Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive407

Sock of 86.129.31.62 and 86.145.219.221, new user User talk:Argus-Bot. EDIT: and now 86.162.213.186

Resolved.

History: Two Ip addresses Special:Contributions/86.129.31.62 and Special:Contributions/86.145.219.221 were blocked today and yesterday for making multiple disruptive changes in articles like Video CD, DVD and CD Video. Repeated warnings were ignored. After the second IP was block User:Argus-Bot appeared making the exact same edits on the articles. They have not responded to talk page messages, and continue to disruptively edit with no edit summaries. I am also weary of reverting the edits at this point given how constantly the page is being vandalized. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Further addition: Argus-Bot has copied the entire Video CD article to Category:Video CD for some reason. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: I edited my above post to be more concise. I'm concerned this complaint may be seen as a "content" issue, but I think the scope is larger as this person has disruptively edited these articles multiple times to the point of being temporarily blocked AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The User name should be blocked, since they aren't a bot. Corvus cornix_talk 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User indef blocked.-Wafulz (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

He's at it again! Special:Contributions/86.162.213.186 Could someone please block him. Same edits on same articles. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted their disruptive edits and placed a level 4 warning on the talk page. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations on Guatemalan Civil War

Unfortunately much of the material on the Guatemalan Civil War is an apparent copyright violation. The history of Guatemala article may also be in violation, although I have not yet done enough searching to arrive at a definitive conclusion. The originating website appears to be this one. [[1]], although there may be other candidates upon further investigation. I have placed notices on the talk pages, but I'm guessing that admins should be made aware of this.BernardL (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This page here [[2]]

may be another candidate for the original. The history of Guatemala is to a large extent, possibly copypasted from there.BernardL (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility is that some of the material on the Guatemalan Civil War has seemingly been lifted from the state department website [[3]]. BernardL (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's public domain. Corvus cornix_talk 02:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So do you think it's good wikipedia policy or good history to have masses of material (more than 1000 words) simply copied out of the state department's books?BernardL (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So long as they're credited. We copied lots of articles from the 1911 Brittanica. Corvus cornix_talk 03:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. Would anyone else care to comment? Possibly admins?BernardL (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:1911 Corvus cornix_talk 03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the free encyclopedia and not the home-made encyclopedia, at least that is what it says on the home page. I see nothing wrong with copying free content if credit is given, and if the free content really is free for copying/inclusion purposes. Lots of US Govt. material falls into that category, as do those few books that have fallen out of copyright. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For public domain material, giving credit is a courtesy rather than an obligation. When we do credit a public domain source (1911 EB, CIA fact-book, or whatever) for verbatim copying of text or images it is mostly for our own benefit, to avoid letting article content from the public domain source be mistaken for a copyvio of any other site which has also legitimately copied the same public domain source. — CharlotteWebb 13:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a copyright violation, but there's quite a lot of difference between using the 1911 EB and using a web page from the State Department (or CIA). In an article on the Guatemalan Civil War, I don't think it's at all advisable to use text written by a major governmental department of a country that was partially party to that civil war (as the U.S. indisputably was) as though it were a reliable and relatively objective source (and certainly not without crediting the source - readers should know that some of the information in the article is from the US government). Some times State Department reports about certain countries or past events are good and sometimes they are not. It's not like we should remove it right away or anything, but ideally sources like that should be replaced by neutral scholarship. I've come across this "good, this is a governmental source so there's no copyright and we can stick it all in the article" argument before and I find it to be extremely problematic. We should be especially critical of governmental sources - from all countries - and use them very carefully (particularly when it relates to an extremely controversial and complex issue like a civil war). Obviously it's nice that there are no copyright restrictions and of course we can and should use these sources to some extent, but when we copy significant chunks of the State Department's take on a controversial past issue (assuming that's what we are doing, a cursory glance at the article suggests there are a lot of other good sources there) we are basically functioning as a mouthpiece for their view. There's nothing good or vaguely NPOV about that, lack of copyright problems notwithstanding.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC deleted

I started an RfC, located: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley 2. This page was recently deleted by Viridae as "improperly certified RfC" however within 48 hours 3 people had signed on, and a 4th later, following that Travb made his statement, surely enough people certifying the issue. I would like the page undeleted. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to have a response from Viridae before taking any action, as I'm not as up to speed on the RfC certification process as I probably should be. If there's a technical reason for the failure, I'd like to hear it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Related thread on AN at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#William_M._Connolley_2. DuncanHill (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Whoops, looks like this came out of the main Noticeboard. The view there was that "...The two users who signed did not make a bona fide effort to resolve their dispute." A second admin concurred, and Viridae performed the deletion. The thread may be found here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Viridae#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FWilliam_M._Connolley_2 --BozMo talk 12:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how anyone can say noone has tried, they must not be looking at the state terrorism page, considering everyone has been asking Connolley for an apology, a statement, to roll back, he just keeps ignoring everyone, which is why it was taken to the next step. I showed the section where he just continually responds that he was right, ignoring the majority of people stating he was wrong. I even expressed to William that I would withdraw if he would take some action, and he simply ignored me. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

When the person will not respond, or simply ignores your complaints, what is the next step, since this issue needs resolving and I am at the point where I think this simply need to go to Arbcom as its not a popularity contest and these abuses of blocking rules should not be ignored and swept under the rug. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The next step, after article talk pages is editor assistance and from there a third opinion. These are the two steps between article talk pages and RfC. Then theres informal and formal mediation. ArbCom is the last resort. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The RfC is regarding abuse of admin privileges, not an editing dispute. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it was about inappropriate blocks, of which said Connolley has been warned for many times (but never heeded). I do believe the deletion of the RfC was inappropriate. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't say I've got much time for IWS but I was a bit surprised by the deletion. No one told me! I've restored it for the moment. If anyone decides to re-delete it, could I move it to my user space instead? I'd like to keep it as a pet William M. Connolley (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

request semi-protection for Ellen Ochoa

Resolved

Can we get semi-protection for Ellen Ochoa? For some reason, it is a favorite target of IP vandals. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 15:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is the place for these requests (even though it's very backlogged at the moment). D.M.N. (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like only one IP has been vandalizing the article today, and no other edits were made since 4/19. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP is blocked, no need for protection. Future protection requests→WP:RFPP. Got a vandalizing IP? → WP:AIV. — Scientizzle 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, guys, thanks to all of you for putting it on your watchlist. Bubba73 (talk), 16:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Indymedia on spam blacklist

Not quite sure why, but in this edit "\bindymedia\.org\b # Beetstra # ReportBot page - poking the spammer, remove after one hour, please.", "indymedia.org" was blacklisted. This has the effect of blocking all edits to pages with links to "indymedia.org", which is linked from several hundred articles. There doesn't seem to be a ReportBot page at User:SpamReportBot/cw/indymedia.org. Bot bug? Manual action? Emergency? Unclear what happened, but the collateral damage is too high. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SpamReportBot/cw/indymedia.org this here. That should probably come out, Indymedia is a widely known site, and in some cases is a reliable source for our purposes. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on your assessment of Indymedia's reliability; it's all self-published. It's no more reliable than most blogs, and is far less reliable than newspapers such as the Washington Times and the New York Sun, which are constant targets for NPOV sniping. That said, I think blacklisting it is likely to be an issue, until all of the links are removed (or individually whitelisted, if any valid and reliable citations exist). Horologium (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, not talking about that. :) There is still no valid reason to blacklist it. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal requested at meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Indymedia.org. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The comment makes it clear what went wrong: "I am leaving for holidays soon (hours ... ), so may not be here when this has to be removed, can I ask the other admins here to have a look when our editor has not responded yet? Thanks already! --Dirk Beetstra". Anyway, looking at the problem, the disruptive edits are mostly an anon via "webproxy.imec.be", so there are better ways to deal with this. --John Nagle (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal information

I am of the opinion that this edit needs to be oversighted and the responsible IP 64.4.113.2 (talk · contribs) needs another block. Input is appreciated
Thanks. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the revision from the edit history and Fvasconcellos blocked the IP address for 1 week. You can request oversight of the edit by emailing User:Oversight.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've reblocked the IP for a month, as Rodhullandemu blocked it for a week earlier this month despite noting a one-month block in the {{schoolblock}} message. By the way, I had no idea you could email "User:Oversight". I usually just send a message directly to the list—that'll teach me to read all the way down to the large red letters. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Peter Damian - banned user

This appears to be a banned user. Has the AC cleared him to do this? he's posting all over. Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my talk page. This is perfectly within the rules. Contesting a block. Peter Damian (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Thatcher (talk · contribs) as a reincarnation of a banned user. - auburnpilot talk 17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeated extreme incivility by User:Ottava Rima

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Summary: Telling people to leave Wikipedia is not nice. Don't do it. This is not the place to argue about the MoS. Don't do that either. Horses die. Stop beating them. --Haemo (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

During the past two days, Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has shown repeated, extreme incivility towards multiple editors on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. In a discussion about the length of the article (which reasonable people can disagree on, but in which the consensus is against Ottava Rima), Ottava Rima has told several longtime editors that if they disagree with his interpretation of WP:SIZE as it applies to this article, they should "leave Wikipedia". Examples include this statement to Wasted Time R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), this additional statement to Wasted Time R, this statement to Tvoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and this statement to both Szyslak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Tvoz.

Bear in mind that WP:SIZE is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule, and that the Hillary Rodham Clinton article currently measures about 9,500 words and 59 kB of readable prose, both within the "6,000 to 10,000 words" and "A rule of thumb"/under 60KB guideline for acceptable length, albeit at the high end. Thus, a good case can be made that Ottava Rima is not even correct about his contentions of the article being in violation of WP:SIZE, and indeed a number of other editors have indicated they have no problem with the article size. And even if it were against WP:SIZE guidelines, telling multiple editors to "leave Wikipedia" is far from an appropriate way of dealing with it. As evidence that there are differing interpretations of WP:SIZE among different articles and circumstances, there are currently at least 10 existing FA articles longer than this one. So the point is again, this is clearly an issue about which reasonable editors can disagree. The issue for ANI is not the article size disagreement itself, but Ottava Rima's extreme incivility in dealing with the disagreement.

You can find plenty of other rude, incivil, and uncollegial Ottava Rima comments throughout Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Article length and Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Trivia in notes.

A little while ago, Onorem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) warned Ottava Rima about the "leave Wikipedia" comments on User talk:Ottava Rima, but Ottava Rima deleted the warning with the comment "Wikianarchists don't belong on Wikipedia, and if people can't follow community standards, then they should go elsewhere". An exchange followed at User talk:Onorem in which Ottava Rima told Onorem to leave Wikipedia.

This is not the first time Ottava Rima has gotten into civility and other issues. User talk:Ottava Rima is sanitized now, but looking at Ottava Rima's block log, or at back versions of the talk page such as this from three weeks ago, shows lots of complaints, blocks, etc. along what seem to be similar lines. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say, Wasted, you sure know how to twist what is being said into something completely different. It should be noted that you have made over 1,000 edits to that page and that you are complaining because it needs to be trimmed. There is no other evidence to this case required beside this simple fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And Wasted, please show where this is appropriate, especially when that person has very little to do with any of your actions, except that you are trying to bring in an outside complaint that was not issued by the other or cared to be issued by the other, when the main topic is your article in which you edited over 1,000 times and refuse to trim down. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of this page said that I was supposed to inform everybody that I mentioned in my notice, so I did. Wasted Time R (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The instructions do not say to add people who do not actually deal with the topic at hand, but are added in order to make the topic seem larger than it actually is. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The topic is you telling people to leave Wikipedia, which you did to Onorem with this edit here, in which you also called him/her a "Wiki anarchist". Wasted Time R (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you try and not misquote me or misconstrue what I have said? Ottava Rima (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this is Arbcom-banned user Sadi Carnot? He shares the same obsession with how Wikipedia articles must be strictly limited in length. I could be wrong, though. Right now, it's just an idea. szyslak (t) 05:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an article put up for FA Review. The article would not load on two of my computers. The first because it was dialup and took over two minutes. The second because of the excessive formatting across the page. The user was unwilling to take any of that into consideration, and constantly made claims that were not true according to MoS. Instead of wanting to cut down the page to make it readable by others, he refused to and started misattributing what the policy actually stated on the issue. This is an WP:OWN problem. Furthermore, I have never been blocked for incivility. My blocks were based on RR violations and have nothing to do with this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's probably not very helpful to suggest right now. With so many users it's very possible to have multiple groups that have similar attitudes, so unless we have some actual technical evidence, I would hold back on the sock accusations. -- Ned Scott 05:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, looking at the two's edits, I don't see any overlap in areas of interest.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryulong, it must be noted that Szyslak is one of those who commented from the Hillary Clinton page. Such accusations seem to result only from a complaint issued against an FA candidate that did not meet the MoS guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I merely watchlist Hillary Rodham Clinton because it's a common vandalism target, and as a close follower of U.S. politics I can check recent edits for original research and notability. I have no involvement in the current FAC discussion, nor do I have any interest in whether this article becomes featured. szyslak (t) 20:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left Ottava a note on his talk page, telling him to try not to sweat this kind of stuff on pages as active as the Clinton page. He's got a point that it is pretty long, but it's a very hot page right now, so it's not really uncommon. I don't think any admin action is needed right now, just a little context a helpful note. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether the article is really too long, but whether an editor should be telling other editors to "leave Wikipedia" and other incivilities when they don't agree with his interpretation of a guideline. Tvoz |talk 05:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz is one of the editors from the Hillary Clinton page. And yes, if people disagree with the MoS, then the best option for them is to move to another Wiki. The same thing is told to those who want to write purely in-universe. There are Wikis that cater to such people. It is not an insult. It is a plain fact that there are others that are far more accommodating to such viewpoints. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You might not see it as an insult, but it's really not something you should say to other editors. No matter how much we believe ourselves to be right, and no matter how much we actually are right, we are working with volunteers here, and it's far better to make a strong argument for your view than to tell someone off. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I understand that, which is why I told Ottava that it was best not to let this kind of thing bother him. It's very easy to get passionate about these articles, especially now with the elections and all. At the same time, that high activity makes these articles harder to manage, which adds frustration to the passion. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not passionate about it. I don't care about the page. I'm not an editor on the Hillary Clinton page. I am an FA Reviewer. It was put up for FA Review. I made the comment that was exact. People disagreed with it, made claims about the MoS which were demonstrated to be false, and claimed things about the size that was demonstrated by myself following MoS guidelines to show size as to be false. Thats the extent and if they don't want to trim it, then it wont pass into FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, then we might just have a communication problem here. Editors are seeing your comments as very aggressive, but you didn't mean it that way, perhaps. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Wasted Time R and the other editors who actually maintain the Hillary Clinton article weren't trying to get it to FA, and the FA nominator hasn't even edited the article. It's also worth noting that the "demonstrated to be false" is a matter of interpretation. The objection here isn't to the fact that you made a complaint about the article's length, it's about the vitriol with which you attacked those who interpreted the size guideline differently from the way you do.

