the beginning of the hearings). Either side of the litigation could easily try to sway public opinion using Wikipedia. Berezovsky is also a very controversial figure that is often additionally demonized by Russian government. He is quite alive and very litigious, so every requirement of our BLP policy should be obeyed by 100%, still we want to provide objective sourced information without neither demonizing nor whitewashing. I think it will be very good if more neutral admins put the article on their watchlists.

The current editorial problem regarding Klebnikov's books seems to be a trivial NPOV of wordings, I have restated the phrase to be more objective. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, a least one unbiased admin out there 170.148.198.157 (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some phrases has been removed from Alex's change. It's very interesting to see how some people continue to whitewash this page. Someone please revert changes again80.5.0.28 (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic insults and revert warring by Balkan editor

Edvini (talk · contribs) is revert warring and making ethnic insults in his talkpage posts and edit summaries [253] [254] [255] [256]. He is pushing a clear ethno-nationalist agenda [257] using outdated, unreliable or highly partisan sources such as these [258]. I have tried to reason with him [259] [260] [261], but he is extremely hostile and seems impossible to reason with. He is revert-warring across multiple articles [262] and is rapidly becoming disruptive. Athenean (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that Edvini is indeed making assumptions based on nationality, and that is unacceptable. Their sources are indeed doubtful--you don't enter into the Balkan articles with the Lonely Planet under your arm. The personal insults/accusations are blockable already. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be the case you say, but I was only citing sources like Encyclopedia Britannica, and that citation was repeatedly deleted by Athenean, on the grounds that Encyclopedia Britannica is not a reliable source. (Edvin (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Urine Therapy - POV pushing - Islam section

Hi, there is persistent user (user:Inai09) on Urine Therapy that is going against a compromised consensus [263] with another administrator and I and keeps POV pushing [264] with the Islam section [265] [266] [267] [268]. For the past 3 hours I've tried to compromise with the user but he keeps reverting it back to the old version - a version that was not agreed on in consensus by both the admin and I. He's desperate to try to prove me wrong (I've placed in a lot of references whereas he's just relying on two or three) and has used personal attacks before to berate me [269] [270] having repeatedly going against the administrators advice of not making the Islam section too long [271]. After making the section as neutral as possible the said user then reverted to pre-consensus many times whilst I suggested for him to include his quote with in the NPOV written section that I wrote - but he's not listening. He seems like a relatively new user with no idea of any of the policies of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:OR [272]. He's including irrelvant sections into the article as well - of which has nothing to do with urine therapy per se by copying a statement from a book that has been refuted by the authors, and talks of the prophet Muhammad saying a mad, irrelevant thing that doesn't say anything about urine therapy. I just don't understand why he keeps trying to POV push, after the administrator agreed with me that the section was becoming more and more neutral [273] Could someone please check for neutrality sake? NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check which one is more neutral:

version by NarSakSasLee - 5 references relevant (includes differing views and NPOV balanced) - 0 irrevelent

version by user:Inai09 - 4 references relevant (includes a single view POV not balanced) - 2 irrelevant

NarSakSasLee (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WonderFulSoneElf

All uploads by User:WonderFulSoneElf appear to be copyvios. 92.40.33.151 (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. All of the files have been placed up for deletion, as it is required that files have both sources and license tags. A passing admin could probably get away with nuking the edit history of the user and deleting the files. Sven ManguardWha? 15:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got everything, including a trio of Commons uploads. Now all that is left is to wait for the files to get deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unjust deletion in Albania article

Encyclopedia Britannica has been accepted by Wikipedia as a reliable source so please return my editing, in Here The uprisings of 1910-1912, the Ottoman defeat in the Balkan Wars, and the subsequent Montenegrin, Serbian, and Greek invasion of Albania,^[2] led to the proclamation of independence by Ismail Qemali in Vlora, on 28 November 1912. I have checked many articles, and Britannica is accepted as reliable. It seems that we have a prejudiced decision stemming from nationalistic sentiments.(Edvin (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I would also request to revert the deletion of new facts i brought in the Religion in Albania article,here, where i duly cited the book on Illyrians from Aleksander Stipcevic, which can bee seen here. (Edvin (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

My understanding is that we can't source anything directly to Britannica since they're just a composition of various primary sources, in other words, they're an encyclopedia like us. I have found many errors in Britannica as well. I'd be surprised if Lonely Planet passes WP:RS either, but maybe I'm just out of touch. —Soap— 16:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why we have two related sections open on what is essentially a dispute over sources? The reliable sources noticeboard is a more appropriate venue; no admin action is required here or at the thread above. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crissy Moran - low-level edit war, block evasion

There appears to be a prolonged, low-level edit war on Crissy Moran, the biography of a former porn performer, replacing a rather tame upper-body portrait (file:Crissy_Moran.jpg) with a cropped version of the same (file:Crissy_Moran_cropped.jpg). I would not bother bringing this up here, but a new user, User:Dbiela1, has inserted a link to a Facebook page purported to belong to Moran. User:Dbiela8293 was previously indef blocked for repeatedly inserting unsourced information about the real name of Moran, which makes me wonder about the authenticity of the Facebook page. Note also the similarity of usernames. Perhaps semi-protection of the article is in order, if nothing else? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Epstein

We've got a major case of whitewashing going on in the Jeffrey Epstein article - complete with SPAs acting on behalf of the biographical subject. This is a LOT more than one admin can handle without support. The short story is that this guy is a convicted sex offender and friend of Prince Andrew. The case and relationship were all over the news last year. The edit summary here and the SPAs pretty well sum up the problem. As much as I'd like to, I don't think it's appropriate for a single admin to go in and single-handedly block and revert all the SPAs involved. Rklawton (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This could very easily be someone out to discredit him (yeah, I know, discredit him) - I doubt that a professional reputational management firm would act like this - it's just begging for news coverage. Don't see why one admin can't handle it unless there's a lot of oversighted edits. Egg Centric 22:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting help because there are several SPA's involved (or socks) and because it involves significant BLP issues. Unless we have a "blocked due to whitewashing" option (which we don't) the whole thing will look more like an edit war where the SPAs quibble over details and then complain here about a "rogue" admin. By requesting help here, we can hopefully prevent a lot of wasted time. Rklawton (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok dokey. Oh, and watchlisted it. Egg Centric 01:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As time permits, I'll go back over previous edits and see if anything that was removed requires restoration. Some stuff, like putting the "negative" information at the bottom of the article (a standard whitewashing practice), can wait. I'll probably start restoring reliably sourced information about his relationship with Prince Andrew - as it's all been removed. Rklawton (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a bit of "whitewashing" of my own, however - I think the speculation by IPs that he is a paedophile (and involved in child porn and the white slave trade in one case!) on the article talkpage is a BLP violation. Removal is here and I wonder if it is appropriate to revdel them? Fortunately, not being an admin, it isn't my call to make Egg Centric 01:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between a discussion about improving article content and making a statement as if it's fact. To wit, "Should we list him as a pedophile because of the accusations that he engaged in sexual activities with underage girls?" is OK to put in a discussion page. Saying "XYZ is a pedophile", unless he has been convicted, is not OK anywhere - even on a talk page. Rklawton (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think by that standard the second section I removed is probably ok; the first section on the other hand is accusing him of being into child porn and people trafficking. Worth doing anything about? Egg Centric 17:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It continues Egg Centric 22:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning given, per that edit. A misleading edit summary used to disguise the removal of content is not ok, period. The next time he does it, he will be blocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's especially amusing because the change he made (aside from the stuff he hoped no one would notice) was actually incorrect; the IAS isn't part of Princeton University, so far as I can see. Egg Centric 23:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Checkuser confirms abuse of multiple accounts here. Blocked, and the article put on semi for a while. Courcelles 23:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is trolling

