위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive692

사용자:CodyJoeBibby 계속

Per Atama, 현재로서는 취할 행정 조치가 없다. ⋙-베레앙-헌터——2011년 5월 3일 (화) 21:19, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.
WP:Administrators_noticeboard/IncidentArchive691#사용자:코디조비비: WP:NPA 및 WP:포인트, 2011년 4월 26일부터 2011년 5월 2일까지 지속되는 토론.아래에서 추가 논의가 계속되고 있다.... -위키드77 (대화) 18:07, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 그것 참 안됐구나.나는 내가 여기서 표명한 우려에 대해 일종의 신뢰할 수 있는 응답을 기대하고 있었다.SuperMarioMan 19:02, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 아니나 다를까, 당신의 구체적인 우려는 언급이 되었지만, 다른 관리자들은 지금 대답할 시간이 거의 없었다.한편, 당신은 유사한 문제에 대한 당신의 경험을 이용하여, 이번 주 편집된 "오사마 빈 라덴" (또는 다른 논란의 여지가 있는 기사)을 확인하는데 도움을 줄 수 있을 것이다. 이 편집은 현역 행정가들의 자원에 부담을 주고 있다.고마워. -Wikid77 19:26, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] "다른 관리자가 응답할 시간이 있었던 것 같다"는 것이 보관 이유였습니까?이상하다, 이 페이지를 봇에 의해 보관한다.pablo 20:14, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라] WP에 대한 우려부터 시작해서 윗부분만 보관했다.NPA 및 WP:다른 관리자에 의해 폐쇄되었고, 그 우려는 WP로 흘러들어갔다.아래에서는 아직 논의되고 있는 코트라.나는 단지 최근의 우려에 초점을 맞추기 위해서 모든 논의를 중단시키기 위해 상단을 보관하지 않았다.그것이 당신을 화나게 했다면 사과한다. -위키드77 20:38, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 미안하지만 그건 사실이 아니야.공개 토론뿐만 아니라 닫힌 부분까지 보관하셨습니다.특히 아직 토론이 열려 있을 때, 자신이 관여했던 토론을 끝내는 것은 불만족스럽다.왜 그런지 알겠니? --존(토크) 20:42, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라] 그것은 나를 전혀 '설치'하지 않았다.나는 단지 그것이 이상하다고 말했다.그리고 그것은 무의미하다고 넌지시 말했다.pablo 20:44, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라] 걱정하지 않아도 돼.나는 완전히 새로운 위키피디아 페이지를 작업하느라 바쁠 것 같아, 시간이 꽤 걸릴지도 몰라.모엠케이와는 상관없는 일이니 주제 금지는 나에게 해가 되지 않을 것이다.나는 여기 AN/I에서 나와 관련된 이 끊임없는 헛된 실타래에 관여할 시간이나 에너지를 갖지 않을 것이다.지금쯤이면 어떤 제재도 나에게 적용되지 않을 것이 뻔하지만, 모든 수단을 동원해서도 계속 맹비난하고 있다.ciao! 코디조비비비 (대화) 21:36, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 서로 다른 기사에서 동일한 파괴적 행동 이 사용자가 스스로 메레디스 커처 기사 편집 모라토리엄을 선언한 이후 이탈리아와 페루지아로 넘어가 전자의 '인권' 코너를 만들려 했고 후자의 언론 자유에 대한 흐림을 시도했다.두 가지 모두 WP의 분명한 사례에 해당한다.코트랙은 찾을 수 있다.우리는 여기 커처 사건에 대한 독특한 집착을 가진 편집자가 있다. 얼마나 오랫동안 우리는 여기서 바보짓을 할 것인가?타크 (대화) 17:29, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 내용에 대한 논의를 위해 관련 기사의 토크 섹션을 확인하십시오.코디조비비 (토크) 17:38, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 이미 '중국의 인권'과 '이탈리아의 검열'에 대한 기사가 실렸기 때문에 아마도 제2차 세계대전의 파시스트 시기에 이어 이탈리아의 인권 취급에 어떤 개선이 있었는지도 주목하면서 '이탈리아의 인권'이라는 새로운 기사를 만드는 데 초점을 맞춰야 할 것이다.개선 사항과 문제점을 지적함으로써 WP:NPOV 잔액을 구할 수 있다. -Wikid77 (대화) 18:19, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 내가 볼 수 있는 한 여러 나라에 관한 기사들은 인권 문제에 관한 짧은 섹션이 있었다.만약 그들이 그런 섹션을 가지고 있다면, 이탈리아에 관한 기사는 그러한 섹션을 가질 수 있다.만약 사람들이 '코트래킹'이라고 주장하는 자료가 마음에 들지 않는다면, 나는 그것을 위키백과 자체에서 소싱된 이탈리아의 언론자유 문제에 관한 자료로 대체할 것이다.나는 내일 다시 작성된 인권란을 다시 제출할 생각이다.코디조비비 (토크) 18:24, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 말도 안 돼."다양한 나라에 관한 많은 기사"..그렇다, 중국, 리비아, 버마 등 다른 나라들은 인권 유린에 대한 일부의 공신력/역사가 있었다.AFAIK는 서유럽 국가의 어떤 기사도 "인권" 부분을 가지고 있지 않으며, 그럴만한 이유가 있다.메러디스 커처 기사 밖에서 아만다 녹스 강박관념을 추구하려는 노골적인 시도.데카우사 (대화)20:53, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 영국은 영국 인권 문제에 수천 단어의 전문을 할애하고 있다. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ코디조비비 (토크) 21:01, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 쓰여진 것에 주의해라.영국에는 인권 섹션이 없다.당신은 이탈리아가 아만다 녹스를 지원하는 POV를 진전시키기 위해 이탈리아에서 인권 준수를 폄하하기 위해 인권 섹션을 갖기를 원한다.데카우사 (대화) 21:11, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 하하하! 이탈리아는 영국, 프랑스, 독일, 스페인과 달리 인권에 대한 별도의 입국이 없다.내가 하나 쓸 것 같아.하지만 이탈리아에서 많은 학대가 있어 시간이 좀 걸릴 수도 있다.여러분 죄송합니다, 위키피디아에 대한 다음 업데이트는 약속대로 내일이 아니에요!난 할 일이 많아!코디조비비 (토크) 21:18, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 그 노력에 행운을 빈다.그러나 중립적인 어조를 보장하려면 '이탈리아의 인권' 기사가 단순한 '이탈리아의 인권유린 목록' 이상이 되어야 한다는 점을 명심해야 한다.SuperMarioMan 21:38, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 내가 그게 제목이 될 거라고 제안했니?나와 대화하는 것 말고도 네 인생과 관련이 있는 것을 찾아보는 게 어때?위키드가 제안한 대로 오사마 빈 라딘 기사를 도와줄 수 있지 않을까?그것은 정말로 위키피디아에 도움이 될 것이다.왜 내가 기사를 쓰게 내버려두지 않는 거지? 글 완성되면 갈기갈기 찢어버릴 수 있어.코디조비비 (토크) 21:52, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] "이탈리아에서 많은 학대가 발생하면서, 시간이 좀 걸릴 수도 있다."나는 그 게시물이 당신이 그 주제에 대해 "쓰기"하는 어떤 것이든 선의의 것인지 그리고 NPOV인지에 대한 토론에서 사용될 것이라고 생각한다.데카우사 (대화) 22:53, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 유럽에서 가장 많은 인권유린 사례를 이탈리아가 차지한다면 어쩔 수 없다.나는 네가 'write'라는 단어를 인용구에 넣는 것에 반대한다.인신공격이다. WP:NPA는 그러한 공격을 하지 않도록 지도하고 단념하기 위한 것이다, 고마워.코디조비비 (토크) 07:14, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 벨로루시 정부 등은 틀림없이 당신의 기사에 기뻐할 것이다.하지만, 많은 편집자들이 당신의 "연구"에 대해 그들이 할 수 있는 것과 같은 자신감을 가질지는 잘 모르겠다.데카우사 (대화) 12:43, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 인신공격은 즉각 중단하라, 고맙다.WP를 참조하십시오.NPA를 참조하십시오.코디조비비 (토크) 12:53, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 위키피디아 자체에서 소스가 나왔다고?그렇게 좋은 생각이 아닐지도 몰라.WP:V. --John (대화) 19:29, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 참조 다른 위키백과 기사들이 사용하는 승인된 출처에서 얻은 것으로, 만약 당신이 순수한 교육적 관점을 주장한다면.코디조비비 (토크) 19:35, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 그것은 교육적인 것이 아니라 매우 중요한 차이점이었다. 나는 네가 이해하기 시작했다는 것이 기쁘다.당신이 정신을 차려야 할 또 다른 것은 아무리 잘 참조되어 있다 하더라도 이 자료를 추가하기 위해서는 기사토크에서의 합의가 필요하다는 것이다.행운을 빌어. --John (토크) 19:39, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] '행운을 빈다'는 당신의 발언을 격려나 협박으로 받아들이면, 아니면 당신이 나를 계속 스토킹하고 내가 편집한 내용을 WP를 위반하여 대량으로 되돌릴 수 있다.위키호킹?곧 알게 될 것 같은데, 안 그래?코디조비비 (토크) 19:55, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] WP:COTRACK/WP를 계속 만드는 경우:당신이 이미 뜨거운 물 속에 있는 주제에 대한 지나친 편집은 당신의 편집이 되돌아가고 다른 행동들이 일어날 수 있다.나는 당신이 여기서 건설적인 기여를 하고 싶다면 주제에 대한 관심의 범위를 넓힐 것을 제안한다.오노잇츠재미 20:07, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 하지만 난 뜨거운 물에 빠져있지 않아.이 실의 지나치게 긴 길이에도 불구하고 어떠한 제재도 가해지지 않았다.위키피디아를 편집하기 위해 태어난 날만큼이나 자유롭고, 내일 다시 그렇게 할 생각이다.코디조비비 (토크) 20:18, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 한동안 물러설 것을 다짐했기 때문에 '뜨거운 물'에 있지 않을 뿐이다(다른 기사에 MoMK 자료를 추가하려다 보니 이전에는 어떤 MoMK 분쟁에도 관여하지 않았던 수많은 편집자들로부터 퇴짜를 맞았기 때문에 실제로 실행한 적이 없는 공약이다).그게 너에게 뭔가 알려줄 거야.오노잇츠재미 20:35, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 그래서 내가 말했듯이, 정확히 말하면, 나는 뜨거운 물에 빠져있지 않다.화낼 필요 없어.