Ottava, you've only been editing here on a regular basis a few months. Wasted Time R has been working on Wikipedia since 2005. While "seniority" doesn't give anyone any rights here, it might be worth your while to consider whether it's appropriate to take this sort of my-way-or-the-highway attitude against such a prolific contributor, who's been featured in the media as the very model of a modern Wikipedian. Or, to put it another way: some humility might not go amiss. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I have only been edited as a registered user since last Fall. There is a difference. Furthermore, seniority is no excuse for excessive page length. Not even Bill Clinton is as long as Hillary's page, and Bill has more historic notability than his wife, seeing as how he was President for 2 terms and governor for 2 terms. And Vitriol? That is a lovely way to associate to my words which is obviously lacking. My words are empty, cold, and to the point. If an editor is unwilling to trim down an excessively large article, then there is a problem. WP:OWN clearly covers such situations. And "demonstrated to be false" is completely correct, seeing as how using the MoS guidelines to find prose size was put into effect, "edited" in, reverted back, and shows 64k for all who wish to see. Readability guidelines on Size clearly state "50k" for being the appropriate top for readers. This isn't splitting hairs. This is a large difference. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And Josiah, do strike your comments. We all know of those featured in the media as "good Wikipedians" who turned out to be nothing but deceivers. Being in the media for editing Wikipedia means nothing and pointing out such goes against the spirit of Wikipedia itself. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I find that offensive, as someone who has also been interviewed about Wikipedia editing. Josiah's comment about Wasted Time R's integrity is on point. And I find it odd at best to attack someone for having made 1000 edits to an article; to me it is an indication of conscientious care taht should be praised. And the accusation of ownership is invalid, if one takes a look at the history. Tvoz |talk 06:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find someone offensive as much as possible, but being interviewed is not a determiner of "quality" as an editor, nor does it give you special privileges. 1,000 edits is a strong indicator to willingness of WP:OWN. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've said more than once that you should follow your conscience in your recommendation for the FAC - if you don't think it's ready for FA, then oppose it. That is not what the objection is to your behavior, as has been said repeatedly by several editors on the page. Tvoz |talk 05:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You can say all you want about my behavior, but there is nothing there except that you disagree with my comments and have no grounds to issue a response against them than to trump up a charge that does not actually exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy, especially the manual of style, is not a suicide pact. Telling users "obey it or leave" is not at all constructive. We do whatever is in the best interest of the project. Mr.Z-man 06:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Unwilling to edit a document to make it legible by a significant amount of people is important to Wikipedia. It doesn't need to be a suicide pact, but that is a primary basis of respect. By refusing to trim down the article appropriately, the article mocks Wikipedia, and there are violations of WP:OWN, WP:FRINGE, What Wikipedia is not and many other rules. The article did not meet the standards of a Wikipedia article. There are other communities for different standards. It is appropriate that, if they strongly believe in not following the MoS guidelines, that they move to those communities because they will be more comfortable there. However, if you don't believe in the MoS like you claim, please make a complaint against the MoS there. However, it reflects community consensus and should be respected as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting way off topic. The issue here is incivility by Ottava Rima, not the content dispute. The details of the argument on the article page should have nothing to do with the amount of civility involved. Ottava Rima telling experienced editors they should leave wikipedia if they don't agree with your views on something is uncivil and unproductive, and doesn't help to gain consensus on your views. Please understand that was the concern behind this ANI post, regardless of the circumstances involving the article. Redrocket (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the two cannot be separated, because I told them that if they didn't like the MoS, that they are better suited to a different Wikipedia. That was construed to be incivil, even though it meets none of the incivility requirements nor is anything approaching incivility. An experienced editor would be willing to cut down an extremely larger article to fit in with MoS, not constantly misquote the rule, misstate the size of an article, and show severe WP:OWN problems. I suggest you redact your words until you acknowledge the fact that there was unwillingness to edit an article coming from an editor who made over 1,000 edits to said article. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, you could have made your point about the length of the article without suggesting that everyone who disagrees with you must redact their comments or leave Wikipedia. I'm not a huge fan of WP:IAR, but this seems to me to be exactly the sort of inflexible rule-mongering that justifies its existence. See also Wikipedia:Use common sense. Your demands that every editor must share your particular interpretation of a guideline or leave Wikipedia are unproductive and disproportionate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please refrain from misrepresenting me again? I did not ask everyone to "redact", but only the comments that were outright wrong or did not belong. Secondly, if someone strongly believes in having a very larger article, then yes, they should find another Wikipedia. The article lengths top out for a reason, and that reason is that there are physical limitations to what length people can read articles. This is not stylistic. This is basic principle. I have not demanded anything from other users. You have placed that upon me in an additional misrepresentation of my position. I would suggest that you follow WP:CIVIL and stop adding words to my position that have never appeared there. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, "everyone" is an exaggeration. But there does seem to be a pattern of pedantic inflexibility here. (And I know from pedantry!) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A pattern developed from one page that results from a FA Review? My concern was a legitimate concern. People brought up issues such as "MoS really says this" or "my tool says this", which were explained via the guideline. I don't really see where you can develop a pattern of behavior. My computer actually did freeze twice from trying to load the page. That is a legitimate concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And Josiah, I know you, and you might actually remember me. Its complicated to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note from an uninvolved editor. For the record, Ottava, your previous blocks mostly had to do with legal threats, not 3RR violations. Also, you should realize that nobody, not you, not Jimbo, nobody on Wikipedia can order an editor to make changes to an article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1. That is wrong. My previous blocks had only one "legal threat" that was a block that was withdrawn, but mostly about 3RR, which can be proven by a clear copy and paste. 2. I never "ordered" anyone. I brought up the issue in a comment, and the editor in question said that the MoS said something completely different than what it did, and kept trying to add claims about the size that were demonstrated to be false. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your extensive block log shows two or three separate blocks for edit warring (hard to count because of resets.) And at least two (plus resets) for a legal threat that was apparently made, withdrawn and then restated. I'm getting this from looking at the block log, not digging through your edits to find the threats themselves. So I may have been wrong about the word "mostly". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is completely wrong. There were two total blocks. Please follow the timing of the blocks in order to see which is which. The rest are extensions. Furthermore, the one extension was withdrawn. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note This topic is misplaced. The appropriate place for "civility" issues is Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Furthermore, the use of "extreme" in the title heading is unproven POV on an issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, if it were only a civility issue, that might be true. However, you insist on saying it's not civility but rather a content and policy dispute, so this seems to be a good place for it.

As far as I see, the two are separate issues. Even if it were a violation (which other editors disagree with), it does not entitle you to be uncivil. In all honesty, you defending your position by telling more experienced editors to go edit some other wiki just makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about. You may be correct in saying it is not technically uncivil, however, it does seem rude and a really foolish way of attempting to get other people to agree with your interpretation of things.

Honestly, after reading you telling everyone else to redact their comments, then and you defending your position by defining the responsibilities of other editors, I don't think you care at all about being civil or gaining consensus. Good luck with all that. Redrocket (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Content and policy disputes go to the Village Pump or RfC. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And Redrocket, you are really not WP:AGF. And "telling everyone"? I didn't tell "everyone". Please stop making claims to things that do not exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In terms of assuming good faith, you are certainly not doing that. Your comment, whether it was intentional or not, came across as rude and uncivil. Rather than acknowledge that you might have misspoken or your comments might have been taken in a different way than you intended, you refuse to listen to the other editors explain how your words came across.

Honestly, if you would just look at your actions and see that the way you tell other editors (all of whom are also volunteers here) that they should go somewhere else isn't really a friendly way to treat them, this would all be over. Clinging to your belief that since there was a content/policy dispute justifies being rude to people isn't going to help. Redrocket (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If your claims are true, please provide evidence in which I didn't attempt to work with the editors and prove beyond a doubt where in the policy my claims are coming from and show, especially on the page, how the size format is different from the programs that they are running. I don't think you have any grounds to claim that I haven't assumed good faith, as I have not made any claims about anyone until far after it has been demonstrated an unwillingness to cut down the article length. If you think my comments are rude, then you think they are rude. But it is obvious that you are unwilling to WP:AGF from your own words, and that is a reason why you think my comments are rude. Furthermore, "volunteering" isn't an excuse to ignore a legitimate concern about page length size. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I must also question the legitimacy of your claiming my actions were rude when you, yourself, have stated: "Seriously, just leave already. Redrocket (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)" on your own talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Ah, thanks for stalking me. You are now bringing up out-of-context comments I made to a banned user who was trolling my page looking for an argument.

This is crossing over into wikilawyering in the extreme, so let's just boil it down. Ottava Rima, several other editors found your comments to be rude and uncivil. Regardless of the content/policy dispute, can you see where telling them to go to some other wiki could have been taken in a manner that would make them think you were being rude or uncivil? Redrocket (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Those who live in glass houses. You set up a standard that you, yourself does not follow. So what will it be? Still accuse me of being rude, while you, yourself, have made such equal comments? Or are there now two standards, one for yourself and one for those who are part of the opposite side of a dispute from what you believe in? Ottava Rima (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My comments were to a trolling vandal who would be banned within a few hours. Yours were to editors who are far more experienced than you, and clearly not vandals or trolls.

And thanks for refusing to answer the question. I'm going to assume that was a "yeah, I know I was being uncivil, but I still think I can talk my way out of it." Again, have fun with all that. Redrocket (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I forgot, you believe that there is a different standard of approaching people. I, however, only recommended based on their own feelings about the policy. I didn't say that they weren't welcome. I suggested other suitable ways to deal with their desire not to be under the influence of MoS. It would seem that your intention would be quite different from mine. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that WP:DNFT is probably applicable here. The question then arises, if not feeding, what action should be taken? Loren.wilton (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the use of "troll" in any kind of context of this thread would be derogatory and thus contradicting WP:CIVIL. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LW, call it what you would like, but I'm about done here. The user refuses to discuss his actions without tying it into some crusade of being uncivil in the name of wikipolicy, so I doubt there's anything we can do at this point. He's been blocked before, so let's just leave him be with a fresh length of rope and see what he does with it. Redrocket (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Red, do you honestly not see the incivility of your tone, especially there, and the hypocrisy that it demonstrates? You have already stated that you were unwilling to WP:AGF. If you think that bringing up a legitimate concern is a "crusade", then you better take your concern to the appropriate forum, like Village Pump Policy. I do not believe that consensus will side with you. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Is this topic even necessary at this point? I believe that the above user has aired his concern quite a lot. If he really felt that my suggestions were uncivil, then he could have brought them to Wikiquette alerts. However, he believed they were "extreme incivility", which has no real meaning. What does he want? An apology for my recommending him to go to another Wiki if he disagrees with the MoS? If so, that could have been handled by a simple message on my talk page from the user. This, however, is not an "incident". There is no damage to the encyclopedia, and it obviously hasn't stopped his editing or affected his editing in any kind of way. For the most part, he has ignored my comments and concerns, and has moved on to important matters like arguing over the true eye color of Hillary Clinton and if that belongs in the article. There seems to be no point to this but to draw attention to other admin, use his background and history, and act in a way that isn't really suitable to helping the encyclopedia. I have not insulted. I have not bullied. I have brought up a legitimate concern, and I have stated the obvious: if you are unhappy with Wikipedia's policies, the easy way to deal with it is to go to another Wiki. Is that is rude? Then I guess the truth is rude. But it is not incivil to state the truth, especially in such a cold manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're upset at the way wikipedia handles these civility concerns, you probably should just go edit some other wik...

Nah, never mind. I can't bring myself to do it. Just forget it, and let's close the topic. Redrocket (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, if you're having trouble seeing what you're doing wrong try looking at this diff or this one where you order another editor to change an article according to your instructions, something I have never seen done by an editor on Wikipedia. Then you might take a look at this in which you claim that other users "will be forced to trim down their articles" if you decide they're too long. Forced? Really? By whom? And how? Since when are editors "forced" to do things on Wikipedia? Own much? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Order? I don't think you can apply "order" at all. I'm quite confused how you can even begin to construe any of those words as an "order" of any kind. "If then" clauses are definitely not orders, and saying "you can" do something is not an order. Please, you have already misrepresented by blocking record. Could you stop misrepresenting the rest now? Ottava Rima (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And that "forced" comment is conditioned on "FA review", with the implied "if you want to pass this will be required". But that was obvious from the context. So I ask again, please stop misconstruing my words to say what they do not. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Its a simple fix. Do it.—I've seen such orders from an admin enforcing policy, but surely someone reviewing for FA should make recommendations or suggestions? Saying The MoS is rather certain. If you don't like it, you can leave Wikipedia implies that one understands neither the distinction between guidelines and policy, nor the wiki process. I can only imagine the chilling effect this thread will have on any other editor considering an FA submission. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you really know how to twist words to prove a point that is clearly non-existent. An order, as everyone knows, requires the power of enforcement. By definition, without such it can only be claimed as a suggestion. However, you sure have isolated words, trumped them up far beyond what they even say, and for what reason? And guidelines are policy when it comes to an FA Review, because if it doesn't meet the MoS, guess what? It shouldn't be an FA. A chilling effect on FAs for those who don't meet MoS guidelines? Thats exactly what the rules of the FA state! Wow. I am extremely amazed by the twisting of words to promote something that is completely not represented on Wikipedia. "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Thats from the FA guideline. According to MoS, appropriate length is not over 50k. That is how we should proceed. If you don't like that? Well, go complain somewhere else, because your problem is obviously not with me, but with the process that you disagree with. That is POV pushing. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To show where Sheffield is extremely mistaken: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria says the following - "# It follows the style guidelines" and "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." It doesn't say "it should be whatever size the person feels". It clearly says that to be FA, it has to follow those rules. Its that simple. This is not a democracy. This is not an anarchy. If you want your article to be a Featured Article, it has to be trimmed. Mentioning this is not "chilling" anything. This is an elite process. Not everyone will make it. Other Wikis have lower standards and would allow such things. This Wikipedia has a strong standard of upholding the MoS in Feature Article reviews. Its that simple. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This obviously isn't nearly as absolute as you say it is, since there are currently at least 10 existing FA articles longer than this one. It would seem some editors and some reviewers and some FAC approvers have a different viewpoint than you do. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

They should be recalled. Its that simple. Justifying a violation of MoS by saying others violate MoS is not appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have quoted the entire diff, and merely emphasised the most incivil and bossy parts. Never mind. Clearly we're going to have to agree to disagree about the distinction between guidelines and policy. I don't think anyone is going to convince Ottava Rima of anything in this thread. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You can claim they are uncivil or bossy, but that does not make them true. Your constant misquoting and adding adjectives that are inappropriate prove not a point, but only demonstrate a bias and are, in fact, one of those stated to be incivil. This isn't about "convincing" me anything. This is about an editor whose article when up for FA and complained that FA requires MoS to be followed. Its that simple. If you do not like that FA review requires MoS guidelines, you cannot complain to me about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the point

Whilst Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) keeps trying to argue about the prior issue of whether the relevant bit of MoS is an unshakeable, set-in-stone rule that all must obey or leave wikipedia, that sidesteps the real issue that has been brought here. In the context of the complaint that has been brought to ANI, it is not particularly relevant whether Ottava is right or wrong.

The issue is simple. Ottava has repeatedly failed to stick to WP:CIVIL, to the extent of telling several editors that if they don't accept his understanding of the guidelines, they should leave. Even if Ottava is right about the MoS issue, this is a completely unacceptable way of interacting with fellow editors.

Ottava's edit history seems to show a good deal of tenditious editing, WP:OWNership of articles, and wikilawyering over 3RR (and over whether this report is proper to WQA or here!). He seems to adopt a debating tactic that involves obstinacy to the extent that others lose the will to go on with the debate. This is clearly disruptive, and damaging to the encyclopedia.

Now, there are two ways to go here... Ottava can accept that there is a clear consensus that his behaviour has fallen short of the standards required, and move on, or he can continue to assure people that he is right and everybody else is wrong, in which case this is clearly going to end up at RFC.

Mayalld (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Clear consensus? No. Most of those speaking are involved in the issue and are biased to their side. Furthermore, this is in regards to an FA review. The FA standards are quite clear and will most likely not change. The fact that you ignored this is troubling to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Mayalld, most of your claims are outright wrong, and I would suggest that you retract what you have said above about my edits until you are willing to back them up. You are in violation of WP:CIVIL, which is unacceptable. Furthermore, it is absolutely hypocritical that you are acting in an incivil way while demanding that I move on. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am really having to consider the possibility that you are either argumentative to the point of vexatiousness, or that you are incredibly stupid. You avoid the point, which is central to this matter, in that you have conducted yourself inappropriately in the manner of your communications with other editors. It is not for you to say that editors should find other encyclopedias or websites to edit if you do not approve of their good faith edits. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. While we have style guidelines, and rules and policies, what we have that makes Wikipedia what it is is a sense of community; all are welcome to contribute. Your actions contravene that principle. I very seriously suggest that you stop acting in this arrogant manner, which is causing concern amongst other contributors, or you will find that the encyclopedia may very likely be leaving you for a short while. I strongly recommend that you do not respond to this comment as you have the previous ones - that would be very stupid indeed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you do the civil thing and strike your insinuations as to my intelligence. They are inappropriate for Wikipedia and inappropriate for this section. If you are unwilling to put forth a comment without attacking the personal character of another individual, please do not do such. Your comments are extremely rude and inflammatory, and serve no purpose. If you are unwilling to treat me with respect, please make it known now. If not, please do the right thing and strike your inflammatory comments that are not part of any kind of reasonable nor civil discussion. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, you fail to note the difference between an article for FA review and a standard article. If you are unwilling to see that FA Review require a closer attention to MoS and have two guidelines dealing with size, then you shouldn't respond at all to this issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Following this comment to my talkpage I issued a Level 4im civility warning to Ottava Rima, together with an explanation why WP:CIVIL and WP:Consensus violations outweigh concerns regarding non-compliance with Featured Article Review guidelines. Seeing their response(s) here and below I do not believe that the editor has sufficient clue and attempts at persuading them to act according to the principles of Wikipedia may need strengthening by the use of a short enforced break. Since I am now "involved" I leave it to the judgement of another sysop whether such a block is needed, should the warning be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Outdent

1. Clear consensus? Yes, I'd call an overwhelming majority of people commenting, including several who were not previously involved, a clear consensus! Or is this a new definition of consensus that says that people who disagree with your POV don't count?
2. No, this is NOTHING to do with a FA review. It is everything to do with the attitude that you adopted, and the manner in which you interacted with others
3. My claims are not wrong. If you would care to specify which claims you believe to be wrong, I will gladly supply diffs to demonstrate them (Though I rather suspect that most readers here have no need of such proof, and would be bored stiff by the whole thing)
4. You repeatedly wave WP:CIVIL the instant anybody dares to suggest that your actions are wrong. Civility does not demand that I remain silent on such matters, merely that I express myself in a civil manner, which I have done.

