Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

block review of admin fastily's indef block of Threeafterthree

The New York Times and the Holocaust

The New York Times and the Holocaust... now I'm a Holocaust denier

The page is currently protected from editing, but the hostility of one of the editors has just gone way over the top. The content disagreement is clearly outlined on the rambling talk page (if anyone cares). The current version of the article is the result of a massive cleanup i did on the article in January -- look at the series of edits i made then and the summaries to understand my reasons. Content disagreement, whatever. However, I and a few others have been consistently attacked as having an agenda over there by User:Cimicifugia, who wrote the article in the first place. He has been asked to desist multiple times. He has just gone far beyond the pale of what's acceptable; here [13] he accuses me and two other editors who disagree with him of being "Holocaust deniers," "malicious," "hostile," "spoilers." The post at the Judaism project is emotive, prejudicial, deeply hurtful and entire unsupported by facts or evidence (his case of holocaust denial against me comes down to my assertion that he was drawing conclusions that went far beyond the source material used in the article). He writes: "It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers. They are denying the validity and facts of this small chapter of Holocaust history, not working sincerely to produce a good article. I respectfully request they be permanently banned from editing this article." Also [14] this edit summary: "asking for advice re hostile holocaust deniers". I'm livid.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Severe problems at The New York Times and the Holocaust Page

I was trying to get help on the proper way to seek relief from wiki administrators, but as two complaints were immediately posted against me for how I did it, I am going to proceed as best I might. I apologize if this is longer than it is supposed to be or if i have missed a step.

We are having severe problems at the New York Times and the Holocaust article. The topic is a small but for Americans, significant, part of the history of the Holocaust. Like history of the Holocaust in general it is well documented, incontrovertible and not controversial among decent people. It is very well known in the field of Holocaust studies, but unknown by the general public. The information in the article could be based on references from the New York Time’s 100th anniversary apology and especially their full-page, 150th anniversary apology for purposefully burying news of the Holocaust on its inside pages (see [15]; the founding director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum; the founding director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of Journalism; the founding director of the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies; the top academic who has written in detail on the subject, Laurel Leff and other academics. The Time’s itself called its policy to not report adequately on the Holocaust ‘tragic’ and “the century’s bitterest journalistic failure”, that it had significant impact on the failure of the U.S. to rescue Jews from Hitler, and concluded that generations of journalists have learned from it not to underreport genocide.

Unfortunately, this topic has attracted the attention of three malicious editors who are very experienced in all the procedures of Wikipedia: bali ulimate, Phgustaf and loonymonkey. They claim the topic is an original POV by the wiki editor who first introduced it; that it is ‘trivial’; that it is fringe; that the Times apology is ‘just one man’s opinion’; that we can’t use quotes from the founding directors of the U.S. Holocaust Museum, Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of Journalism or the the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies because they all come from one source (the script for a History Chanel program written by the Newseum called “The Holocaust: the Untold Story”, available in its entirely on the web here [16]); that the New York Times ‘may have dropped the ball a little’ but that the topic is worth no more than a couple of sentences on the New York Times page.

These same wikipedians previously blocked a paragraph on the subject on the New York Times page, where the topic is currently reduced to a few sentences buried in the section ‘criticism of the Times’ next to a paragraph on a minor editor who plagiarized. In short, wiki is being manipulated by these three hostile wikipedians to recreate in a microcosm the burying of information on the Holocaust.

When the original version of this article was posted it needed more work. Instead of collaborating to improve it, these three hostile wikipedians first tried to have the topic deleted entirely. As part of that discussion they suggested at most it should be a stub. When they were voted down on deletion they proceeded to delete the entire article anyway and substitute a polemical and inaccurate stub, which is what appears on wiki now. They have been belligerent, name calling and working together to drive constructive editors off the page and to impose complete control. They have not once replied to constructive attempts to reach consensus. Repeatedly calling for balance, they have not once produced a reference to provide such ‘balance.’ (There are no opposing references they can produce. There is complete consensus on the basic facts of this topic, just as there is consensus that the Holocaust happened.) They have now changed their tactic to a proposal to merge the article back into the New York Times page, which is a transparent ploy to delete it by another name. The page is frozen and there is no possibility of working on an improved version as long as these three wikipedians are playing the role of spoiler.

I am fairly new to wiki. I am frankly having trouble following the gazillion rules, each with subsets and complex definitions. Baliultimate and his cohorts are very well versed and use wiki rules like insults and weapons to hurl at their opponents. There is something very abusive to me and other sincere editors in the way the wiki consensus process is playing out on this page. It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers. They are denying the validity and facts of this small chapter of Holocaust history, not working sincerely to produce a good article. I respectfully request they be permanently banned from editing this article.Cimicifugia (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2010

Another allegation of holocaust denial against me and two others who happen to disagree with him on content. "It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers." Wikipedia is entirely too tolerant of this kind of stuff. I've also been dealing with insinuations of this very thing from other editors who are smart enough not to cross the line. Absolutely poisonous.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we merge these last two sections together here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, though I suspect there's some cunning {{anchor}} magic I've missed out... TFOWR 14:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Other editors' comments

Cimicifugia, I appreciate you may be new to all this, but accusing other editors of "holocaust denial" is hugely, hugely offensive. See WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and - above all - WP:AGF. Would you agree to apologise to all editors to whom you've made that claim for making that claim, and conditionally drop your complaint against Bali ultimate (see below)?

Bali ultimate, would you agree to drop your complaint against Cimicifugia if they in turn dropped theirs, and agreed to avoid "holocaust denier" claims in future?

Cheers, TFOWR 14:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

He accused two other people of same. I'm absolutely furious, and justifiably so. He has no evidence to support the disgusting allegation whatsoever.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've amended my request - big bit added - to clarify what I'd like to see Cimicifugia do. As a good faith gesture, and I do appreciate that claims like this are incredibly hurtful, would you be prepared to accept an apology from Cimicifugia if they were to apologise to all insulted parties and undertake not to repeat this? TFOWR 15:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Cimicifugia (talk · contribs) posted a couple of {{helpme}} requests about this on their talk page; I gave some generic advice on remaining calm and civil, etc, but I did not look into the specifics; I said that, as the incident was now on this noticeboard, they should comment and respond here.  Chzz  ►  15:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of "holocaust denial," "malice," etc... continue. i don't think it is appropriate to use mediation with what are functionally Holocaust deniers.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for persisting in attacks, even after it was pointed out how offensive they were. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that I attempted to intervene in the dispute and help the two editors resolve the dispute peacefully. Cimicifugia was willing to accept neutral intervention, and had asked me for advice on how to properly request intervention. I told Cimicifugia that it was best to talk with the user first before reporting them. I then tried talking to Bali Ultimate explaining that I would attempt to mediate. Bali was unwilling to compromise or talk to me on the matter and told me "You have no standing to mediate anything and you're hereby invited not to return here again to discuss the content issue" also in the editing summary to "Go back to editing Star Trek Articles". I informed Cimicifugia that my attempt to talk with Bali had failed and the only option left would be to report Bali here with a neutral post. By calling Bali a holocaust denier the post was obviously not written neutrally. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Full quote from me to the trekkie who barged onto my talk page with an offer of "mediation." "I suggest you go the relevant talk page and participate. You have no standing to mediate anything and you're hereby invited not to return here again to discuss the content issue best dealt with over there."Bali ultimate (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with an uninvolved editor trying to mediate? Isn't that the basic premise of Wikipedia:Third opinion? Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion is to give a third opinion, not mediate. We have an actual mediation project here.--Crossmr (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the third ANI filed by Bali. Each report he's filed is against editors who oppose his POV. I was the victim of his last report just a few days ago. How many more innocents will Bali bring to ANI? When do the games stop? Let me remind folks here that Bali is the true problem. He's highly disruptive, uses vulgar language, is incivil, rude, attacks others and never gives any straight answers to those who question him. Just have a good look at the article's talk page and you'll see that he has done plenty that deserved a block long ago. Have a look at his own talk page and you'll see how mean he can be. How this guy gets away with such bad behavior is a mystery to me. Unless of course it's true what they say on WR. Otherwise, I have no clue how he gets away while others are blocked for less. Caden ^cool 00:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I tend to agree with Burpelson AFB: What's wrong with an uninvolved editor trying to mediate? Dealing with problems in a way which will minimise drama is a positive thing. Avoiding further escalation is a positive thing. TFOWR 10:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment First, Bali ultimate & I are hardly friends: last time we interacted it was on opposite sides of a content disagreement of some sort (I honestly don't remember what it was, sorry). That said, calling anyone a "Holocaust denier" who has not explicitly denied the holocaust existed is a personal attack. Stick that label on any Wikipedian, & people will refuse to extend good faith to that person. I find Cimicifugia's edit to be one instance of doing just that: accusing not only Bali ultimate but also Looneymonkey and PhGustaf of denying the existence of Holocaust. That was the only instance on the page; if there are any other instances elsewhere then we have a problem with Cimicifugia. But until they are provided, nothing can be done. -- llywrch (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan blocked Cimicifugia for repeating the attack in a later post, but I'm inclined to agree with Llywrch in principle. (Good block: prevented immediate disruption; but there's not yet any indication of long-term behavioural issues). TFOWR 10:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we're well on our way to that now though, given the latest invective from this morning. The unblock request contains lines such as "To me, it is Holocaust denial in action", and a followup contains "...you may disagree with my use of this term, but it is a use about which reasonable people may differ. i am not going to apologize for using it. the apology is owed to me for being abused for speaking out for the truth about Holocaust history". This is a user who has clearly dropped others perceived as battleground opponents into the category of Holocaust deniers; his entire premise here is that he is the aggrieved party. Unless someone can convince him to do a 180, this is a block that should be extended to prevent further disruption, IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, that's very poor. I'm personally reluctant to extend the block (involved, newbie admin, blocked editor venting etc, etc) but would not object if the block were extended. TFOWR 13:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

His unblock request boils down to saying me and two other editors who disagree with him are, in fact, holocaust deniers. The votes arguing for merge on that page are now running at something like 9-2. An outside editor came in to say both that he doesn't like me but that I was right on the substance. Commenters in some of the AN/I threads on this have agreed that the shorter version was preferable; the admin who reviewed his unblock request tells him that there was a problem with his content; are all these people Holocaust deniers? And now i'm expected to merrily collaborate with him? He's branded me and others as something particularly vile because we have the temerity to disagree with him. And he continues to poison the well. From his unblock request: they denied the use of experts such as the founding director of the Holocaust Musuem. what do you call behavior like that? To me, it is Holocaust denial in action: it wasn't true, it wasn't significant, it wasn't six million only half a million, don't believe those giving you the facts. It's all small scale as in a petrie dish, around this one small piece of Holocaust history, but the germ is the same. This is from a note he left on his talk page after the unblock request: the apology is owed to me for being abused for speaking out for the truth about Holocaust history. the fact that bali admits he has been called a holocaust denier before should be an absolute red flag. this is not an accusation people make for no reason. I have never been accused of this before and have never said I was. Bali ultimate (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So the message is clear that it's okay to treat newbies (and experienced editors) who oppose Bali's biased POV like dirt? So it's okay to be disruptive (as long as your Bali) and censor historical, truthful facts, that are and can be sourced? It's okay to be abusive to other editors and break the rules just as long as your like Bali? It's okay to protect the NYT, (who admit they were wrong) by censoring the truth in order to not make them look bad? In other words, editors like Bali are valued and respected? Wow! No wonder all the good newbies quit! Caden ^cool 21:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As I believe you have been told already, if you believe another user's actions requires admin intervention, then you are cordially invited to file a report here...of course with evidence, diffs, etc... This vague "but but but he did it too!" hand-waving, like some footballer protesting a yellow card, brings more heat than light to the situation. Tarc (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Bali ultimate is certainly not a Holocaust denier. If Cimicifugia doesn't straighten up and fly right, an indef is in order. I've not looked all the way through this, but from what I am seeing, we're prolly past that point. The diffs offered by Tarc above are quite damning. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend anyone calling another editor a Holocaust denier without solid evidence. Cimicifugia was rightly blocked. However, it might be worth reflecting on how Bali ultimate's editing could have lead someone to make such an inflammatory charge. The persistence by some editors in trying to delete, cut down or merge this material was quite confrontational, and on such a sensitive topic as this it was probably unwise to characterise the topic of the NYT's coverage of the Holocaust as 'fringe' or 'non-notable' (the subject has had one book written about it, and appears in many other sources, e.g.[17][18][19][20][21] from a quick search). A more compromising approach might have been to widen the scope of the article to contemporary American coverage of the Holocaust in general. Cimicifugia was infuriated to the point at which they were convinced they were dealing with editors who were historical revisionists. Lacking an understanding of the tendency of Wikipedians to doggedly persist in trying to remove content they object to, they could see no motivation for wishing to downplay this content other than Holocaust denial. Fences&Windows 20:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What that suggestion of yours essentially amounts to though is special treatment be given to Holocaust topics, to treat them with kid gloves. There's no shortage of hot-button, controversial, and emotionally-laden subject areas that this encyclopedia has to deal with each and every day. Yes, Cimicifugia was infuriated, but the the responsibility for that is his and his alone. Some people simply cannot handle criticism or dissenting points of view, especially when it comes to religion, and IMO this one. This user needs to check his emotional baggage at the door if he wishes to edit collaboratively, and not see Holocaust deniers behind everyone who holds a different opinion. Malcolm Shoshsa (the socking 173.52.182.160 IP that infested this article's talk page) went down a similar road, calling his perceived opponents, myself included, antisemites. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I was offering an explanation, not an excuse. I said Cimicifugia was rightly blocked: he should not have accused anyone of being a Holocaust denier. We are all agreed on this, but do we not wish to learn how to avoid antagonising other editors? Yes, on controversial topics we should be careful not to belittle the concerns of good faith editors. The AfD in January closed as keep (Bali ultimate called the article "effectively a topic made up one day by a wikipedia editor"), but editors including Bali ultimate persisted in trying to remove the content. Bali ultimate said things like "You seem to be peddling the Truth", "your earlier screed", "filled with lies and distortion", "such edits are deceitful, the acts of an agenda driven editor or editors, or merely irresponsible and incompetent ones", "numerous lies were told in the original writing of this article." This is not just about "dissenting points of view", persistent hostile editing was occurring. If you look at the original version of the article it was scrappy and went into too much detail on Arthur Hays Sulzberger, but it does not resemble what Bali ultimate said about it. The editing and talk page of this article do not put Wikipedia in a good light. Fences&Windows 17:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Some people would be quite pleased to be called a Holocaust denier. Many would not -- Bali among them. As such, use of the phrase here is inflammatory. If Cimi wishes to make a point, I would suggest he in the future use different phraseology that is not so inflammatory to Bali (and many others), though it might be longer -- such as, "Bali, who has IMHO deleted perfectly reasonable RS-supported information about the Holocaust". Or something on that order -- I expect others' here could come up with a shorter phrase, that would also pass muster. I believe that if he were to do that, that would allow for the parties to continue in their merry conversation within wiki rules, and focus on the merits of edits, in a more civil environment. In short, Bali has every right to object to being so labeled.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for Relief from abusive editor

Some feedback: this has not been a good experience of fairness, equality before the law, innocent until proven guilty, a thorough review of all the facts, or any of the standard practices through the centuries to prevent abuse of power.