코디조비비 (토크) 20:44, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] ANI 토론의 "지나친 길이"라고 생각되면, 기록 보관소를 살펴보십시오.우리는 또한 우리가 차단하기 전에 사람들에게 그들의 행동에 대해 경고하는 것을 좋아하니까, 너는 주의를 기울여야 해.— 당신을 먹여 살리는 손:Bite 21:34, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 난 막히지 않을 거야.나는 완전히 새로운 위키백과 기사를 쓸 작정이다.나는 그렇게 하느라 너무 바쁠 것 같아, 몇몇 사람들이 나와 가지고 있는 사소한 논쟁에 계속 대응하지 못할 거야.그리고 주제 금지는 나를 해치지 않을 것이다. 왜냐하면 나의 새로운 기사는 심지어 광범위하게 해석된 MoMK 기사와 관련이 없을 것이기 때문이다.ciao! 코디조비비비 (대화) 21:42, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답] 나는 이 사건 전체가 수많은 주제와 기사들이 있다는 것을 강조하고 싶다. "아만다 녹스"에 대해 편집하는 사람들이 실제로 토론하고 있다.그들이 보는 유일한 사안은 '아만다 자유'(그리고 솔레시토)라는 잘못된 인식이 있는 것 같지만, '재판 전 공론화', '기각절차'(단기재판을 사용할 경우), '시퀀싱된 배심원'(단기재판을 사용할 경우), '증거인정', '증거의 규칙'(피에 대한 음성판정을 얼마나 오랫동안 구속할 수 있는가) 등 다른 사안은 너무나 많다.ence), "police brutality", "false confession", "crime scene contamination", "RFU peaks", "systemic bias", "delayed grief", "character assassination", "human rights", "race card", "British tabloids", "geo-location" of mobile phones, "LCN DNA profiling" and why the judge believed the forensic evidence did not match Guede's version of events that he l침대 옆에 있는 eft Kercher는 침대 이불(이불)과 베개를 침대 위에 놓고, 그 장면을 정리하기 위해 돌아오지 않았다.그것이 많은 편집자들이 한국에서 검열을 거부한 이유다. 왜냐하면 그들은 녹스를 옹호하지 않기 때문이다. 그들은 수백만의 사람들과 관련된 20개의 주요 주제 중 하나를 다루고 있다.그러나, 커처 사건은 몇몇 사람들이 위키피디아에 강렬하게 오도록 동기를 부여하는 것이고, 나는 우리가 그러한 에너지를 이해하고 그것을 생산적인 편집으로 전환시킬 수 있도록 도와야 한다고 생각한다.사용자:CodyJoeBibby는 긴 줄의 편집자 중 한 명일 뿐인데, 이 자리에 와서 그 몇 가지 문제에 대해 글을 쓸 줄 알았다. -Wikid77 (토크) 08:25, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 나는 "자유 아만다" 캠페인을 다양한 기사로 끌어들이기 위한 선언문(또는 협박이 올바른 단어인가?)으로 읽었다.투명나는 당신이 오랜 기간 동안 그러한 기사에 기여해 온 박식한 편집자들의 반응에 실망할 것이라고 생각한다.데카우사 (대화) 09:36, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 다른 어떤 것도 "이슈"라는 걱정스러운 캠페인을 시사하지 않는다면, 위키피디아는 그러한 외투 걸이를 위한 장소가 아니다.우리는 그 분야를 이끄는 것이 아니라 인류 역사의 총계를 기록한다.이 주제 영역의 많은 편집자들은 이것을 이해하지 못하는 것 같다. --Errgent(chat!) 09:43, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 그리고 왜 이런 노골적인 비누상자가 용인되는 것일까?나는 진심으로 그것이 어느 개인들이 그것을 지지하기 때문이 아니기를 바란다.DeCausa (대화) 09:55, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 나는 몇몇 사용자들이 J. Wales의 이번 사건에 대한 최근의 관심에 고무되어 이제는 이 사건과 심지어 접선적인 관계가 있는 모든 곳에 이런 종류의 POV 스팸을 뿌릴 수 있는 면허를 가지고 있다고 느낀다고 생각한다.pablo 10:39, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답하라] 코트랙이 딱 맞는 말이다.우리는 이미 코디가 이탈리아와 페루지아에서 단 하나의 사건을 이용해 광범위한 선언을 한 다음 편집 전쟁을 통해 그것들을 제자리에 유지하는 것을 보았다.이 모든 것에서 얻을 수 있는 가장 좋은 것은 MoMK 페이지와 코디의 편집을 감시할 수 있는 몇 명의 권한이 없는 관리자들이다.라벤스파이어 (토크) 14:27, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 불행하게도, 위키드77이 "생산적인 편집"이라고 언급되는 그러한 주요 제안을 내놓은 것은 이번이 처음은 아니지만, 그 결과는 종종 제대로 알려지지 않은 POV 푸싱과 재료의 코팅 랙에 해당된다. 심지어 주요 주제와 느슨하게 관련이 있을 뿐이지만 다른 많은 다른 주제와 지속적으로 관련이 있다.무연고 물품예를 들어, 지연된 슬픔과 AfD 논의의 초기 수정사항을 확인해 보십시오 - 그것은 아마도 왜 거짓 자백, 거짓 증거, 그리고 경찰의 잔혹성이 위에 링크된 많은 다른 기사들 중 일부에 불과한지를 새롭게 조명할 것이다.나는 그러한 기사가 "녹스를 옹호하지 않기 때문에, 그들은 수백만 명의 사람들과 관련된 20개의 주요 주제 중 어떤 것도 다루고 있다"고 조금도 확신하지 못한다.SuperMarioMan 14:33, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 나는 WP에서 그 정책을 읽었다.