Mayalld (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your tone is "extreme incivil". I ask for you to please follow such guidelines. Furthermore, how can you say this has nothing to do with an FA review, when the context of saying that the page must be cut is in regards to meeting FA review guidelines? Also, a clear consensus is on the MoS size guidelines. You cannot mistake that. Also, you are the one putting forth claims without evidence, which is an addition breach of civil. If you are unwilling to respect my character, please, do not post. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that I will leave it to others to determine if my tone is "extreme uncivil". Your view on the matter is hardly dispassionate.

As to how I can say it has nothing to do with FA review, I can say that because it is true. The key point here is that several editors have complained about your incivility. It doesn't matter what the circumstances were, or whether the other editors were right or wrong in their take on MoS. The question is merely whether you have been habitually incivil (As an editor who was previously uninvolved, my take is that you have been habitually uncivil, but that is just my view. Should a consensus develop to the contrary, I will accept it)

I have invited you to specify which of my claims are untrue, and have offered to put forward evidence to support those claims.

Your behaviour has been called into question. It is a patent nonsense to demand that anybody who dares make an adverse comment about your behaviour stop posting.

Mayalld (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispassionate? I have been nothing but cold and scientific about this whole process. I really don't see how you can even claim that I have any passion about it, especially when I have not even made a claim about what content should be, nor do I have any actual horse in this race. And if you think that circumstances don't matter, well, I don't know how to help you. But circumstances do matter. Its called contextualizing, and the only way to make a proper decision is to see the context. Sure, you can take things out of context and make claims to what they say, but it does not make them true. There are two "Ottava Rima"s here: the real one, and the false one that you have put before everyone. You are making a mountain out of a molehill, and the discussion is completely done. This is not an "admin intervention" matter, and it is barely a wikiettiquette. Have I cussed? No. Have I personally attacked? No. Could my comments be considered brisk? Well, if they are, then the proper way is to first address the person making them and informing how one feels. What is your purpose in continuing this? Is there one? And it is not my place to defend myself against blank claims, it is your place to put forth diffs and back up your claims. But no matter what, they don't really matter here. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I despair! Now you want to argue over every blessed word!!

OK, let me be blunt. Given your continual failure to see your own incivility, even when many editors have pointed it out, and your continual perception of incivility in others towards you that nobody else seems to notice, I don't find your opinion on the subject of civility particularly compelling.

As to your repeated attempts to make this into a MoS discussion, I will say again that the circumstances are not material. WP:CIVIL contains no "get-out" clauses that excude incivility if you believe the other person to be wrong.

You were incivil in the extreme on several occasions, and have repeatedly sought to deflect the discussion of your incivility into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of the issue that you were discussing when you became incivil.

Dress it up as you will. The fact remains that your behaviour falls well short both of what WP:CIVIL calls for, and of plain, simple courtesy to other people.

I joined this discussion, having reviewed a huge number of relevant edits, in order to add an outside perspective, in the (clearly fanciful) hope that an outside opinion might convince you that there really is an issue. You obviously have no time for any opinion which does not match your own. That is unfortunate, but I really do have better things to do than to continue to trying to get you to understand where the problem lies. If anybody chooses to file a WP:RFC about your conduct, I will gladly certify it, but beyond that, I don't propose to waste any more time on you

Mayalld (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

While this may not be directly relevant, I wanted to document that I did previously try to explain to Ottava Rima that his tone could easily be interpreted as combative. He blamed other editors in the disagreement without acknowledging his own tone issues.[4]. I see the exact same issue here (and in several other FAC's in which he has participated). I strongly encourage Ottava Rima to be more aware of his tone and be proactive in changing his approach. There are enough other editors concerned with his manner of communicating that it appears to warrant some self-introspection at the very least. Karanacs (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Troubling comments by LessHeard vanU

• User:LessHeard vanU has made the following comment on my talk page: here.

This is extremely troubling, because, as he claims, the issue at hand is over images, saying - "Upon a review of Wikipedia:Featured article advice I note that the section (c.) comments only that images should comply with the various licenses and terms of use; there is nothing regarding size."

However, anyone who reads the actual dispute would see that it is an non-compliance with number 2 and number 4 of the FA guidelines that deal with page size, not image size. The fact that the above admin has misstated the issue while warning mean about my behavior shows that he has not actually read anything written in the above discussion, and chooses to make rulings not based on the actual facts at hand. This is an abuse of the privileges of being an admin and is very disrespectful. How can we trust anything that this admin says when he is unwilling to actually look at the argument? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I fail to see what more ANI can do here. People... this is what we have dispute resolution for. -- Naerii 20:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A "warning" and a claim of a blockable offense without actually having the correct information on the situation, even though it has already been laid out, is not handled under dispute resolutions, but handled by the intervention of admin to ask him to recognize the actual content before making his decisions. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

LHvU seems mainly to have messaged you about civility issues, and to have done so clearly and with appropriate references to policy. If he has made a mistake about a specific point in the dispute in question (on which I make no comment), in my experience LHvU is much more willing than most admins to discuss and apologize for any mistakes he might make. DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, sure, and if he does then that will be accepted and the above struck. However, his comments, to the point of "warning" me, while showing that he didn't actually read the case, is troubling to say the least. It is hard to confuse images with text, especially when there is a listing of the rules on his talk page that deal primarily with text size. If he wouldn't have quoted the rule primarily dealing with images, then you might have a point. But his direct quote and using that to show that I was "wrong" is troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image size/page size - whatever! It has been noted that in pursuing your insistence upon application of Featured Article standards you have suggested on several occasions that those not complying should leave Wikipedia. This is a violation of WP:Civil and WP:Harassment, and is a blockable offense, and you have been so warned. That concludes my involvement in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• As an outside observer, I'll note that:

(a) We now know, if we didn't before, not to tell people to go edit elsewhere. It's rude. Everyone who has commented on this thread is in agreement, Ottava, so whether you agree or not, you should be aware that this is the consensus and respect it, even if you disagree, and refrain from saying it anymore.

(b) I can't help but note that if someone tells you to edit elsewhere, you can safely ignore them. Even if it annoys you that Ottava hasn't apologized, there's no need to turn this into a multi-part mult-kB thread until we get a pound of flesh.

(c) This is not the place for the FA/MoS discussion. It is completely unproductive to discuss that here.

(d) The horse has been dead for a long time, and IMHO continued discussion is not improving things. Suggest archiving, taking others' comments to heart, and moving on with our lives. --barneca (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fine-art-images.net

Resolved

 – Spamming spammer's spam site no longer spammable. All is well in the world.

Guy (Help!) 21:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)}}

Dear administrators! The site www.fine-art-images.net is blocked as spammer. But the site theme is illustrations of works of art and can be useful to the Wikipedia. Please, help to understand the reason of entering of a site in the spam list. I am the beginner. Please, explain if I make incorrect actions and help me to unblock fine-art-images.net. Thank you in advance. (Art Images) 17:58, 24 April 2008

Strange. No such username. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But it looks like Art Images (talk · contribs) does - The user's sig is missing a space, but the piped text that is displayed is correct. I'll have a look, but I would mention that external links fall under the External Link policy, which would be worth a look before re-adding any links. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the merits of the request, but could you point out where you are trying to add this link? What articles, in what context, would the link add to the article? I see you have only added it once, on 2 April, and have no further edits until today. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to give the reference to fine-art-images.net to page "Feodor Alekseev". But the system does not allow to make it, referring to a site finding in the spam list. Art Images18:16, 24 April 2008

Feodor Alekseev does not exist. Also, if your site is being blocked by the software, that means it has been placed on the spam blacklist because it was repeatedly used in the past for advertising. If you could, please write a sample article on your user page (User:Art Images) and indicate where you plan to put the link as a reference. Unless we can see that the site isn't going to be used for promotion, it's not likely to be removed from the blacklist. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I believe it is just conceivable that "art Images" is associated with the site fine-art-images.com. Which was spammed. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my error. I mean :Fedor Alekseev, Russian painter. Fine-art-images.net has several most interesting pictures of the artist. It could be useful for his poor Wiki page. I take a great interest in art. I do not see anything illegal that this site is interesting to me by the set of illustrations. Art Images 20:54, 24 April 2008

Actually, Guy brings up abother important point. Our username policy specifically prohibits promotional usernames - "Art Images" would appear to have a relation to "Fine-art-images.net", which doesn't say much for your intention to use this as a source. If you would, please, indicate to us where you intend to add this link, as you've been asked to twice previously, and also please seriously consider a change in username. Again, please note that your site will not be removed from the blacklist unless we can be absolutely assured that it's not being added for promotional purposes. Please see our policies on external links, advertising, and the business' FAQ for more information. Hersfold non-admin (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Accounts

Fine Art Images (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Art Images (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

• fine-art-images.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Cross Wiki Accounts

• http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Fine_Art_Images
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Fine_Art_Images
• http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Fine_Art_Images
• http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Fine_Art_Images
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Fine_Art_Images

1. (en_wikipedia) 2008-03-26 12:10:51 -- http://www.fine-art-images.net/de/showIMG_1760.html -- Fine Art Images -- diff
2. (en_wikipedia) 2008-03-26 12:20:16 -- http://www.fine-art-images.net/de/showIMG_1762.html -- Fine Art Images -- diff
3. (en_wikipedia) 2008-03-26 12:40:04 -- http://www.fine-art-images.net/en/showIMG_1762.html -- Fine Art Images -- diff
4. (ru_wikipedia) 2008-03-27 09:07:28 -- http://www.fine-art-images.net/en/showSRC_Chekhov.html -- Fine Art Images -- diff
5. (de_wikipedia) 2008-03-28 08:45:27 -- http://www.fine-art-images.net/en/showSRC_Author%20Maxim%20Gorky.html -- Fine Art Images -- diff
6. (en_wikipedia) 2008-04-02 05:39:30 -- http://www.fine-art-images.net/de/showSRC_Ayvasovsky.html -- Art Images -- diff
7. (en_wikipedia) 2008-04-02 05:41:02 -- http://www.fine-art-images.net/en/showSRC_Ayvasovsky.html -- Art Images -- diff
8. (de_wikipedia) 2008-04-02 05:48:49 -- http://www.fine-art-images.net/de/showSRC_Aiwasowski.html -- Fine Art Images -- diff
9. (ru_wikipedia) 2008-04-02 06:01:43 -- http://www.fine-art-images.net/de/showSRC_Ayvasovsky.html -- Fine Art Images -- diff
10. (ru_wikipedia) 2008-04-02 06:02:50 -- http://www.fine-art-images.net/en/showSRC_Ayvasovsky.html -- Fine Art Images -- diff

--Hu12 (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

More at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

While the various issues on this page are being slowly batted back and forth, the current crisis is over whether there should be an NPOV banner. This has been added by several editors, but is consistently being removed. I don't like these types of banners, but the issue that pushed it over the top for me was several editors insisting that one of the headers read "Portrayal of science as atheistic," even though no source states this, all the sources provided state something very different, and in fact this would be just about the opposite of what the film argues. There are a number of other problems, but ultimately I can't think of another article where this banner would more appropriately be placed. My understanding is if a number of editors support the banner, and they have specifically laid out the problems with the article,[5] and these issues are being slowly discussed, then other editors who support the status quo should not insist on removing it. I'm tired of the edit warring over it, and I think it's more of an administrative issue than a content issue, so I'm raising it here. Mackan79 (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

editwarring over banners is where things get really lame. I'm not sure I agree with your opinion about the POV of the article, but if it's being disputed in good faith, my opinion would be that the banner should remain. However, is it worth the argument over it, instead of trying to get an agreed wording for the actual article? DGG (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's lame, I agree, and I'd prefer to avoid any banner. Unfortunately I'm trying about anything to get editors to concede simply that the movie doesn't say "science" is atheistic,[6] but when editors keep ignoring this and reverting, you reach a wall. The article could benefit from some type of dispute resolution, but of course that would be a great deal more time wasted. All in all, the fact that the article's NPOV is under dispute seems self-explanatory. Mackan79 (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you forum shopping, Mackan79? You added the banner, then stated you added it because of a statement about science = atheism. Numerous people responded to you, at least two with the sources you said you couldn't find:

• "Expelled claims that an atheistic, amoral scientific elite is barring the door to the consideration of ideas like intelligent design that include a religious component." - http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/evolution (Posted by Raul)
• Fundamentally, what Expelled wants to do is it wants to present the notion that there is this clash of world views, most specifically, a clash between, sort of, Darwinian biology and intelligent design, but more broadly one between big monolithic science, which is materialist and atheist, and then religion, which is presented as being open to all sorts of possibilities. from John Rennie, editor of Scientific American while in a podcast, for which a transcript is provided: [7] (Posted by Fill)

and now you're here, with a content dispute, no less. NPOV banners are not for use when "I didn't get my desired edit" and ANI is not for content disputes, which this is. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My question is whether an NPOV banner should be removed where there's an obvious NPOV dispute on the page that is under discussion by multiple editors. This isn't a content dispute, and I see no valid reason why it is being removed despite the constant changes to the page and the extraordinary disagreement on the talk page. Since people want to know whether it's a real dispute, I mention that one major issue is a disagreement over whether these sources indicate an argument that "science is atheistic." In fact, the sources are unambiguous that the film does not portray science as atheistic, but portrays its long shit-list of scientists as atheistic. As we quote Stein, "There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch a higher power, and it can’t possibly touch God." To call this an argument that "science" is atheistic isn't just incorrect, but literally to assign them the view that they're trying to attack. I say give them their own argument. The header is absurd, but the question here is whether we have a legitimate dispute over whether these sources show an argument that "science is atheistic," as well as other issues on the page, and whether the banner is a fair way to represent this until reasonable disagreements are resolved. Mackan79 (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We've argued over whether the article is NPOV a million times. Isn't that proof that there IS A DISPUTE? Saksjn (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No. If this were the case, many of our best articles would have permanent NPOV tags. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's an ongoing dispute about a specific aspect, the tag should stay on. I believe that's in the guideline somewhere. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The "one puppy's opinion" comment was quite condencending, and is a personal attack. Please refrain from this. Saksjn (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua expressed his opinion, said it was "One puppy's opinion", which is a similar to saying "One man's opinion", and given that his account name is KillerChihuahua, is referring to himself, not you. I don't see a personal attack there, unless you're complaining about KillerChihuahua attacking himself. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with arglebargle's interpretation there, and caution Saksjn to avoid escalating before reading carefully. Looks like there are enough sources to support 'expelled says science = atheism'. ThuranX (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above to KC; I'm not asking people to resolve that here, but rather how to proceed where several editors believe there should be a NPOV banner due to an obvious ongoing dispute, but others keep removing it. I suppose the view may be that if a majority doesn't like the banner then they can keep it off, but my impression was that the banner should be there as long as there is a legitimate ongoing dispute over NPOV on the page. Mackan79 (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe you want the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I was mostly annoyed that people kept changing the header back, which put me into the pro-banner group. But it's probably not a big help at this point, I agree. Mackan79 (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Udall and his opponent Bob Schaffer (Senate 2008)

Rossputin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sole purpose on wikipedia, it seems is to write negative material without WP:RS on Mark Udall and downplay criticism on Bob Schaffer. I told this user to use WP:RS, but he has not replied. I came across this a few days ago when I notice some of the claim his user inserted was from editorials or partisan websites. I feel I was generous to leave in some of the material on Schaffer's article, such asWorld (magazine), but this user has repeatedly reinserted the claims. Paper45tee (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You may get a better response at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard rather than here, as this seems to be more appropriate for there. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict

Someone has been trying to distort facts and reverted my good faith, NPOV edits. See [8]. Tx --AI009 (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's called a content dispute. Seek dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Meet the Associated Press; I'm not kidding

If you've got a couple of hours free right now, head over to Not the Wikipedia Weekly and join us. We've got Brian Bergstein of the Associated Press confirmed as our guest for a roundtable discussion about Wikipedia and the media. Somehow very few people know about this (I've just gotten back from a conference) so the door's wide open. If you've never tried Skype before, download it now and e-mail me for assistance. :) Durova^Charge! 17:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how is this appropriate for ANI, and is there any administrator intervention required? Perhaps I'm missing something. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if anyone has any trouble installing Skype, perhaps a sharp young admin would intervene... --Relata refero (disp.) 18:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly we need to ban Brian Bergstein before he asks too many questions about the cabal.-Wafulz (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he needs to read this? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Verboten on all equipment owned or managed by my company. Not that I'd probably be there anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat - but the recording will give me some good stuff to listen to on the commute. Looking forward to that recording, as it sounds like it would be an interesting discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User:89.100.224.24 keeps removing warnings from talk page.