I respectfully submit that bali’s complaint that I called him a holocaust denier is misleading. I used the term ‘functional holocaust denier’ – which means he is not literally a holocaust denier, but his behavior has the same effect as one. It was an analogy. It was also used in a question on my talk page where i was trying to get help in formulating a clear description of the problem with hostile editors. I will try again without using that term.

I do respectfully protest, however: it seems there is a double standard when bali's repetitive insults and name calling get a pass. Why would my one instance alleged name calling be a worse offense than his vandalism? A worse offense than his long time pracice of bullying, abusive tactics? Look at the discussion page – my record is a model of self control and politeness. His model is a scandal. Yet his histrionic ‘I am livid’ response to being compared to a holocaust denier was considered the big problem.

People, like bali, phgustaf and looneymonkey, who find mainstream, impeccably referenced facts about the holocaust not worthy of inclusion in Wiki because the topic is a lie, trivial, just an opinion – such people are not at all likely to be welling meaning. I gave the hostile editors on this topic the benefit of the doubt for months, trying to answer the valid parts of their demands for more references. First they didn’t like just having Proessor Leff as a reference. Quotes to show she is respected as the top authority were met with silence. Then they didn’t like the actual apology of the NYTimes itself – just an op ed they said. They wouldn’t include the fact it was a full page op ed in the 150th anniversary edition. Then they didn’t accept the fact the Times acknowledged their failure in the 100th anniversary edition as well. They claimed the Newseum reference wasn’t usuable, so I found the entire, intact script the newseum wrote for the history channel. Then they insisted the material wasn’t to be used because it was from a single source. they claimed the program wasn't about the topic, even tho' the Times is mentioned over 50 times. They wouldn’t allow those of us who wanted to use information from the Holocasut Museum, the Wyman Institute on Holocaust studies, or the Harvard Shorenstein center on journalism. They accused the constructive editors of cherry picking, but when invited to provide the balance they claimed was missing, they provided nothing. At this point it was clear that their claims this was a trivial, fringe topic with no validity that didn’t belong in wiki was not from ignorance with the references. They now had all the references, top references, exact quotes, Cambridge University Press. They still wanted a misleading stub. They are not sincere. They are not well meaning. They have a Holocaust problem – call it what you will. I ask for the three of them to be permanently banned from working on this article, since all they doing is sabotage.Cimicifugia (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia

You just essentially repeated the attacks that got you blocked previously. Do we have to permanently block you to ensure that these attacks stop? If you cannot assume good faith about other editors and edit without making personal attacks you cannot participate in Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I consider the screed above a work of fiction. You'll notice the absence of diffs supporting any of his assertions.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I had a feeling that a "if I add the qualifier functional then it isn't really an insult" defense was on the horizon. Indef this user and save us all further headaches. Tarc (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• As an involved editor on the page in question, I do feel that while it is 100% clear that the "denier" label needs to be apologized for and a block is quite reasonable here, Bali has been anything but civil on that talk page. His behavior, IMO, is so poor that it might even amount to baiting. I've found his behavior impossible to deal with and so largely left the discussion. The 30-day protection was also uncalled for and if anything made the situation worse. That we are back here _again_ for the same page twice in 30 days should say something. And the attempt to remove the page even after a keep result at AfD should make it pretty plain where the problem is. This is a topic with an entire book written about it and significant coverage well beyond what we'd generally look for in a topic. Hobit (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarification: Nobody on the current page wants to remove the current content. Some want to merge it with Criticism of The New York Times. I think this is a good idea because the current title is an unlikely search term and the information would be more accessible in the larger article, but I don't see it as a big deal either way. PhGustaf (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Involved Editor PhGustaf

I will respond to an assertion that I'm a Holocaust denialist about as soon as I respond to an assertion I fuck pigs.

Bali's edit summaries were unfortunate, but his edits probably saved the article at AfD. I nominated the initial mess for deletion; I wouldn't nominate the current one.

Cimicifugia is not a newbie[22]. He doesn't have a lot of edits, but anyone who has been around for nearly two years and learnt not a whit of policy just isn't trying.

All his edits this year have been on this topic, including edits to the topic, talk about the topic, canvassing for support, and attempts to insert big chunks of his stuff into other articles he thinks appropriate.

On his talk page he asked for help several times, and each time chose to ignore the help. (He certainly ignored my mention of WP:TLDR.)

It's not hard to conclude that his sole goal here is getting his essay onto wikipedia.

Unless this guy has a Gestalt or an epiphany or something he's not going to be a good editor. PhGustaf (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that I had 13 relatives die in the thing and our family permanently lost properties including a hotel, so my opinions on the Holocaust are pretty strong and it's not something I usually go near. That being said, looking at the article (and I read it for the first ever time about 10 minutes ago), it appears that the argument is fundamentally between a version which looks like this, and a version that looks like this (not accounting for minor modifications either way, and noting the editors those diffs are attached to are not the primary parties responsible).

The second of these is a major, major violation of WP:WEIGHT and had significant sourcing issues. There is more than a screen devoted to a single editorial and two people's opinions. The sourcing almost entirely goes back to a limited number of publications, and to be honest, parts of it look like advertising or promotion for at least one of the authors - see WP:SOAP. The grammar makes it almost painful to read. And there is a hell of a lot of POV wording, suggesting almost a measure of liability in the actions of the editor. e.g. "In 1944, the Jewish death toll was officically four million dead. The Times editorial still supported restrictive quotas against Jews." WP:SYN advises strongly against making such links without very strong evidence.

The alternate, shorter version, while using the same sources, uses them reasonably sharply and effectively, and on a topic which has been judged to be notable, I think it does the job reasonably well. I can actually read this and understand what is going on. And it's written in standard English. And WP:NPOV is respected - this is the opinions of a former editor, a professor and a historian and they are presented as such, not as immutable fact.

On the separate matter of behaviour, my view is that Cimicifugia's allegations are beyond the pale - the version Bali ultimate supports does not deny the Holocaust, so to call him such is pure polemics and does not aid constructive dialogue in any way. If they don't give this sort of stuff up soon, I don't think their chances of staying on Wikipedia are very high. On the other hand I can see plenty of evidence that Bali ultimate has been far from an angel in the conduct of this matter, which muddies the waters a bit. I can't fault Bali much on the content, but there is an old saying "one can be so right that one is wrong" and they would do well to consider how their actions come across to others. The other players in this (on both sides) appear to have behaved reasonably, apart from an IP address which may or may not have been a sock of a blocked editor and has itself been blocked. Orderinchaos 11:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

On further review, User:Cimicifugia appears to be a WP:SPA on this particular topic, and has been so for much of their two-year editing history. Some revealing comments on their talk page suggest they don't understand WP:OWN very well. Orderinchaos 11:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) Hmm. To me, the most interesting thing about this discussion is there is an article on wikipedia titled "The New York Times and the Holocaust". What's going on with this project? --RegentsPark (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What's going on is that the page is locked down for a month and is being discussed here. If you're interested in contributing to it, join the pleasant chat at its talk page. PhGustaf (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Null edit to defer archiving. I think this matter needs some sort of resolution. PhGustaf (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, not much in the way of resolution, more commentary, but Cimicifugia has made only one edit since their block expired. Unfortunately that edit suggests that the problem remains: I respectfully submit that bali’s complaint that I called him a holocaust denier is misleading. I used the term ‘functional holocaust denier’ – which means he is not literally a holocaust denier, but his behavior has the same effect as one. I'm unconvinced that Cimicifugia understands the problem. TFOWR 19:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm convinced that he does not understand the problem, and has been unswayed by any argument for at least six months. This thread has unfortunately has made him even more defensive. If we just let the thread lapse, we'll be back soon with another one. I'm trying to think of a less drastic response than a topic ban, but I'm coming up blank. PhGustaf (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• There hasn't been any activity either at this page or on its talk page, & Cimicifugia has vanished, so the matter at the moment is at an impasse. We could unprotect the page & force the issue. Or just merge it into Criticism of The New York Times & protect the redirect. Or just move onto other things & if Cimicifugia returns & repeats this routine block him indefinitely then. I know this sounds like a cop out, but there is nothing else that can be done -- unless one or all of the three parties Cimicifugia attacked need people to affirm that none of them said or did anything here that justifies being called a "Holocaust denier". (Which is a reasonable request; this is not a label the vast majority of people wish to have.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be premature to say that the problem has gone away, as he tends to edit sporadically. Perhaps we should close the issue for now, but I think it wise for a couple of admins to keep an eye on him and ensure that nothing more happens. A further block is unwarranted at this time, but a far more substantial block may be necessary if the behaviour continues. At this time, however, I think we can mark the issue resolved. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Cimicifugia wrote that he called Bali a "‘functional holocaust denier’ – which means he is not literally a holocaust denier, but his behavior has the same effect as one." "His behavior has the same effect as one"? What the heck is that supposed to mean? Sounds like more wikilawyering gibberish to me. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose community ban

Would a community ban on Cimicifugia be appropriate? Looking through his edit history, it appears as though the account's sole purpose is to push a particular POV, and he has engaged in disruptive editing in the past (including adding an editorial on the topic of "Arab Nazism"--an apparent neologism--to the Nazism article, as well as a section to September 11 attacks which attempted to smear American Muslims by insinuating that they supported the attacks; [23]). I fail to see how any of this user's contributions could be considered constructive or beneficial to Wikipeda, as he/she is attempting to push a clearly bigoted agenda. The recent, ridiculous personal attacks from this editor pretty much prove my point. That is why I am proposing a community ban for User: Cimicifugia. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a ban at this point is unwarranted, as they have not reoffended since their block. This editor is, however, treading on thin ice. Throwaway85 (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This talkpage thread might be notable. It's from two years ago, and is similar in many ways to his current work: tendentious, POV, WOT. He hasn't learned anything, and he'll be back. PhGustaf (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support first (and so far only) edit after block was a repeat of the appalling behaviour which led to the block. Verbal chat 15:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we even need this article at all?

Quite frankly, I fail to see why The New York Times and the Holocaust needs its own article at all. The fact that many of the folks who have been working on it are generally acting in extremely uncivil and obnoxious ways (one user even called another a Holocaust denier with no proof) makes me doubt whether such an article can ever truly satisfy NPOV, or whether it, by its very nature, is bound to remain a magnet for POV-pushers and general ne'er-do-wells. The very title of the article could be construed as inflammatory, and that is probably why this article has caused so many problems for the Wikipedia community. In general, I don't like articles with titles of the form "X and Y", since such articles by their very nature run into problems with SYNTH; when Y is something as emotionally and politically charged as the Holocaust, the problem is only magnified a thousand times, since the article essentially becomes an attack page on X.

I was going to nominate the article for AFD, but I see that it is currently protected from editing (preventing me from adding an AFD template) and so I'm going to bring up the issue here instead. Any content that is worth keeping could be merged into other articles, like that of the New York Times or Criticism of The New York Times. Does this sound reasonable? Stonemason89 (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected articles can still be nominated at AfD; they're not exempt from deletion consideration. You can create the AfD nomination as normal and add it to the AfD listing, then ask an admin (either here, if the discussion is still going, or using {{editprotected}} on the talk page) to add the AfD template to the article. Bencherlite^Talk 13:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that it has survived a previous AfD. It's been long enough for a renom, in my opinion, but has the situation changed sufficiently so that the outcome is likely to be different? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link to the AFD template, just waiting for an admin to add it to the article. I also nominated one of Cimicifugia's own articles for AFD as it was little more than than an essay. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done here. TFOWR 14:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

To Stonemason above: I suspect you are trying hard not to single out any specific person in your comment, but unless I'm missing something, only one person was calling anyone "Holocaust deniers". Can we assume that was your intent before someone takes offense & reopens this fading thread with something along the lines of "I didn't accuse anyone of being a Holocaust denier, nor did I accuse anyone of an unpleasant form of animal husbandry"? -- llywrch (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't want to misspell his username at the time so I just decided not to mention him by name at all. Thanks for pointing this out; I've refactored my comment above to be more accurate (many users were being uncivil, but only one dropped the HD-bomb). Stonemason89 (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a period of time when the Holocaust was taking place. The New York Times was a functioning newspaper at that time. Surprisingly little coverage of the Holocaust found its way into the New York Times, at least not prominently placed, such as on the front page, except in a few instances. In retrospect that seems odd. Commentators have looked into this. Laurel Leff is one, writing a book called Buried by the Times. Also, Deborah Lipstadt has studied the subject. There are sources specifically on the scope of this article. Its parameters are delineated in these sources. In what way is the article in violation of WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV? How is it an attack page? It is not "created primarily to disparage its subject." It is documenting the news coverage of a very sensitive event. The sparse news coverage of that event by one of the most prominent news outlets at that time is a well-sourced phenomena. Why subsume it into another article? Isn't it a stand alone subject? The failure of the Times to cover that event is a topic in its own right. WP:NPOV in this case means providing counterbalancing material to the notion of "failure" to to cover an eminently newsworthy event, if such material is available. Bus stop (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There was sparse coverage or knowledge in general at the time. Singling out a sole newspaper smacks of agenda-driven purposes here, to be honest. But anyways, we're at AfD #2 now, so let's see how it goes. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pickbothmanlol ban proposal