코트랙, 그리고 내가 편집한 내용에는 별로 적용되지 않는 것 같아.더욱이 코트라킹이 발생했더라도 비코트랙 소재는 보존해야 한다는 지침이 있다.편집 내용을 일괄적으로 되돌리는 것은 권장하지 않는다.당신과 SMM은 단지 당신이 그것을 읽기를 귀찮게 한다면 당신의 행동을 정당화하지 못하는 규칙 뒤에 숨어 있을 뿐이다.너희 둘 다 그냥 살아서 나아가는 게 어때?나는 특정인의 사용자 이름을 몇 번이고 다시 보는 것에 넌더리가 난다.가서 뭘 좀 편집해 봐.기사를 쓰다.이 우스꽝스러운 실에 계속 글을 올리지 마!코디조비비 (토크) 15:43, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 이것은 편집자들이 보다 건설적으로 편집하도록 하는 방법을 정직하게 검토하고 있는 스레드라기 보다는 위키호킹의 사례처럼 보이기 시작하고 있다.다른 기사의 편집자들이 기고문이 가치가 없다고 생각한다면, 그들은 되돌릴 것이고, 그리고 나서 코디는 토크 페이지에서 그 변화에 대해 토론할 것이다.이런 일이 이미 일어나고 있는 것처럼 보이므로, 나는 이 주제가 특별히 비협조적인 것은 아니기 때문에 닫을 것을 제안한다.레드러쉬 (대화) 15:52, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 뚱뚱한 여자가 이 실에 대고 노래를 불렀는데, 청각 장애인이 듣지 못한 것 같아.상관없어.모자를 가져와라.우리는 폐쇄가 필요하다.코디조비비 (토크) 16:02, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 맞아, 코디 WP가 엄청 많아당신으로부터 IDHT.라벤스파이어 (토크) 16:50, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 상관없는 스니핑.모자 부탁해.86.163.195.143 (대화) 16:58, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 아, 그리고 어떤 로그아웃 및/또는 차단된 편집자인지 궁금하군.이것은 아마도 언제든지 닫을 수 있을 것이다. 하지만 그것은 확실히 이것이 변함없이 다시 자라날 때를 위해 풍부한 양의 재료를 제공했다.한 SPA는 서포터들의 공격을 받은 다른 기사들을 방해할 의도를 가지고 있다.타크 (대화) 17:04, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 이것을 보는 또 다른 보다 정확한 방법은 소수의 편집자들이 그들이 동의하지 않는 견해를 억압하는 지속적인 임무의 일환으로 약간 문제가 있는 편집에 대해 한 편집자를 찾는 것이다.나는 코디가 실수를 하지 않았다고 말하는 것이 아니다, 사실 나는 분명히 그 반대의 말을 했다.나는 또한 코디에 대해 비판적인 사람이 사악한 카발의 일부라고 말하는 것이 아니다.그러나 이것은 오래 전부터 생산적이고 건설적인 대화의 관점을 지나 야비한 잡담으로 옮겨갔다.레드러쉬 (대화) 17:11, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 86.168.168.1987은 나다.거기서 무슨 일이 일어났는지 확실하지 않다.코디조비비 (토크) 17:22, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 레드러쉬, 편집에 비판적인 "작은 편집자 그룹" 이상이 될 것 같다 - 나는 많은 관리자나 다른 무능력한 사용자들이 그러한 편집들을 방어하기 위해 뛰어드는 것을 보지 못한다.코디, 내가 가서 "기사를 쓰라"고 한 너의 제안에 대해, 나는 이미, 이미, 여러 번 - 나는 특집 기사를 거의 한 손으로 썼다.반면 WP 위반은 단 한 건도 없었음을 시사한다.코트라크, 그리고 나서 타인에게 정당한 염려가 있을 때 "삶을 얻으라"고 명령하고, 확실히 미래에 좋은 징조는 아니며, 정책이나 가이드라인을 더 잘 알게 되겠다는 약속을 잘 반영하지도 않는다.우연히도 이탈리아로의 "도둑들의 회귀"에 대해, 문제는 이탈리아가 원칙으로서 어떤 형태의 "인권" 부분을 요구하느냐 하는 것인데, 이것은 편집의 약 절반이 WP에 들어갔다는 사실과 전혀 별개의 문제다.페루지아에서 발생한 한 사건에 대한 지나친 세부사항.SuperMarioMan 17:48, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] SuperMario는 물론 편집한 [코디]에 대해 비판적인 "작은 편집자 그룹" 이상이다.그래서 내가 그렇게 말하지 않은 이유야.나는 작은 무리가 그를 괴롭히고 있다고 말했다.더 큰 그룹은 코디의 편집에 비판적이며, 나는 그 두 번째, 더 큰 그룹에 나를 포함시킨다.레드러쉬 (대화) 18:07, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 네가 기사를 쓴 거 알아, 슈퍼마리오맨나의 (순전히 주관적인) 추정에 의해 그들은 지독하게 지루하고 사소한 것일지도 모르지만, 그것은 확실히 기사다.그것에 대해서는 의심의 여지가 없지.코디조비비 (토크) 18:54, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 여기서 구체적인 관리 조치가 요청되고 있는 것 같지는 않다. 2011년 5월 3일(UTC) 19:42[응답] 나는 실의 원래 목적이 위키백과에서 나를 금지시키기 위한 것이라고 생각하지만, 그것은 실패했다.나는 지금 목적이 무엇인지 잘 모르겠다.코디조비비 (토크) 19:54, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답] 코디조비비가 어떤 기사에서든 소개한 자료에 문제가 있는 사람은 누구나 분쟁 해결을 시도해 볼 것을 권한다.파블로의 말대로 실제로 관리자 조치를 요구한 사람은 아무도 없어 ANI에서는 이 논의가 이뤄지지 않았다. -- 아타마頭 20:05, 2011년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:팔리오민