Resolved

As seen here, this user has consistently blanked his talk page to remove all previous warnings about vandalism. - InvisibleSun (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Registered and anon IPs are allowed to blank warnings on their talk page per WP:TALK. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

With regard to IPs, they might be dynamic and represent another user where the warnings do not apply..besides, it is an acknowledgment that they have read them. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page blanking is a topic that is often brought up. Most of the discussions have drawn to the conclusions that blanking of content means the person has received the message (as Wisdom89 mentioned). Although archiving is preferred, it is ultimately not set in stone. If the user replaces the content with personal attacks however, that's a different story. It usually results in the page being protected for a short duration. Even if the vandal is still continuing their campaign while blanking, all vandal fighters or admins need to do is to check the history for the relevant warnings.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Bingo, Persian has it. It's a matter of circumstance and context. I should have clarified this. If there is current ongoing abuse and the IP is vandalizing the warning user's talk page, or they are replacing the talk page with vulgar comments or slights at other users, that's when it warrants some sort of admin intervention, usually protection. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me about this point of Wikipedia policy. I'm a sysop over at Wikiquote, where our policy is quite different. We regard the removal of vandalism warnings as another act of vandalism. - InvisibleSun (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So do many of us over here, but consensus has shifted on that, apparently. Corvus cornix_talk 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably from the view of the individual who originally placed the warnings on the user's talk page to begin with. If they are soon removed, it's believed that the act is being done for ill purposes (shielding what they've done before they strike again), and that it's being done by the same user behind the anonymous mask who committed the vandalism. But, we have to WP:AGF. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I used to get very frustrated with sending out vandalism warnings, only to have them deleted within a minute or so from an account that I was certain wasn't here to add to the project. Now I make sure when I issue a warning, I tag the edit summary Vandalism Warning. That's at least something future admins can spot easily when they check the page, and if the user turns into a productive editor, it soon vanishes off the bottom of the page anyway. Redrocket (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts

I generally refuse all requests for self-imposed blocks, but received an interesting request today ... the individual basically reported him/herself for some infractions of WP:CIVIL and possibly WP:NPA (depending on your definition of a personal attack), including diffs, and asking for a 72 hr to 1 week block. Now, had I seen a couple of the edits in question, I certainly would have warned this individual. Do I say "Ok, here's your block", or "I wouldn't block unless you had done a few things beyond those infractions?" (The request can be seen in the last two sections of my talk page). Any thoughts? Pastordavid (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Curious, was it an IP or registered user? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see it. Ill let an admin field this one. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Registered. Pastordavid (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, i definitely wouldn't block him. Actually he seems to be now on good terms with the user he 'warned' and the DRV stuff isn't worth a sweat. I'd advise him once more about wikibreaks (Hey, I'm on one ;-), and propose some wikifying, categorizing or cleaning up of dab pages for his perceived 'sins' while staying away from deletion stuff. (How about 'social' work as community sanction, anyways?) I think he actually is a pleasant individual with some rather high expectation on himself. And if you block him wait till I or others 'confess'. So pass greetings from my side.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't block, there's not much hint doing so would keep the project from harm, which is the only reason blocks are given. I like the "community service" suggestion though :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Review of the block of User:Jsn9333

I am asking for the wider administrator community to comment on and review the block of User:Jsn9333. I came accross his unblock request at CAT:UNBLOCK and contacted the blocking administrator. At the request of the blocking administrator, I am opening this thread to seek a wider opinion on how this is to be handled. Let me give the basic background of the situation, as my investigation has revealed it to me. Anyone else with their own viewpoint, please weigh in with how you see it.

• On April 23rd, with some support, a limited topic ban against User:Jsn9333 was instituted proscribing him from editing articles relating to Fox News Channel and enjoining him to edit other Wikipedia articles for 4 weeks. The main crux of the problem was some low-grade edit warring between Jsn9333 and User:Blaxthos.
• As part of the debate of the topic ban, Jsn9333 attempted to defend his position, as well as point out what he perceived as problematic behavior on the part of Blaxthos. Such edits were removed as personal attacks against Blaxthos. Jsn9333 disagreed with the comments removal, and wished to see them reinstated, as he felt that removing the comments left his position out of the discussion, while those removing the comments felt that, as personal attacks against Blaxthos, they should be removed.
• When Jsn9333 moved the redacted comments to his talk page, and asked for clarification as to why they were removed, he was blocked. The blocking admin specifically cited these two difs: [9] and [10].

Now, I believe the block should be lifted. I don't really see how the comments left by Jsn9333 could be construed as "personal attacks" any more than 99% of the stuff that gets left here at ANI all the time. Also, given that he did not violate his topic ban, and that his only offense seems to be to request clarification as to why his comments were removed. I say we should unblock him, unless someone can produce difs more incriminating than the ones provided by the blocking admin. I don't really see this as a blockable offense... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jsn9333 did edit ANI earlier today, and their edits appeared to remove comments from other users, as seen here. I ended up restoring much of the deleted material, and then re-deleting some threads archived by miszabot in the interim, as the diffs following this one indicate. Not sure where this falls in the scheme of things, but I thought I'd mention it to get it out of the way, as it was related to the earlier discussion on the user's conduct. In any event, the page was restored with no damage done, so it's nothing to worry about from that standpoint. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but I don't see where the user's behavior since that has merited a block. They certainly have made some mistakes, but I have not seen where such mistakes have been so eggregious and repetitive that it was necessary to block them to stop damage to Wikipedia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't really disagree, but I figured that the issue would come up and wanted it out of the way - especially since I'll be away from my desk for a bit and wouldn't be able to discuss it. I'm so important that my absence would otherwise grind the discussion to a halt. Just by $.02. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

All I have asked from the beginning is that Jsn to drop this dispute and gain some experience editing in other -less controversial- areas of wikipedia (for only a month). S/He has demonstrated with every edit to date that he is unable to do that, choosing instead to argue the topic ban and attack Blaxthos. Even when done on their own user talk page, these types of edits are disruptive, contribute to perpetuating the dispute (which involved multiple users, not just Blaxthos --including at least 1 admin) and most of all do not contribute in any productive way to the encyclopedia. I stand by the block unless Jsn can move on, not arguing or blaming, just contributing. R. Baley (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is kinda tough to "move on" and "contribute" if s/he is blocked. This is exactly why blocks are preventative and not punative. If you wish to see them contribute, it makes no sense to stop them from contributing via a block. I don't see anywhere in your explanation of the block where the block is anything BUT punishment for not following your orders. I agree, this user should go on to contribute to other parts of the encyclopedia. It would be nice if you lifted the block so that they could do so... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The block is completely preventative, I was not getting through to him, for whatever reason. I think if you look at my edits, I tried very hard to avoid blocking, even as a preventative measure. If the consensus is that I'm being dictatorial, I would would gratefully allow another uninvolved admin (admins?) to read up on the approximately 600K background material and take over. R. Baley (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on your reasoning for the block, R. Baley, would you agree to lift the block if the user agrees, publicly on their talk page, to let the matter drop? That seems like a reasonable compromise, and if they agree to that, then why not lift the block? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the problem is that Jsn has clearly stated he intends to continue disputing the topic ban, and thus far has failed to demonstrate a willingness to move forward. I was involved in the initial dispute, and my judgment may be skewed, but I would not support unblocking unless Jsn indicates he will drop the FNC issue and move on. - auburnpilot talk 20:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly fair enough. Can I then assume the converse to be true? If he agrees to "cease and desist" and drop the issue entirely, can we unblock him? I mean, if he starts again, we can always reblock him, right? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I will unblock, under the condition that s/he is willing to completely, and without reservation, abide by the remedy as per the previous ANI. But, I have to also ask that you help in the future, should that not turn out to be the case (esp. as I will be around, for the most part, over the next 10 hours, but will have limited internet access in the 48 hours after that). R. Baley (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd support an unblock per R. Baley's statement directly above (20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)). Jsn needs to understand he must unequivocally move forward, and not address any FNC issue, as outlined by R. Baley in the previous remedy. - auburnpilot's sock 22:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope I am not too late to the discussion and apologize if I am. I think the best way to end the feud (which is what Baley has attempted to do-- with a lot of research and hard work, I may add) would be to enforce this 24 hour block. Since Jsn clearly is not interested in taking a wiki break and stepping back from the issues, perhaps a forced wiki-break is in order. He claims he wants clarifications. But said clarifications have been given numerous times. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, and I'm obviously involved in the situation. I've avoided taking any shots or otherwise exacerbating the situation since the remedy at ANI was proposed by R.Baley. That being said, I would not support unblocking Jsn9333, as he has made it quite clear that he refuses to acknowledge his disruptive behavior and intends to make a point. He has been afforded many opportunities to avoid being blocked, and has showed his unwillingness to let this go. I find his continued slander and harassment offensive, and the only thing I've asked is that he stop attacking me in every post that he makes. I believe he counts on your good faith to continue this pattern of behavior, and I posit that most respondants here will not take the time to read the megabyte of evidence that supports R.Baley's resolution. I strongly encourage those reviewing this action to pay close attention to the statements of multiple administrators and editors with edit counts approaching 10k or more (mine included). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

UEFA.com official records edit war

There is a long running edit war over the status of two football competitions with regards official records. This has spilled across many articles, and is being aggravated by the fact that the participants have a loose grasp of English, and wikipedia (i.e. calling content reverts vandalism, thinking CAPITAL letter edit summaries is how to get admins attention etc). The users are primarily Ultracanalla (talk · contribs) and Fadiga09 (talk · contribs), but there are others. Various warnings and bans have been issued, and some talk has started, but it isn't very concilliatory or compromising, and after a 3 day hiatus, the reverts have started again. It's been brought to 3RR about 3 times, with various responses, with issues being dealt with piecemeal wise. Due to this, I have the feeling the current status is that anyone who is interested in talking bar these two has left long ago. So, can some admins please review in depth and put in some strong views, or advise if mediation is the stage it has reached, (if possible between such obstinate editors). MickMacNee (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, my impression is that the opportunity for a reasonable progression of DR of what is a content dispute has passed, as the two editors are so full on and have ignored advice to talk it out, and anyone else has long gone, so an assessment on that basis. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking about the Valencia CF article, then User:Ultracanalla is clearly in the right, although his edit summaries are slightly hysterical. User:Fadiga09 is counting Inter-Cities Fairs Cup victories as UEFA Cup victories, which they obviously aren't - the Fairs Cup might've been the precedent to the UEFA Cup, but it was a completely different competition (and not even officially sanctioned). I have warned Fadiga09 over this, hopefully this will be an end to it. Black Kite 23:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether you count the Fairs cup in collated records is the crux of the issue as far as I can see, so taking one side might fix it, then again it might not, as I actually think both opinions have merit, or at least both have some supporting sources, the trouble is the manner of the debate has degenerated. MickMacNee (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Counting or not counting the Fairs wins is one thing (because of their status), but Fadiga09 is counting Fairs Cup victories as UEFA Cup victories, which is plainly wrong. Black Kite 23:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: looks like the "three UEFA victories" was already there, looking more closely; hang on, need to look more closely here (I've removed Fadiga09's warning). Black Kite 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Similarly Ultracanella has started warring in the same manner [11], but over a different argument it seems, at Argentina national football team. I have no clue of the background of that one, something about the olympic status of the national team?. MickMacNee (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the Valencia one, but this is a content dispute really, so probably should migrate back onto the talkpages. Black Kite 23:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

He's reverted your ban removal at Fadiga's page MickMacNee (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume my mistake of revertin once the Fadiga´s page. I accept. But if you see, Mick, Black Kite has warned Fadiga again [12]... So, please, don´t try to demonizate me... --Ultracanalla (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Range block request

Resolved

 – Anon-only rangeblock set for one week.

I have no idea how to set a range block correctly and this user is hopping around. Can someone do this?

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

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

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

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

Thanks. --B (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The proper place to ask is Wikipedia:RFCU#Requests for IP check. KnightLago (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to know the IP. I know the IP. I just don't know the range to use to block the IP. 217.87.0.0/16 might annoy someone. --B (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That is why you ask over there. KnightLago (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is for checking to find the IP of a vandal, here is where rangeblocks are requested. -- Avi (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To cover them all in one block 217.87.64.0/18 would suffice, but that is still 16,384 IP's. Let me see if I can whittle it down a bit. -- Avi (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The user has a history of abusive disruptive edits and is under investigation Wikipedia:Abuse reports/217.87.x.x at the moment. I hope this information helps you set a good range block? Fnagaton 01:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are all part of one contiguous 217.80.0.0/12 range, which is 1,048,576 IP's. We do set anons up to a /16, and since it would take a /19, a /20 a /21, and a /22 to cover the range above (starting from 217.87.64, to start from 217.87.75 would require something like 10 separate ranges), which itself is 15,360 IP's, there is not much collateral damage savings by not using the /18 range. I'll apply a 1 week anonblock on that range now. -- Avi (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --B (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. -- Avi (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, many thanks are in order. :) Fnagaton 01:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Adminpedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Discussion closed as There is no cabal. The editors being questioned have been empowered by ArbCom to handle the issues with these articles. This is not the venue to report abuse, it should be taken to ArbCom for review. Lara❤Love 18:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A group of admins including

• Raul654 (talk · contribs)
• Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs)
• east718 (talk · contribs)
• Raymond arritt (talk · contribs)

seems to be:

1. unilaterally deciding on content issues systematically overriding the consensus and the ongoing discussions
2. implementing these decisions by means of topic bans on the people they disagree with about the content issues in very specific edits
3. also not respecting the arbcom sentence who clearly states that any "discretionary sanction" should be preceded by a warning.

These are facts:

• Thomas Basboll (talk · contribs):
  • He civilly discussed a proposed edit in a Talk page and made a straw poll evidencing unanimous consensus between several editors usually having different point of views and receiving no opposition at all
  • He implemented his proposal specifying that anyone disagreeing had to feel free to revert
  • Thomas immediately banned without any previous warning because: the admins above unilaterally decided that his edit was "POV pushing" (despite the consensus on the talk page displayed completely different opinions).

• Pokipsy76 (talk · contribs) (myself)
  • User:Haemo removed a paragraph (summary: "per WP:BLP") without any previous discussion, a paragraph which:
    • was in the article since months without any opposition
    • was never discussed before (at least since months)
  • I reverted the edit asking to check the consensus before (a very common behaviour when unilateral possibly disputable changes are made (*))
  • the subsequent discussion on the talk page about the alleged BLP issues showed no consensus about whether the paragraph actually violated WP:BLP
  • Pokipsy76 immediately banned without any previous warning because: the admins above unilaterally decided the revert was actually a "an article probation violation and a BLP violation all in one" (despite there was no consensus between editors about such a policy violation).

• Wowest (talk · contribs):
  • an editor asked to delete a section here and received opposition by all other users who replyed to him (i.e. consensus was to not delete)
  • another editor not involved in the discussion unilaterally decided to removed the section (summary: "rm uncited commentary")
  • Wowest reverted the deletion (Summary:"Restoring large section deleted without discussion or consensus")
  • Wowest banned because: the admins above unilaterally decided that his revert "runs afoul of our policies on original research and verifiability" (despite the consensus on the talk page was definitely to not delete)
• Xiutwel (talk · contribs)
  • this is the most astonishing case, an admin unilaterally decided to ban him indefinitely without any previous warning "after reviewing the arbitration enforcement posting concerning him" (NB: the arbcom didn't sanction Xiutwel) "and looking at this edit" (i.e. Xiutwel gave a warning about the arbcom decisions on a user talk page).

Worth noting that these 4 editors were all described by the person asking for these bans to be "POV pushers" promoting "fringe views" and making "tendentious pro-Truther soapboxing". "The time for nonsense on these articles has come and gone" he concluded. So this seems to be a sort of an "ideological" war where people respecting consensus and freely expressing and discussing their opinion are banned because admins disagree with their opinions about very specific content issues, even when these opinions reflect the consensus(!!)

I think this is an incredible series of abuses with exagerately severe sanctions for having done absolutely nothing, a series which will probably continue unless some kind of authority is going to stop or control these admins. I think wikipedia shouldn't toletate this kind of abuses.

Any comment by completely uninvolved admins and users will be appreciated.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(*) See for istance Okiefromokla, Ice Cold Beer, Rx StrangeLove, Okiefromokla 2, Rx StrangeLove 2, Haemo 1, Haemo 2

Just to let you know, Lawrence Cohen and Raymond Arritt aren't admins. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:12, 24 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Raymond must be an admin since he banned me.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your block log says otherwise. Mayalld (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No he didn't.-Wafulz (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)User:East718 blocked you, not Raymon. He says in his block summary that you were being blocked for violation of your topic ban [13] -- not for messing with an article that was on probation for BLP concerns. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:18, 24 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he blocked me because of the violation of the ban of Raymond.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::What ban of Raymond's? Raymond is not an admin and cannot enforce a ban. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Whoops, so he is. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

He did, see here.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Actually I was wrong about that -- Raymond is an admin Raymond arritt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Sorry. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:32, 24 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Other facts - at least one of those four is not an admin. Orderinchaos 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm abusive because I supported giving Pokipsy76 (talk · contribs) a topic ban because of this egregious violation of WP:BLP, WP:V, and the general probation on these articles, as he inserted here, attacking BLP subject Larry Silverstein? I'm abusive for that?