The more I look at this the more I'm convinced this is trolling, or at least editing by opponents of his (and I should imagine he has a lot of them). Could you imagine an edit like this seriously having come from anyone on Epstein's side? Only if he is so charitable he provides employment for those whose central nervous system is nothing more than a spinal cord. If that is the case, perhaps it explains the gushing... Egg Centric 23:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive deletion of sources and parts of articles by User:Athenean

I have been editing the article Albania, by providing western reliable sources, especially in the parts History and Religion of Albania. But the User: Athenean keeps deleting them, and provides no sources or some dubious sources which are not in English. It seems that he has some personal issues with me, because he goes to every article that i edit, and keeps deleting my posts. Some of the deletions are: ^[3], and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Albania&diff=469980311&oldid=469785912. I demand that some measures to be taken against this member, as he keeps interfering with my work. (Edvin (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Slightly tangential, but I was wondering if anyone can advise me what the current consensus is on the use of non-English sources on articles relating to the Balkans and eastern Europe? It seems to me that sources used to substantiate claims about such contentious topics really should be English to maximise verifiability. Basalisk^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONENGNobody Ent 03:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English-language sources are preferred where available, but if we only used evidence published in one language we'd hardly be fulfilling our potential as an encyclopædia.

Sometimes if editor X disagrees with editor Y who uses foreign-language sources, it's tempting for X to assume that Y is misrepresenting what a source really says, but I've never actually seen it done directly (though I've seen people skirting round the edges of that on a couple of other Balkan topics) - best to assume good faith. Also, there should be other people around with sufficient knowledge of the language to identify any problems - a wikiproject page can often be a good place to ask for help understanding sources. bobrayner (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no excuse for using Scribd as a source though. If the content in question is actually true then surely there's a more reliable source which supports it - try browsing a few historical journals on Google Scholar. bobrayner (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Britannica has been accepted by Wikipedia as a reliable source so please return my editing, in Here The uprisings of 1910-1912, the Ottoman defeat in the Balkan Wars, and the subsequent Montenegrin, Serbian, and Greek invasion of Albania,^[4] led to the proclamation of independence by Ismail Qemali in Vlora, on 28 November 1912. I have checked many articles, and Britannica is accepted as reliable. It seems that we have a prejudiced decision stemming from nationalistic sentiments. (Edvin (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

There is a clear problematic pattern by Edvin: use of aggresive style language ([[274]] proclaming that Albanian related articles have been attacked by 'outsiders' and should be cleared from outside vandalism). Similar pro-national activity by edditing, like ([[275]][[insist on the term 'Albanian ethnic territory' referring to regions outside Albania). There is also use of aggresive edit summaries by adding fringe theories about ancient use of svastika in Albania [[276]].Alexikoua (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And? You deleted those posts. I am requesting that the post which i have cited from Britannica to be returned. It is the exact word used by Britannica and i request that to be returned. I have just added information, not edited what was already there. (Edvin (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Are you saying that Books are not anymore a source for Wikipedia? Check this. (Edvin (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The sources claim something completely diferrent: both Britannica (no word about Lebensraum and 'Albanian ethnic territory', or unjust invasions by other Balkan countries) and Stipcevic (use of Svastika by Illyrians in an article named 'Religion in Albania' is at least irrelevant)Alexikoua (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence deleted was "The uprisings of 1910-1912, the Ottoman defeat in the Balkan Wars, and the subsequent Montenegrin, Serbian, and Greek invasion of Albania,[4] led to the proclamation of independence by Ismail Qemali in Vlora, on 28 November 1912."

So i will have to return this sentence as duly cited from Britannica. Swastika represented the god Sun according to Stipcevic and other sources, that this is religion according to most of the people of this planet and it is connected to 'Religion in Albania'. (Edvin (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

86.24.143.245 persistent personal link spam

The Giffgaff article regularly suffers from users who post their own giffgaff links onto the wikipedia page in the hope of getting a £5 referral fee if users sign up through their link. There is a section on the Talk page which describes the problem. The user 86.24.143.245 has been persistently posting his own links over the last couple of days. Can this IP be temporarily blocked for a while?

Note: giffgaff is a UK phone operator which allows existing members to earn money by recruiting new ones. This is why the wikipedia article suffers from this as users think it's a good way to advertise their own links. ChrisUK (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given them a 48hr rest ... but wouldn't blacklisting be more effective in the longrun? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLACKLIST says page protection is a preferable alternative; semi seems appropriate. Nobody Ent 13:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, I have seen some positive edits by IP's on that article - including reverting the inclusion of the spam. Semi would therefore inhibit those edits (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current blacklist requests I'm seeing block the entire domain -- can the list to be used to block subpages (e.g. http://giffgaff.com/orders )? Nobody Ent 13:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The actual blacklist contains some subpages, e.g. x-fat.com/p90x-review and finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/Fil_Chi. --Lambiam 22:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off wiki harrasment

• - User_talk:Jimbo Wales#Academy of Achievement Contact Information and User:Ebikeguy

It's getting a little messy on Jimmy's talk page. A user is now posting the email one of the employers of User:WWB Too and requesting wikipedia editors to contact them and complain about them using User:WBB Too as a paid editor - I think this has clearly over stepped the mark and is encouraging off wiki WP:HARRASMENT of a wikipedia user. Paid editing is not against policy no matter how much he Ebikerguy or anyone else doesn't like it and encouraging wiki editors to contact the real life, real time, employer of one of our editors is totally out of line imo.User talk:Ebikeguy#your request for_off wiki action I have asked him to retract it but he has refused. Youreallycan (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting together a schedule of visits and calls to major PR firms and to people who I can identify as paying for inappropriate behavior at Wikipedia. I think I need not be alone in this. I think members of the general public, including Wikipedians, have every right to enter the public debate by letting people who are funding the subversion of the basic principles of Wikipedia know that their actions are not appreciated and will be exposed, to their likely embarrassment. I would appreciate anyone interested in this issue helping me to identify the worst violators or potential violators so that we can begin to take more systematic action on this issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy... As a PR professional who has tried to discuss this issue with you via email and, this week, publicly on my blog, I'm struggling here with the nature of your approach. I understand your frustrations and certainly don't condone the bad behavior that has been well-publicized and documented. The thing is, most PR people want to do the right thing by Wikipedia. That said, they are frustrated by the fact that 1) many entries suffer from benign (and not-so-benign) neglect, 2) activism more or less gets a free pass, and 3) there's every possibility that even a minor edit by a PR person could blow up into a unnecessarily reputation-damaging kerfuffle (e.g., "ACME edited it's Wikipedia page!" even if the edit was to update the annual financials or whatever). With respect, you should take a step back and focus on working constructively with people in my line of work (and encourage others to do the same) rather than lecture to them. Here's a Facebook group of people, many quite well-known in the trade and generally in business, who are trying to help you. --Philgomes (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, if some WTC truther published your home contact details demanding other conspiracy theorists contact you about how wikipedia is !!!!SURPRESSING THE TRUTH1! about 9/11 would you appreciate it? Of course wikipedians have every right to enter the debate on paid editing, and so do the WTC nuts have every right to enter the debate about the 9/11 article. And for that matter, wikipedia has the right to encourage this. Rights have nothing to do with it. The merits of the idea are all that matter, and such encouragement has very lmiited merit imo. Egg Centric 10:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do "home contact details" have to do with anything? My email address is jwales@wikia.com and I welcome emails about Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because home contact details aren't used in this case doesn't mean that they are different in principle. The example I gave is more extreme, but that is deliberate as it is to illustrate the principle. Egg Centric 19:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely visits to PR firms will result in them ceasing doing what they are paid to do. Given the limited number of volunteers to scrutinize edits -- I've come across months old "sneaky vandalism" -- it's better to encourage the type of declared interest edit via talk page behavior WWB Too has demonstrated. Volunteer editors' skepticism towards paid editors will go a long way towards ensuring NPOV. Demonizing paid editing will drive it underground into a cat and mouse game; instead of merely having to scrutinize paid editing, Wikipedians will have to first expend time finding it. Nobody Ent 13:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is all well and good, except that "subversion of the basic principles of Wikipedia" is a very subjective matter. Some folks seem to think that paid editing is per se against our basic principles, while many others do not. I would hope that such popular uprising is targeted against those who 1) do their edits themselves, 2) fail to disclose their COI, and 3) violate NPOV, and 4) receive financial gain based those NPOV violations. I think that anyone who violates all 4 is clearly over the line... but the community is far from unanimous about lesser degrees of paid editing. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Under our current guidelines a company is allowed to advertise for someone to improve their article and to pay them for doing so. The company is doing nothing wrong by doing that. The person that improves the article for a payment is also not doing anything wrong according to our current guidelines. The issue is in the details of the "improvement" - is it NPOV and covers all points. Whats a company going to say. We looked at our article and it was rubbish and we saw people advertising to improve wikipedia articles and the guy said it's allowed and that he would follow all wikipedia guidelines. Youreallycan (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Improvement" from a company's point of view inevitably means something different from the way improvement is understood at Wikipedia. A profit-seeking company has no interest in NPOV. We should expect that a paid editor is not interested in NPOV and that his/her edits will be problematic. That expectation is certainly borne out in the case of the editor discussed here (WWB); that Cracker Barrel article was turned into a real piece of shit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagree that the Cracker Barrel article was, following my involvement, "a real piece of shit". The article draft I contributed for review on the article's Talk page and at WikiProject Food and drink was much more complete and was far better sourced, particularly following WikiProject Companies' article composition guidelines. A simple side-by-side comparison of the version before my involvement and the version following my involvement I think shows this well. And please note, I did not move it into the mainspace myself. That said, I am respectful that other editors believe the newer version was too favorable, although I may soon comment on some changes I think are unwarranted. WWB Too (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