새로운 사용자 Palliomine은 팔레스타인의 범주에 큰 피해를 입혔다.나는 현재 매우 느린 연결을 가지고 있어서 그의 변화를 되돌릴 수 없다.(다양한 식당의 팔레스타인 랍비들과 관련됨)체스도비 (대화) 20:01, 2011년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

빈 범주에 삭제 태그를 붙이는 것 같아.이거 잘못된 거야?그 범주들은 정말 비어있는 것처럼 보인다.TNXMAN 20:16, 2011년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:데브레서는 이 일의 배후에 있다.그는 나의 토크 페이지에 대한 나의 답변에 응답하지 않고 팔레스타인의 다양한 카테고리에서 거의 100페이지에 달하는 페이지를 줄였다.조치를 취해야 한다.체스도비 (대화) 20:56, 2011년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 단지 당신이 최근에 만들고 어떤 사전 논의도 없이 그리고 당신의 토크 페이지의 즉각적인 항의를 무시한 채 적극적으로 채우기 시작한 것을 과소평가했을 뿐이다.공동체의 의지에 반하여 자신의 생각을 밀고 나갈 수는 없다.(대화) 22:31, 2011년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

그래, 우리가 왔으니까.먹자!

체스도비는 최근 "팔레스타인" 범주의 전체 그룹을 만들었다.그는 1이라는 사실에도 불구하고 계속해서 그것들을 더 많이 만들고 그것들을 채운다.이 용어는 논란의 여지가 있다. 2.그는 새 임기로 또 다른 임기를 대체하고 있으며, 기존의 범주를 분할하고 있다.3. 이 모든 것은 사전 합의를 구하지 않고, 4. 자신의 토크페이지에서 두 편집자의 항의를 무시하고, 이들 편집자는 각각 몇 가지 주장을 가지고 있다.

나는 또한 조치가 취해져야 한다는 것에 동의한다.그리고 그 행동은 체스도비가 그가 만든 이런 범주들을 만들고 채우는 것을 그만두도록 훈계해야 한다는 것이다. 그가 항의보다는 합의를 보여줄 수 있을 때까지 말이다.(대화) 22:29, 2011년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

데브레서는 이 경우에 잘못 행동했다.특정 카테고리가 논란의 소지가 있다고 느꼈다면 카테고리 디스큐 페이지 등에서 올렸어야 했다.원만한 해결책을 찾지 못한 채, 그는 수십 페이지의 절감을 계속하는데, 그 대부분은 몇 주 동안 그 범주에 속했다.그는 이 용어가 악동계에 존재한다는 명확한 증거에 대해 반응하지 않았다.13세기에 팔레스타인이라는 용어가 존재하지 않았다는 그의 주장은 터무니없다.나는 "다른 임기로 바꾸지는 않았다.무엇보다도, 나는 수 세기 동안 오스만과 영국 팔레스타인에 살았던 랍비들을 분류해서 다른 모든 고양이들과 함께 살도록 했다.그는 또한 다음과 같은 카테고리를 삭제하기를 원한다.팔레스타인의 중세 유대인.전적으로 받아들일 수 없다.체스도비 (대화) 22:41, 2011년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

이 불협화음이 시작된 이후, 데브레셔는 계속해서 그의 편집을 강요한다.[1. 체스도비 (대화) 22:47, 2011년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

그러니까... 그러니까 거기 가지 말자.차이점은, 사물을 바꾸고 새로운 용어를 도입하려는 사람이 바로 너라는 것이다.그러니까 공감대를 보여야 한다.(대화) 22:51, 2011년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