Popkipsy, under what right did you add this BLP violation? You should be banned for that kind of nonsense, not just topic banned. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually

1. it is your opinion that there is a WP:BLP violation
2. this opinion didn't have the cosnensus in the discussion page
3. I don't see how my opinion about whether it was a WP:BLP violation, if wrong, should result in a ban. Are you suggesting that if instead you are wrong then you deserve a ban?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a BLP violation, because it makes claims about a Living Person and offers no sources that explicitly back said claims. They may be true, they may not be - but you cannot, cannot, cannot add such material with tags. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, possibly I was wrong about this however I didn't ask to keep the text, I asked to discuss before. But now let's talk about the bans instead!!--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You edit warred to insert a BLP violation: if I were watching that article and saw this, and I were an admin, you would be on an enforced 24-hour break for that action. BLP is non-negotiable. No BLP vio? What do you call saying a living person profited and took a payout on the destruction of the World Trade Center and deaths of 2000+ people, UNSOURCED? Someone please topic ban this fella from any BLP period if this is the mindset we're dealing with. Your services are absolutely not welcome on any BLP if you believe this, Pokipsy. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking to discuss unilateral changes from previously estabilished version of the article before implementing them is normal practice, if this would be "edit warring" then I we are full of edit warriors.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And you don't need consensus to remove it. --Kbdank71 15:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It was the estabilished version of the article since months. People usually says that consensus is needed to change from the estabilished version. Don't you agree with this common practice?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not for BLP vios, no. --Kbdank71 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Which policies make exception?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a textbook WP:BLP violation. That's clear. — Scientizzle 15:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1. It seems to be not so clear if there has been a discussion on the talk page reaching no consensus.
2. Wikipedia works through discussion and consensus, not through unilateral edits pretending to be the correct interpretation of the policy
3. It's not clear why if my interpretation of the policy is wrong in a particular case then I should be banned without any discussion, unless of course you are assuming I am editing in bad faith--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For everyone's benefit: here's the current ArbCom enforcement discussion regarding each of these editors... — Scientizzle 15:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at this edit summary: "BLP does not apply to this entire section". Also, I've asked for semiprotection on RFPP for this article. This is a BLP nightmare. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Popkipsy, this is a tertiary source reference encyclopedia with very clear policies about its content relating to living persons. This policy is not subject to consensus, nor is it open to much interpretation. If you don't understand this by now, I don't think you should be editing BLP articles. Wikipedia is not the place to speculate, or even report on such speculation, about any living person's supposed undocumented thoughts, motives or actions relating to murder or property crimes. It doesn't matter a wit if there is any truth or likelyhood to it, it's still speculation about a living person. Please take it somewhere else. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, let's avoid to talk about whether I was wrong or right. It would not be a problem for me to recognize I have been wrong about an interpretation of a policy in this or that case. This is not my point. The problem I wanted to discuss here is how personal opinions on very specific content issues are being used to ban people without any discussion and without warnings. Did yopu read all the cases above? Does all of this seem an acceptable behaviour on your eyes?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to file with the Arbitration Committee, not here, if you feel it's unfair. The incredible misbehavior on these articles long-term caused an RFAR, and the Committee gave the community carte blanche to act on these perceived problems. File a new RFAR for review if this is not right. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Forget warnings Pokipsy, you've had plenty. Blocks can be lifted. Can you say anything which might sway editors into thinking you have some understanding of Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons and will abide by their meaning and intent? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Which warnings are you referring to? I never had warnings.
2. Why are you concentrating so much on me and my alleged "BLP violation" like if it was the worst thing a person could ever do? The topic is a series of *bans* given to user who edited in good faith and according to the consensus.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue of policy, not a content dispute per se. This is a textbook violation of WP:BLP's letter and spirit. The ArbCom case suggests that this is not a new or isolated problem. "Banning people of opposing viewpoints" is a somewhat selective reading of what's going on here; I think that "banning editors who insist on ignoring basic policy and using Wikipedia as a soapbox after exhausting the community's patience and every level of dispute resolution" would perhaps be more accurate. Given the length, scope, and ugliness of this dispute, I don't see the absence of one more warning not to violate policy as a major problem.

ArbCom empowered uninvolved admins to deal with the mess that has been created on the articles. Uninvolved admins are dealing with it. You can appeal their actions here, but know that pretty much any admin with a basic understanding of WP:BLP is going to find an insistence of reinserting this sort of thing problematic. Additionally, editors who perseverate in using Wikipedia as a platform to amplify and expand on a specific minoritarian view are generally considered detrimental to the project of building a respectable, reliable reference work, which is the ultimate goal here and drives the sanctions you're objecting to. MastCell ^Talk 16:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Why are you insisting so much about a single alleged misinterpretation of a policy as if it would justify any kind of sanction whatsoever?
2. Why do you think my opinion about the WP:DUE weight about minoritarian view is wrong without having ever discussed this issue with me?
3. Is it really all right according to you that an admin deliberately ignore discussion and consensus and decide to ban people according to his opinion about content issues like WP:DUE or WP:OR even when the user is acting according to the consensus?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trying to deflect from the larger issues. There is an arbitration committee sanction and probation in place. While the community is fully within it's rights to ignore or overturn any arbitration committee action it deems unsound, I really, really, really doubt we'd do so on this one. Take it up at WP:RFAR please. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking for third party opinions about a situation I consider to be problematic, what's the problem with this?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ask all you want, but you're in the wrong venue for any action on it. WP:RFAR is where you need to be. Is there a reason you won't bring this before the committee with evidence of wrongdoing, impropriety, or malfeasance? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• If the purpose of this complaint was to encourage those who support NPOV to heartily congratulate these four brave souls for taking on the mess of POV-pushing which is the 9/11 articles, then I will join whatever chorus arises to laud them. Raul, Lawrence, East and Raymond: well done. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  You seem to be just deliberately ignoring the problem raised by me and trying to turn the discussion into a POV war.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pokipsy76, what on earth did you think was going to happen when the Arbcomm case was decided that way? Nothing? You could just ignore it?--Filll (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I could never imagine that admins would be allowed to ignore consensus and ban whoever they disagree with about content issues. Maybe I have a too good idea of wikipedia?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should bring this to RFAR as directed instead of sniping here. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pokipsy, the issue is that you inserted unsourced material into the article in violation of BLP. The fact that this material was in the article previously is immaterial. The fact of whether or not the material is true is immaterial. If Reliable Sources are provided that document claims about living persons, then they can be inserted - but, no matter how long the material was in the article or how true it may be, it had no sources. There is no consensus to be had, no debate, no discussion - it was about a living person and had no sources. The correct course, topic ban aside, would be to go to the talk page and offer sources to document the claim or ask the editor who removed it for clarification. You did neither. While I understand your frustration, I cannot recommend arbitration for this issue, as I believe it to be unlikely in the extreme that the committee would review the case. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not claiming to have been right when reverting, I'm just claiming to have behaved in good faith. Anybody can have a good faith wrong opinion about a policy and ask to discuss. The problem is how this edit has been claimed to deserve a ban (without any previous warning), the problem is also all those other edits supported by the consensus claimed to deserve bans to the users listed above. Actually nobody is addressing the problem I am talking about.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Drop the stick and back away from the deceased E. caballus. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit too soon to pretend that the discussion is dead, isn't it?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't, this has been going on for way too long. In any case, the first Arbitration enforcement request wasn't about BLP anyway, it was this: [14] which was a revert in a long line of reverts. You had a whole Arbcom case as a warning. As did others. RxS (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I find strange that when the victim of a sanction related to the arbcom ruling was MONGO the discussion could widely develop in this same discussion page without any oppopition while when the victims are common users the discussion is closed because now "This is not the venue to report abuse" anymore.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

68.218.222.40 Disruptions

User:68.218.222.40 is involved in a number of personal attacks on various talk pages. Examples: [15] [16] (calling another editor a "shortbusser," slang for "mentally retarded") [17] (out and out hostility and swearing towards myself for no reason). This unhelpful belligerence warrants a soft block, I think. Whoever is using this address is clearly not interested in playing well with others. Buspar (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 72 hours. The last several edits/edit summaries from that IP have all been trolling. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Buspar (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on their comments at a user's talk page, it looks like a bad-hand account of a registered editor. Can anyone spot a pattern to match to an existing user? MBisanz ^talk 05:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

where to you report broken database problems?

I've been trying to revert a simple vandalism for about 15 minutes, and finally received an interesting page with the following content:

If you report this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the details below.

Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_current_NBA_team_rosters&action=submit, from 68.183.103.112 via sq22.wikimedia.org (squid/2.6.STABLE18) to 208.80.152.49 (208.80.152.49)

Error: ERR_READ_TIMEOUT, errno [No Error] at Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:51:50 GMT

It looks like a broken disk drive, but I have no clue where to report that. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

For emergency problems on Wikipedia & sister projects, try to contact the developers by IRC (#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net) or on the wikitech-l mailing list (please subscribe to ensure that your message gets through and you receive replies). (see meta:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion) Bazzargh (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Colorado Avalanche had to be fully protected

Just a note regarding that article. It appears to have been the target of a coordinated attack today. Please see the last 250 edits. Enigma ^message Review 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There's still vandalism there, see this diff: [18]. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Some admin please remove the last sentence from the "Jerseys" section. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: in a situation like this, where there's an apparent coordinated attack, are we blocking registered users on sight? 'cuz several of them were indeffed without warning, or with one warning after one edit; I warned a couple of them (trying to follow the general procedure for blocking), who were then blocked without further edits after the article was protected, and I feel silly now for not doing it myself. =P Tony Fox (arf!) 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolling of this type needs to be dealt with severely, I believe. They can always request unblocking. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside, a few of the users involved with this also vandalized the Jim Tressel article earlier in the week. I saw in some of the edits references to a local Detroit radio show, and I'm wondering if the hosts of this show are telling people to go vandalize the pages. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That would explain a lot. By the way, one IP went so far as to vandalize the entry at WP:RPP. Enigma ^message Review 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked the obvious perpetrators on sight. There weren't a great deal of them so that should slow down the vandal edits and I think it would be safe to unprotect the article soon. Doubt a user involved in such an attack would become a great contributor in the future if they low enough to coordinate disruption with other users.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Normally I go back and warn all the vandals, but in this case there are simply too many anon vandals involved. The accounts are all indef-blocked, and that's the important part, I guess. Enigma ^message Review 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect most of the accounts were throwaways anyway. No big loss. Not a particularly intelligent rivalry prank, really. Vandalism reverted, accounts blocked, and anyone reading won't know that anything happened. Good job, Wings fans. {rolleyes} Resolute 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm considering e-mailing the radio show in question. Do you think it's worth a shot, or is it just encouraging further coordinated vandalism? Enigma ^message Review 19:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

radio show in question. Enigma ^message Review 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

RBI.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something? How do we know, for a fact, that it was a radio station, specifically this one? And, *ahem* as a sidenote, don't group all of us Wings fans into the same group as vandals ;-) . - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you missed something. ;) Several of the vandals specifically referenced the radio show and its hosts. I would say there's a high probability that that radio show is responsible for the attacks on Jim Tressel and Colorado Avalanche. Enigma ^message Review 19:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think emailing the show is just asking for trouble. The odds of them caring about wikipedia policy is close to none. The odds of them realizing they've got to someone and sending out a second wave, much higher.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. WP:BEANS. Just disappointed that we know what's behind this and can't do anything. I guess the other possibility would be to e-mail the actual station director, but per the responses here, that's not a great idea either. Enigma ^message Review 19:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: It's confirmed that it was coordinated by the aforementioned radio station. User:Chaldean pointed me to this link, which discusses the coordinated disruption. Enigma ^message Review 04:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)It was up all last night, but they took it down this morning. When I woke up, it was gone. I guess the people in charge don't want to be held responsible for the disruption. Enigma ^message 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I am very embarassed as a Red Wings fan and a Detroiter. I am sick and tired of certian people out their taking Wiki for a joke and calling for the followers to do stupid things like this. Admins need to take quicker actions so that the non-Wiki people realize how quickly vandelism is stopped all at once. Situaitons like this actually can be used to promote Wiki's reputation if we handle it the right way. Chaldean (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Squiretuck

Hi, I'd welcome some guidance on how best to proceed regarding another editor. The editor, who posts both anonymously from various IP addresses and also as User:Squiretuck, is an admirer of the Marquis de Lafayette and has adopted a very firm opinion that using Lafayette's aristocratic title ("Marquis") is highly inappropriate, an opinion he evidently bases on Lafayette's renunciation of the title following the American Revolution. In support of these views, Squiretuck's undertaken the following:

• Found at least 60-70 Wikipedia articles whose titles include the word "Lafayette"[19] and copied a block of text into each one. The text credits the Marquis de Lafayette as the person for whom the subject is named (though no corroborating sources are provided) and describes Squiretuck's personal opinion on the inappropriateness of the title "Marquis" (e.g.: "[do] not offend him by heaping the senseless thing upon him").[20] The articles include towns, counties, schools, naval vessels, etc. Most such edits have since been reverted (multiple times in some cases) by myself or others.
• Made a number of sizable edits that describe Lafayette's renunciation of the title and that disparage any sources and individuals who hold differing opinions.[21] (e.g.: "puffed-up noble title", "phony, undeserved fame", "repeated, old, Britannica Lafayette-name-smear", "typically Anglophile opinion", etc.)

In response to what we saw as redundancy and a non-encyclopedic tone, both I and Nyttend attempted to engage him in discussion on his talk page. The result, unfortunately, was a rather convoluted debate in which we were labeled (among other things) ignorant, monarchists, aristocrats, defamers, etc. So... not particularly productive. Anyway, I'd hoped things had finally settled down, but his editing now seems to have begun again.

I can tell Squiretuck clearly cares about the subject, and it'd be fine if he could contribute in a more appropriate fashion, but nothing I've said yet seems to have had an effect. Any advice would be great, thanks! Huwmanbeing ☀★ 03:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Squiretuck is continuing his editing campaign about Lafayette using a variety of IPs. He hasn't edited Wikipedia using the Squiretuck account since 12 April. Yet Lafayette's own article has enjoyed several colorful additions today (all of which have been reverted) by three different IP editors. (One of the anonymous edits was so drastic it got the attention of an anti-vandal bot). I suggest two weeks of semi-protection of Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette in the effort to persuade Squiretuck to continue his work using his logged-in account. Though his Talk page suggests an idée fixe on this topic, he does engage in dialog, so there is some hope of persuasion. I don't think regular editors should have to risk 3RR by reverting endless IP socks, which is why I suggest protection. I would do the protection myself if there were support for the idea here.

Here are the IPs which appear to be operated by Squiretuck:

• 129.63.184.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 129.63.184.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 4.156.117.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I also can see that Squiretuck cares much about this subject and would make a good editor if he were willing to work with, or work to change, rather than against consensus. There's a lot of energy and knowledge there that would help WP. I agree with a period of semi-protection, although why not a week first, or whatever length you think appropriate. — Becksguy (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette for 10 days. Since the last update, a brand new account, 4.156.117.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) fought an edit war on this article with VoABot_II and got himelf blocked 24 hours for vandalism by User:Gb. Should we now consider that this is abusive sockpuppetry? EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who speaks German want to review my actions/sort this out?

It appears someone has created (at least two) accounts with names that are disparaging other editors:
User:DerHexer und Entlinkt steigen zusammen in die Badewanne!‎
User:Entlinkt ist ein Schwein!
The only German I know is by osmosis, listening to my dad speak it with some German friends of his about 20 years ago. Still, seems clear enough that this is some kind of dispute spilling over from the German Wikipedia, and that the usernames aren't appropriate. However, the actual interwiki linking they're doing appears legit. I've usernameblocked both of them, but didn't prevent account recreation, and left our standard semi-polite template. But if someone who knows what the heck is going on‎ over on the German Wikipedia could take a peek, and fix things (either unblock or usernamehardblock, depending on what's going on), I'd appreciate it. (Update just before I posted this: actually Misza blocked one, I blocked the other.) --barneca (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

New one: User:Am Arsch von Entlinkt stinkt es!. This is now disruptive, so I've usernamehardblocked this one (hopefully preventing creation of other accounts) until I (or someone in a better postition) can figure out what's up. --barneca (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed both to hardblock as attack accounts, clearly a harassment campaign over at de-wiki; related to userpage vandalism and other things there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, now i get that it's a garden variety jerk: [22]. The legit interwiki stuff threw me off. Thanks. --barneca (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fadiga and the IP 135.196.110.222

Hi. Please, look at the 135.196.110.222 Ip´s contributions [23] and see the user Fadiga´s [24] Aren´t they the same users???? It´s more than suspicious... Please, say it to an expert on this issues, I don´t know how to do this.