break

• Reply from Accused Editor - This accusation is utterly without merit. I did publish an email address for a company using paid Wikipedia editors, which I found on their website. I encouraged editors to contact the company and let the company know how they felt about paid Wikipedia editors, but I did not mention any editor by name in my note. Note that Wikipedia defines harrassment as "as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior." While I do not feel my behavior was, in any way, offensive, that is a judgment call. However, my accuser refers to one, isolated event/edit, so it would be nonsensical to associate my edit with a sustained pattern of repeated behavior. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ebikeguy's request was to "tell them how you feel". Possibly some editors might love paid editing and be inspired to write to this organization lauding them for their efforts to pay someone to write their wikipedia page. Just sayin'. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The section has been collapsed from view by an administrator with a notice of - "Calls for real life harrassment of a Wikipedian's employer do not belong here" - which I totally agree with and which is an acceptable administrative action to resolve this report. Youreallycan (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Youreallycan, it isn't. I doubt an admin will leave him unblocked, since off-wiki harassment of this sort has a powerful chilling effect on other editors. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have shown above, nothing I have done constitutes harassment in any form. If any editor, sysop or otherwise, can show me how my post violates any Wikipedia editing rule, I will gladly retract it. Also, your post seems to suggest that a sysop should use a block to punish me. Blocks are not punitive; they are a tool to stop disruptive editing. I certainly do not intend to repost this email address anywhere else, and am avoiding any potentially contentious editing until this matter is resolved, so no disruptive editing on my part is threatened. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) - @Jéské - I was just looking for the least drama. I was disappointed the user refused to just retract it. Historically in my wiki experience, such off wiki actions or encouragement to others to take such action has been looked on extremely unfavorably. I notice User:Ebikeguy isn't accepting the collapsing of his off wiki request to other editors and is objecting to the Admin - User talk:TParis#Collapsing Section on_Jimbo's Talk Page - Youreallycan (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Ebikeguy is singling out one editor, and it's me. As far as I can tell, Ebikeguy has followed me from one article's Talk page to Jimbo's Talk page and now to another article's Talk page. I hesitate to claim I'm being wikihounded but it's certainly heading in that direction (besides his attempt to take this off-wiki). It's worth noting that I've disclosed my COI relationships on every one of these pages, that I have limited my interactions almost entirely to Talk pages, where I have sought to obtain consensus for changes based on reliable sources. What Ebikeguy calls "whitewashing" is my attempt to bring these articles closer into line with Wikipedia's guidelines. It's always my goal is to follow the rules, and it's more than a little dismaying to receive this kind of treatment. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another accusation, this time by an editor that makes his living editing Wikipedia articles for paying clients, that is entirely without merit. Note that all the articles he lists have been wikilinked together, and several editors have gone from one to another, following the diverging threads involved in this discussion. To call my participation in these related discussions "Wikihounding" is entirely unreasonable. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks like hounding to me. Stop this hounding and outingnow. bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with your assessment and point out that several different editors have posted at many or all of the pages WWB Too lists, above (as they followed the discussion thread in the same way I did), I have noted above that I will not be making any potentially contentious edits until this matter is resolved. So, in that sense, I am stopping the editing with which you disagree now, and I will not repeat this type of edit if it is shown to be in violation of Wikipedia rules.Ebikeguy (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Ebikeguy's effort has resulted in at least one angry letter received by the Academy today. WWB Too (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to see what type of response my reasonable, neutrally-worded post inspired. Please feel free to post the letter here, expunging any personal information. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Ebikeguy as the main protagonist needs to clarify if that email was sent by him. It seems quite reasonable assumption that he would email them, considering he was the one that searched for the company email ( which was as he stated, "difficult to find contact information" ) and he was the one that posted in on wiki asking editors to post to that email address that he would post them himself. Youreallycan (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No admin here: Just my 2 pence: I recall a while back it came to light a professor had assigned his students to purposefully insert inaccuracies (i.e. vandalize) Wikipedia. At first their was a lot of support to contact the school's administration to complain, and it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. But then it all just kind of spiraled out of control. Anyway, I know this isn't the same thing, but Ebikeguy is walking a fine line here, and I'd suggest if he has info that an outside entity was abusing Wikipedia's core mission for profit, he should have simply contacted the WM Foundation and let them handle it. Likewise, if WWB Too is violating policies, then Ebikeguy (or me or any other editor) can take action through the proper WP channels. In short, I'm sure he was well intentioned, but probably just collapsing the section and dropping the stick at this point would be the best course forward. Quinn ^➳WINDY 21:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I interpreting correctly, that a company's website is or was soliciting paid editing of wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 21:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor openly declared that he was paid to improve a companies article. This is the backlash of that good faith declaration. Youreallycan (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did that editor identify which company he was editing for? If so, I'm unclear where the "outing" charge comes from. At the very least, identifiable paid edits need to be closely scrutinized. The average company isn't likely paying editors to be "objective". ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 21:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no outing. - Scrutiny of editors, yes, but that does not involve posting emails details on wiki and encouraging other wiki editors to write to the address you have posted to complain to their employers about it. - Youreallycan (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user Bobrayner, above, accuses the editor in question of "outing" someone. Canvassing by posting external e-mails does not strike me as being appropriate. However, IF there is a pattern of bias in paid editing, it does strike me that that should be brought to wikipedia's attention. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→