당신의 페이지에 있는 첫 번째 항의는 일주일 전이다.왜 자꾸 논란이 되는 편집을 하십니까?이 모든 범주는 이스라엘이라는 용어를 대체하고 오스만과 영국 팔레스타인의 Rabbis라는 범주를 나누는 당신의 생각이다.그저 자신의 생각을 밀고 나가는 것일 뿐이고, 공동체가 이를 문제시하고 있다는 사실을 받아들일 수 없으며, 공감대를 보여줄 수 있는 한, 그리고 그럴 때까지 자제해야 한다고 생각한다.(대화) 22:48, 2011년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

첫째로,만약 이것이 그렇게 논란이 된다면, 지역사회의 합의를 구하지 않고 어떻게 50페이지가 넘는 페이지의 과소비를 정당화할 수 있는가?나는 많은 페이지를 만들고 채우는 데 오랜 시간을 보냈는데 너는 와서 내 모든 작업을 결론 없이 되돌린다.그것 자체가 조사할 가치가 있다.체스도비 (대화) 23:13, 2011년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 일주일 전에 체스도비에게 그 모든 개인이 팔레스타인인이라는 것을 뒷받침하는 출처를 찾을 수 없다면, 나는 원래의 범주를 회복할 것이라고 말했는데, 일주일이 지났지만, 그는 여전히 어떤 출처도 추가하지 않았기 때문에, 그 범주의 제거가 적절하다고 말했다.그러나 그는 자신의 토크 페이지에 한 가지 출처를 제공해서 그 기사에는 팔레스타인 고양이가 추가될 수 있었다. --최고 맛깔스러움 (토크) 23:26, 2011년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

거기에서도 가장 좋은 것은 체스도비가 완전히 새로운 카테고리 시스템을 만들기 전까지 사용하던 이름 지정 시스템을 사용하는 것이라고 나는 말하고 싶다.오해와 논란을 피하기 위해서입니다.결국, 우리는 우리의 출처 각각과 모든 출처의 구체적인 표현을 사용할 의무가 없다.(대화) 23:36, 2011년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

(EC) 나는 너에게 복종하지 않는다 sd.내 의견에 반대하는 것은 너의 의견이다.당신은 당신의 불합리한 요구에 근거하여 50마리 이상의 고양이를 고의로 유혹할 권리가 없다.우리는 한 마디 한 마디 한 마디 한 마디 한 마디 한 마디를 일일이 인용할 필요는 없다.만약 어떤 사람이 그의 삶의 상당 부분을 팔레스타인에 살았다고 한다면, 그는 그 장소에 대한 트롤링으로 분류될 수 있다.팔레스타인은 "팔레스타인"을 의미한다.파타나 하마스가 아니다.그리고 그것은 내가 추가한 모든 사람들에게 적용된다.나는 많은 학술적 연구로 인해 지원을 받고 있다.체스도비 (대화) 23:42, 2011년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

이건 점점 낡아가는군.만약 어떤 소식통도 그 특정인들을 "팔레스타인"이라고 부르지 않는다면, 당신은 그 고양이들을 광고할 수 없다.--최고 맛깔스러움 (토크) 23:47, 2011년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

"이해와 논란."? Debresser를 정교하게 묘사하라.체스도비 (대화) 23:43, 2011년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

우리는 이스라엘 땅을 가지고 있다.우리는 "오토만과 영국 팔레스타인"과 같은 설명적 결합을 가지고 있다. (물론 오스만과 영국으로 분할될 수도 있고, 심지어 세기별로 분류될 수도 있다.)비록 얼마 동안 그 땅이 "팔레스타인"이라고 불렸다 하더라도, 우리는 그것을 모호하게 해야 한다.그러나 이 경우에 너는 단순히 틀렸다.왜냐하면 보통 독일에서 태어난 누군가는 독일계 민족이기도 하기 때문이다.그러나 이 경우 이 랍비들과 다른 유대인들 중 어느 누구도 팔레스타인 민족이 아니었다.이스라엘 아랍인이나 이스라엘 유대인이나 마찬가지지그래서 여기서 우리는 우리의 범주에 이름을 붙이는 방법에 더 신중해야 한다.이 모든 것은 명백하며 일주일 내내 당신의 토크 페이지에 설명되어 있다.그리고 당신은 당신의 편집이 논란의 여지가 있다는 것을 인정하기를 거부한다. 그리고 그것이 WP:ANI가 너에게 설명해야 해.(대화) 23:49, 2011년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

DBRSR; 당신의 추론에 따르면, 우리는 독일 랍비들이 "민족적으로" 독일인이 아니기 때문에 없어져야 한다.그들은 인종적으로 유대인이야!너의 추리는 흠이 있다.너는 네가 혼란스럽다는 것을 경외했다.당신은 이스라엘 아랍인과 유대인 둘 다 이스라엘인이라는 것에 대해 동의한다.그런데 왜 팔레스타인의 유대인과 브라스칼레인 아랍인을 갖는 것에 동의하지 않는가?AFAIMC 나의 편집은 논점이 아니다.왜 그래야 하지?너는 그것에 대해 진술한 적이 없니?당신은 잡혔습니까?안돼! 체스도비 (대화) 23:56, 2011년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