Thanks, --Ultracanalla (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If they are the same user, what difference does it make? Stifle (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Huge difference is the he can edit wath he wants with the IP, breaking all the discussions and the warnings. In the anonimate of the IP, he can jump all the warnings that a rgistred user must recive because of an edit warring. He has two or three chances to edit, but we all know they are the same users... Isn´t it a cheat? My, God... Sometimes, I surprised about many answers... --Ultracanalla (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What discussions? You left the discussion and continued reverting his 'vandalism' when he didn't agree with you. MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If they are the same user, it's only a big problem if they are causing problems, because you can use another "account" (the IP isn't really an account) to evade the block. If you feel that that person is using multiple accounts to give the false impression of consensus or by multiple voting, then bring it up here, but otherwise, please don't speculate. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued revert warring and continued incivility of User:RedSpruce

User:RedSpruce has continued revert warring in article: G. David Schine. He doesn't like the quote function being used in the citations and continues to remove them. At RS request there was an RFC to determine whether quotes in citations were helpful for the article, or distracting. Two people responded that they benefited the article rather than distracted the reader. User:TonyTheTiger and User:Alansohn responded to the RFC with comments or by reverting the deletion of the quotes.

Why quotes in citations are important

• This appears in the Schine article: "Schine and Cohn were rumored to have a sexual relationship, although there has never been any proof of this. More recently, some historians have concluded it was a friendship and that Schine was heterosexual." Well, what exactly did those people say about Schine? To check the references, you would have to buy the books or get it from a library, and up to a month ago have to buy the article from the New York Times. You would also have to read the entire article to find the sentence quoted. You can't just use control-f to find the quote by typing in "gay" or "homosexual" or "heterosexual" because Tom Wolfe doesn't use any of those words. If we want to make Wikipedia better we need to make it easier to vet the article and harder to add in subtle nonsense. Anything that makes it easier to fact check the article is an improvement. The quotes consist of a single sentence or two. I am adding the quote when I am doing the fact checking, its a burden to require the next person to rebuy the article and reread the entire article just to patrol articles for reliability. With the actual words used now preserved, you can type the phrase into Google and refind the article, and the section of the article quoted. I have used it effectively in the past to reconnect links to moved web pages, especially when Associated Press is the source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• This appeared in the article: "He remained active in the private sector as a businessman and an entrepreneur, working in the hotel, music, and film industries, and he was a founding member of the Young Presidents' Organization."

The above cited reference makes no mention of Schine as a "founding member" of Young Presidents' Organization. So, I would say that going through the article and adding citations, and providing the actual quote, if the citation matches the information in the article is helpful and not distracting to the reader. The revert warring doesn't improve the article, only careful research, and careful fact checking does. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Previous ANIs include

• ANI against RS
• RS ANI against me
• Second ANI against RS result was 24 hour block.

Past Redspruce incivility

• "You are a complete idiot and moron. Please take your stupidity to some other article."
• "It's obvious now that you don't know how to read ANY English at all. That being the case, you should not be trying to edit the English language Wikipedia. Please go away."
• "Since you don't, and have never, given any valid reason for the inclusion of the unnecessary, repetitious, distracting and pointless quotes in your footnotes, I assume you have no such reason. Here you don't even attempt to present an argument, but instead entertain yourself with paranoid fantasies about other editor's motivations. My motivation, in fact, is to make this article look less like it was written by someone with a communication disorder."
• "It's a tricky lil' ol' thing, trying to write in comprehensible English, isn't it? You should stick to copy-and-pasting."

Removal of quotes from article

Removal of quotes from article post RFC and post ANI:

• 10:40, April 26, 2008 edit summary: "removing a reference that has nothing to do with footnoted text". Of course if I had used the quote parameter in this citation he would see where in the book I was quoting. Is this a backhanded admission that the quotes are needed?

Removal of quotes from article post RFC:

• 05:32, April 24, 2008
• 05:15, April 23, 2008 edit summary: "several corrections to hideous sentence structure, etc."

Removal of quotes from article pre RFC:

• 06:06, April 21, 2008
• 05:56, April 20, 2008
• 08:00, April 19, 2008

The above report was made by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Hiberniantears (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Attempts have been repeatedly made to expand a series of Joseph McCarthy-related articles that User:RedSpruce has taken strong WP:OWNership of. Efforts to add and revise material or add sources have been repeatedly and arbitrarily removed, often with no explanation or derogatory comments. In light of past and present incivility and edit warring, the time has already arrived to keep User:RedSpruce away from these articles. Alansohn (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to other admins - Potential article ban or Mediation required here? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur I suggest Formal Mediation, and if that fails, an article ban will certainly be in order here. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I cautioned the user yesterday here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Before y'all get too carried away with this little party, please note a few points:

• RAN's point above: "Second ANI against RS; result was 24 hour block." is inaccurate. No action was taken due to that ANI. I got the 24 hour block for 3RR violation.
• RAN has insulted me (by inventing various insult/fantasies about my motivations in opposing some of his edits) far more often than I've insulted him. See here, here, here, here, here and here.
• Alansohn's entry above is a complete fiction; I'll be happy to defend and explain any edit I've made to any article.
• What Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles "cautioned" me against was objecting to RAN's insults. I realize that the best response to insults is to ignore them, but I don't believe that it's WP policy that objecting to insults is an actionable offense.
• Part of the heading to this ANI is "continued incivility". No "continued incivility" has been mentioned, nor is there any to mention. The closest I've come to incivility is referring to RAN's defamations against me (see above) as "moronic insults."

RedSpruce (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe "continued incivility" comes from the fact that we keep having to come to ANI to discuss your edits. ANI 1 ANI 2 ANI 3 ANI 4 --Smashville^BONK! 15:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Smashville, but that makes no sense to me. RAN dislikes the fact that I continue to oppose some of his edits, and so he opened this ANI. By what path of reasoning does that become "therefor RedSpruce is guilty of continued incivility"? If you have a complaint, it should be that RAN has opened a frivolous and dishonest ANI. RedSpruce (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Now the quote removal has moved over to Melvin Purvis, can someone please take a look over there.

Post ani, and post rfc quote removal:

• 05:38, April 25, 2008 quote removal

pre ani pres rfc quote removal:

• 04:44, April 23, 2008 quote removal
• 13:09, April 22, 2008 quote removal
• 09:32, April 22, 2008 quote removal

I have tried trimming the quotes as a compromise, but they still get deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My own articulation of this dispute with RAN's style of referencing is here: User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Discussion. This was posted to RAN's talk page a week ago, but as of this writing he hasn't seen fit to respond. RedSpruce (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeated insults by Libro0

Libro0 has left several insulting messages (basically calling me childish) on my talk page and when he/she leaves edit summaries. Please take proper sanctions against this person. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What he said was not nice, but not something which anyone is going to block him for. I suggest, in the future, asking for some help from people who have dedicated time to explaining civility to others rather than requesting blocks. --Haemo (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is that I make appropriate contributions to Wikipedia. I am trying to uphold the standards of this site. I Hate CAPTCHAS is persistent in obstructing this. It should have been my place to report an incident. However, I have been the one trying to use the proper communication channels without success. I have made my case and I would appreciate it if I Hate CAPTCHAS would cease diminishing the quality of this site. Libro0 (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Threat of Violence

Resolved

Another suicide threat has been posted. Based on the past responses to this situation can we have immediate checkuser assistance and contact of the authorities?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I just left a note on User:Deskana's talk page. Hopefully he is online. Rgoodermote  22:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm here. Hold on. --Deskana (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this is a bluff from a stupid kid. Rgoodermote  22:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is being handled as we speak. It's likely that we won't take any action, it seems as if it's not a serious suicide note... --Deskana (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully it isn't serious. Mark resolved?done with out me noticing. Rgoodermote  22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Threats of Violence is an excellent resource for these sorts of things. Bstone. Per WP:TOV, this is not a specific threat of violence but rather seems to be vandalism. A specific threat would be someone stating their intention to harm themself or others, a time/date/location and/or a mechanism. (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Since i watch that page, and noted that comment, when it was a legal not suicide threat, i should have reported them for them the legal threat. I apologise--Jac16888 (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

They would have been indefed for legal threats anyway. Their reaction was way out of line.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock.[25] - auburnpilot talk 17:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor removing speedy deletion tag

Resolved

 – Article on AFD, Seresin could remove the tag, nothing to see here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

On the article Real social dynamics, User:Seresin has repeatedly remove the tag for speedy deletion that I added because it is a repost of Real Social Dynamics, which was deleted by AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination)) and is now salted because it was repeatedly being recreated.

The user now threatens [26] to report me for 3RR if I restore the tag again. Presumably this editor is associated with this non-notable company. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not. The article that was deleted is not significantly close enough to the article as it stands now to meet the criterion. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How do I know? The article is deleted and only visible to administrators. I do know that is is about the same company, which was decided by the AfD to be non-notable. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks really close to me. --Haemo (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is up for AfD so let it just roll through AfD. Rgoodermote  23:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the content has been re-written, and is less spammy than the first article, which was a concern in the AfDs. In addition, I am mostly noting that there are many more sources on the new article. While it may end up not passing the new AfD, I do not see enough similarity to the deleted article to require speedy deletion. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The current version appears to have substantive differences with the deleted versions from 9 February 2007 or 24 January 2007. That said, it still appears to fall far short of having notability proven via reliable, third-party, published sources. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The way, the truth, and the light, why are you wasting our time here? Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an admin and has declined [27] your request for speedy deletion. I would say "if you do not like having the speedy declined, send it to Afd" ... but it is already there. If you make the bad decision to edit war with an admin over a declined {{db-repost}} tag, then I fear that a 3RR block is the least of your concerns. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The above response seems a tad bit overboard to me. Bstone (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was not aware that he was an admin and thus could legitimately remove the tag. Had he told me that, I would have stopped. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Anybody can remove a speedy tag except for the editor who originally created the article. Corvus cornix_talk 15:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused on this. Why does it matter that User:Seresin is an admin? As far as I have been made aware anyone that isn't the author of an article is allowed to remove the speedy tags. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI semi-protected

I've semi-protected this page for a couple of hours since it looks like an IP hopper was having fun. Feel free to amend the protection as necessary. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Two IPs and you protect? That's a bit of an over reaction.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There was identical vandalism from 2 very different IPs within 1 minute. I assumed it was someone out for lulz and protected the page. Perhaps I was over-cautious. But that's also why I posted it here for review/amendment as necessary. In retrospect 5 min protection probably would have been fine. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I was hoping for the "There are no new reports at this time" vandal. seicer | talk | contribs 05:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Flyguy, I would say that your assessment was accurate given the edits and all the excitement going on earlier here and here. Unfortunately that kind of shit's a precursor to worse. I'd keep an eye on AN/I for a while. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 07:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, putting any sort of protection on this page such that it can expire, will remove the move protection as well as the edit protection.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize that... hmmm, maybe that would be a useful Bugzilla request: allowing separate expiries for Move and Edit protection. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I see it's already been requested. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

IP User 212.219.189.60 blocked yet still editing

The above ip user was supposed to have been the subject of a block for one week starting from yesterday, even though the notice on their talk page states it was an indefinite block. However, the anonymous ip address is editing today (see history of User talk:212.219.189.60) with there being no indication that the block was contested or lifted. Can someone look into this? I tried to report them again today, but some bot merelyt removed my message just now.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the block notice is wrong, it is a week's block. Second of all, when blocked, users can edit their talk pages (unless the talk page is protected). Metros (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Jonathan A.Kumin‎ article has been tagged for speedy deletion for a few minutes now but there seems to be a bit of a speedy backlog. I wouldn't normally bring this up here but the article contains some personal info, ie the subject's phone number. Could an available admin see to it being deleted promptly, please?
Thanks. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted by Woody. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As it contains someone's phone number, shouldn't it be oversighted also?<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

98.169.241.244

This editor 98.169.241.244 is continually archiving relevant Intelligent Design talkpage discussions to make a WP:POINT, because his off-topic comments were removed. Erased the initial warnings, then vandalised Silly Rabbit's talk page. Erased final warning, and the continued with vandalising said talkpage. Also, let a message on my page calling my warnings "vandalism."Aunt Entropy (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dennis Oliver

the article about Dennis Oliver was posted the first time back in January 2008. It has been reasonable deleted by the reason of not having references. In February 2008 I did the article again, this time with sufficient,notable and verifiable references to reliable sources like links to newspapers articles and websites. The same editor of name "Thieste" that requested the deletion back in January, was the same that requested the deletion again in February. (I hope it is not as a result of personal interest since that editor is closely related to "Dennis Oliver" in the same field). For second time, in despite of all the good references, verifiable references to reliable sources, it has been deleted solely by the decision of the admin of name "Pigman". The most notorious comment about the article is that "congratulations" for others editors has been noted in the page, and it has also been nominated by editor "gromlakh" as a good article. This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale and supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. BUT IT HAS BEEN UNILATERAL DELETED!. Please help, I have put a lot of effort and days of work and love to reach a nice article. Thank you! RaliciaRalicia (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Restored. G4 does not apply to recreated articles that had previously also been deleted under CSD. However, the article is still subject to nomination for deletion under AFD, which generally involves a 5-day discussion. Thatcher 18:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Nothing444's Block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please keep discussion centralized at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

---

This user has been put on AN/I a few times before but I would like to bring his block to attention. He has been blocked indefinently mainly due to harmfull edits to the mainspace. He has been blocked at least five other times before. The indef started at this section on his talkpage. There are other discussions about his blocks all over his talkpage and archives. I would like other's comments about this block.--RyRy5 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Already being discussed at WP:AN, where I recommend that further comments should go. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Burzmali Incivility

User:Burzmali has recently posted some alarming comments to a couple talk pages.

• [28] - "We all enjoy trolling the Paulites from time to time" (admission of disruptive/uncivil behavior to other users based on their political affiliations, an express violation of WP:NPA) and "doesn't run to ANI over the every little slight" (mocking the use of Wiki's dispute resolution procedure)
• [29] - Accusations of "revenge blocks" and "gaming the system" for using Wikipedia's dispute resolution when handling a personal attack. In this case, I was advising another editor who had been subjected to personal attack due to his political affiliation on what he could do to resolve the case and stop the attacks. Burzmali's accusations of WP:GAME suggest an assumption of bad faith. The condescending edit summary "if you don't want to be stereotyped, try not to act the stereotype" supports this interpretation.

Buspar (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Buspar, you do like to boast about 'having people blocked at ANI' a little too much. Also, please note that as far as I can tell (I could be wrong here though), the "personal attack" in question was the phrase "Ron Paul fan." --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "boasting." I point out to others that ANI is effective at resolving disputes to encourage them to use it. The phrase "Ron Paul fan" was used by Terrier, not Burzmali. I've already admonished him for trying to discredit others by their political affiliations. Buspar (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Another one:

• [30] - "DFTT" (or "Don't feed the trolls"), basically accusing me of being a troll because I pointed out his uncivil acts on WP:ANI. Yet another instance of bad faith and an outright personal attack. Buspar (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Justpassinby

Resolved.

A few weeks back, there was a lengthy case involving User:Justpassinby.[31] He appears to be back as User:Justpassinboy and making the same kind of edits.[32] Could someone intervene? Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Black Kite.-Wafulz (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

rangeblock?

Resolved

 – 48 hour anon-blocks applied to vandal range; talk page unprotected.

I just sprotected Talk:Qur'an because of a persistent dynamic IP vandal. Since it's a talk page of an sprotected page, I really hate to do that. Could someone who knows what they're doing rangeblock the appropriate range (see page history; i think it was 5 different IP's before I gave up), and unprotect the talk page when they're done? --barneca (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me see what's going on. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Parent range seems to be 87.64.0.0/14, which is 262,144 IP's. 87.66.0.0/16 will take care of the bunch, but that's 65,536 IP's. I think we can get away with 87.66.64.0/18, 87.66.128.0/18, and 87.66.192.0/19 which is only 40,960 IP's. I'll take care of them now. -- Avi (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Avi (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No idea how you did what you did (I should learn that stuff someday, seeing as it's the 21st century and all), but thank you! --barneca (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Start by reading mw:Help:Range blocks, that's what I did as a first step. There are plenty of resources on the net that give some good explanations too. -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll be sorry you nudged me when I rangeblock North America by accident... --barneca (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You say that as if that would be a bad thing ;) --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

General rule, start simple. 0.0.0.0/0 -- Avi (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If this was IRC, evidently I would immediately head over here and give it a try. I assume the devs have already prevented that.... right? (oh noes, beans!) --barneca (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't block anything larger than a /16, so 0.0.0.0/0 is right out. --Carnildo (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Openly anti-Semitic edits

Resolved

 – User blocked, page semi-protected temporarily. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Codreanu and probably his dynamic IPs keep inserting openly anti-Semitic phrases like "Jewish lies" and "lies about false numbers of Holocaust" into National Revival of Poland (Polish far-right extremist party) article. M0RD00R (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide diffs? Bstone (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked User:Codreanu indefinitely - that wasn't a difficult decision - and will keep an eye on that article for the IP abuse. Black Kite 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Have semi-pp over the weekend, before you blocked. If you think it may need unprotecting, fine. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, being semi'd for a few days given the situation isn't a problem. Black Kite 19:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use review: Kirby hobo festival.jpg

Resolved

 – Deleted by East718 as failing fair use criteria as replaceable. Metros (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved administrator take a look at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Image:Kirby_hobo_festival.jpg? There appears to be a consensus that it violates fair use, but the uploader is insisting that no such consensus exists. I'd appreciate it if others could weigh in and close it. Thanks, Metros (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus. 2 editors have raised concerns, 2 editors have called for deletion, and 2 editors see nothing wrong with the image. I have told both Metros and the other user involved that the matter should be brought to IFD and consensus determined there.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Article talk page disruption.