Yes, bob was mistaken in his outing comment. Youreallycan (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 22:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, Roger Rabbit - Youreallycan (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's your vector, Victor? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment struck through. I had thought at first glance that pushing the email address counted as outing. Obviously, wiser folk than me have disagreed, so I stand corrected. I still think the behaviour is inappropriate but I put the wrong label on it. bobrayner (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, I hesitate to comment again (I'm also upthread) because all of this has been quite unpleasant, but I'm the COI editor in question. I'm always very open about my efforts, and I look for consensus before going beyond non-controversial edits. I also understand editors' understandable skepticism, hence my cautious approach. I suppose I am not the "average" COI editor. A couple of my articles are a matter of current debate—not all of the criticisms fair in my estimation, but I don't get to make that call—and I think my work will hold up over time. Happy to discuss more. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You walk a delicate tightrope. The company I work for is not even on my watchlist. Editing with a potential conflict of interest is risky business. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 22:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That rabbit is working for Warner Bros. Animation and you is a major contributor to the Bugs Bunny biography. - Youreallycan (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dat's right, Doc - dey pay me in carrots. :) ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you is stealing dem carrots from Elmer Fudd - Youreallycan (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ebikeguy: I don't care if you retract it, but I do want you to stop doing it. This kind of activity will do nothing but encourage people with conflicts of interest to hide their affiliations rather than being open and up-front about it. 28bytes (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and considering the reaction my edit caused, I am highly inclined to agree with you at this point! Ebikeguy (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear we need a better policy regarding paid editing than "This guy was a jerk, so he can't do paid editing, but these other guys are nice, so they can!" There are many bright line rules, there are other shade of grey rules, but then theres WP:COI, and that's neither. Hipocrite (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing is a threat to Wikipedia's standards. No editor who is paid to work on an article by the subject of the article can be assumed to be editing with a neutral point of view, period. - The Bushranger_{One ping only} 23:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad policy makes questionable decision. Rather than having a knee-jerk reaction, go to the root and fix the problem so we don't have to waste so much time on debating who should be sanctioned when we should be improving Wikipedia. And for the record, I'm also against paid editing. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are paid editors who do edit stealthily, under the radar, with no disclosure and little accountability, and those who announce their COI and accept the scrutiny that comes with full disclosure. The stealthy ones will be with us no matter what. The only thing "cracking down" would do is encourage the "full disclosure" paid editors to stop disclosing their COI. I can't imagine we'd want that. 28bytes (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't pretend that it's okay in the hope that paid flacks will "do the right thing" and declare their COI. What should be happening is that paid flacks should be pursued and banned from the site. This is a fundamental threat to the content of the encyclopedia, every bit as repulsive as political staffers whitewashing their boss and throwing mud at the opposition. Paid editing should be severely dealt with. Carrite (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet if you prohibit it, you will just drive it under ground. As long as people are going to edit with a conflict of interest they should be encouraged to disclose it, not punished for disclosing it. causa sui (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. For anyone who considers paid editors to be, essentially, an enemy of Wikipedia's core principles, there's an old saying worth considering. 28bytes (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So: "if we enforce the law, nobody will admit to breaking it, so we won't enforce it?" That's not something I can get behind, no, sorry. - The Bushranger_{One ping only} 01:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point is there is no such law that's being broken, and I think before we add more laws we'd be well-served to consider the practical effect of them. We don't need "tough on paid editors" posturing if the net effect is to make paid editing less detectable, and thus more likely to effectively degrade our content. 28bytes (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should. The rule is unenforceable, and trying to enforce it leads to Wikipedia being worse, not better. Draw parallels to the American War on Drugs if you like. You might want to ban it, but enforcement causes more harm than good, and in many cases, enforcement causes even more harm than what you're trying to ban. causa sui (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Was there something actually wrong with the paid edits? Were they factually incorrect, pov-pushing, or whatever? If so, then those edits might deserve a harsh response, just as they would with an editor who made some bad edits for some other motive. If the edits are OK, then the editor was just getting paid for what most of us do for free, and I don't think that is - or should be - punishable. We can't see who is and isn't getting paid for their edits, but we can see the content changes they make, which is just as well, since the content changes should be what we care about. bobrayner (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk:Cracker Barrel Old Country Store gives a good sample of views about at least one such article. 28bytes (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Good paid editing is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, just as is all good editing. Promotional or other improper paid editing is not a positive contribution, just as is all improper non-paid editing. Like everyone here, I tend to look very carefully and the quality of declared paid editing, but no more than I am about blatantly promotional undeclared editing. I'm certainly not happy with the article in question overall, both in its state as a promotional article and in the attempt to turn it into an attack article, but I appreciate candidness. I do suggest though, that paid editors might do well to make their edits, but not too aggressively defend them against criticism, but rather see the criticism an attempt to show how to be mote effective. (Certainly they should properly and calmly defend themselves against unjustified criticism, like anyone else.) Attacking a paid editor personally on wiki is like attacking any other editor personally, and cannot be tolerated. Attacking them off-wiki or promoting such attacks is using the encyclopedia for harassment, and justifies a block to stop it. Promotion is bad enough, but harassment is much worse. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely comdemn any harassment. But I also hold, absolutely, that a paid editor can not have a neutral point of view, full stop. They might well have the very best of intentions, but we all know the saying about good intentions. - The Bushranger_{One ping only} 01:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your position fails to take to consideration the masses of users whose upaid and undeclared POV violates beyond comparison anything that this user is claimed to have done - Youreallycan (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The aim is to create NPOV articles. This does not preclude having a point of view - only editing articles to make them display it. Someone can have a COI or a POV and still edit in a way that improves the project. If they don't, the issue isn't whether or not they have a POV, but the quality of their edits. - Bilby (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not attacked, harassed, or encouraged any harassment of any editor, on or off wiki. None of my edits have violated any Wikipedia rules, in this matter or in any other matter. All of my edits in this matter have been both civil and limited, and I have encouraged other editors to express their thoughts in a civil manner as well. While I now appreciate and understand that many editors feel that publishing off-wiki contact information for companies with Wikipedia articles should be discouraged, and I have no intention of doing so again, I reiterate that I have not, to the best of my knowledge, violated any rules. Note that the contact information I posted was available on the main page of the organization's website and that the URL of the website is published in their article on Wikipedia. If someone can point to a specific rule that I demonstrably violated, I will immediately undo the edit in question and apologize to the community as a whole. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It's supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Articles are supposed to be NPOV, it doesn't mean the individuals writing them are. I owned a Morgan sailboat and created the Charley Morgan article. Does that make the article NPOV? We don't do job interviews for letting writers in, we evaluate whether their edits follow Wikipedia practice. Nobody Ent 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Anybody who believes that paid editing isn't commonplace around here -- or that Wikipedia has any control over it -- is a complete idiot. At least this fellow owned up. Just evaluate the edits on their own merits and move along. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 user likes this. And that's only scratching the surface of people's motivations for editing here. Is a paid PR person more dangerous than an ideological fanatic? As long as WP:COI is just a feel-good but toothless guideline, this is an academic debate anyway. And there's the reverse to consider: do you really want experts to not edit topics they are somehow financially connected with? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Amen, Nobody Ent and Boris; WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Yopienso (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As I've said the many times this has come up before: there is nothing in our policy that forbids paid editing, nor should there ever be. All of us are paid editors. Some of us get money. Some of us get a weird kind of fame. Some of us get the good feeling that we're making the world a better place. Some of us just get A Clean, Well-Lighted Place to fill our spare time. People who are here to edit company (etc.) pages in a promotional way are actually pretty easy to deal with--scrub the puffery, delete the page if there's nothing left. Sometimes, not at all surprisingly, they actually provide useful information and references. There was a great post from a PR person on Jimbo's talk page who pointed out that for a good public relations person, they don't even want a puff piece--they just want something neutral to occupy one or more of the top ten slots on a Google search. I don't see any logic whatsoever to our tendency to give nationalists, supporters of extreme political or religious positions, or "super-fans" of TV shows seven hundred and a twenty-nine chances before we finally decide their NPOV behavior isn't in line with community standards, but someone whose boss tells them to add info from a valid mainstream newspaper article to their company's page is facing an instant block. As I recall, we held an RfC on this last year, and there was absolutely no consensus to strengthen WP:COI or any other policy to prohibit paid editing. If the WMF wants to override the community on this issue, they need to do so explicitly--it is their right, even though the decision would be "wrong". Qwyrxian (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you think it's okay to smile at a cop but illegal to bribe one? There's a huge distinction between getting being paid to do someone's bidding, and doing so for social or intrinsic personal reasons. As for PR agencies funding purely neutral articles that's all lip service. A good PR agent is one who produces results for the client and is a rainmaker for the firm. I have yet to meet a PR firm or client that would write in plain English, much less present the facts fairly and neutrally. If they knew they would not be detected and suffer negative consequences for doing so they are under absolutely no professional obligation to spread information that runs counter to the purpose of boosting the client, and in fact doing so would be a disservice to their client. Have you ever seen a hard-hitting press release? That is not their purpose of being, it is not part of their ethical directive. The first rule of conflicts of interest is that if they're not prohibited, they need to be publicly disclosed. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this is the line we should be taking. The rule should be that paid editing should be disclosed but not banned. This is for The Bushranger, too: NPOV is a requirement that Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view, but not that any of its editors must. If that were the requirement, hardly anybody would be allowed to edit in their particular areas of interest. And as I argued above, banning paid editing only drives it under ground. Since we can't know for sure if someone is a paid editor, and trying to figure it out will only lead to witch hunts, we should reward people for disclosing their conflicts of interest, not punish them for it. causa sui (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go all the way - declare that anyone with a COI needs to declare it up front and be treated under the same rules. Work for Greenpeace? Make sure you declare the COI for any page you edit that Greenpeace is protesting. Getting paid to edit a page? Declare it. Fan of a music group/actor/movie/(something)? Declare it if you want to edit the page. There are plenty of editors here that are on WP because they have a bone to pick about something or here to promote a favored cause. You cannot call them NPOV editors. They probably have more motivation than paid editors, to be honest. So make it policy that all editors with a COI must declare it and that paid editors inherently have a COI. Or isn't that about what we have now? Ravensfire (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You DO realize that "being a fan" =/= "conflict of interest"?, right? You DO realize conflating "direct financial benefit" with "personal taste" is really really unhelpful? --CaltonTalk 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not speaking for Ravensfire, but I understand that while our rules make it different, it's not necessarily as different as it appears. We have had "X's number one fan" before be as if not more disruptive than many company employees I encounter (the ones who insist that they know what's "really" important, that their idol should never have any negative info written about them, etc.). And if company PR were such a problem, why are the majority of our Arbcom cases about nationalist, religious, ethical, or other such problems? Yes, I'll admit that COI has been a massive problem before, as with Scientology and Tree Shaping, but that, to me, is a far smaller problem. I've had far more people threaten me or my wiki-friends with off wiki-harassment, legal threats, and even death threats in one case over Indian caste articles than over any corporate article. In any event, no matter what people say here--policy does not prevent COI editing. If you want policy to say that, start an RfC and get consensus. Or get he Foundation to make policy by fiat. But until policy changes, COI editing is allowed, including paid editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Calrton, I think willful ignorance of COI from personal taste is the really, really unhelpful view here. Let's see, most people are afraid that paid editors will overstate the good aspects and understate the bad aspects of something. Or the reverse if they are supposed to go against something. Hmmm, who else would do something like that... Oh, wait, that's right, (if you'll pardon the slang) fanboi's. People angry about something. True believers spreading WP:THETRUTH. And since we're in the early stages of what promises to be such a lovely campaign season, let's not forget about the supporters for politicians. But that's right .. they just have personal taste and won't cause any problems. Yeah, bullshit. A conflict of interest is just that - I don't give a damn WHERE it comes from, it's just as hard to deal with. Pull off the blinders and look around at the crap that non-paid editors with strong POV's put into articles. I don't care what motivates an editor here - if they produce helpful work, great. If it's not helpful, revert and attempt to educate. A bad paid editor will end up failing their client when all their work is removed and probably lose the contract (and not get paid). A good paid editor will put the good with the bad in proper proportion AND, most importantly, make sure their client knows that ahead of time. Ravensfire (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, look