I just removed a post placed here by a sock of indefblocked Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs). I think everyone here is familiar with the background of this person, so I won't waste any time rehashing. I'm proposing a community ban on Pickbothmanlol. I know that's 2 ban proposals in one day, but as with the previous proposal, this helps us revert on sight without the hassle of 3RR and such. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You can revert on sight any indef blocked users' contributions without a community ban. Can you link the diff for the post here that you reverted? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And - is the sock identified and blocked yet? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes [24], and Yes [25]. There is a benefit to banning over indefinite blocking. it was discussed recently but I can't find the discussion. Will look for it. Per WP:3RR reverting an indef'd editor can result in a block for a good-faith editor. A community ban changes that. There is value in a community ban over an indef-block-with-no-admin-prepared-to-unblock. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I helped instigate that discussion. But I am not yet convinced that the user is socking badly enough to justify it here... Maybe. How often are you seeing them return like this? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol/Archive seems pretty convincing. I'm sure that this isn't even all the PBM socks since some tags have been deleted and some haven't even been tagged. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's my concern about PBML - the last few socks discovered have had attention brought to them by their own unnecessary actions, almost as if they've been wanting to be blocked. That could simply be lack of self-control, but it could also be gamesmanship: while we're going along happily "discovering" PBML's obvious socks and dealing with them, could there be a deeper sock with a longer history who is being protected by these distractions? I don't want to get into the morass of John LeCarre/mole thinking, and maybe I'm giving the PBML editor too much credit, but I do wonder about the obviousness and ease of capture of those socks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and on topic, I'm in favor of a community ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... support ban. I'm not sure if he's genuinely stupid or pretending to be- he's taken to trolling some of the small wikis by creating many socks that have suicidal names. Also, this is Pickbothmanlol (or at least his username was). {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 09:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, positively support a ban. This dingaling tends to work indirectly in concert with User:Bambifan101 who, I'm pleased to say, seems to be very quiet as of late. PBML attacks the same articles and games the system in the same way. I for one am tired of babysitting this undisciplined brat. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Support ban Enough is enough.  – Tommy [message] 15:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban He isn't community banned yet!? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto This is just getting out of hand. As tommy said, enough is enough. Pilif12p :  Yo  20:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Per the last discussion about the particulars of community ban discussions, the preferred location for such discussions is on the main administrators noticeboard rather than here on ANI. I believe that our current working consensus on "bannable" includes someone who's disruptively sockpuppeted that long and that badly. I recommend opening a ban proposal over there and will do so later tonight if nobody beats me to it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be easier to just let the discussion here run it's course. Why restart discussion from scratch somewhere else? Something tells me more people watch AN/I than AN anyway. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the theory is that AN has a tendency to have somewhat less drama about it, which is in part a function of its lesser rate of traffic. Probably a question of balancing having enough people involved versus the quality of the response. I agree with GWH that ban proposals in general are better off at AN, but I concur with BurpelsonAFB that there's no particular reason to re-start this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. George, if you really want to move it go ahead, but maybe it would be better to move the existing discussion and just leave a little note here saying it's been moved. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to be lazy and just post a notice there about the ban discussion here, I think. It would have been better done visa versa, but I don't see any harm or foul in leaving it here, on reflection. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - per nom and PMDrive1061. Enough is enough and this will free us up a bit re: 3RR. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be heading towards a SNOW with around 7 people saying yea and nobody saying nay. PBML's userpage is current protected, could an admin add the BAN tag to it please? Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the direction is fairly clear, but I neglected to get the notification on AN of this thread up until earlier today. I suggest it be left open overnight so that AN-only readers who may care get a chance to come comment. I will close tomorrow if nobody else does, unless a vigorous discussion has ensued. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine George, thank you. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban - Wikipedia has got to fight against this sort of thing. Case made convincingly. Jusdafax 23:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Ban - Aside from the socking, the other garbage he's done is enough to show him the door, forever. --Rockstonetalk to me! 02:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban per Burpelson AFB's comments — no reason to make someone blockable for violating 3RR just because they're fighting against this vandal. Nyttend (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban – Per Nyttend; I agree that enough is enough. A de jure ban will stop editors from being blocked by 3RR by reverting this vandal, as the above have stated. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Agreed, if he wanted to have a chance he would have changed long ago. No need to have people skirting 3rr to keep him out. Sodam Yat (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support, per the above. (I always seem to get to discussions after other people have already said what I would say :-P) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Zlykinskyja's talk page conduct

Since administrator MLauba imposed a month-long block for using Wikipedia as a battleground (13 June), Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs) has continued to personalise and dramatise the actions of other actions on their talk page. On 22 June, FormerIP raised legitimate grounds for a sockpuppeteering investigation concerning the user, and apologised for potential distress when the result proved to be negative. Zlykinskyja's response to the investigation went beyond refuting the case at hand to making personal attacks and casting hostile aspersions on FormerIP and other editors, as the edits here demonstrate. The text of the sockpuppet case is now prominently displayed on the talk page, with FormerIP's apology ignored. Editors including FormerIP are referred to as a "pro-guilt/anti-Amanda Knox group" with relation to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, which discusses the conviction and imprisonment of Amanda Knox. A request from Pablo X to amend such remarks about other editors has been dismissed as "harassment", while subsequent pleas from Pablo X and FormerIP have been removed due to illegitimate claims of "insults and attacks". When I noted assertions on the talk page which misrepresented myself and another user, the section was again removed and, far from revert or strike through the unfounded allegations (which concern multiple users besides just me), Zlykinskyja simply substituted my username into the text of their response to the sockpuppet investigation, despite the irrelevance of the paragraph to the matter in question and the innaccuracy of the accusations detailed.

I would have added a message about all this to the blocking administrator's talk page, but MLauba appears to be on a Wikibreak. As it is currently presented, Zlykinskyja's talk page is a series of vitriolic swathes of texts which vilify other users, which I do not consider to represent civil behaviour that is expected of a Wikipedia contributor. There is surely no justification for posting baseless allegations on a Wikipedia page, even if a user is currently blocked and unable to edit any other areas of the site. No diffs are provided to substantiate claims in the response to the sockpuppetry investigation. I'll leave the content of other areas of the page (such as sections on BP and "anti-Americanism") for others to judge, but could an administrator please firmly warn Zlykinskyja about their actions? In my opinion, however, the threshold for the removal of talk page editing privileges has unambiguously been crossed. Thank you. (I shall inform Zlykinskyja, FormerIP and Pablo X of this report.) SuperMarioMan 20:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• I won't do this myself, as I'm previously involved, but someone really needs to go through that page, remove all the personal attacks (that could take a while, frankly), also remove all the WP:SOAPBOX content (mostly at the top and bottom of the article), and remove talkpage access for the remainder of the block. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not caused significant distress by the contents of Zlykinskyja's talkpage. However, I think that Zlykinskyja has gotten very much into a battleground frame of mind and is unhealthily (perhaps slightly masochistically) dwelling on perceived conspiracies against him/her whilst serving the current block. On the one hand, taking away the facility to use his/her talkpage in this way might actually be helpful to the user. On the other hand, it may increase his/her sense of victimhood. So I have no recommendation. I don't take any pleasure at all in Zlykinskyja's unhappiness, but he/she is a very disruptive editor and ought to get out of blaming other users for the consequences of that. --FormerIP (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja has complained a number of times that other editors involved in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article are anti-American, and has asked for an American admin to look into the matter, but apparently no-one has been willing. It might be helpful if someone felt able to oblige. --FormerIP (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry. You don't get to ask for a referee from your hometown. It would be chaos if editors with a nationalist POV could demand that there case only be looked by admins of their nationality. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I get that. --FormerIP (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, please be assured that I was making no attempt to speak for your feelings, just to report what precisely has been going on during the last few days. On a side note, if piecing together all the diffs in the original report is too time-consuming, I offer this as a fair summing up of the majority of the civility problems that I perceive: claims of victimhood interspersed with attacks (genuine ones), gross misrepresentation of other Wikipedia users, woefully inaccurate assumptions (I don't know where Zlykinskyja got the idea that I support Knox's conviction, since to my memory I have expressed no personal opinion, which is irrelevant in any case. I have also made precisely zero edits to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article.), a hostile partisan atmosphere drawn up on the basis of nationality and UK/US/European divisions, dredging up past comments from users to provide "evidence" that the current contributors to the page are anti-American, tired accusations of censorship, harassment and bullying, a vociferous objection to all who dare to question their multiple violations of multiple Wikipedia policies, and, in general, blowing out of all reasonable proportion the perfectly sensible actions of other editors. That this user has responded to evidence of attacks (see the diffs) with yet more attacks (natually, with no support from diffs) indicates their sheer lack of understanding of the consequences of their actions on the collegial spirit of Wikipedia. SuperMarioMan 22:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

By "just for the record", I meant to register that I didn't feel that I was being caused any harm by the talk page diatribe. I didn't mean it in a "ahem, let me speak for myself" type way, Mario, and I don't see anything wrong with the way you reported the details. --FormerIP (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Briefly: - I am personally annoyed with the behaviour of this user and how he/she portrays other eeditors on the talkpage, particularly claims that various editors belong to agenda-driven 'groups'. However, any attempt to change this behaviour is seen as harrassment. The user is currently blocked, so what is an admin to do?. Well, it would be nice if someone were to have a word, however this will most likely be seen as more harassment.   pablo_hablo. 23:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Copied from talk:

The information I posted on my Talk page was posted there due to the fact that I was blocked, but was involved in an unjustified sock puppet investigation. There was no other way for me to respond to the false sock puppet charges. There had also just been a prior charge a few days earlier. This also necessitated a response on my Talk page. As the situation is rather complicated and I am currently blocked, and SarekOfVulcan has been gracious enough to post this here at ANI, I would just ask that for my further comments in this matter, that everyone please counsult my Talk page, which is the only place I can speak at all on Wikikpedia due to a very long one month block. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the conclusions of User:SuperMarioMan about Zlykinsyja's use of their talk page while blocked. Unless Zlykynskyja is willing to remove all content arguments about Meredith Kercher from their talk page, and all complaints about persecution by editors or admins who they believe have the wrong nationality, I suggest that Zlykinskyja should be blocked from the page for the remainder of the one-month block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal re Zlykinskyja

I'm rather involved in this entire matter and am no fan of Zlykinskyja's, as I fear most of you know; however, it actually makes me sad to see her feeling as if she was being poked. If she accepts and if there's consensus here, I propose to change her sanction to:

• restriction to only edit the talk page of the article about Meredith's murder for the remainder of the month;
• mentorship by a fellow editor in good standing of her choice;
• civility parole for no less than three months.

Keeping on blocking her for longer periods of time doesn't help, in my opinion, because she thinks she is doing nothing wrong. It only makes her belief that she is being censored stronger. I think we should deal with this editor differently, trying to get someone she trusts to explain her why this community tends to react the way it does — that is to say, badly — and how to avoid further blocks. Do you think it would be acceptable? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• No comment (yet) on the above proposal; off-hand it looks good but I've only skimmed Zlykinskyja's talk page and the issue at hand. One additional comment I would make is: Zlykinskyja appears to have a concern about non-American admins. Speaking as a non-American admin I'm surprised, and naturally regard the concerns as being without merit. However, as a means of addressing and resolving Zlykinskyja's concerns, I have no objection to any American admin assisting Zlykinskyja. (Why should I?) I'd personally be prepared to recuse myself on grounds of nationality until Zlykinskyja was satisfied that we all strive for WP:NPOV. (This is in no way intended to set a precedent: I reject the basic premise that an admin's nationality necessarily has any bearing on their work). TFOWR 11:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• I think it could be helpful for an American editor to try and mentor her, but I'd be concerned at the suggestion that she thinks we have taken sides and wants the involvement of admins from what she perceives as her side. In the case of this article we have a dead Brit and an Italian court jailing some people including an American. I like to think that any of our admins could get involved in this case, but as a Brit I wouldn't be offended if an editor asked that the relevant admins not be British, Italian or American. I'm not offended by her request for an American admin, but I'd have been much more impressed if she'd asked for one for one from a "neutral" country. So as for the proposal, I'd agree with the mentorship, disagree that the community tends to react badly, and disagree about confining her to the talkpage of the contentious article. I'd be happy to end the current block early if she agrees to a period of editing collegially on a completely different topic, and taking a break from this particular murder. ϢereSpielChequers 12:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• I realise I worded the first point in a terrible way and it may mean all but what I had intended; I meant to say that she can edit all articles she wants, except the one about Meredith's murder; in that case, though, she still can edit its talk page. Re-reading, I see it was a blunder on my part; so, anyone willing to help might assist me in saying what I wanted to say. ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not necessarily against your proposal, Salvio, but it does strike me as being a reduction on the current sanction - should Zlykinskyja be rewarded in that way right now? On the other hand, some sort of mentorship might be effective (although it would require an admin to put in the necessary time and effort. I know of one case where mentorship plus a lengthy 0RR restriction did seem to have positive results. I think Elen of the Roads makes a valid point about the dangers of allowing users to ask for a particular nationality or whatever of admin. Imagine if this was allowed on Middle East articles. --FormerIP (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  I think Elen of the Roads makes a valid point about the dangers of allowing users to ask for a particular nationality or whatever of admin. Imagine if this was allowed on Middle East articles. It must never be allowed to happen. I think in this case, however, we're well before that stage. There isn't an entrenched "US editor vs. European editor" mentality surrounding the case, just one (or two) problematic editors. I'd certainly trust US admins to edit, protect and take other admin actions with this article: that's a degree of trust which I might not have at more WP:POV-orientated articles. TFOWR 12:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose one way you could distinguish this case is that other involved editors are not objecting to a US admin being asked for (whereas in something like a ME article they probably would). --FormerIP (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think we're just rewarding this editor. We've been down this road before: she was blocked twice for one month (in the first instance, it was sockpuppetry, in the second disruptive editing or something like that, I haven't checked) and yet she did not change her editing habits. She just came back from her block and behaved just as if nothing had happened in the meantime. That's why I think we should change our approach to this matter. Since blocks do not seem to help, my opinion is that we could give a crack at something else, to see if it works. That's why I proposed mentorship (coupled with a civility parole, because I wouldn't want to come back in a week, complaining about this editor's attacks). This user is well-meaning, she is not a vandal; she really thinks she is trying to improve the article. She just goes about it the wrong way, in my opinion (and, if I may say so, she should grow a thicker skin). That's why I think mentorship might help. And, if it doesn't, there's always time to adopt stricter sanctions. At least, we will have tried. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Salvio that blocks do not appear to be encouraging the user to amend their (her?) behaviour. Prior to her standing one-month restriction, on 14 May MLauba imposed a two-week block with the proviso that "Once you return from your block, you are strongly advised to unwatchlist the above article and find other topics to edit" (i.e. outside the Murder of Meredith Kercher topic). An increasingly belligerent series of nationalistic attacks led to the removal of access to her talk page the next day, and still the page is home to insinuating remarks of a comparable "United States v. United Kingdom and the rest of Europe" slant, which still pertain in part to the Kercher case. The user appears to be drawn to high-profile, highly-charged topics well-documented in both the British and American media: first Kercher and the subsequent conviction and imprisonment of American student Amanda Knox, now BP and the (as yet unresolved) situation in the Gulf of Mexico in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (see these sections of the current page). She seems to require that any intervening administrator present their personal opinion on the case, as if personal opinion were at all relevant to the production of an impartial encyclopaedia. In particular, it is concerning that within the timeline of this ANI discussion, she has pestered the administrator who transferred her response to this page for their view of the perceived bias against American editors ("But what about the anti-American issue?") Judging from the quotations that she has pulled from the Kercher article history and outside newspaper sources (see sections linked above), the user has a propensity for sweeping generalisation about nationalities (for one thing, how reasonable is it to suggest on the flimsiest of evidence that all Britons hate Amanda Knox with a passion?) How nationalities are perceived in the media of different countries is a side issue or a metatopic which is well beside the issues that Wikipedia is duty-bound to document.

In conclusion, since there appears to have been no meaningful change in the user's attitude to editing, I agree that a different approach is required, hence I support the proposals of mentorship and strict monitoring of civility. However, I feel that altering or lifting the one-month block so soon is too lenient: this particular block has succeeded one of a shorter duration, and when MLauba set the first, he unequivocally warned Zlykinskyja about the consequences of resuming such conduct in future. SuperMarioMan 13:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is that, if past behaviour can be used to hypothesize about future one, this block risks being not too useful (granted, it's preventative, in that it prevents her from disrupting the article further, but once it expires we'll back to square one); so, we should try to get her to accept mentorship and the civility parole, to try to make it palatable to her, more than it would be to make her sit out her block, and on top of that, accept further limitations. However, I very well understand your point and if my proposal were to be accepted, we should make it very clear that she's not getting away scot-free with her accusations and personal attacks, but that we've just decided to give her a second chance to see if she can understand what it means to edit in a collegial fashion. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, perhaps rescinding the block is indeed a reasonable idea. Certainly it would send out a message that Zlykinskyja's suggestions on the Kercher/Knox topic are welcome, on the condition that she is mentored and monitored to ensure no further incivility problems in her contributions. "Reform, not punishment". I don't really have much experience on the Murder of Meredith Kercher talk page or any sort of long-running dispute with this user — I came to ANI primarily just to have the unsubstantiated talk page claims about me and a number of other editors withdrawn (although this still hasn't happened). SuperMarioMan 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja has no unblock request currently on their page. If they would begin an unblock dialog, and offer some concessions about their future behavior, we might have something to work with. To request unblock, they should use {{unblock|Their reason here}}. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that her ongoing behaviour such as this is not encouraging. Rather than deleting her words that others object to, she simply deletes their objection and leaves her offending words in place. If there was actually some indication that she wanted to change then there might be some cause for hope, but at present I don't see any. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• So now what? The editor in question is not willing to remove their uncivil comments and allegations against fellow editors on their talkpage and neither shows interest in an conditional unblock as laid out above in this thread, at least for now. Time for an uninvolved admin to step up/in?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree. I would remove the comments myself if I were not the initiator of this discussion. SuperMarioMan 15:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing to drive business?