Resolved

 – basically a content dispute, with some minor talk page nonsense. Take it back to the talk page, correctly this time please.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have warned both editors. The second editor continued the disruption, after the first editor had stopped.

Diff of first editor and again.

Diff of second editor

The second editor has already been warned about editing others comments here.

I'm not sure how to proceed, can someone talk some clue here, so the discussion does not get disruptive? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

How about maybe recognizing that maybe, just maybe, you might be.... *gasp* wrong? Look, the first editor brought up a very legitimate point about a previous blanket statement. Your removal of the tag seemed to say that you were ignoring that obvious irony, as you appear to be ignoring many obvious facts about this particular subject. Point blank, you are wrong about the main issue of the article and you're using the fact that you don't appear to be able to handle that to bring me up here.

Also, you're not an administrator, so I don't appreciate your use of the word "warned." If you disagree with something that I've done, bring it up in a non-confrontational tone. I took what you wrote to be confrontational. Quite frankly, I'm beginning to regret that I even got involved in that article to begin with, no more than 48 hour ago (if even that). I got involved because I noticed something that was getting out of hand. I acted correctly in restoring the articles in question, but for one reason or another, you - and several other editors - appear to have a major issue with that particular subject.

Since you refuse to acknowledge this question elsewhere, I'll pose it again here for everyone to see.... why do you appear to have a problem with just this one Playboy Playmate and the inclusion of data from the authoritative source on the subject? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I already answered you on the article talk page. I just desire you to stop editing other folks comments. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

NO! You are STILL missing the question that I've been asking to you for the last 24 or so hours! Here it is, plain as day:

Why do you insist on the removal of this particular subject's measurements from the article, when every other article about a Playboy Playmate has their measurements listed and attributed to the exact same source, Playboy Magazine's website?

THAT is the question that I'm trying to get you to answer, NOT why you're upset at me for restoring the curiously-placed "fact" tag on the talk page! I hardly consider that a "disruption," unlike the "disruption" that you're causing my early evening today by having to come to ANI and defend myself. If you bothered to notice, I did not edit anything that was said by the previous poster. I merely agreed, and showed by restoring the tag, with another poster that the reasoning being used by said poster was rather ironic. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with another poster's comment on a talk page, there is always the option of - amazingly - replying to their comment saying why you disagree, rather than messing around refactoring their comments with spurious fact tags. Why not try it? Otherwise, this is clearly a side-issue to what is effectively a content dispute, so I'm not sure what admin action is required here, apart from someone to say what I just did. Is there anything else to do here? Black Kite 23:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I did respond. I am considering making the argument that measurements are unencyclopedic, and playboy is a bad source on all the articles (with regards to measurements), but I am averse to starting the discussion on how ever many talk pages at once. I'm looking for a wiki project, or a central place to discuss this.

Incidentally, the other article has it, why can't this one" is not a good argument. Never has been. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, you avoid the question... what other source for the measurements of Playboy Playmates are you going to be able find.... then Playboy' itself?

Incidentally, the measurements in the Playboy Playmate articles appears to be a template. Therefore, your beef is with the creator of the template, not those who choose to fill in the information requested in those templates. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that is an idea, I could propose that on template talk. :) I've been wondering what venue would be best. Thank you, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MyWikiBiz-like on Craigslist

I recently saw a Craigslist posting which purported to be an administrator who would post articles on Wikipedia for money. This is troubling, and I'd like to help put an end to it, as it clearly goes against our principles.

Specifically, the page in question is this Craigslist post.

Here's hoping to stop this abuse. Nihiltres^{t.l} 23:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh - if an article meets policy, who really cares why a person wrote it? Kelly ^hi! 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

…Because there was an ArbCom case about the last person I heard about who did it? Because it constitutes a blatant misuse of community trust? Nihiltres^{t.l} 00:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - he says "I've made hundreds of articles for business and individuals that didn't exactly fit Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines". So - who's got their own business and fancies seeing it on Wikipedia? After all, "You will not be charged until your article is up"! Black Kite 00:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So what are we going to do about it - sleuth the person out with a sting operation, or witch-hunt all admins for the most likely suspect? Let it go - if the article is spam or not notable, someone will spot it. Let it go, Wikipedia is not the Department of Homeland Security. Kelly ^hi! 00:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, if this is not followed up on in the same manner as the previous case, the community, and more significantly, the administrators, look like hypocrites. That's not really an acceptable outcome, unless, corollary to ignoring this instance, the prior offender is unblocked, which no one wants to do. ThuranX (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disillusion you, but I'm afraid the community and the administrators look like hypocrites every day. Kelly ^hi! 00:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a waste of resources we don't have to investigate any and all vague claims of abuse -- need something actionable or at least specific enough to reasonably look into. This sort of thing does worry me, but I won't be losing sleep over it until we have evidence of some sort. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no illusions about the admins, Kelly. But encouraging reforms isn't a bad thign to me, sorry you so clearly disagree. ThuranX (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If he's really an admin, something should probably be done, but otherwise, its not all that much different from the Bounty Board is it? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 00:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

C'mon folks...who wouldn't want a "Professiona" [sic] article about their business? — Scientizzle 00:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got a business email that wants to contact them? Mr.Z-man 00:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone stupid enough to believe the "permanent" tagline deserves to lose $200. Even an administrator can't keep an article up on Wikipedia if the subject doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. --clpo13_(talk) 00:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been pulled. Horologium (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record..the ad (from http://albuquerque.craigslist.org/bfs/651334771.html)

"Reply to: sale-651334771@craigslist.org

Date: 2008-04-21, 8:54PM MDT
I've made hundreds of articles for business and individuals that didn't exactly fit Wikipedia's "Notability Guidelines." I am a longtime trusted Wikipedia Administrator and Editor and clients are always thrilled by my ability to build them a website. Please email me by verifying your identity someone (for example, if it's a business with a website please email me from YourName @ Business Name .Com)

I need to make sure you're not a Wikipedia spy. :) Dozens of references available.

Articles on the wonders of Wikipedia

http://www.straightupsearch.com/archives/2007/10/three_reasons_w.html

http://www.thegooglecache.com/white-hat-seo/966-of-wikipedia-pages-rank-in-googles-top-10/

http://s281.photobucket.com/albums/kk231/googrankwizard/?action=view&current=FINAL.jpg "

The image used in the ad (at bottom) is sourcing from this account(googrankwizard) → http://s281.photobucket.com/albums/kk231/googrankwizard/. I'd suspect as far as promotions that the two links (or contained therin) may have some clues to this SEO'ers ident. Not seen many spammers pass up a chance to place a link to their site. IMHO--Hu12 (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A Google search for "googrankwizard" returns http://www.getafreelancer.com/users/648493.html Nakon 01:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

yup, and http://www.freelancefree.com/freelancers.php?viewprofile=googrankwizard →Provider Name: "Eli Faria" --Hu12 (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

From http://www.freelancefree.com/project.php?id=1205850228

googrankwizard US$150 90 day(s) 03/25/08 at 22:39:41
Wikipedia Articles are the best SEO on earth. 96.6% of Wikipedia Pages Rank in Google’s Top 10 for any given query. Even if you already have a business or personal website, it’s highly likely that a Wikipedia article will be found above it in a related search. Wikipedia entries will invariably raise your Google Page Rank. But more importantly, Wikipedia entries add legitimacy to your “brand” or to you as an individual. I cannot disclose how I get articles onto Wikipedia, so please don’t ask me. Unless you’re already a famous business or a famous individual it's nearly impossible to meet their strict "notability guidelines." People try making their own articles only to see them immediately deleted and their IP's get blocked permenently. Adding entries to Wikipedia is a delicate process that requires some artfulness. Clients say they'd have paid 10 times as much if they known beforehand how much a Wikipedia article would boost their reputation and raise their profile. Contact me with the details on what you want your Wikipedia article to be about and I'll let you know what we can do with it. You will not be charged until your article is up on the site. Contact me at GoogRankWizard@Gmail.com

--Hu12 (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, it seemed pretty shady but once I thought about it, I don't really see anything wrong with it. As long as it is on the level and this person is actually going to write a proper article about a subject (without using "tricks" or violating policy), I don't think it matters. Lots of our articles are built by employees of companies, we just don't know it because they follow the policies. Go Daddy has one, I've noticed. As long as it's done the right way and this editor is just offering his services as a writer/researcher, I've got no problem with it. Redrocket (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Eli Faria
Wikipedia Article Writer
Username: GoogRankWizard
Location: United States, NY, New York
Summary
I can write virtually anything but my favorite thing to do is Wikipedia Entries.
Wikipedia Entries are the best SEO on earth. 96.6% of Wikipedia Pages Rank in Googles Top 10 for any given query. Even if you already have a business or personal website, it is highly likely that a Wikipedia article will be found above it in a related search. Wikipedia entries will invariably raise your Google Page Rank. But more importantly, Wikipedia entries add legitimacy to your brand or to you as an individual.
Unless you are already a famous business or a famous individual it's nearly impossible to meet their strict "notability guidelines." People try making their own articles only to see them immediately deleted and their IP's get blocked permanently.
Contact me with the details on what you want your Wikipedia article to be about and I'll let you know what we can do with it.
You will not be charged until your article is up on the site.
Contact me at GoogRankWizard AT Gmail DOT com
About Me
Profile Type: Individual
Number of Employees: 1
Adding entries to Wikipedia is a delicate process that requires some artfulness. Clients say they'd have paid 10 times as much if they known beforehand how much a Wikipedia article would boost their reputation and raise their profile.
Contact me with the details on what you want your Wikipedia article to be about and I'll let you know what we can do with it.
You will not be charged until your article is up on the site.

http://www.elance.com/php/profile/main/eolproviderprofile.php?view_person=GoogRankWizard&type=seller&catid=10208 (googrankwizard.elance.com) --Hu12 (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is so much effort going into trying to out some guy for writing articles? Is the intention to make sure they feel some pain in real life? Kelly ^hi! 01:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's done the right way and this editor is just offering his services as a writer/researcher, I've got no problem with it. - isn't that the same thing MyWikiBiz was doing? Didn't stop him from being banned - on the theory, I believe, that being paid would make him unable to write neutrally even if he were committed to doing so. --Random832 (contribs) 01:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And that was a fucking awful ban, for precisely that reason. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with what he was doing. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

But extrinsically it was wrong--Hu12 (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand why a person writing an article for pay, who therefore has a business relationship with the subject, wouldn't automatically fall under COI? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course there's COI, but we the issue is we cannot police COI because a lot of the time we don't know about it. Someone editing an article about themselves or their company is clear COI, but we're likely not going to know unless the person registers under their own name. Enigma ^message 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't like to see people editing with an ulterior motive. If they came up and knocked on Wikipedia's front door and said, 'I think I could write a useful article about so-and-so for Wikipedia, but I myself have a conflict of interest,' few people would object. If they try to slip the article in while pretending they are a normal neutral editor, that causes concern. The lack of transparency is the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, the MyWikiBiz ban was made because Jimbo was worried about image. Although I hear that the user behind MyWikiBiz has also played some tricks on the community (in their frustration) since then, that would make unbanning unlikely, but the point still stands. The guy was very open about it, pledged to follow the policies, went to the community first before doing it, and got banned. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And what MyWikiBiz wanted to do was far better than this craigslist guy, who we can't even track. At least with MyWikiBiz we could see what the user was actually adding, and to where. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, don't you all remember that gift certificates have been offered on wiki for people who will improve core articles? As long as someone follows the policies, especially NPOV, being paid for editing is no big deal. In fact, it may help improve the project. Cla68 (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, yes, totally agree, but this Craigslist guy seems to imply that he's not following the rules. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And also seems to imply that he can "get round" notability guidelines because he's an admin. Otherwise, I agree, as long as the articles are notable and neutral, there's no problem. Black Kite 10:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So long as policies are followed, who cares what motivates the writer of an article? The only time I ever start questioning motivation is when neutrality seems to be lacking. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this advertisement does not offer to do anything wrong. But what concerns me is that the person who entered it is an administrator. Though he does not in the least imply he would use administrative power, I am not sure that it is appropriate for one of us to do this anonymously. DGG (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The person says that are an administrator, but that is very likely a bluff. They are not going to reveal their identity, so there is no way to check. Paid editing with full disclosure might be acceptable, but doing it secretly is probably unethical. Fake grass roots publicity is called astroturfing and risks a backlash. When business folks ask me for help with their Wikipedia articles, I tell them to go to the talk page and state clearly who they are and what they want. Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

a) We'll never know who it was (if indeed it was an admin), b) For every COI spotted there's probably 100 that isn't, c) There would be a lot more COI identified if we weren't so absurdly against people getting paid to edit (I surmise most of this is jealousy) d) My personal opinion is still that paid editing should be allowed, but paid editors encouraged to make themselves known - anything that impoves the encyclopedia is good e) Suggesting that being paid to write makes you non-neutral by default is ludicrous, naive, and stupid. Are scientists biased because they are paid? Are journalists? Authors? Rubbish. f) I'm offering a bribe right now on my userpage for someone to design me a pimping new one. Am I evil? Neıl ☎ 14:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Haha! I mean, no, but yes, I agree with you :) Now, along this line, stuff like astroturfing will almost always stir up worries, since it's spun upon a lie. Meanwhile if a paid editor is truly following policy, making mostly neutral, uncontroversial edits and quickly backing off from disputes, nobody would look twice. As for an admin doing this, I'd say asking for mandatory disclosure of any paid editing here by an admin would be more than reasonable. I'd also say that advertising editing services as a "Wikipedia administrator" would likely be much frowned upon, as I think it should be. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Neil, suggesting that being paid makes you non neutral is not a valid conclusion to draw. As for your bribe, you're only evil if it's not worth it. :) ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to disclose how much I'm paid by the scientific/medical/industrial complex to ruthlessly suppress natural cures for cancer and AIDS from Tijuana available for the low, low price of... I've said too much. The idea that being paid leads to bias is uneasily accepted in the scientific world - but it is accepted, hence the need for the conflict-of-interest disclosures which accompany any reputable journal article. Personally, I think the punishment for pimping your company on Wikipedia is the Law Of Unintended Consequences. It would be a shame to get a deletion-proof advertisement up on Wikipedia, only to have an editor turn up a Federal Trade Commission or Better Business Bureau complaint... I wonder if this editor-for-hire apprises his clients of that possibility. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz (Greg) was NOT "permanently" banned for offering paid editing. When Greg's advertising of his services came to light, his edits were evaluated and it was found that he had created a very biased article on himself (strike one); then Jimbo told him a process whereby he could submit articles and trusted wikipedians could add them or not but he (according to Jimbo) misrepresented those conversations (strike two) and tried to negotiate on wikipedia for a different process (I fought for him being able to add potential articles to his user sub-pages) but in doing so he ridiculed Jimbo (strike three). So Jimbo banned him. Then he sockpuppeted, got involved with Wikipedia Review and was treated like an enemy, turning him from a self promoter (I believe he is in marketing/advertising and feels that lying is wrong but spinning with half-truths to influence others is perfectly ok - but Durova called it "lying" so he is now mad at her for what he feels is a libelous unsourced charge) into someone motivated to hurt wikipedia. He seems to be calming down now, though. Maybe we can make peace with Greg. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Free Greg and let's get on with what we're doing here. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I note that no one's hit on the real bias problem for paid materials: Paid writers will not be paid to create NPOV articles, but articles which are highly pro-client. When that article goes live, it will be subjected to the editing of the wider community. The client will see criticism appear on what it believed would be a pro-self article, and then complain to the writer, who will essay to make the article stay pro-client, lest writer lose the fee or be sued for false advertising (of the results). This is where the real problem comes to light. The risk of paid writers violating OWN is high, then they will get blocked, violate numerous other policies to prevent real world lawsuit consequences, and we've got a BIG can of worms. Getting around that obstacle is probably beyond our means, unless we provide to all writers the boilerplate waiver on future editing, which will probably knock most companies away from editing if they see it, so many writers won't provide it, then we're back to banning non-compliant paid editors. Not much benefit. Taht said, if paid editing comes back, we need to unban MyWikiBiz, as all his other violations constitute a fruit of the poison tree sort of situation. ThuranX (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to see how someone paid to create and maintain an article could avoid violating WP:OWN. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I really think ThuranX hit the nail on the head here; the core of the problem isn't just the inherent COI, it's the fact that they might legally have to violate our guidelines in order to avoid a suit for breach of contract, false advertising, etc. I mean, I wouldn't blame them in this hypothetical; I'd rather be banned from the project than be slapped with a megalawsuit. So it's really just best to head this whole mess off at the pass here and forbid paid editing. 02:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Several comments removed, in need of repair

While looking at an archive of ANI to see if I had gotten a response to a past comment, I notice the comment wasn't even there. I saw that this edit was made right before the bot archived the sections. Several sections, possibly some that are still active, are now missing comments by several different users. I'm not sure if there's any easy way to fix this.. I'm willing to help if manual repair is needed. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems User:Ultraexactzz repaired some of the discussions and archives, but just missed a few, so there probably isn't much left to fix. -- Ned Scott 03:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I ended up reverting to the edit immediately before the diff you mention, and then manually deleting threads that I confirmed to have been archived by Miszabot. Now that most of a day has passed, I'll probably just double-check today's archival to see if any threads get archived twice, and then correcting it. For my reference, Which thread were you involved in that ended up being deleted? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I restored the one I knew about here for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive406. I tried to trick the bot into re-archiving a copy of ANI I had in my userspace, but I had the timing wrong (actually, I had the wrong bot, since the userspace bot, MiszaBot III, runs at a different time than MiszaBot II). But with the correct math, we should be able to do something like that to be sure everything was properly archived. -- Ned Scott 01:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Gabef8008

@ article The Way to Happiness

Repeated insertion of unsourced material at this article, by Gabef8008 (talk · contribs). [33], [34], [35]

In addition, chunks of text appear to be copyvio, partially from [36]. Despite repeated warnings on the user's talkpage, user is seemingly not able and/or refusing to provide citations to WP:RS/WP:V sources. User is also presenting primary sources as facts, without attribution, citing websites directly affiliated with the organization (owned by the Church of Scientology) instead of secondary sources.