Well until the Foundation comes to its senses let's not just spin our wheels here. Let's make an organized effort to look at ways we can address this. Here's a draft:

• User:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Editing Watch

This is a draft; I ask all like-minded editors to take a look, join up if you have the time, and let's see what can be done. Herostratus (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest name change to Red Channels to more accurately describe potential effects on atmosphere of Wikipedia editing. →StaniStani 11:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a helpful remark, and an incredibly inapt (and insensitive) comparison. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Walk

So this gets closed even though there was an ultra clear and unanimous consensus?LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kolins (again)

This is the third time I've brought it here. The first two discussions - November 2011 and December 2011 - as well as a number of discussions over at WT:FOOTBALL (links can be found in previous ANIs) speak for themselves i.e. Kolins (talk · contribs) should not be removing valid nationality categories from footballer articles. The consensus on that is pretty clear to me. However, he is still up to his old tricks, and I would like some proper admin intervention this time. GiantSnowman 13:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC/U? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that, but given the fact that it's been here where people have said his conduct was iffy, I thought this would be the right forum. Should I take it there then? GiantSnowman 14:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recidivism issue, complicated by the fact that the user does not appear willing to talk about the issue. The ideal solution would be to leave him a message saying "You do this again, you're blocked for a week." That being said, this discussion, linked to in one of the above threads, dosen't really establish the community authority needed to make that statement. I'm sorry Snowman, it's clear to me that this user isn't acting in a constructive manner, but unless you can point to a discussion where there's clear consensus against this, or this becomes an edit war, I don't see blocks coming into this. That being said, I'm not an admin, you might find one who thinks that three ANI discussions on the same issue is enough for a block. Sven ManguardWha? 16:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really going for a block to be honest - he is, this and his unwillingness to discuss aside, a normally decent editor - I'd rather an admin (i.e. someone with authority) to issue a formal, final warning, as was suggested in December's ANI. GiantSnowman 17:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm obviously not going to get any help here so will take to RFC/U instead. GiantSnowman 11:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Christopher Bryden

Wow, I don't even know whats going on here. I took a look at the new editor contribs, and I saw this user creating articles on a bunch of different user spaces. It makes my head hurt and I don't know if any of the CSD criteria really stick, so can I get someone to come take a look?