User:AllieLGray has made a total of 41 edits, all related to Rasmussen College, a private, for-profit school. Lately, the editor has been going to articles about each city they have a "branch campus" in and changing the entry so that the link goes directly to the company/school website, rather than to the article about the school or using the school website as a source to show the campus exists. I'm suspicious of the activity being done this way, especially when the editor hasn't edited on any other topic. This seems more like covert marketing than good faith editing to me. Would someone else take a look and see if they get the same feeling? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• A person of that name has written numerous articles for their blog [26] and has a profile on linkedin listing Allie Gray as the Online Marketing Manager at Rasmussen College.[27]. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for spamming/advertising. It looks clear cut to me, it would be a massive coincidence for this to not be a marketing ploy, as where better for an 'Online Marketing Manager' to advertise than by embedding external links to their site in Wikipedia articles? Whilst it is arguable the user was not warned with the usual 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, block system, but I think it is difficult to assume good faith here, as it is almost a certainty that the account was only created to spam. If it is a huge coincidence however, they are free to request unblock and review. --Taelus (Talk) 16:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm going to unblock, this is way too soon. You need to actually tell them, at least once, that this is considered spamming. We can't assume everyone knows all the rules we operate under the second they start editing. It is, in fact, fairly easy to assume good faith here, certainly at least as much good faith as we show a common vandal. If they resume doing the same thing without asking for help, then we can consider blocking. There are more tools in our toolkit besides templates and the block button. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Are there really? You wouldn't know from the way the block hammer is waved around. Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Indeed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
        • "If you kill me, how are you going to get the bird? If I know you can't afford to kill me till you have it, how are you going to scare me into giving it to you?"

          Gutman cocked his head to the left and considered the question. His eyes twinkled between puckered lids. Presently he gave his genial answer: "Well, sir, there are other means of persuasion besides killing and threatening to kill."

          "Sure," Spade agreed, "but they're not much good unless the threat of death is behind them to hold the victim down. See what I mean? If you try anything I don't like I won't stand for it. I'll make it a matter of your having to call it off or kill me, knowing you can't afford to kill me."

          "I see what you mean," Gutman chuckled. "That is an attitude, sir, that calls for the most delicate judgment on both sides, because as you know, sir, men are likely to forget in the heat of action where their best interests lie, and let their emotions carry them away."

          Spade too was all smiling blandness. "That's the trick from my side," he said, "to make my play strong enough that it ties you up, but yet not make you mad enough to bump me off against your better judgment."

          Gutman said: "By Gad, sir, you are a character." – Dashiell Hammett, The Maltese Falcon (1929)

          Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's worth pointing out that a number of the edits were reverted, often with links to the policy in the edit summary and she went back in and added them again. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You still can't assume that she's seen the summary. She may be checking the pages on occassion and changing it back then... yeah, I know, stretching AGF, but we still can't make the assumption... a warning first, then a block. The only time a straight to block is appropriate, IMHO, is when a person is actively vandalising numerous articles and that's all they've done.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't assume anything. I pointed out that her edits were reverted and that some of the reverts did link to the policy. If I was assuming anything, I'd assume that someone who is the online marketing manager would familiarize themselves with policies before pushing their ads onto a site. But she's been made aware now and I'll assume that it'll stop. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have little doubt that she knew what she was doing was questionable at best... but blocking without a direct warning, doesn't fly. The fact that she probably knew and if she was watching the pages might have seen the summary, doesn't ensure that she knows.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I apologise. On reflection I clearly over-reacted here and jumped the gun. Foolishly, whilst I did ask myself about good faith editing, I looked at this scenario from completely the wrong angle and didn't assume good faith at all. I will apologise to the user in question, as looking at it again several hours later I did it wrong. I have no real excuse, I hold up my hands here, this was a bad block. Again, I apologise, and will strive to do better in the future. I hope I will not misanalyse the facts so badly again, especially as I will most likely always reflect on this mistake. --Taelus (Talk) 21:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't worry Taelus, you can wipe the humble pie away from around your face; we all make mistakes. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed so, but I feel particularly bad as I have effectively become my own worst enemy, in that I am opposed to overly hasty blocks. It's one of those scenarios where I look back on it and think "What on earth was I thinking?!". Fortunately though, I think this will always lurk at the back of my mind and thus hopefully prevent such a foolish thing occurring again. That is all I can hope and promise anyway. My apologies to the community. --Taelus (Talk) 22:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed the editor and pointed her to WP:COI Anthony (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

NPA violation - ArmchairVexillolgistDonLives

The above named user has a long history of disruptive edits and blocks. He recently made a personal attack on the British Isles article and even after being warned re-inserted the same comment. Pages associated with the British Isles are always sensitive and prone to edit wars. Is it possible that an admin would have a word so that this type of behaviour is nipped in the bud? Thanks. --Snowded ^TALK 21:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

His previous account at ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk · contribs) has multiple blocks for NPA and edit warring. Why should a new name change anything? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, same behaviour as with his previous name. Hence the request for some action .... --Snowded ^TALK 01:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

5 year old debate, 200 verses of Matthew

5 years ago, the community decided to merge and redirect 200 articles that a single user had created dealing with individual bible verse by verse. That same user, 5 years later, has quietly restored/reverted those articles with no discussion. For past history see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KJV and the many links in those pages. For the 200 articles, see Category:Gospel of Matthew verses. My gut feeling is to simply revert those changes (i.e. restore the 5 year redirects), but I want to get additional input. I was pointed here after posting elsewhere, but understand that this requires no admin intervention and is mostly a content dispute (besides the user issue of having lost a debate 5 years ago and being cautioned by arbcom, then restoring the exact same 200 articles which caused the problem all those years ago without further discussion). -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm similarly inclined. (To restore the redirects) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As am I, I might even go a little further and request WP:SALT if it continues, but for the moment, I would request they just be reverted and the editor reminded of ArbCom's 2006 decision. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Errrr, SimonP (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an administrator.

And it looks like he was a member of ArbCom when this went down. As such, I'm sure he's aware of the decision... Bobby Tables (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As am I, and I have begun doing so. This was clearly against consensus. If the user wants to restore them, he needs to change it. Not edit war against it.

• Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:2, Matthew 1:3, Matthew 1:4, Matthew 1:5, Matthew 1:6, Matthew 1:7, Matthew 1:8, Matthew 1:9, Matthew 1:10, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 1:12, Matthew 1:13, Matthew 1:14, Matthew 1:15, Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:17, Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:19, Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 1:22, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 1:24, Matthew 1:25
• Matthew 2:1, Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:3, Matthew 2:4, Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:6, Matthew 2:7, Matthew 2:8, Matthew 2:9, Matthew 2:10, Matthew 2:11, Matthew 2:12, Matthew 2:13, Matthew 2:14, Matthew 2:15, Matthew 2:16, Matthew 2:17, Matthew 2:18, Matthew 2:19, Matthew 2:20, Matthew 2:21, Matthew 2:22, Matthew 2:23,
• Matthew 3:1, Matthew 3:2, Matthew 3:3, Matthew 3:4, Matthew 3:5, Matthew 3:6, Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:8, Matthew 3:9, Matthew 3:10, Matthew 3:11, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 3:13, Matthew 3:14, Matthew 3:15, Matthew 3:16, Matthew 3:17
• Matthew 4:1, Matthew 4:2, Matthew 4:3, Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:5, Matthew 4:6, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:9, Matthew 4:10, Matthew 4:11, Matthew 4:12, Matthew 4:13, Matthew 4:14, Matthew 4:15, Matthew 4:16, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 4:18, Matthew 4:19, Matthew 4:20, Matthew 4:21, Matthew 4:22, Matthew 4:23, Matthew 4:24, Matthew 4:25
• Matthew 5:1, Matthew 5:2, Matthew 5:3, Matthew 5:4, Matthew 5:5 Matthew 5:6, Matthew 5:7, Matthew 5:8, Matthew 5:9, Matthew 5:10, Matthew 5:11, Matthew 5:12, Matthew 5:13, Matthew 5:14, Matthew 5:15, Matthew 5:16, Matthew 5:17, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 5:19, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:23-4, Matthew 5:25, Matthew 5:26, Matthew 5:27, Matthew 5:28, Matthew 5:29, Matthew 5:30, Matthew 5:31, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 5:33, Matthew 5:34, Matthew 5:35, Matthew 5:36, Matthew 5:37, Matthew 5:38, Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:40, Matthew 5:42, Matthew 5:43, Matthew 5:44, Matthew 5:45, Matthew 5:46, Matthew 5:47, Matthew 5:48
• Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:2, Matthew 6:3, Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:6, Matthew 6:7, Matthew 6:8, Matthew 6:9, Matthew 6:10, Matthew 6:11, Matthew 6:12, Matthew 6:13, Matthew 6:14-5, Matthew 6:16, Matthew 6:17, Matthew 6:18, Matthew 6:19-20, Matthew 6:21, Matthew 6:22, Matthew 6:23, Matthew 6:24, Matthew 6:25, Matthew 6:26, Matthew 6:27, Matthew 6:28, Matthew 6:29, Matthew 6:30, Matthew 6:31, Matthew 6:32, Matthew 6:33, Matthew 6:34

I've already got one down. Please update the above list as the articles are fixed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. We've already gone through this debate. Restore the redirects until such time as someone can demonstrate consensus to do otherwise. Kaldari (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Did a few more. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Question: Any reason why they are redirects to Genealogy of Jesus and not Gospel of Matthew? Shouldn't they all just redirect to Gospel of Matthew? — Timneu22 · talk 22:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone requested User:SimonP to refrain from restoring these? Also, why does he have a biography on wikipedia just because of being a wikipedian / admin / fleetingly mentioned in news as such? --Ragib (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a few. Thinking about it, however, it might be wise to figure out why he did it before acting so quickly. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I would be tempted to block the user until he promises not to do this again. This is a ridiculous amount of work for people to roll back. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

On the bio, seems there was an AfD back in 2006 which was closed as "keep". Yworo (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Would this be considered correct use of Rollback, as I could knock all these out right quick. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It isn't the normal use of rollback, but given the sentiment expressed here to uphold the prior consensus (which, after all, went all the way to ArbCom), I don't think you would get in any trouble for using it for this. --RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm using Twinkle AGF rollback, but I think it would be ok to use rollback; it's not vandalism, but there a massive amount of edits to revert, so, if I'm not mistaken, it is allowed under WP:ROLLBACK. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, with that I will knock some of them out. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. More I've reverted; Matthew 7:19-20, Matthew 7:16,‎ Matthew 7:7-8, Matthew 7:9,‎ Matthew 7:6 , Matthew 7:5 , Matthew 7:4 , Matthew 7:23 ‎, Matthew 7:24 Black Kite (t) (c) 23:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that I've only had a quick skim over the discussion, but I have good reason to trust at least 2 or 3 of the editors who are working on this so I'm helping out with the reversions. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted some with rollback and some with copy/paste edits of the redirect link. Seems we are done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I rolled back anything with no intermediate edits by other editors, and used twinkle's restore version on the rest. I knocked out a good chunk of the articles like that; it looks like it went pretty quick with a few of us working on it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I got a few in Matthew Chapters 5 & 6. MtD (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Done already? ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. As a seven year admin and former arbitrator I would have appreciated being given the respect of at least asking me about this before going ahead a reverting me. Please look in greater detail into the history of this before making the changes. The decision was not to delete those articles but to keep the content by merging them. This was the end result of a campaign to get rid of these articles that was largely pushed by -Ril-, who was banned soon after as being a sock of CheeseDreams. He only began pushing to merge them after a long series of AfDs either resulted in keep or no consensus decisions. (See debates on Matthew 2:16, John 20, John 20:16, Genesis 1:1, Matthew 1, Matthew 1:verses.)

The end result was a series of cobbled together articles, that never worked. See for instance the discussion at Talk:Genealogy_of_Jesus#Overhaul_.26_Archive. Since most of the specific verse content was not relevant to the grand theme articles that they were merged to, overtime most of this content was removed. And with good reason. Seeing this it made sense to go back to the old system, and I began doing so several months ago. I also greatly expanded most of the articles over this period, adding much new content. All of it immaculately referenced. Simply going back and reverting all the page to the redirects has erased all that content from Wikipedia. In effect the articles have been deleted in all but name, but as you see there was never in anyway consensus to delete any of these pages. - SimonP (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is, you went against consensus and remade the articles even though ArbCom said not to....right? Cause that is what I am hearing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really see that Arbcom said not to -- it appears they rejected that fairly strongly. [[28]] - — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)

What to do Next?