Suggest an admin look into this, remove the offending unsourced/copyvio material if deemed inappropriate, and take action regarding this user. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a COI warning for a start. But please use the preview button when you're editing to avoid filling up the article history unnecessarily. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I know, I use "preview" quite frequently, but it is quite hard to re-format and standardize a whole bunch of citations at once in one save, sorry. Cirt (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly relate to that. Wikipedia's citation syntax is hard enough to use as it is... -- ChrisO (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot amuck

Resolved

 – Amok bot blocked _GB^T/C 12:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

_GB^T/C 12:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please block the bot BoxCrawler—quickly? It's inappropriately putting WP:Wikiproject Schools boxes on all talk pages of people categorized in "Alumni of [X school]." (I think it should also be the bot operator's responsibility to clean up the mess it's made.) Deor (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, and message left on bot's talk page accordingly. _GB^T/C 12:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't resolved until the damage has been cleaned up. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, I'll take the rollback button to the bot's contrib list. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything up to 11:30 seemed like a valid edit. I've reverted all the bot's contributions since then. Way to increase my edit count, eh? Stifle (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking the bot. I misunderstood which category was being requested, I've corrected the problem. Once again, thanks. Adam McCormick (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Summary: Amicably resolved. (Good to remember this can happen!) Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

---

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

After some rather questionable edit summaries by OM, admin User:Hersfold left him a polite note asking him to refrain from such commentary. After continuing to make personal attacks like calling somebody a "racist little shit" (note "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior"), then calling Hersfold "useless" (in the edit summary) and "incompetent", OM clearly does not understand his / her problem with civility and making personal attacks. Not sure what the next step should be, but clearly OM is being disruptive in this area, and needs to stop. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin needs to cool it, that is obvious. Not sure it warrants an action at this point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Given OM and Hersfold's previous issues, I am surprised that Hersfold thought the best course of action would be for him to warn OM over anything at his talk page. This is not to suggest that OM didn't need a warning, but I think both users and the project would be better off if these two editors ignored each other. I am not in support of OM's actions, but the continuing dispute and this ANI really could have been avoided. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I have no outstanding issues with OM and brought this here as an unbiased admin party, as I'm not sure of the next course of action. Definitely could have been avoided had OM not made these attacks. I agree with Jossi in the sense that action may not me necessary at this time, but this is definitely something that should be noticed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hersfold and OM definitely have a history (see here) arising from Hersfold's unblock of a self-avowed racist. Although one can argue that Hersfold's warning may have been technically correct, it showed poor judgment -- given the severe mutual antagonism, he should have asked another admin to place the warning. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Even so, that does not excuse continued personal attacks from OM towards Hersfold. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope Orangemarlin calms down soon, edits like these have only driven away some who are otherwise in agreement with him. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I agree with jossi. The last thing this situation needs is more stimulation. Obviously, Orangemarlin's attacks were unwarranted, especially considering the politeness of Hersfold's comment, but this doesn't require any immediate action. OM just needs to calm down a bit. Cheers :) ( arky ) 17:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the warning, the reason I noticed the edit summaries in the first place was due to an unblock request by User:ThomHImself. That user is blocked for a 3RR violation on an article OrangeMarlin was involved in reverting - it was in looking at the history I noticed the first edit summary, and decided some sort of notice was needed based on my past dealings with OrangeMarlin where he was also warned to calm down (for reference, see User talk:Hersfold/Archive 16 (April 2008)#You've got to be kidding and User talk:Orangemarlin/Archives 7#Re: You've got to be kidding). I brought the situation up in #wikipedia-en-admins, where I was active at the time, but when no response was given, I made the warning myself, trying to be as polite as possible. I would further note that the comments he has made towards me in the past are extremely rude and would likely be block-worthy if made by a user who was not so well established. To clarify, though, I feel as though a block *now* won't do much, as the recent comments are relatively minor compared to what has occurred in the past. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that Hersfold and OM avoid each other? If there are any serious admin issues about OM that Hersfold notices Hersfold can presumably find someone else to deal with them. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I conclude correctly that every time such an incident happens, it will likely be agreed that any course of action will be punishment and not preventitive? A few weeks ago, Hers did make a sizable admin gaffe, but I've basically seen OM have cart blanche to say whatever he wants to and about Hers. If there is nothing that will be done, there is nothing that will be done. Considering that any official warning/block of OM will only make him angry and in course escalate the issue, can nothing ever be done? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin's personal attacks and general incivility has gone unabated for quite some time now, not so dissimilar from User:Callmebc (who was bloicked indefinitely). He's made personally offensive comments towards myself and others genuinely interested in understanding and helping him. He constantly gets angry, and as a result, he engages in very rude behavior that is contrary to Wikipedia's policies. He has been warned and advised by admins and layusers alike many, many times, and each time he either ignores them or shoots back with attacks. Neither Rjd0060 or Hersfold are out of their place. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm on reasonably good terms with OM, I'll talk to him about this. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on OM's talk page, and I think we've both agreed to ignore each other. Hopefully that will help some. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This was archived prematurely. What did OM say when this was re-brought to his attention? His response needs to be recorded here, because somehow I think his conduct is going to be an issue again in the future. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin left two replies, the second of which was:

Oh by the way, this is definitely water under the bridge, and I hope we can work together. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Loren.wilton (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elspeth Monro socks

Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs), who is indefblocked with an enormous amount of socks and IPs, is back vandalizing with yet more IPs and new sockpuppets. His M.O. is changing his old sock's pages with to "sockproven, or removing the notice altogether with poorly spelled summaries and "sk" in the summary, and generally adding comments to his own socks talk pages. All of these edits are Monro [37] as well as these [38]. And if you look at the contributions, you'll see he's created new socks as well. Simply following the path of the IPs contributing to the userpages and talks of other accounts and so on will generally bring you down a path to find HUGE numbers of disruptive Monro socks. To stop this sock talk page vandalism I suggest protecting all Monro sock user and usertalk pages (like we do with a certain other determined troll). Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the two IPs in question. My solution would be to just delete all their pages, but some people may dislike that.-Wafulz (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If the only thing he (she?) is editing is their own sock talk pages, who the heck cares? If it is incivil RBI, if not, ignore it? Loren.wilton (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tikiwikicop

Several newbie users have nominated a newbie and added supports for him at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tikiwikicop. Could somebody delete the RfA and caution these users? Corvus cornix_talk 22:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

They also removed my Oppose, though that hardly matters. Corvus cornix_talk 22:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I thought that was vandalism and reverted it. Sorry (I think!),  This flag once was red  22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive accounts whacked, page gone. east.718 at 22:36, April 25, 2008

Duplicates

Nick37 (talk · contribs · count · logs) appears to be a child, who keeps creating duplicate articles by copying and pasting the campaign sections from the main articles of the candidate discussed. It would be helpful if an administrator deleted the articles listed below and politely warned the user to stop creating duplicate articles.

• Bill Bradley presidential campaign, 2000
• Bob Graham presidential campaign, 2004
• Gary Hart presidential campaign 1984
• Gary Hart presidential campaign 1988
• Jesse Jackson presidential campaign 1984
• Jesse Jackson presidential election 1988
• Wesly Clark presidential campign, 2004
• Richard Gephardt presidential campaign, 2004

There are probably other articles that I did not catch. Thank you in advance.--Southern Texas (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Botched Article Move

Chwyatt (talk · contribs) apparently tried to move Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan: Allies to Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan: International support, but went about it in the wrong way:

1. [39] new page created as retitled copy of old.
2. [40] redirected old page to new copy.
3. [41] created new talk page as copy of old.
4. [42] redirected old talk page to new copy (actually, botched into a null redirect).
5. [43] and [44] links from articles modified appropriately.

I've reverted #2 and #4 for the moment, pending resolution. For one thing, I don't know if the name change had consensus. If it did, then Chywatt's new versions will have to be deleted first, as they lack full edit histories. Could an admin look into this, please? rudra (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, before the situation gets any worse, I've reverted the two link mods in #5 also. rudra (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

All fixed - and I even histmerged their comment on the "new" talkpage into the old one for good measure. east.718 at 01:06, April 26, 2008

Great, thanks. At this point someone who knows what they're doing can rename the page(s) properly (I don't think there will be much objection, but checking/fixing the incoming links could be tedious.) rudra (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Swiksek (talk · contribs) is trying to make a point with their contributions. Could someone please check into this? Dismas|^(talk) 00:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

He stopped after I warned him, I believe. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC) NonvocalScream (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am however unsure of whether or not to revert them. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I did. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Spanish WP editors disrupting english WP football articles

Resolved

I tried to explain in the UEFA Cup filing above, and there hase been a subsequent filing from the user about 'cheating', but there is a Spanish? based editor Ultracanella (talk · contribs) pledged to wage war on the English wiki until all football article reflect his POV, to the point he is canvassing EN wikipedians to his cause [45] in Spanish. The issues have been dismissed time and again by admins as a content dispute, but frankly, you cannot discuss anything with this user due to his poor English, his obvious misunderstanding of en-wiki rules, and his obstinate nature. I am already on record as supporting some of his views, but frankly, it's gone beyond that, and his capital letter reversions and odd behaviour have marginalised anyone who wants to talks about this. It is time someone in authority actually took a sustained interest in this and other users, or suggested an appropriate way forward beyond talk it out, because that has been tried, and all that is happening now is furhter disruption to several articles, now with solicited foreign reverts. MickMacNee (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's really bad. Needs a long block here, and reference to this situation on that Wiki as well. ThuranX (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I can translate you every word at the discussion. My english is not so poor as you say, and everybody can discuss with me; but with respectable sources in his hands. At least, I can speak in a few languages... And I do understand all your personal attacks, that comes from a looong time. I´m not a devil. I only try to help to improve the articles related with football. --Ultracanalla (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Por favor, pare. Usted está en violación de WP:NPOV. Usted debe ser neutral aquí en la Wikipedia en Inglés. Por favor, modifique la Wikipedia en español si no puede seguir esa regla. Rgoodermote  00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

To those wondering, it says you are in violation of WP:NPOV and if you can not follow that rule please edit the Spanish Wikipedia instead. Rgoodermote  00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that really what you want to say? Or am I mistaken to thin that WP:NPOV should apply to every language Wikipedia? JuJube (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My Spanish is bad forgive me but I will go check out the es site to check that out. Rgoodermote  00:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I check the Spanish site they do in fact have a WP:NPOV..o and sorry I get POV and NPOV mixed all the time. Rgoodermote  00:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I´am neutral, only other users are not. See my contributions, please and look if i´m neutral or not [46]. In addition, I translated the post I did in the Dante´s page [47]. I assume this mistake. Do not discriminate, please. This is more serious than a post in spanish... --Ultracanalla (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

He escrito en español para que sea más fácil para usted. Perdón. I checked and translated the diff. I got exactly what he wrote. Rgoodermote  00:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What did you wright in spanish? And I forgive you, of course! Your spanish is not bad. Take this with a bit of hummor. See you, --Ultracanalla (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither is your English mate. This doesn't need admin attention it seems. But I suggest that you use English or go to some one who can can speak Spanish when you want to communicate. This is basically how this started. As for writing in Spanish. I was referring to what was typed. Rgoodermote  01:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my friend. Thank you very much! I appreciate the manner you trated me, in comparison to other users that are english speakers. It´s ok, I assume my mistake and I can afirm that It won´t happend again. See, you, --Ultracanalla (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems to have been a language barrier issue. I am marking it resolved. Rgoodermote  02:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeated posting of unsourced material on Alvin and the Chipmunks Deux

The Alvin and the Chipmunks Deux article is currently being discussed for deletion [48] as a hoax/speculation. While the entire article is unsourced and unverifiable, I deleted particular sections linking individual actors' and actresses' names with this project [49]. However, these have repeatedly been re-added and expanded by User:71.67.120.184 (for example [50], [51], and most recently [52]) despite warnings on his/her Talk page. My understanding is that when people's names are mentioned without citations, it is not acceptable just to tag them with the "Citation" tag, and the sections have to be removed. Is this vandalism, or have I over-reacted? --DAJF (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just let it play out and do reverting to only the most obvious hoax information. The AfD is about to hit the WP:SNOW threshold and will be closed out in due time. Nate • (chatter) 01:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Gone, dead, dodo. Nothing on Google to support its existence. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor in violation of guideline.

I have warned already, and reverted twice, but I'm not going to do it three times since I don't even like doing so twice. Can anyone hop over there an explain it better?

DIFF

and

User talk

Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I seem him removing unsourced material from an article. What's the problem? Dan Beale-Cocks 11:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That we don't go striking the comments of other editors? NonvocalScream (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• LMAO at the topic. Violation of a guideline? -- Naerii 02:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

FA Semi'd

I have semiprotected Ocean sunfish, today's FA, because it has fallen prey to the usual suspects. Please do not remove the protection (set to expire when the move-prot does); I am going to have to delete the page afterwards to remove targeted revisions. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 02:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Jeske's talkpage has been continously vandalized due to his reverting of today's FA.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to ask for oversight on the targeted revisions rather than deleting and restoring the entire article? —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oversight will not deal with these edits. I've tried with the death threats given Milburn and got better results asking him to do it himself. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 03:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Theatre (Vancouver)

Resolved

 – Theatre queried by email and said it wasn't them, simple vandalism, IP was blocked Gwen Gale (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

An IP claiming to represent the theater management is methodically gutting the article. I don't know of this is vandalims of COI, but perhaps someone might suggest a vacation for a few hours for the editor? Loren.wilton (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How about a day? He was blocked by an admin. Grsz^talk 05:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What bizarre editing... the section that's being removed certainly doesn't seem controversial to me. Strange. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Very strange, especially since the rationale wasn't that the information was incorrect, but that the staff of the theatre didn't want it in the article. Hard to see why, though, it seems innocuous. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I can only guess they don't like or are worried about something having to do with the background on fundraising for the makeover, which was more than a decade ago. Either way, it seems like the old tale of someone linked to a topic, seeing the article as marketing copy rather than as an encyclopedia article (I wouldn't wholly believe the IP is speaking for the staff, by the way). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't - but it certainly wasn't random vandalism, the editor was tenacious about deleting that stuff. Must be a reason for it. As Deep Throat said "Follow the money." Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be local politics (money). The theatre has gotten millions in government grants/subsidies and corporate philanthropy over the past decade and there are wee hints here and there that the going's still tough, I've put some sources on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that isn't typical of virtually every regioal theater company. It is the rare company indeed that can support itself just off of the ticket price. The only thing I can guess about the strange editing is that perhaps someone objects to the memory that a tobacco company was once involved in salvaging the theater. Loren.wilton (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd think they'd have only taken out that bit, then. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I sent a message off to ArtsClub (which runs the Stanley). They say they have nothing to do with it and like the article as it is. I guess that resolves that, a simple vandalism case. Loren.wilton (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)