너는 지금 내 주장을 되풀이하고 있으니 여기서 혼란스러워 보인다.어쨌든 여기서의 문제는 내용 토론이 그리 중요한 것이 아니다.그건 네 토크페이지에서 계속 되고 있어. 그리고 오늘은 내가 조금.문제는 두 편집자가 여러분의 혁신과 변화에 대한 반대 의견을 표명하는 동안 여러분은 계속해서 논쟁의 여지가 있는 범주를 만들고 채운다는 것이다.Debresser (talk) 00:03, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

방금 팔리오민 양말이라는 것을 인정하셨나요?내 시간을 낭비하지 말고 당면한 주제에서 빈둥빈둥 빠져나오려고 해.내용에 대한 모든 것.검열할 내용.왜 우리가 중세시대에 그곳에 살았던 사람들을 묘사하기 위해 팔레스타인이라는 단어를 사용할 수 없는지 설명하시오.체스도비 (대화) 00:07, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

콘텐츠에 관한 것이라면, 이미 이 섹션에서는 콘텐츠에 반대하는 의견이 꽤 많으시죠.하지만 요점을 보완하기 위해 예를 들어보자.나는 나흐마니데스가 "팔레스타인 랍비"라고 불리는 것을 보았을 때 거의 충격을 받았다.76년의 긴 생애 중 그는 이스라엘 땅에서 3년밖에 살지 못했다!!당시 이스라엘 국토가 이집트 맘루크 통치하에 있었음은 말할 것도 없고, 그래서 실제로 그는 이집트 랍비라고 불러야 한다!체스도비, 나흐마니데스를 "팔레스타인"이라고 부르는 건 말도 안 돼!미안하지만, 정말 그래!Debresser (talk) 00:30, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC

그리고 다시, 이 점은 체스도비의 토크 페이지에 있는 슈프림 딜리셔니스에 의해 만들어졌다.여기서 진짜 문제는 체스도비가 이성을 보는 것을 꺼리거나, 적어도 그의 혁신이 논란의 여지가 있고 논쟁의 여지가 있다는 것을 받아들이려 하지 않는다는 것이다.그는 그가 그들을 위해 합의를 보지 않는 한 그리고 그가 그들을 위한 합의를 얻을 때까지 그들을 자제해야 한다.하지만 그는 분명히 하지 않을거야. 그래서 그는 그들을 밀어붙이기로 결심했지...(대화) 00:33, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

이러한 편집([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7])을 WP 위반으로 보지 말아야 할 이유가 있는가?포인트? 나는 그들을 지원했고, 24시간 동안 체스도비를 추천했다.Debresser (talk) 00:40, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

잘했어.이제 우리는 어디론가 가고 있다.이 고양이의 오류에 대해 "이성"이라고 지적한 것에 대해 이제 여러분이 이해하도록 만들었고, 여러분은 지역에 사는 사람이 그 지역이라는 꼬리표를 붙이는 것에 동의하기 시작하고 있다.당시 이집트가 팔레스타인을 지배했다면, 그 지역은 그럼에도 불구하고 팔레스타인으로 알려져 있었기 때문에, 팔레스타인을 지배한다고 해도 별 차이가 없을 것이다.그래서 당신은 어떤 장소에 사는 것이 그 장소의 지정을 당신에게 부여한다는 것에 동의하는가?아라곤의 많은 세파르디 유대인들은 아라곤족이 아니었지만 아라곤스 랍비스라고 불린다.당신이 람반과 문제가 있었다는 뚱뚱한 문제는 팔레스타인 혐오운동에 나서는 대신 해결될 수도 있었다.체스도비 (대화) 00:45, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

위키피디아 때문에 널 되돌렸어라이히스타그, 그래서 내가 너에게 24시간 동안 차단하라고 권하는 거야.당신은 그 문제가 당신에게 가장 중요한 행동이라는 것을 증명했다.(대화) 00:47, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

왜 MM Schnersohn이 미국 랍비라고 불릴 수 있는지 설명해줘, 하지만 Isac Luria는 팔레스타인이라고 불릴 수 없는가?진작에 화풀이를 했어야지.체스도비 (대화) 00:49, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 섹션의 앞부분에서 그것을 설명했었다.내가 위에서 언급했듯이 너도 그것을 이해하지 못한 것 같아.위키백과:Richstag의 행동은 실수였다.내일(혹은 24시간 후에) 봅시다.(대화) 00:55, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

어떻게 하면 자신을 더 잘 설명할 수 있을까 하는 생각을 하는 것이 좋을 것이다. 내가 걱정하는 바로는 당신이 왜 당신이 1) 토론이 오갔다가 끝나기 전에 50페이지가 넘는 페이지를 감원할 수 있는 이유를 제시하지 못한 채 내 시간의 몇 시간을 낭비했다는 것이다 2) 빈 고양이를 삭제하기 위해 새로운 계정을 만들었다.3) 여기서 논의한 내용을 다시 논의한 것에 대해 까짓다 4) 팔레스타인의 의료 유대인들이 가치 있는 범주가 아닌 이유를 설명했다.5) hy hy는 calle da Pasting 유태인이 있을 수 없다.등. 체스도비 (대화) 00:59, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