• User:Christopher Bryden
• User:McSooty Web Vids
• User:McSooty & Friends
• User:McSooty & Friends Short's
• User:McSooty & Sweep's Talk Show
• User:McSooty & Friends Cast

I don't know how many more there are. Any help is appreciated! 132.3.33.68 (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought from your words was that these would be deleteable under speedy criterion U2, but that doesn't apply because (to my surprise) all of these usernames have been registered. It's quite obvious that these usernames are all the same person. These userpages don't really appear to be appropriate uses of userspace, so they should be deleted (but through WP:MFD, since they don't fall into any specific speedy criteria), but other than that I don't see any problematic editing. I guess the best thing to do is to mark all of the McSootys as alternate accounts of Christopher, since I don't see these actions as warranting a sockpuppetry block. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember speedying them earlier today (they were in article space at the time). I think it would be appropriate to MfD them with WP:FAKEARTICLE. →Στc. 03:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A7? Theoretically web content that is non-notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be bold here: I'm going to block the Bryden account as sockmaster for a brief time. Indef the obvious WP:DUCK accounts. Speedy the trash. Have a little discussion with Bryden. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing on Europe by Andriabenia

Anarchy at Kingdom of Sardinia again

Once again, large-scale edit warring has broken out between IP socks, at Kingdom of Sardinia and related pages. Semi-protection seems obvious, but in order to settle this finally (since the same thing happens every so often, with no progress) we could ideally do with an admin who's prepared to supervise the process of reaching a solution and enforcing it against the two warriors who are never going to compromise. There's a suitable proposal on the talk page at the moment.--Kotniski (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've semiprotected for 0.025 decades. I can't participate in the discussion because I don't know the subject well enough. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3 months=0.25 decades... Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhh, no..... 1 decade = 120 months, 3 / 120 = 0.025, 0.25 decade = 3 years --64.85.216.114 (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Studio201 issues

Studio201 (talk · contribs) appears to be engaged in conflict of interest, legal threats, and possibly edit-warring.[282] User also edited under 76.227.149.137 (talk · contribs). Please look into this and take appropriate action. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked indefinitely as a promotional username/role account per WP:ORGNAME (they were posting links to a site requesting donations to themselves). I'm not quite sure whether the edits violated WP:NLT as the person they were suggesting they might take legal action against was a BLP subject rather an editor, but they certainly violated WP:BLP. January(talk) 16:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lanny A. Breuer

Requesting administrator help. I reverted user:Turtlewaxingmycar edits to the article which gloo marked as vandalism and automatically issued a warning as vandalism. I looked into it once out of gloo and was certainly not neutral however there is merit for being included. He posted this [283] on my talk page twice was a minor attack on me not exactly serious though. The editor is accusing wikipedia of censorship and taking about press involvement so though it best to bring here for admin review.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a quick look at article talk page as well.EdinburghWanderer 18:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the contributions too, most of which are personal attacks. I tried getting this user to calm down, but he refuses to. Admin action, I think, needs to be taken. Usb10^{plug me in} 18:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gloo? Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry its really Igloo but is abbreviated to Gloo User:Ale jrb/Scripts/igloo its a vandalism tool.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the article talk page guiding Turtlewaxingmycar to the notability guideline and explaining that talk page discussion is the means to their end. Tiderolls 23:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ace Baker: disruption, points, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith

I first came across this user when he made this edit to WP:V as a WP:POINT due to a conflict regarding sourcing and notability on the article about him, Ace Baker. When I first arrived at the article it was mostly 9/11 conspiracy stuff coupled with a bunch of unsourced claims regarding this subject's accomplishments. I submitted the article for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ace_Baker.

At the AFD discussion the first accusations of bad faith were that the point of the AFD was due to him having discovered the secret behind 9/11 (that the planes were photoshopped into the video) and that obviously we were trying to censor him (easy to find in the AFD so not providing a diff).

This conversation diverged into a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS scenario regarding Gary Richrath, the guitarist for REO Speedwagon. Baker subsequently made the following WP:POINTY edits:

1. Large section blanking on Avant Garde Jazz - I doubt he took the time to check whether the information in the article was present in the reference given.
2. Blanking the lede of a Baylor University basketball scandal page
3. Removing obviously verifiable content from the aforementioned Gary Richrath page such as the REO speedwagon discography.

I warned him about making pointy edits on his user talk, afterwhich he made this edit. Technically that one was probably fine, but the point of course, was to make a point.

Since that last edit was mild I figured he was just trying to get the last word, but it didn't hurt the project so I had planned to drop it with hopes that not instigating him would lead to the conflict ending, but he then made personal attacks in this edit to the AFD, where we are called "filthy, provable liars."

I do not think this user is here to work on the encyclopedia, I think he is here to maintain the page about him, which looks like a snow delete. I don't think a topic ban relating to his article will work as he has shown that he has no problem throwing a tantrum and making pointy edits, thus I recommend an indef block. N^oformation ^Talk 22:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also come to the conclusion that the only reason this user has come to WP is to promote himself and his theories, and that, when his article was put up for AfD, his behavior has been childish and vindictive. I can't see this person ever contributing anything useful to the project. In fact, he seems intent on disrupting the project in revenge. I also consider an indefinite block the best solution for the good of the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue here is vandalism of my biography Ace Baker. The first problem was that User Natty10000 was insistent on putting false, unsourced material into the article. I kept trying to take it out, this was deemed an "edit war", I was warned to stop it, I was blocked from editing the article, while nothing was done to Natty10000. I persisted, and it became obvious that I was right, thus escalating the situation to problem 2. Ace Baker (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 2 was that User CindaMuse put self-publishing tags on my article. It's true that some of the sources were self-published, but were clearly within Wiki guidelines, which allow for self-published material to be used as sources "on themselves". CindaMuse falsely claimed that this rule only applied to inanimate things like books, movies, etc. When I corrected Cindamuse, pointing out that the rules make reference to "activities" and "experts", and that obviously inanimate objects cannot have activities nor be experts, it became quite provable that, once again, I was correct, and my attackers were wrong. This led to problem 3. Ace Baker (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 3 was a strategy to delete my article altogether, on the grounds of notability. First, however, the article had to be hacked to pieces, removing my notable accomplishments in music, such as my writing of the song "I'm On My Way", which was the end title song to "Barbie as Princess and the Pauper", my having composed the music for feature films starring academy award winning James Coburn, and my having been awarded a gold-record for work on Ice-T's "Freedom of Speech". YouTube IS a reliable source when its authenticity is not in question, the Barbie movie is on YouTube, my name is clearly in the credits, and this alone makes me notable, according to Wikipedia guidelines. Ace Baker (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, yes, bad faith is the only POSSIBLE explanation for this clear effort to cleanse Wikipedia of my information. The real issue, from Wikipedia's perspective, is that I have dared to create a 9/11 film, entitled "9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera" that provides compelling evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy, including a $100,000 offer for original 9/11 airplane videos. Ace Baker (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've indefinitely blocked this user. I see:

• several instances of disrupting Wikipedia to try to make a point
• serious competency concerns regarding core content policies
• personal attacks
• soapboxing

All of this - combined with the proliferation of fringe theories - gives me no reason whatsoever to think that this user's contributions are advantageous to Wikipedia; the opposite is probably true. Review/endorsement of this block welcome. WilliamH (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Douglas Youvan

Douglas Youvan (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)