• Guess I will say it, what should be done with User:SimonP? Strong admonishment, block, taken back to ArbCom, what? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about this stuff, but if the Arbitration Committee made a decision which Simon has defied, should it be referred back to the Committee? MtD (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above, the current situation doesn't reflect any community consensus. What from Matthew 1:18 has been merged into Nativity of Jesus, the content was simply erased and replaced by a redirect. I am perfectly fine with it going back to the committee. What I would really like though is for the articles to be considered on their merits. I'm proud of pages like [1:18], if all that content is to be deleted I'd like an explanation for why it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. - SimonP (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but only you say it doesn't have consensus, but the 2006 ArbCom decision, which this is all based on, does, which put them all to redirects. Sorry, but you defied ArbCom and Consensus in a very sneaky way, no matter how you want to spin it. As an admin, you should know better. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Where does the Arbcom say they should all be redirected? Could you point out that part of the decision? - SimonP (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be here, where the consensus was redirect. Sorry Dude, you are out of line. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read the discussions. I will always follow the consensus of the community, but can you honestly say that redirecting all of them was the decision of Wikipedia:Bible verses or of the hundred people that commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses. Who there supported redirecting all the pages? - SimonP (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, I really don't care who said what in 2006, I wasn't even a member than, but what I do care about is you have gone against consensus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And, I am asking where the consensus is to redirect the pages. As discussions from back then show, such consensus clearly didn't exist. - SimonP (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who rollbacked Matthew 1:18, since I thought consensus was to turn those articles into redirects. If I was wrong, I'd be glad to self-revert (or, if you prefer, you can do it; I won't mind). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is reverted, it should be subject to several edits, as some of this appears to be OR and not the "immaculately referenced" page you claimed above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you point out any such flaws you've observed? I'm certainly willing to fix any such problems that are pointed out to me. - SimonP (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You could fix the problems when you get consensus the pages are needed in the first place. We don't have every single verse of the Bible here, not every single verse of the Torah, not every single verse of the Qur'an, the Hindu texts or the Buddhist texts, so what makes Matthew so special that it needs every single verse on different pages? Seriously. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

My belief is that any content that can be referenced to quality academic sources is encyclopedic. Many Bible verses unquestionably qualify, as I think a page like 7:15 demonstrates. The Gospel of Matthew is just the first that I'm working on. I do firmly believe that other holy books deserve a similar treatment, and encourage others to start work on them. There is just as much, if not more, analysis of the Koran and Torah out there and I'm sure some amazing articles would result. - SimonP (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, at present, there isn't consensus on this very thread for Matthew. I do agree we should make the books of the religions public, maybe via a new Wiki...WikiReligion anyone?...but that isn't what we are here to decide. We are here to decide what to do with you because you readding information to several pages after an ArbCom decision and against consensus. You can side-step and change the subject, but you screwed up dude. As a Lutheran, I am told to forgive you but as a Wikipedian, you need to own up, take your medicine (whatever that may be) and move onto something else, which I really do think should be starting a new Wikimedia project, WikiReligion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point, no one really knows what the current opinion of the community is. I've thus created a new discussion page at Wikipedia:Bible verses/2010, and I hope you and everyone else will participate. By the end last time the months of debate had left a somewhat poisoned atmosphere, so I think a fresh start to everything might be very helpful. - SimonP (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Done and done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of minutia in those individual articles that seems to be beyond the normal scope of wikipedia, but that could be a matter of opinion. It's interesting that it took like 3 months before anyone noticed these reversions by the admin, which suggests they are not high-traffic items. Maybe the admin could consolidate them into his userspace and come up with an encyclopedic article, instead of a cluster of articles with detailed commentary as if he were writing a New Testament version of the Talmud? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The other option is that people did read them and didn't have any problem with their being in the encyclopedia. They did get a reasonable number of edits by other users, though mostly minor changes. Matthew 1:18 got 221 views last month, which is about average for a Wikipedia article. - SimonP (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we need an article on each verse of the Bible - and while we're at it, an article on each verse (or whatever they're called) of the Quran. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That's why I think this would be better used if an entirely new Wiki that focuses on just religion. Put the books of the Bible (Christianity), the Torah (Judaism}, the Qur'an (Islam), Bhagavad Gita (Hinduism), the Analects (Confucianism), the Tao Te Ching (Taoism) and the Discourses of the Buddha (Buddhism) (and whatever books the lesser known religions use) all in one website so there is no favoritism about the site. Source the ever-living-hell out of each and every page and make it great. Doing it here, it would be just about the "English" religions and not inclusive to all the religions of the world. It needs to be a seperate website and inclusive to everyone. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Lord of the Rings, we need an article about every chapter, every kind of creature, and every character from those books. But wait, I think we do! - Wikidemon (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I may be thinking big on this one, but I think with people who know what they are doing, know the verses, chapters, books, etc., I think it could be done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Salt

To of course prevent future disruption, these articles need to be salted.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't SALT only apply to deleted articles to protect them from recreation? These articles have become redirects. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I sadly, both as an editor and a Lutheran, have to agree that SALT is necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Giftiger Wunsch; salting is for deleted pages; in this case, admins might protect the pages, but it wouldn't be useful, since Simon is an admin (and, quite frankly, I see no need for that, as he is discussing right now). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been here nine years, I can assure you I'm not going to launch some 200 page revert war. - SimonP (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had no doubts whatsoever (and wasn't being sarcastic). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite overly dramatic this is. No pages are going to be protected. Prodego ^talk 02:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally overdramatic. -- JALatimer 04:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we just calm down here?

Hi guys! Hope you're all doing well -- Can ya'll just calm down a minute? Why are you discussing deleting these articles and giving them the Rome-on-Carthage treatment? What would be so terrible about keeping them up? It seems to me a lot of the objections to these articles could be eliminated by removing the wholesale copying of KJV text into wikipedia. But some of the articles are much longer than just the KJV text and include information that is nowhere else on wikipedia. Yet User:Neutralhomer, for example, redirects without regard to what information gets obscured or lost. No offense to you neutralhomer, I just disagree with you on this point. Personally, I think its better to keep stuff than to delete, generally. Why not try and make it better? Stub articles in this grouping seem fine for redirecting, but other, longer articles -- it's just not appropriate to delete that much labor, individual or collective. (The article I've been in conflict with you is not the sole work of User:SimonP. Yet that fact is not reflected right now in teh discussions here and elsewhere.)

My vote: Keep these articles up; then judiciously select articles that are destined to be stubs forever and redirect or delete them. No salt. No big grandstanding and yelling and shouting and saving the world and fighting for the all holy wikipedia policies necessary.

My suggestion: don't include the original text, particularly not a translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JALatimer (talk • contribs) 04:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, at the very least, if you redirect an article, do the hard work and make sure all the info is included in the redirected-to article. Thanks. -- JALatimer 04:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no current discussion in deleting these articles, just redirecting them. The information remains in the history of each page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the information is not visible to a normal peruser of the encyclopedia. Which amounts to de facto deletion vis-a-vis the reader. I am well aware that the article can technically be restored, as you well know. :)-- JALatimer 04:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be called edit-warring against consensus...and you are asking for "calm"? Let's not mess with the articles until the outcome of this and other threads. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Gotta say, the one example article linked above looks pretty well-referenced to me. I don't see what the big deal is: they were redirected, the content was deleted, and someone came along and turned each redirect into a referenced article. If you want to AfD them again, in hopes of forcing a redirect, feel free. I'm simply not seeing any wrongdoing here. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, I have two additional concerns: 1) The ArbCom case is from 4.5 years ago. That's an eternity in Wikipedia time! Trying to use that as some sort of a bludgeon is unsupportable. 2) Looking at Matthew 1:1, the text appears to be nominally referenced. The previous consensus was (at most) that notable Bible verses should be kept as their own articles, so by referencing multiple independent reliable sources, there is at least an argument that each particular verse is independently notable. Now, that may not stand up to scrutiny, but having seen plenty of Bible commentaries, I can agree that any arbitrary verse has offline, non-trivial mentions. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I've set up Wikipedia:Bible verses/2010, where we can hopefully come to some consensus on these issues that will work for everybody - SimonP (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks. It's good to get this actually discussed. Also, note that SimonP is a sysop. Hence SALTing doesn't do anything but put salt in the wounds. (Whether they be existent or not) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Humerus pun. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If We keep these... we should not use the King James Version, or include other versions, particularly the New American Version, which as a Catholic is the version used in American Catholic Churches. That's just my $0.02. Do what you want with it, it is clear that at least some of these articles can be merged. Why not merge the stub articles into Chapters? --Rockstonetalk to me! 21:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How to find the contribution of an ip range?

79.53.229.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) edited several pages in April but i find all were vandalism. I can check every pages in Category:Italian footballers to find him out, or just pages i created. But it is time consuming. Matthew_hk tc 23:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In the standard skin, go to My preferences → Gadgets and check Allow /16 and /24 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions. I think you can also go to Special:Gadgets or something like that. See Classless Inter-Domain Routing for how to use the results, and use the links under the contributions history to narrow your search parameters to the relevant range. If the range in question belongs to a university, be prepared for a lot of results.

Related question: does anybody know of a way to filter that result list by time of last edit? - 2/0 (cont.) 01:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There's also a toolserver tool by X! called Range Contributions. It can be found at toolserver.org/~soxred93/rangecontribs/index.php. --Bsadowski1 06:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible WP:LEGAL situation

Just want to drop notice here of this edit, where the summary left was "Image is a violation of 18USC1466A and has been reported authorities". Tabercil (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a tough one. At the very least, Stillwaterising needs to be informed that he is not, in fact, the foundation's lawyer, and that he has no responsibility or duty to act as such on its behalf. And I very much doubt he's reported said image to the authorities, which is a cornerstone of why we instituted WP:LEGAL - because 99% of legal threats aren't real, but they still poison the well. --Golbez (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The image has been reported, as per proposed guidelines, to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children this morning. It is something that, by law, they are assigned to handle. The are not law enforcement, however they do investigates reports and refer to law enforcement when appropriate. Before anybody asks, yes, they do handle reports of cartoon images of child sexual abuse. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Then your work is done. Don't continue to edit war; if it's illegal, I'm sure Mike Godwin will receive a phone call soon. Otherwise, it's no longer your responsibility. --Golbez (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Random question, but why is everyone assuming that the cartoon is depicting children? I can't tell from the cartoon that they would be underage... Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "everyone" is saying that, I think it's Stillwaterising that is making that claim. I don't see it at all. I definitely don't think the cartoon represents "children" at all. In fact, it's hard to tell just what is trying to be depicted, as I am unfamiliar with the Futanari topic. Although reading through the description, it seems as if the grahpics are depicting "she-males" or Hermaphrodites. In my opinion, this is an extreme reaction by Stillwaterrising with no basis in reality. Dave Dial (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

By definition futanari can't be she-males, instead they are hermaphrodites, sharing both genders and have an feminine appearance. There are some different variants of futanari, which were long part in japanese believes. In the 90th they became a popular extension to the yuri genre, with the aim to attract male customers. --Niabot (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I'd prefer an image where the subject(s) is/are blatantly obviously grown women (yeah they're chicks with dicks, but you know what I mean). The one on the left isn't, IMO. However, neither of them are obviously meant to be children either, and it is worth noting that pubic hair is censored in Japan (or at least it was, I'm no expert), meaning anime and manga usually don't feature it and even images drawn in the style of Japanese comic art may also lack it. I don't know if that is part of what is causing the concern. Members of the anime and manga project will have much more informed opinions, suggest someone invites them to have a look. Someoneanother 01:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also suggest this invitation. And you are right, nearly every picture/manga/anime is drawn without pubic hair, since this was illegal in japan for decades and this kind of censoring forced by the US after WWII is also the reason for things like tentacles. --Niabot (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Seeing this show up on my Watchlist I finally gave a damn to take a look....and with all the mentions of Mike Godwin here and below, I have emailed him and made him aware of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm a little surprised that no one continued the WP:LEGAL discussion, instead moving on to the more salient points. I suggest perhaps a "WP:Don't be a vigilante", "If you think illegal content is on Wikipedia, contact the foundation, don't edit-war to remove it yourself." --Golbez (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Futanari

Several users (User:83.100.224.86, User:Cherryblossom1982, User:Niabot (uploader/creator), and User:Dogcow so far) have attempted to insert a cartoon depiction of child sexual abuse (my personal opinion) into this article starting the June 21rst. I have made two reverts today, and have been threaten on my talk page with violating wp:legal. I have only said that that image potentially violates 18 U.S.C. § 1466A and warned the users not to insert the image again. I'm afraid this has escalated into an edit war and this needs to be delt with appropriately. I feel that these users should be disciplined and the article be set to temporary full-protection. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you think an image is illegal, contact the Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel. Apart from that, all other Wikipedia rules apply, including the rule against edit warring. --Golbez (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Contacting Mike Godwin will get the response of "My advice is that anyone concerned that they might violate child-pornography law send these links directly to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The Wikimedia Foundation will defer to NCMEC's expert judgment on these matters." This isn't helpful. 18 U.S.C. § 2258A requires all suspected child pornography (no "proof" required) that is reported to the website administrators be taken down and reported "in a timely manner". I'm still wondering why there's no policy for dealing with this. If two or more established editors think it's illegal it probably is. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed at your ability to predict Mike Godwin's response. And according to Wikipedia (an esteemed location of trustworthy information, from what I gather) and their article on simulated child pornography, even 'realistic' virtual child porn is legal in the United States, unless judged obscene; this is far, far from realistic. Perhaps you should edit the article if it is wrong. As for "if two or more editors think it's illegal", first of all, where's your second? And second of all, what of the two or more editors who think it's hunky dory? --Golbez (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And for someone who cites the law so well, I'm surprised you haven't looked at 18 U.S.C. § 2258E, which states that only a "computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" falls under the definition of child pornography. Unless you are exceptionally blind and think that drawing looks like two hermaphrodites, you're way off on sending this to the NCMEC, or anyone for that matter. This image is no more 'child porn' than the movie Scream was a snuff film. Less so, since there's no actual, y'know, children involved. --Golbez (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, 18 U.S.C. § 1466A includes any cartoon depicting a minor engaging in sexual conduct. I think the moral of this story is, I'm not a kiddy porn lawyer, you're (presumably) not a kiddy porn lawyer, and I doubt Mike Godwin is a kiddy porn lawyer (but possibly is unfrozen and caveman), but he's a lot closer to that "lawyer" part than any of us. Stop being a vigilante. --Golbez (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