Previous ANI disscussion

BLPN discussion

Drawit4u (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

I have been only tangentially involved in the issues associated with the Youvan article. However, after Drawit4u added some book refs back into the article, I removed them, mainly based on the BLPN discussion and the subsequent block of Noncanonical. Then Drawit4u added this section to my Talk page]. Frankly, I don't know what to make any of this, so I thought I'd bring it to the attention of others here. In particular, I am troubled by this sentence: "So, I ask you to turn back the article to my most recent edit before your revert, protect the article, and let's save the foundation a lot of time and money. This is going to get ugly." It doesn't appear to rise to the level of a legal threat, but it's disturbing. I don't know whether he means the Youvan Foundation or WMF. He also accuses Crowsnest of a financial conflict.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, my financial conflicts and association with MIT were already discovered before: here, here :-) Coincidentally, Noncanonical is blocked, and directly User:Drawit4u shows up, trying to port problems of Douglas Youvan on Commons here (while at the same time commons:User:Doug youvan transfers his problems here to Commons: File:Secular Fascism.png). -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, this[284] qualifies as a legal threat. Basically trying to intimidate. Must be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 22:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this edit includes "consider the Foundation and stop it!" in the edit summary. That is a very clear legal threat when read in conjunction with the link provided above by Baseball Bugs (that diff shows a comment including "...let's save the foundation a lot of time and money. This is going to get ugly." Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You and Baseball are just repeating the quote in my initial post above. I confess I'm surprised that you believe it's so clearly a legal threat. Saying "stop it", "let's save the foundation a lot of time and money" and "this is going to get ugly" could be perceived as a threat, but it's hardly a model of clarity. It doesn't mention anything about the law, or lawsuits, or law enforcement (our policy doesn't do a great job of defining what a legal threat is - the first section after the lead is what is not a legal threat, sigh). I'm not defending the comment, just saying it's too ambiguous to label it a legal threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While AGF is good, the edits mentioned are certainly an attempt to make a legal threat by someone who knows about WP:NLT (and who has probably been blocked previously for violations, so knows not to say "I am going to sue you"). Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peculiar IP behavior

The RFC page is on my watchlist and I noticed an IP editor removing an editor from it[285], I checked the IP contributions and he had removed the same editor from the signpost list.[286] I have reverted the IP but am unsure if this was the correct thing to do. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing weird there. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had not seen that, shall go revert my reverts than :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we block this IP for block evasion like 184.145.14.88 (talk · contribs) was blocked? Goodvac (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Walrasiad