18 USC 2258E has been amended by 1466A due to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. User:Golbez is a known supporter of pornography on Wikipedia and Commons. I'm requesting neutral admin opinions. Also, if people are going to bring out WP:NOTCENSORED they should read the whole listing, which also says "Content that is judged to violate ... or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed. - Stillwaterising (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, my name is right there. Really. (edit conflict: you changed it before I got to post this) Second of all, I'm not sure I recall ever defending pornography on Commons (I admit having some porn articles on my watchlist, hot womens are nice to look at), and I frankly have no interest in this pornography, I simply get drawn to WP:LEGAL issues because I enjoy permablocking people. Thirdly, did you yourself not save the article on Heather Harmon, an Internet porn star, from deletion? So basically, I'm bad because apparently I'm like you? Finally, if it is removed, it will not be by you. It will be either through consensus, or through an WP:OFFICE action. But y'know, thanks for attempting to sully me in a public forum like that, especially when I never did the same to you. Class act. --Golbez (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Stillwaterising, I would agree with you if I thought the image depicted children engaging in sexual acts, but I don't see that the two figures in the cartoon are children. You have good intentions, I'm sure, but this cartoon doesn't seem to depict children at all, and that's my stance. Perhaps if you could explain why you believe one or both figures in the cartoon to be underage...? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He reported a cartoon to the missing children's bureau??? I fail to see how this is a good use of our tax dollars. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The image on left appears to depict a adolescent minor and the one on the right is meant to be an adult. It doesn't matter is the subject is post-pubescent or not, it only matters if the subject is appears to be under the age of 18. Obviously, their ages aren't included in the description, however there are identifing characteristics. 1). Breasts. The adult has larger, full breasts with normal adult-sized nipples. The adolscent has nipples that are smaller than an adults, and small underdeloped breasts that are found on a minor in Tanner stage III (the images and information in the Wikipedia is not accurate, however even if the girl is Tanner stage IV that would put her in the 13-15 year old range). 2) Build. Adult on right has full height, musculature, and proportions. Figure on left is proportioned like an adolenscent. 3) Head. The face on the image of the right is typical of an a child. The head is proportioned and shaped like a child. The hair is styled like a child. 4)Penis. The image on Commons was kept, in part, on the argument that this girl has an adult-size penis. Really? Like this characteristic makes the above irrelavant? Hardly. It's large because this image was intended to be sexually arousing, and the scenario of an adult fondling an well-endowed adolescent likely appeals to the "prurient interests" of some users, which BTW qualifies it for the first part of the Miller test. Bugs, read 18 U.S.C. § 2258A(a)(2)(B). All 1466A violations are included in the statute and must be removed and reported "as soon as reasonably possible." Also, in general, I would think it would be the criminal that wastes tax dollars, not the person reporting the crime. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, they look like adults of an alien life form, as their anatomy does not conform to humans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"In general", I would think that someone calling the cops to report a jaywalker is, assuming good faith, an easily-upset, histrionic hall monitor. Assuming bad faith, I would assume this person lives under a bridge somewhere. Either way, the jaywalker may be the criminal, but the "upstanding and concerned citizen" is without a doubt the one wasting tax dollars and time. Unless and until any pen-and-inked, two-dimensional intersexed children with bright pink hair have been reported missing in the vicinity of a foggy bathhouse with disco lighting, perhaps last seen in the company of an older-looking, brown-haired similarly-inked two dimensional intersexed he-she - and do notify me on my talk page if this is the case! - I would "in general" argue that you're getting worked up over the erotica equivalent of jaywalking. Badger Drink (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors, administrators, etc do not deal with takedown requests. If it is clear an image should be removed, we will of course do it. But you need to contact the Wikimedia foundation if you have a takedown request for legal (not content) purposes. There is nothing else to discuss here. Prodego ^talk 02:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Predego, what I hear you saying is that current policy does allow this image to be deleted, or for the users to be blocked, etc. This goes against all public statements make Michael Snow and Mike Godwin, such as this, as well as illegal removal clause in WP:NOTCENSORED (above). - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's just get this out in the open: Will you continue to edit war to remove this image from the article? If so, and you then continue to do so, then you will blocked for edit warring. If not, we are done here, as it is no longer a concern for the administrator noticeboard. Which is it, so we can either go to bed or release the hounds? --Golbez (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) "If it is clear" != "one person makes a very dubiously-argued near-rant that is, at best, an illustration of that one particular person's personal thought process". Hope this helps. Badger Drink (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We aren't lawyers, and we aren't qualified to make a judgement here. That is why you have to contact the WMF - which does have lawyers in their employ precisely to get input in situations like that (among other things of course). If it is obvious an image should be removed (i.e. consensus) it will be done. But that doesn't seem to exist here, so if you believe there is a legal issue you need to contact the foundation. Prodego ^talk 03:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Both characters appear to be sexually developed (considering the subject matter) making any determination of their "ages" extremely difficult. They could range from their late-teens to their early 20s. I also don't see anything about the character's suppose ages in the image's description page. Also, you can't point to artwork of a character with a small bust and calm that the character a "obviously" a minor. Especially when it's clear that the rest of the body proportions are way off as well, such as the size of the head and the length of the arms and legs in relation to the torso. While I don't claim to be an art expert, even I can see the problems with the overall body proportions. —Farix (t | c) 04:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I go out for the evening and look what I miss! I've only just seen this discussion and am only contributing since I have had my name mentioned in what I believe is an erroneous and libelous manner. Firstly, I did not insert the image in question, I simply reverted vandalism from an IP contributor complaining about a depiction of pornography. Not child porn, just porn. Secondly, in my opinion, the image depicts two adults as far as one can determine age in what are, after all, imaginary creatures; they cannot biologically exist as humans. And if we're going to try to sound scientifically impressive talking about Tanner stages, it should be realized that one cannot determine age by Tanner stage, any ages given are only for theoretically "typical" individuals and many fully adult women never develop breasts beyond Tanner stage IV. To see this fantasy image of non-existent beings as child sexual abuse is ... (well fill it in yourself, if I did, it would probably not be polite). Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of returning to more rational discussion, isn't the image the equivalent of original research? It's licensed as user-created content; it's therefore simply one user's opinion, accurate or not, as to what an example of this type of pornography might look like. I would think that the only appropriate illustration for the article would be an NFCC-compliant image from a publication described in a reliable secondary source as futanari. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:OI covers this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And as I read WP:OI, it fails the test, because the image creator's ideas of the nature of the pornography involved are unpublished etc. Of course, right now the entire article is minimally sourced and at least borderline OR.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Are we really arguing the artistic merits of an image of two anime dickgirls, and whether or not it is a faithful representation of the subject matter? Tarc (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If the image is representative of how Futanari characters are depicted, it's not original research. Also a non-free-use image cannot be added to the article because a free-use equivalent can be created to illustrate the subject, thus failing WP:NFCC #1. —Farix (t | c) 13:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

But isn't the determination that the image is representative essentially OR, since it's based on the opinion of the image creator? As for NFCC#1, this analysis would also exclude all use of NFCC images to illustrate articles on non-living persons, since an editor could always create an original drawing/painting/image.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. The only reason someone would take such a tack would be to game the system and create a Catch-22. But really, how hard is it to compare a free image with a non-free image and determine that the two depict the same subject? —Farix (t | c) 15:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't address the policy issue. Take a look at Jazz. By your analysis, all the illustrative nonfree sound samples at the end f the article should be removed, because they could be replaced, in theory, by original compositions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Potentially replaceable music samples on another article has no relation to whether a free use image can be created to illustrate THIS article and is tantamount to WP:OTHERSTUFF. —Farix (t | c) 15:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on, this is getting very silly. I never even heard of this subject before, but all you have to do is type the article subject in teh Google to see the image covers the article subject. Are we going to argue someone's drawing of an Apple is original research because it's his/her interpetation of an apple? I think Brandon had the right idea, close this thread. If the disruption is started again, someone can make a new thread. Dave Dial (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Things are getting worse

[29] Stillwaterising is now informing people - without any legal standing and, furthermore, without any authority - that they may be breaking the law if they revert his edit. I'm a little personally involved in this, what with being pissed at his assassination of my character, but I think we're approaching the level of a civility or legal block here. --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well they might be. But that is certainly bordering on legal threats. Seems worth letting him/her know your concerns. Prodego ^talk 03:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

... I ... I think he's well aware of my concerns with his behavior here, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't care. You know, the whole argument for the previous two sections. As for 'Well they might be', it's not up to you or me or any individual Wikipedia editor to make that determination. That's why the foundation has lawyers. The only legal issue we tend to care on an editor level is copyright. Anything beyond that, we have the foundation. I don't get to tell people that I'm going to sue them if they revert me, and I find telling people they're breaking the law if they revert me to be very similar. And when we're dealing with copyright issues, it's the foundation we're protecting; Stillwaterising is specifically saying the person who reverts him is committing the crime. I call for a warning shot. --Golbez (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I left him a note on his talk page encouraging him to enjoy the fine weather they're having in his city of residence (Austin, TX, according to his userpage) and take a walk, gaze at the stars, or perhaps go on a nocturnal bike ride...in essence something that will cause him less stress and hassle overall. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That looks like exactly what WP:NLT is there for. He's made his point, he's been warned that he could be blocked for it, he should be blocked for it - not warned again. I don't say this in defense of the image itself, by the way, since we plainly could replace it with one that doesn't have the problem under discussion, or with no image at all - but nonetheless, his behavior is unacceptable. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to again say, just for those who missed it, I emailed Mike Godwin (legal counsel of WMF) and notified him of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think someone should remove the threat that SWR placed on the talk page. This is exactly the kind of thing that NLT is meant to prevent. Telling other editors that they'll be in trouble with the law if they revert you, even when the threat is absurdly, obviously wrong as this one is, has a chilling effect. The threat should be removed and SWR blocked until he shows that he "gets it." In the meantime, I've posted a response telling other editors to ignore the threat.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't that character blocked already? He's leveling legal threats left and right, and shows no sign of retracting them. He's complaining about a cartoon character which, by definition, has no "age" - and cartoon characters with features that wouldn't exist in real life anyway. Put that guy on ice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It is going too far and has needlessly turned an extremely borderline case into a pressure cooker. If Godwin or the powers that be don't see anything to take action over then an RFC should solve it. Bandying around terms like "criminal" really isn't on, if there was any real doubt then the image would be gone already. Someoneanother 07:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Brandon closed this thread and I reopened it. I don't think it's proper to close this without some kind of admin response to the NLT violation. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it not obvious that Stillwaterising deserves a block? He has been warned already, yet he continues to issue legal threats and continues to edit war. A 24-hour block should be instilled immediately. I am appalled that no one has issued the block yet. Feedback (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering a couple of the userboxes on his page ("This user finds censorship offensive", "This user believes in logic"), I'm very tempted to label this entire temper tantrum as a textbook WP:POINT violation - and I'm very loathe to fling that particular label about, as far too often it seems to be used as a synonym for "[having or expressing a] point". This here, though, is disruption, borderline trolling, plain and simple. For a person who claims to believe in logic, Stillwater's behavior over the past few hours has displayed a remarkable lack thereof. Badger Drink (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, he seems to have stopped what he was doing a few hours ago, probably upon retiring for the evening, but this doesn't change the fact that there are still unretracted threats on the record, threats that are based entirely on SWR's wholly subjective interpretation of a cartoon, an interpretation shared by no one. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And therefore a block should be issued. If he just returns later in the day and experiences no consequences for his actions, what does that say about the system here? Feedback (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:NLT is clear, legal threats are not a valid WP:DR mechanism. Indef block (which could last only 5 min, etc). Legal threats of any kind should not be tolerated. Verbal chat 09:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Could everybody.. please stop edit warring over the closure of this thread. The whole thing is over an editor steaming ahead without using the options available, no need for anyone else to do the same. It's getting depressing. Someoneanother 09:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the early closure of this thread is disruptive, especially as the problem hasn't been addressed. Verbal chat 10:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually didn't have a problem with Brandon closing it, figuring that since nobody had blocked on the basis of the discussion either nobody was going to or what was there would lead someone to block without further repetition. Conduct aside it's just waiting to see what Mike Godwin says, which is another matter. Though quite why the thread needed labelling as "nonsense" I don't know. Someoneanother 10:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats are forbidden. The user must be blocked indefinitely until or if he withdraws the legal threat. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a legal threat. "We should not include this image, because I think it's illegal" is no more a threat than "we should not include this image, because I think it's a copyright violation". Watching out for Wikipedia content being legal is a good thing. Warning fellow users if you believe what they are doing might cross a dangerous line is a reasonable thing to do. A legal threat is "I'll sue you if you do X". Different issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It IS a legal threat. It's an attempt at intimidation. That's what NLT is about. Unless he retracts, he cannot edit. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What could he possibly "retract"? He made a claim of fact (or opinion), not a statement of intent. If he had said "I'll sue you", he could now retract by saying "okay, I changed my mind, I'm not gonna sue you". But what he did say was "I think this picture is illegal". What do you want him to say now? "Okay, I changed my mind, I no longer think it is illegal"? If that's what he thinks, that's what he thinks. If you are confident he's wrong about it, where's the intimidation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I retracted the statement. I made no threats. LEGAL pertains to treats of lawsuits and even if changed by consensus (ex post facto) it does not apply to this incident. I find it offensive that I'm under attack while a potentially serious legal issue goes completely unaddressed. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's all just drop it, people. Comments on the legitimacy of the legal issue have been made, comments on the validity of the statement that this is a threat have been made. Rehashing them will just stir up the pot. All that can be done now is to wait for Mike Godwin to reply, and leave things be in the meantime. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 12:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Dots to be connected

I am reluctant to wade into this mess, but it should be pointed out that Stillwaterising made a similarly pointy edit on Child erotica, adding an image that they apparently believed was child erotica. It was discussed at Talk:Child_erotica#Images. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

DC, I know you and I are friends with a long history, that aside - is this really relevant to the conversation? Also, the point I made there WAS legal according to US law. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

But can you see why people might think it's rather odd? On the one hand, you've reported a cartoon to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and on the other hand, you've posted what looks like an exploitative photograph of a real child. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And although he claims to have "retracted" his legal threat, in his latest diff as of a minute ago he's still beating the same drum.[30] He needs to be put on ice like others who make legal threats, until he understands a few things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He will not be blocked for raising what may well be a valid and serious concern, in the proper forums. And the idea that the inclusion of the other image pointed out above was in some way "pointy" is plainly absurd – the whole point of that other image was that in fact it is believed to be not a child. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He's used threats and intimidation. Not that it's worked. But you need to be real careful about letting editors get away with legal threats. It sets a bad precedent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The only threatening I see us from Bugs and limited number of other users. NLT pertains to threats of lawsuits, not warning users that their actions may be against the law. Wiser minds here have recommended that this issue should be put to rest. If this incident leads to a revision of NLT then so be it, but as of now it doesn't apply. Please assume that I have the project's best interests in heart, which I do. - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong about what NLT is about. See Verbal's comments, below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect, rather than assuming, I suggest you ask Stillwaterising whether or not they believe the subject in that picture was over 18. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Warning users that their actions may be against the law isn't a legal threat... in the same way that warning Scooby Doo and the gang to stop snooping "or else" isn't a threat. It's a form of intimidation. If the users' actions are really "illegal" (which it's likely that they're not, as any legal actions would be taken against the foundation, not the individual users), then it's really not that big a deal. The worst that could happen here is that the feds would say "please take that particular image off your servers", and then the foundation would comply. Stillwaterising has already (purportedly) reported it to the feds, so what's done will be done. So he needs stop making a big deal about it. What will be done will be done. [flaminglawyer] 18:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• That kind of intimidation, threatening behaviour and chilling effect is already covered by WP:NLT. If some people feel it is misnamed then they can propose a rename on the talk page, however what Stillwaterising did is against the spirit and letter of NLT - no change to the content is required. He reported the image (pointlessly in my opinion), removed it and at most should have left a note saying he had reported it. If someone reverted him he should not have editwarred using his legal interpretation as a stick. He went further which is clearly blockable and should not be repeated. He still doesn't seem to understand the problem. In my view, Stillwaterising's addition of the picture to the other article could open WP up to problems and shows poor understanding of this whole area. Verbal chat 19:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Good summary. We've seen many editors blocked for violating NLT despite the lack of the "I'll sue you" part. NLT is not about suits, it's about stopping intimidating behavior such as what Stillwater engaged in and continues to. The unwillingness of admins to do something about it is puzzling, but it's not the end of the world. If Stillwater continues doing this kind of thing, he will eventually be stopped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Recent posts to Jimbo's talk page show a "if you're aginst me you're for ceepee" (paraphrase) mentality, that may also be having a further chilling effect and is not good DR. Verbal chat 21:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
      • If the admins won't block the guy for his continual legal threats, then the best we can hope for at present is to be vigilant and revert his nonsense on sight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin note

 Administrator note Since apparently I'm not allowed to close this, I kindly request no admin block Stillwaterising unless he continues being disruptive. There is obviously no legal threat he can revoke, as he only claimed that the editors would be in violation of the law (which is still just as disruptive, just removes any benefit of the instant block). Blocking would just inflame the situation and asking him to "revoke" the legal threat would be akin to asking him to renounce a position he is very keen on. I have warned him on his talk page that any further edit warring on the article or legal posturing will be met with a block. That is all. Brandon (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• That is a legal threat. I request that an admin does block until the threats are rescinded and the user states that they will not repeat this behaviour. Closing an ongoing discussion is disruptive.Verbal chat 09:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  You can't rescind a legal interpretation. That doesn't make it any less disruptive than a legal threat, which is I've already given him a final warning. Brandon (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  Of course you can. Verbal chat 10:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  And this should be moved to the bottom, as you have no special status to override community discussion. Verbal chat 10:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of you have to cut the crap. If this were a newer editor, he would have been blocked on site. He's being disruptive and yes he has not only issued legal threats, but has acted upon them supposedly "reporting to authorities". What the picture depicts is subjective to the viewer. If a 5-foot 30 year old flat-chested woman with soft skin is depicted in a picture, we can't assume its a teenager. If he wants to assume so, tell him to go ahead. However, wasting our time with these silly discussions, reporting to "authorities", issuing legal threats and reverting good edits is just not okay. He should be blocked for at least 24 hours and if not, a 1-month "Pornography" topic ban should be issued. Feedback (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A 24-hour block would pretty much be a CDB. [flaminglawyer] 20:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but CDBs are allowed if they also prevent the pissed off users from being disruptive. Let him cool down and save us from his disruption in the process. Feedback (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you not read the CDB article? Cool down blocks don't cool down. Cool down blocks fan the flame. At least short CDBs do. A long CDB, for, say, a month? That would cool him down, but that would also be excessive (IMO). [flaminglawyer] 21:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no "Cool Down" at stake here. The guy needs to retract any and all stuff in regard to legal action of any kind, or he should be indef'd. That's standard procedure with legal threats. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then issue a topic ban where he cannot edit article or talk pages on any article related to pornography (frankly, his obsession with pornography is quite disturbing). If he doesn't comply, then he can be indef. blocked. I think this is fair. Feedback (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to take a voluntary 24 hour break from Wikipedia. I hope that some wise minds get together and realize that blocking/banning me for what I've done is excessive and is actually the worst kind of censorship (silencing the critics). More, let me make this clear. I reported the image, on Commons, Friday morning. At that point I had not noticed it had been inserted on Wikipedia. When I said "the image has been reported" it was a mere statement of past event, not part of a threat. I don't regard informing users that they they may be breaking a law as a threat. I would hope that other users would so warn me if warranted. I have no special connection with law enforcement and do not have any power to arrest or prosecute anybody. Several things could happen from this, but most likely Wikimedia will be held blameless if it does indeed report the image. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUCK block

SPI is hopelessly backlogged, so I'm bringing this blatant sockpuppetry here. It's classic DUCK. Bell Partners, Inc. is a spammy article about a non-notable property management company. It was written by an SPA User:Bsumme whose only contributions have been to this article. I tagged it for speedy and shortly thereafter another brand new account User:Docgrl85 with no other edits came along and blanked the speedy template [31]. It should be pretty obvious that the second account is a sock of the first, or if not then a meatpuppet. Both should be blocked. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Go back to SPI, we do peruse these cases once and a while. Besides, this post isn't an incident and would be better suited there. Sorry for appearing as a jerk but evading us might backfire someday. You could always try the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-spi for rather quick results. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI has been a useless mess for a week. Several people including myself have posted at AN asking for help but the backlog just keeps growing. It seems counterproductive to add to an already huge backlog with an obvious DUCK. Also, I don't use IRC and have no interest in doing so. It would be nice if admins willing to work at SPI would work at the SPI page instead of chatting on IRC. If nobody is willing to block blatant sockpuppets then just leave them unblocked, I guess. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the backlogs are a big pain. Unfortunately the populace here doesn't want to add more checkusers to fix this up and get more interest in the non-checkuser section. Try pinging Timotheus Canens (Tim Song's IRC nick) there as he is useful with things like that. Looking there, did even create an investigation for the user or am I missing something? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked one, warned the other. Not really worth an SPI on this. On somewhat related news, SPI has been unbacklogged by the Godking of SPI. T. Canens (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo attacks an editor on AFD?

Resolved

 – User is blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing. Kevin Rutherford (talk)

64.255.164.0/25 blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 03:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone look at Jimbo's new comments at the AFD attacking all the editors who are criticizing him for demanding an article be deleted? I mean should Geo Swan have to be be criticized like that? I mean how can anyone want Houston McCoy deleted and redirected to Charles Whitman without demanding that Tony Blair be redirected to George Bush? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.164.27 (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Who's sock are you? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

These things get a life of their own after a while ...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, attack the messenger. Isn't it possible that someone would be bothered that Jimbo says to delete an article, an admin does it, the deletionists cite "secret" discussions and then Jimbo returns to get it deleted? Nobody else concerned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.164.27 (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There has been no attempt to resolve the issue with Jimbo, so bringing it up at ANI is premature. Discuss any issues you have with an editor with that editor first, then bring it up on ANI if that does not succeed. Prodego ^talk 02:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Provide us with differences and we might listen but until then abstract accusations won't help your cause. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the AFD. Half of it is attacks against Geo Swan and the rest of the ARS.

I did read it. I saw no attacks. If you disagree, please post diffs. Yworo (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I voted "Keep" on the article (which is probably going to be deleted), but I see nothing in Jimbo's remarks which can be construed as an attack. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen quite enough from this IP range. 64.255.164.0/25 blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 03:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've no opinion about this block, but I just wanted to link to the diff that the IP was talking about. I think it's important that people not think that I attacked anyone. The idea that my comment might be thought of by anyone as an attack was a surprise to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an attack in that diff, though I suspect questions will always arise when you contribute to AfD and similar discussions, for if you were to interpret a policy in a new way - "I have recently begun to think about BLP1E in a fresh light, and think that the way we currently frame it may be missing a core point and therefore leading to some problems" for example - well, it unavoidably sounds like new policy creation rather than the verbalising of random user-thought, simply because you are who you are and some newer users are unsure as to what position you hold here. My two cents. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

OttomanJackson and Michael Jackson

• OttomanJackson (talk · contribs)

This user has been the subject of 2 previous AN/I's; here and here. The problem is rampant MJ fanboyism, which manifests itself in the Wikipedia via the continued creation of non-single, non-notable songs from MJ albums, and has earned a 1-week and a 2-week ban so far. Today, it is more of the same, the creation of Fly Away (Michael Jackson song), sourced to...sigh...the album's liner notes. Mr. Otto has a complete disregard for notability policy, and the guideline WP:NSONGS in particular. There is also a DRV attempt from the other day to resurrect one of his earlier attempts, currently running at unanimous opposition. I don't see what other avenues there are to pursue here, other than a topic ban. Tarc (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

AfDed the article. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question should be blocked for a longer period of time (1-month?). If he has already been blocked twice before, he has obviously been warned and nose the consequences of his actions. Assuming good faith can only take us so far, it is obvious he is consciously being disruptive. Feedback (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree; and if he nose not, I'm sure he'll soon 'ear from this discussion. (Sorry, I couldn't resist :)) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How can a song released on a Michael Jackson album not be notable? Certainly, reliable sources (album reviews) will cover the song. What am I missing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why should Michael Jackson songs be notable simply for being Michael Jackson songs? Reviews of an album that include a song will not make that song's article any more than a stub. It needs sources that specifically address the song itself and make it something more than just another album track. 14:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Bretonbanquet (talk)

So what if it's just a stub? We don't have any deadlines. As long as it's not violating WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV or WP:BLP, I don't see the problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case, millions of songs would get articles, which would be ridiculous. From Wikipedia:Notability (music): Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We're not a paper encyclopedia and the last I checked, disk-space is cheap. I'm still struggling to see the harm in having this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the typical "it's harmless" inclusionist mantra. What you are missing is reliable sources addressing the song itself. Not contained in a track listing, not rattled off in a simple "these unreleased songs will be on the album", as in the MTV source you just added to the article. Look at articles for One After 909 or The Happiest Days of Our Lives to see what kinda of threshold we're looking for here. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How does deleting the article make Wikipedia a better place? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Because all of that info - what scraps of info there are - could be merged to the album article to greater effect than having a three-line article standing alone, never to be anything more than that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you read through WP:NOT lately? An encyclopedia should strive to be the sum of all human knowledge. That does not mean literally accumulating every scrap, shred, and nibble of detritus created by every human being in the history of civilization. Tarc (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word "all" that I wasn't previously aware of. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, one of the articles that you cited as a paragon of Wikipedia sourcing, The Happiest Days of Our Lives is currently tagged as possibly not meeting the notability guideline. It even cites Wikipedia, an open Wiki with no editorial oversight and no reputation for accuracy and fact-checking as a reliable source. I hope that you will be consistent and urge that this article be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban and possible block

I propose that the user be topic banned from Michael Jackson and songs produced by that artist. Another block may also be in order. History of socking too. User has had ample warnings about notability and music. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposed 1-month block and topic ban. This user very rarely makes constructive contributions, and instead decides to be nuisance. Pyrrhus16 12:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is such a wide topic ban necessary? Does the problem extend beyond creating articles with notability issues? Rehevkor ✉ 14:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We have had other problems as well, such as the creation of Michael Jackson is awesome! nonsense. Tarc (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He's a troll. WP:AGF has gotten him this far and it is time WP:BLOCK takes him stops him in his tracks. Feedback (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not a troll. There is no harm in this article as it will become good. Please don't block me or ban me, I hate being bblocked, plus the whole reason I got an account was for MJ-Related stuff. OttomanJackson 21:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you hate being blocked, then why continue to be disruptive? Since your last block expired, you have misused talkpages, tried to redirect a clearly notable Beatles song article in an act of bias (which you have been warned about several times before), and edit-warred on an article. Pyrrhus16 22:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Your signature must include one link to your userspace, OttomanJackson. See WP:SIGLINK. Rehevkor ✉ 23:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles redirect is pure vandalism, nothing less. This user freely admits to disliking hating the band on his userpage. If this kind of thing can't be controlled, then a topic ban sounds the least punitive measure that should be considered. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Did the Beatles redirect happen before or after this editors last block? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A month after, as far as I can tell. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

An attempt to prevent users for participating in discussions

Resolved

 – Drork gets WP:BOOMERANGed yet again. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, a group of users with certain political views try to block users who have different views from commenting on this page: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel and the apartheid analogy. This is a sensitive politically-related subject, which may result in a policy change. Therefore any form of censorship in this topic should be strongly condemned. In contrary to that, User:ZScarpia and User:RolandR asked User:Elockid to block me, since I expressed view which were not in line with their views, and jeopardized their attempt to change policy. Instead of rejecting their request and warn them about conducting the discussion fairly and cooperatively, User:Elockid decided to response positively, which implies personal connection among these three users and authority abuse on behalf of User:Elockid. As you can see, User:Elockid's action was not only illegitimate but also futile, because I can still edit freely and express my views. Nevertheless, his conduct should be condemned, and this discussion Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel and the apartheid analogy should be canceled due to unfair process. 79.182.10.212 (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Elockid has never commented there, neither have you on this IP, so - please, which account is yours? :) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I have seen, Roland has made no edits to the linked MedCab, ZScarpia has but has not messaged Elockid in his last 1000 edits (dating back to January). I find this to be a very misquoted post and should be marked resolved as unfounded. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, would you by any chance be User:Drork previous editing under the now blocked 109.67.38.10. Opps! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

An identical thread has been started at the Village Pump by the same user. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)'

• I have notified all three users of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Right conclusion SGGH, that is Drork. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Blasted internet connection or I would have had it me'self - apologies. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You are supplying wonderful material to people who condemn WP. Is this your motivation? 79.178.50.16 (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Would any comments from me beyond stating that I don't think that anything 79.182.10.212 says bears much resemblance to reality be helpful?     ←   ZScarpia   13:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this complaint at all. As far as I recall, I have only ever contacted Elockid about a completely unrelated IP, User:64.222.111.5, who was edit-warring on Local food and adding inane remarks about moustaches to Keir Hardie, Neville Chamberlain and other biographies. Certainly nothing to do with the Middle East. Nor have I commented on the MedCab. I have no idea what this IP editor is going on about. Since they have made no previous edits using this IP, I cannot possibly know whether I have complained to another admin about any earlier avatar; though if, as seems accepted, this is Drork, I have indeed submitted several sockpuppet reports. Elockid is one of many admins to have blocked socks of this serial abuser. The complaint is totally spurious. RolandR (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm mystified over why you were pulled into this too (or, why, since you were pulled in, others weren't). Just in case it's not clear, I reported 109.67.38.10 as a suspected IP sockpuppet of Drork. Elockid put a 72-hour block on 109.67.38.10, which 109.67.38.10/Drork evaded (using IP address 79.182.10.212) in order to comment here (adding, "As you can see, User:Elockid's action was not only illegitimate but also futile, because I can still edit freely and express my views."). SGGH then increased the duration of the block on 109.67.38.10 to a week.     ←   ZScarpia   21:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Independent admin required to review Request for Page Protection

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I made a request for page protection. The request was declined with the reason that it would be ineffective as one of the parties in the dispute was an admin and protection wouldn't prevent them editing. While this may technically be the case, is this true that an admin could evade protection in a dispute they are involved in without that resulting in swift sanction? The admin declining the RFPP recommended asking here for uninvolved admins to review his decision. I would like page protection combined with mediation (which I will seek if protection is achieved). Without protection, I don't see how mediation can work. I do not want this request to escalate into drama so would appreciate if we keep this in the abstract here and not name names. If page protection is of value when one of the disputees is an admin, please review the decision at RFPP (you can review my contributions to find it). If it is not of value, please advise me on what dispute resolution steps I can take next. Once again, please no drama. Colin°Talk 13:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC) I have a couple of thoughts. First, that RFPP wasn't the right place to start. That's for requests to protect pages from vandalism. If there is edit warring going on 3RR would be the right place. If there is a difference of opinion on the content, then Third Opinion or an RFC might be the way to go. Second, if an admin locks a page to force everyone to discuss the matter on the talkpage, then an involved admin should not edit thru the protection. This has come up a few times, and the consensus has always been that the admin should consider the page blocked as if they were an ordinary editor. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC) For info, this is the decline [32]. The page is Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. The admin that the user has an issue with is SlimVirgin - have you notified her? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC) I think this was supposed to be kept abstract :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC) How the hell was it supposed to be kept abstract - he was asking people to review TFOWR's decision and invited us to review his contributions to find it. Which is what I did. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC) RFPP is often the right place to request full protection, which, in policy, does prevent admins (especially those involved in the dispute) editing the page. However a quick review of the history and related discussions doesn't particularly suggest to me the need for full protection (or blocks which are often preferable with a limited number of edit warriors) at this time. I believe this was also alluded to in the response. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC) No opinion of the merits of the protection request itself but I don't see how the administrator status of one of the parties in a dispute should affect the decision to accept/decline a RFPP in any way. Would you fail to block an administrator for violating 3RR because he could theoretically unblock himself? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Agreed. I think it is probably newness on TFOWR's part - he's a fairly new admin. I've known admins regularly lock pages where other admins are involved in the dispute. And the suggestion that SlimVirgin would just edit thru it probably shouldn't have been made....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Point taken, and thanks, Ron Ritzman and Elen of the Roads. TFOWR 15:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC) I specifically requested no names, which is why a certain editor was not informed (though the Admin at RFPP was). I did not want the details of the dispute or any editor behaviour to be discussed in this forum, and still don't. The question of whether that lock affects an admin has been answered. Two independent admins feel page protection is not necessary at this stage. While I disagree and think it would be helpful, and that third opinion (tried) and 3RR (unlikely to be breached) aren't options, I would like this section closed as Resolved. Thanks. Colin°Talk 15:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Stonehenge Apocalypse