This is going nowhere fast. I can't see any admin action that needs to be done. Please discuss this with me before Reverting --Guerillero My Talk 06:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My edits mainly concern articles of Portuguese history, and I recently requested a move for John VI of Portugal to João VI of Portugal. Throughout the entire discussion Walrasiad has displayed incredibly less than exemplary behavior. Even after the end of the discussion and the move, he has shown him self to be, pardon myself, a plain rude person. If one looks at the discussion he wrote on the userpage of the user that made the move, one can easily see that he does not conduct himself in a manner that one should conduct themselves. Just a skim over all his posts on Talk:João VI of Portugal, one can see how insults users and other cultures (even calling the Portuguese language ugly!). I cannot, in good manner, work on wikipedia knowing that such a rude man is going around on wikipedia unpunished for his rudeness, I will not stand for it. I take great insult from this man and Im sure that anyone can see why. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] This is related to ANI I filed above. For the record, the above user was the one who initiated the move request whose closure I contested there. Walrasiad (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] For the record, whatever I initiate does not give you right to insult me, let alone my fatherland and culture!Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] The user complained about - Walrasiad - has been basically right about everything he has written in that regard in his honest, almost desparate attempt to protect English WP from unnecessary pollution of language by the unnecessary, unreasonable and disruptive introduction of phonetically extremely challenging foreign words. The discussion contained very nasty slurs against a number of us as "xenophobic" on the part of the complainer's cronies and cohorts. I think 3-4 of us kept our tempers pretty well under such bombardment. My only objection is that Walrasiad once used the word "ugly", which I would never have done even of angry, but even he has the right to his opinion, if he feels that some language is ugly. It's not unusual that some people find some languages "ugly", and taste cannot be debated. It looks to me like the complainer here thinks English is ugly, at least the name "John". This complaint is clearly retaliatory and frivolous (see section above "Premature RM closure of John VI of Portugal"). SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] He has a right to his opinion, but one does not have the right to say it so rudely! Read the entire conversation, and you can find that that was unnecessary, and that was not the only thing. His attitude through out the entire discussion is easily detected as rude! I will not stand to be called retaliatory and frivolous! Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] For the record Serge, I never called the language ugly. It is my language, and as my contributions show, I regularly go the extra effort to ensure correct Portuguese language references and extensively linking directly to Portuguese texts. Moreover, I have been the prime contributor to the Wiki articles on Portuguese chroniclers here, the very crafters of the language. My comment on "ugly" has nothing to do with the language, but with the aesthetic value of inserting a jarring, unusually-spelled, unprounounceable word with a strange and unfamiliar diacratic, in a smooth body of common English text. It is not pretty, it is jarring, whatever language is involved. That is and remains my aesthetic judgment. Walrasiad (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Cristiano, you wrote "I cannot, in good manner, work on wikipedia knowing that such a rude man is going around on wikipedia unpunished for his rudeness." In that case, you should probably be leaving, as wikipedia has no policies or mechanisms to punish people. If you'll settle for feedback and sanctions designed to stop the problem and prevent future problems, you probably should be filing on the wikiquette alerts page WP:WQA. Or if the behavior is so bad as to be contravening policy, then maybe an WP:RFC/U. Most likely, however, his behavior is merely a bit testy, as mine is sometimes when embroiled in a frustrating content dispute that seems strangely biased by circumstance or whatever. Try talking it out. There's no reason you can't talk just because you disagree about which version of your ex king's name to use. Dicklyon (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I would not mind talking it out, if it was not for a feeling inside me that says I will be insulted once more if I speak with him. I understand there is no givable punishment, but I just dont think people should be allowed to speak in rude ways, but I guess everyone has freedom of speech in America (trstmnt), thank you for your help Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] A few diffs that will be helpful to understand the entire discussion Words by Walrasiad: "...there they go, triumphantly reversing all the monarch pages within minutes of your terrible decision. I am now going to have to reverse them all. Thanks a lot for messing things up" [287] (message written to The ed17, the administrator who made the move) "...I've heard your pátria is the língua portuguesa [I've heard that your fatherland is the Portuguese language; that is, the Wikipedia in Portuguese]. Wouldn't that be a natural place for you to be editing?" [288] (kind way he found say "get the hell out of Wikipedia" to Cristiano Tomás, the user who requested the move) "...flows much better, much clearer, than clumsy, ugly, low recognition Portuguese spellings." [289] (How he sees the Portuguese language) "...If this change is undertaken, I will not respect it, nor will I adhere to it, but will continue referring to Portuguese monarchs by their common anglicized names." [290] (if he wants "John VI", we have to accept it. But if others want "João VI", he won't accept it. Double standards. Why anyone should respect anything, then?) Words by GoodDay: "...They should be in english, for english readers to understand. Afterall, English Wikipedia is for english readers." [291] (Foreigners should leave, in other words) "...When will we 'english only' speakers, get our language Wikipedia back?" ("We don't like your kind here", in other words) [292] A correct reply by user bobrayner to GoodDay's comments: "I would remind GoodDay that although this is the "English Wikipedia", it covers foreign subjects too. Including, in this case, a Portuguese monarch." [293] Words by SergeWoodzing: "...Most readers of English are not interested in language lessons forced upon them by people of other language cultures, just like most readers of Portuguese are not interested in language lessons forced upon them by people of other language cultures." [294] ("I don't like alien culture in my country", in other words) "...why not do a bit of work on all that and leave English [Wikipedia] alone for a while?" [295] (in other words: please, get out of my country, foreigner) "...I find them extremely offensive. STOP THAT MUD-SLINGING!" [296] (reply to when I complained that his words were xenophobic, see above) "...All the supporters of this diastrous name change should be investigated for canvassing and/or other non-ethical behavior. Looks pretty much like a group action to pollute the language intentionally. " [297] (others have no right to a contrary opinion, if they do, they must be punished) "...not to say I want to criticize Ed, who I'm sure acted in good faith (sadly, more than I can say about some of the others involved)." [298] (calling other editors dishonest simply because they voted in favor of the move) "...I have really wondered myself where all the mysterious support came from that led to this destructive move." [299] (what happened to good faith? Can we consider someone dishonest merely because he/she does not share your view?) "...on the part of the complainer's cronies and cohorts." [300](people who voted "support" are cronies and cohorts, according to him. See the diff) Words by SandyGeorgia: "is there an IQ test for adminship ???" [301] (calling The ed17, the administrator who made the move, an imbecile) You can stop right there putting your spin on my words, which were most certainly not directed at The ed17-- I see you're doing the same throughout this section. My comments were directed at ANI, and why no admins were weighing in to help The ed17, and that was discussed above, yet you've made this bad faith misrepresentation here. You really need to stop this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] "...why the heck aren't admins looking at the things they're supposed to be looking at: disruptive behaviors." [302] (asking me and another editor who favored he move to be blocked. That's how she deals with different opinions) Your spin again-- where did you read the words "blocked" in anything I wrote? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] "...Serge, if you have diffs, post them here-- you have to make it very easy here on ANI, because not all of them will look beyond obvious vulgarities for which they can issue an easy block." [303] (Trying to find a way to have me blocked. The reason: I voted in favor of the move) Same again-- no mention of blocks, mention of how one needs to present evidence to get admins to weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] "RFC on what or whom? ... Unless you're suggesting an editor RFC for disruption ..." [304] (Desperate to have me blocked. Who is not on their side must be blocked or expelled) Bad misrepresentation here everywhere, which is what I've seen elsewhere of Lecen. DR ahead: it's time for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lecen to go blue. And thanks for the notification.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] These were just a few comments made by the three editors who opposed the move. They have no respect for the administrator who made the move, nor for others who share a different opinion than theirs. It's really, really hard to deal with them, even more since they have no interest on the article João VI of Portugal. How can we even discuss something with any of them if they want to see us blocked, punished or expelled from here simply because we have a different opinion? The four editors mentioned above should be blocked for some time. They must understand that this a place where people can have a different voice. --Lecen (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Foreign? that doesn't make sense. This the English language Wikipedia, not the Canadian Wikipedia, British Wikipedia, American Wikipedia etc etc. João doesn't make sense to me, I don't understand it, 'nor' can I pronounce it. However, I assume that those who do undestand it & can pronounce it - also understand & can pronounce John. Therefore, why put myself (an english only reader) at a disadvantage? GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] This discussion is not about the name of the article, but the actions of the editors in question. We are not talking about abilities to say João. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] This evidence proves that the editors were not just "a bit testy", but that they are plain rude! Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] What happens next? GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Well, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lecen is still red, same for Walrasiad; and WP:WQA (not ANI) is where "rude" editor behavior is addressed. What is the admin intervention requested here? None of this rises to the level of blocking, in spite of Lecen's misrepresentation of the other thread on the requested move-- that thread was to examine an admin action, which is appropriate to this forum. As a Spanish-speaking person, I fully understand Christiano's concern about the level of discourse in English relative to Spanish or Portuguese, but if this level of conversation offends him, he may need to grow a thicker skin, or pursue "rudeness" at WP:WQA. I daresay no wonder we can't get broader representation of other-language topics on en Wiki, considering the behavior of all of you-- it's like the Eastern European nationalist disputes in here. Perhaps admins are already weary of this childish bickering, which answers my question on the thread above about why no one was weighing in to help TThe Ed17. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] "... but if this level of conversation offends him, he may need to grow a thicker skin" Really? This is your best argument? That we should consider "ok" the kind of behavior that Christiano complained about? And why are you here, anyway? You already made clear that you're angry at me because of the FAC discussion [305][306] (which has nothing to do with what is being discussed here). Please, be mature. It's all I ask. --Lecen (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] You have a particular talent at misconstruing others' words, and nice revisionist history edit summary, too. No, I think that if you crank every discussion up to the level of confrontation I've seen in editing with you, and if that is happening on all Brazilian articles, Christiano will need to grow a thicker skin or learn how to use disputre resolution. :SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Pardon my French" Sandy, but how dare you say "grow a thicker skin"! Are you saying I am not strong enough (for the lack of a better word) to handle the rude comments made?! I am perfectly fine in handling myself, thank you very much, but I will not allow it to be said that I do not have "thick enough skin" as to push the comments away! Do not worry, I did not cry when these comments were made, my skin is thick enough, but how can I allow the comments to go along without any notice or punishment or anything? They are offensive, no matter whether the person be offending is hurt by them or not, and I will not allow them to go un-noticed! Thank you! Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I think it's already been explained to you that we don't "punish" people on Wikipedia, and if you feel someone has been rude to you, you can raise that at WP:WQA. Unless you have been personally attacked (WP:NPA), ANI isn't the forum to address the issue, and even if you have been personally attacked, it won't always get dealt with here-- so yes, growing a thicker skin will help. If you always speak with the hyperbole with which we are accustomed to speaking in Spanish (and my experience with Portuguese is similar), you're only going to get a lot of heat and little light. And by the way, while we're on the subject of "rudeness", it's cultural, and on the Internet, hollering at other people by bolding your words is RUDE. See why? See WP:TALK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comments by SandyGeorgia These are SandyGeorgia's replies (in order) to the four passages I pasted above about what she wrote: --Lecen (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] How nice of you-- are you assuming others on this page can't read? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] You can stop right there putting your spin on my words, which were most certainly not directed at The ed17-- I see you're doing the same throughout this section. My comments were directed at ANI, and why no admins were weighing in to help The ed17, and that was discussed above, yet you've made this bad faith misrepresentation here. You really need to stop this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Your spin again-- where did you read the words "blocked" in anything I wrote? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Same again-- no mention of blocks, mention of how one needs to present evidence to get admins to weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Bad misrepresentation here everywhere, which is what I've seen elsewhere of Lecen. DR ahead: it's time for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lecen to go blue. And thanks for the notification.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Moved your replies to here. Please don't mess with my original message or else everyone will start commenting on it and it will become impossible to be understood. You said "...on my words, which were most certainly not directed at The ed17" This is not how he saw it, even after you attempted to rectify your comment trying to say that you were accusing the ANI. He also asked repeatedly to everyone stop accusing him of wrongdoing.[307][308] --Lecen (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Goodness, it grows larger and larger, like a plant in Little Shop of Horrors. Or is this a case of the longer it gets, the more it must be true? Stop altering other people's posts, if you want to start a section about another editor here, notify them as required at ANI, and expect them to respond. And if you have a problem about The Ed17, I suggest you take it up there where it's clear to all.[309] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Move to close Whether we agree or not that the close was premature, and whether we agree that W displayed "incredibly less than exemplary behavior," there is no point in carrying on this slugfest here. Nothing needing admin attention; move to close. Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Close, send to WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U, long overdue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I am glad we see that the, as I said, less than exemplary behavior, but is there nothing to happen? Nothing that will give a smal guarantee that this will not happen again? Surely one can not go around, being rude, and have no repurcusions! Right? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] I think we've already said this, but WP:WQA is where editor behavior of this kind is dealt with, and this street brawl should be taken there, or to WP:RFC/U. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yes. And some people should grow a thicker skin. The misrepresentations given above of editors' comments are indicative only of playing the victim. BTW, Sandy, you do have lovely skin, and it is thick--how do you do it? Where can I buy that magic lotion? Drmies (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Here you go: [310] Don't spend your month's salary in one shot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]