Resolved

 – page semi'd and up to 80% complete bollocks removed -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Stonehenge Apocalypse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think this page needs attention from one or more admins. The content is quite obviously vandalism from more than one user IP, and it's going to take more than the few "undo"s that I just attempted to get it into shape. I have requested that it be protected at WP:RPP. I just don't know enough about the subject matter to know what content is correct and what is utter bollocks. -- role^player 13:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've so far semi'd the page and removed 5Kb of complete bollocks. There's still some way to go. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The page is looking a lot better now! -- role^player 17:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Request speedy close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple (2nd nomination)

I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a look at the situation surrounding the relisting of this AfD by Spartaz (talk · contribs). Spartaz was the closing admin on the original AfD. When I questioned his close, he tried to start a lengthy discussion on his talk page about the sources presented (a discussion that had already taken place ad nauseum during the original AfD), even going so far as to invite other editors to the discussion. I clearly indicated that continuing the AfD discussion on the closing admin's talk page did not seem appropriate, and clearly noted that I didn't intend to participate in that discussion. Then, I took the issue to deletion review here, and notified Spartaz on his talk page. 66 minutes after being notified that the DRV had been started, he relisted the AfD, apparently in an attempt to derail the DRV. I ask that the new AfD be speedily closed before editors start contributing to it, pending the outcome at DRV. SnottyWong ^prattle 16:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I think it's the DRV that needs closing as moot, by restoring the article and opening a new AFD, Spartaz has, in effect, vacated his own closure, and restarted the process. Courcelles (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• That is exactly what I have done. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure DRV is the venue in which uninvolved editors decide whether or not to relist the article, or overturn/endorse the close. Relisting the article doesn't vacate his own closure. Reversing the decision on the original AfD to Keep or No Consensus is the only way to vacate his original closure. Relisting the article is just a continuation of his original supervote at the original AfD. The article has already been discussed at great length, as have the sources that Spartaz claims to have a problem with. All Spartaz needs to do is read the original AfD if he is looking for a discussion regarding the sources. If the AfD needs to be relisted because some important topic was not discussed during the previous 6000+ word, 49KB discussion which ended 2 days ago, then the uninvolved editors at DRV can decide to relist it. SnottyWong ^confess 17:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Having been a regular at DRV for nearly 4 years I think I can safely say that a closing admin is always allowed to vacate their own closes. Whether to restore an article or refer back to the community for further discussion is within administrative discretion. DRV will always prefer to see an admin take this course of action themselves rather then wait for a discussion to run for 7 days and then do it for them. In this case the issue over my close is the nature of the sources. DRV is not equipped to have that discussion as its remit is simply to review closes and this is rather more technical and needs people who have read the sources. My belief is that the community needs to decide if the sources you put forward are good enough when the original author of the article, who is a long standing and respected editor, asserts that he has read them and that they not up to scratch. The correct venue for that debate is AFD and that is why I relisted it and why I indicated this morning that I would be relisting it at some point today. Frankly you are like a dog with a bone here, demanding to get your own way and scattering aggressive notes and assumptions of bad faith around numerous venues insisting that it has to be done your way or not at all. I'm rather tired of this and won't be responding further. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• So when an admin makes the wrong call at an AfD, the appropriate reaction is to relist the article? I disagree. The AfD has already been discussed for 7+ days. There is nothing more to discuss except repetitions of what has already been discussed. You obviously have an opinion about this article, which you tried to crowbar into your closing action on the original AfD. Relisting the AfD is just a resumption of your attempts to insert your opinion where it is not needed. Your job as closing admin is to assess consensus, not add your own vote, and you clearly didn't do that. Relisting the article doesn't fix that, it's just going to waste 7 more days, and the time of a dozen more editors, to come to the same conclusion the last AfD came to: Keep. SnottyWong ^babble 17:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Close the DRV, and proceed with the relist - though it should be an actual reopen and relist of the first AfD, not a new AfD! Spartaz said this morning that "I'm going to relist this later today for further discussion of the sources", so discussion with the admin had made DRV moot, but Snottywong deliberately ignored this and went to DRV instead. Fences&Windows 17:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would make an observation that the conduct by SnottyWong throughout the AfD in question, and the attacks on Spartaz following the closure would generally be considered as unacceptable. Repeated accusations of bad faith against a number of other participants in the discussion, jumping the gun on DRV and AfD and an approach that could easily be considered as personal attacks on talk pages are pretty unreasonable.

I'm not sure what the deal is, but there was some pretty clear axe grinding going on in the AfD, and it looks as if this is more of the same.

ALR (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but can you point out the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith that I made on Spartaz's talk page? I don't see them. I do see, however, personal attacks directed at me by Spartaz, on his talk page, specifically where he describes me as a "dog without a bone" and compares me to a 9 year old child. I don't find that particularly necessary, and I don't think any of the comments I made were uncivil or unacceptable. SnottyWong ^gab 23:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Moot the DRV and this ANI thread, but notify all AfD(1) participants of the AfD(2), and move on with life, shall we? Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Just let the AfD process run its course. We don't have a better venue for deciding whether to delete articles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Supervotes

Supervotes are not always wrong. If there were an AFD on an obviously unnotable living person or an obviously unverifiable subject (WP:HOAX etc), then it would be proper for an administrator to close "delete" even if every !voter says "keep". There's no need to do this for "low risk" articles like Masonic Temple. If a closer wants to drive the point home that the apparent consensus is counter to policy then close it "no consensus" or relist it and !vote "delete".

Also, if you have to say "this is not a supervote" in your closing rationale, then it's a "supervote". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

abuse of admin tools on John Buscema

User:J Greb has activated the review function on the John Buscema article. As an active editor involved in a specific past dispute mainly between myself and Tenebrae, I find his actions demonstrate various problems of conflict of interest and non-neutral actions.

My effort to resolve the problem is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJ_Greb&action=historysubmit&diff=370277267&oldid=370265225

Besides having expressed viewpoints on the editorial direction of the article, there is the question taking sides in the dispute as expressed in his reply above.

Besides his self-confessed involvement, here are a few more examples:

He was active as an editor in various arb enforcement discussions concerning the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&oldid=200244529#User:J_Greb

Here is evidence I had presented at the arb case, alledging his collaborative relationship with User:Tenebrae: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Buscema/Evidence#Corroborating_evidence

Here he is cited as being involved in a discussion on the John Buscema talk page (he had contacted myself and User:Emperor) concerning a web site link that he was disputing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema#Nationmaster_links

I think he's crossed the line here. --Scott Free (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain how the review function is abusive towards the article? It is still freely editable. --Jayron32 18:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with the review function per se, although I don't think that it's necessary - it's the principle of an involved editor using an admin tool in a dispute they are involved in. Also I think that the collaborative way it was done, could give the impression of one side being favored. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Greb#Help_with_an_RfC) Also since the tool is used for edits that show "vandalism, inappropriate, or contain clear errors", it could give the impression that the admin is supporting unproven claims that only one other user is making. Then there's the fact that one of the parties had been given reviewing priveledges just a few days before, I think creates another potential conflict of interest complication --Scott Free (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You meet the criteria for the reviewer right, so I went ahead and gave it to you. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 20:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• I believe J Greb has misunderstood the purpose of pending changes and, in particular, the effect of Level 2 pending changes. There has been extensive discussion in other forums specific to pending changes pointing out that it does not replace full protection and, in fact, gives those with reviewer permissions an unfair advantage in being able to insert their preferred content. I have asked him to lift the Level 2 pending changes. Risker (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Scott Free makes a rremarkable charge of "abuse of admin privileges" against admin User:J Greb, who I don't believe has ever been accused of this before. This unfounded charges is, I believe, self-serving misdirection. Free is currently engaged in contentious and dishonest behavior at John Buscema, making the same non-consensus and false-citation edits today that has gotten him banned from the article before.

For the full picture of Scott Free's behavior, please see Talk:John Buscema's current discussion and also click in the arbitration box at the top of that page for the discussion that got Scott Free (and myself) banned from that article for a time — a ban extended on Scott Free for exactly the same behavior he is exhibiting now. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Histomerge Required.

NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 20:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just wondered if someone could merge the history of an article I created in a sandbox: User:Lil-unique1/Rose Colored Glasses with the new article created at: Rose Colored Glasses? Thanks, Regards Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Doing... Courcelles (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Done. I'm not sure about your assertion that this is the primary topic, but that's an RM debate for anyone who cares, and I really don't. If you want the redirect I left in your user page gone, just let me know. Courcelles (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. Please can you remove the redirect and delete the sandbox? Regards Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Zapped. Courcelles (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How is this the appropriate page for this sort of thing? Feedback (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What do I mean? Do you even know what this page is for? Feedback (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah sorry I do know what the page is for. I though it was for incidents and administrator attention. I've seen that it isn't. I should have known this because I've used this noticeboard quite a bit. I apologize. I should have maybe brought this up at the content noticeboard. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right, Feedback that this isn't the kind of thing that needs to make a habit of showing up on AN/I, but sometimes it's easier just to do what is asked than explain and start a run-around. Suggest this be marked as resolved now, but I've pressed too many buttons to do that. Courcelles (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Mubin Shaikh — (2006 Toronto terrorism case)

99.233.82.251 (talk · contribs) and and closely related IPs Here, has made a number of edits to the Mubin Shaikh article that seem unconstructive, including blanking the page, and very recently re-deleting a referenced section that I had reverted. They have only been warned twice (Should have been more IMHO). Can someone more familiar with this case please take a look and see if their edits are acceptable? --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 22:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 9

An admin is requested to close three discussions in what is now becoming ancient history. :-) Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal protection

Not a big deal, but we've got a new editor in an AfD who is messing with the AfD headers. Another editor to keep an eye on things would be appreciated. Location (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Madden NFL 10

This page was the apparent target or a coordinated attach from multiple accounts and IPs. I've indef blocked the accounts. Should we assume that the IPs are compromised (zombies or proxies), warranting long term blocks? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably not unless they have a prior history. More likely, 4chan or some other internet chat board is up to something tonight. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. Moving on... -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Merkey back at it again

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Linuxmdb

Check the contribs, I mean, he's not even trying to hide anymore (MDB) == Merkey DeBugger SPI the user. Ban the account.

He's banned, not indef blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.4.129 (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And his IP address which just happens to end in Utah. http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/tracert/?tool_id=68&ip=71.219.59.226 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.4.129 (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

User:RhodiumArmpit is going around, blanking pages that he feels this Merkey fellow created. This is the wrong approach. This user should be using the speedy deletion tag system, or AfD.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 02:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I blocked them as a very obvious alternative account. They can use their main account to edit these pages if they wish. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonball 2: Reborn

• Can someone please fix this so it can actually be listed? It appears that a user began the AfD but never actually finished it, and when I added my own !vote, that shows up but the discussion doesn't appear on any of the AfD pages. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• It appears there is a real AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonball: 2 Reborn, note the extra space. Courcelles (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• I see what's going on now, it was a cut and paste move to get rid of that space. Give me a moment, please. Courcelles (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Cut and paste move fixed, everything in working order again. The article is now at Dragonball 2: Reborn, and the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonball 2: Reborn. I've re-added your comment, Erpert, though it is deleted now. Courcelles (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I highly disapprove of the move of the article and AfD to "Dragonball 2: Reborn" as there is no official title and "Dragonball: 2 Reborn" is/was the original name of the article up for deletion. The IMDB listing is apparently part of the ongoing hoax/rumor. Also, the list was completed, as shown by this edit. Apparently, someone must have removed it from the day's log. —Farix (t | c) 03:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:NCDane

User:NCDane seems to be on some sort of a weird crusade to delete Russian spellings of various prominent Russian politicians from articles about them, e.g. [33][34][35][36][37]. He has been warned several times (see his talk page) before that including native language spellings in such articles is a standard Wikipedia convention, but he still insists on doing that. I think that a final warning from an admin and a block, if he does not desist, are in order. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to a warning, NCDane has just declared that he is not going to desist[38], so I think a block is in order. Nsk92 (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And he just escalated to personal attacks[39]. Nsk92 (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The spree continues[40][41][42][43]. Would someone PLEASE block him already? Nsk92 (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edit summaries/veiled threats by User:70.125.205.144

User is becoming disruptive through various ways. His edit summary [44] contains a threat ("KEEP MESSING WITH MY STUFF .H*E. SEE WUT HAPPENS.... I DONT CARE IF U LIVE OR DIE OR WUT U DO. I DONT SWEAT U OR EVEN THINK ABOUT U. ROLL OVER .") He's also made veiled threats in editor talk pages; see [45] ("AND QUIT MESSING WITH MY STUFF OR IM REPORTING YOU TO CORPORATE OFFICE.") --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 55 hours. –MuZemike 03:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrator abuse on Wikipedia

We've got a new article in the main space that makes me more than a little uncomfortable. When Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah didn't quite go the way they envisioned it, User:GregJackP and User:Minor4th decided to create the article called Administrator abuse on Wikipedia. It's not awful, sourcing is so-so, though I think it's a coatrack. It also singles out User:William M. Connolley's arbcom sanctions and the furor over User:Durova's mailing list as examples of administrative abuse, which gives me pause. I'm tempted to speedy this myself, but have been a rather vocal about disagreeing with them over Sarah's RfC. Any thoughts on a way forward or should this go to AfD? AniMate 03:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy on what grounds? Minor4th • talk 03:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a speedy deletion, but was tempted to speedy it as a G-10 attack page. AniMate 03:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Who did it attack? The article is well-sourced. There are newspaper cites, peer reviewed journals, conference papers, etc. Both Connolley and Durova were mentioned in the articles cited. The topic is notable, having been covered in multiple media sources. As an admin, you don't like the article because it points out a problem that has been here for a good while. I did not cite to Wikipedia, but there are a multitude of discussions on this very topic throughout. GregJackP Boomer! 03:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well. That was quick. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I boldly speedy deleted it under CSD#A10, as a POV duplicate of the already existing Criticism of Wikipedia, where the current title does not make a valid redirect. I expect to be desysoped for this presently, but it seemed like the best course of action here. --Jayron32 03:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

SO much for consensus. Minor4th • talk 03:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand why it was speedied, but not why the current redlinked title couldn't be a redirect? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Now it's back? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, gone again. Without consensus--Jojhutton (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, seeing as the content was adequately sourced, I merged non-duplicated content to Criticism of Wikipedia and left a redirect. Regardless, I am sure that this is the most abusive thing an admin has ever done, and I expect to be drug before the ArbCom with demands for emergency desysoping for performing this merge. --Jayron32 03:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Its Horrible", "Misuse of Admin Tools", "Censoring the Wiki", and such. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think redirects need admin tools.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You missed the sarcasm there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How dare you, Jayron32, skip all the way to the correct result without the intervening kilobytes of empty drama? How dare you, sir? — Gavia immer (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No valid redirect is grounds for speedy now? Making it up as we go along?Minor4th • talk 03:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking in polemics in order to gain a moral high ground? --Jayron32 03:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Kind of proves the need for the article now, doesn't it?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(ecx3)Isn't there a process for merging, especially in the middle of an AN/I on the content?Minor4th • talk 04:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• (ec)It exactly proves the point of the article. To appeal this move, do we do it here or on DRV, noting that it was under discussion here when it was summarily deleted? Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)