이 편집은, 지금까지 팔레스타인에 살았던 가장 위대한 유대인 갑발리스트라고 부르고, 편집 요약을 사용하는 겁니다. "응, 그도 팔레스타인인이야.디브레서, 넌 팔레스타인을 이용해!내가 네 척추를 떨게 했니?"팔레스타인"어이!"라고 하면 위키피디아를 객관적으로 편집할 수 있는 당신의 능력을 의심하게 된다.그것은 의심의 여지없이 많은 사람들을 불쾌하게 할 수 있는 병적인 편집이었다. 그리고 당연히 그렇다.(대화) 15:26, 2011년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

소크푸펫 브레이크

이것들은 모두 אְֶרָ ( ((토크·공헌)이다.다음은 확인된 일치 항목:

• Palliomine(토크⁺ · 태그 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그 · CA · CheckUser (log) · 조사 · 쿠위키)
• 램 홈(토크+
• Bigpudd(토크⁺ · 태그 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그 · CA · CheckUser (log) · 조사 · 쿠위키)
• Bustermcrabble(토크⁺ · 태그 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 차단 · 사용자 · 블록 로그 · CA · CheckUser (log) · 조사 · 쿠위키)
• 페로크로모시토마(토크+
• Bigggee ben(토크⁺ · 태그 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자·블록 로그 · 블록 로그 · CA(로그) · CheckUser · 조사 · 쿠위키)
• Anglesey in North Jerusalem (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dodomain (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Palaeoperenethis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tomtwiles (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Shoukii (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Da da manny 2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Safe for the surfaces (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki) TNXMan 01:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both primary disputants topic banned for 72 hrs

Tendentious editing, POV pushing, and ownership by Barnstarbob

Barnstarbob (talk · contribs) is being very difficult at Chevrolet Vega. He was brought to this page a couple of weeks ago, but his behaviour has not improved and he continues with tendentious editing and presumed ownership of the article. If anything it has got worse. I have tried to improve the article, but many of my changes have been reverted. Today 842U (talk · contribs) made a series of edits which started to address the bias and reduce the trivia that was present in the article. Now Barnstarbob has reverted those edits (multiple times) and refuses to engage, as I have asked him to do, on the article's talk page to explain why he thinks 842U's edits are wrong. Instead he states all the current content was approved by other people implying that we have no right to make any changes. I'm not going to revert him again because I may have already tripped 3RR, for which I apologise, but I would ask that someone take a look at his actions and consider what can be done to help. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - he has once again reverted - making it four straight reverts in a row, and once again has refused to take the discussion to the article's talk page. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard telling who's "right", content-wise, but Bob has reported you and another user at the edit-warring page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been two discussions of which Biker Biker and 842U have not participated in. One two years ago, AND one started by 842U in a Project discussion recently, but he DID NOT participate. Any of the suggestions, deletions and changes made by any User were NOT reverted by me during that discussion. Biker Biker however has made several deletions and changes (only recently) of which I have not reverted as well. However three sections, the Lead, Problems, and Reception were totally changed by 842U after they were approved and judged neutral two years ago and in the recent projects discussion. These three section edits were reverted by me to the former. My work and research used in the three sections was deleted in these three sections AFTER the discussions they did not participate in and were judged neutral and complete. I have followed ALL suggestions in those discussions before making any major changes to the article and have not reverted any of those Users changes during those discussions. 842U is making major changes to the article after the fact. I reverted those major changes and Biker Biker reverted back to 842As changes. Again, The two Users did not participate in ANY of the discussions regarding the article's content, size, or neutrality. 842A is exhibiting Ownership as he deletes complete sections and ignores the discussion suggestions and outcomes, with Biker Biker recently reverting back 842Us major changes as well. More than two Users have concluded the lead, Problems, and Reception are proper and neutral and do not require complete changes or deltion of the material. (Barnstarbob (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Baseball Bugs - thanks for pointing out the edit-warring entry. I have added my side of the story there including the four reverts done by Barnstarbob - thus tripping 3RR. --Biker Biker (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to retract that "thank you". It's hard to tell from the reverts just what's going on, as a lot of it seems to be reshuffling of the same info. But I detect that the OP here is trying to promote a more negative view of the Vega (which was pretty much of a "throwaway car", as I recall) while Bob wants to present it in a more positive light. In short, it's a content dispute, and the main players here are all guilty of edit-warring, when they ought to instead take it to some sort of dispute resolution. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 01:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some sort of dispute resolution is in order. It wouldn't hurt for Barnstarbob to have a look at WP:Consensus#Consensus can change, though, especially if he's citing discussion that took place two years ago as support for "his version" of the article. It may be time for another discussion on the content to see where consensus is now. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion started by 842U was recent and he did not participate, and did not like the outcome and proceeded tp make major changes after it was discussed and determined no further prunning was needed. But he just does what he wants.(Barnstarbob (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The current opinion is the article is neutral and there are no ownership issues then or now on my part. There have been two Users that have accused me in two years, including you, of which it was determined these were false.842A', You are the one who thinks he OWNS it. You start a discussion in Project Automobiles, then you don't participate, then you proceed to go against everything that was discussed. I'm following that discussion and the suggestions of the Users from it and the discussion from two years ago as well. Stop accusing me of ownership and conflict of interest. I have all the referenced text, Do you think I would if I didn't like the subject? It has helped the article, not hurt it. I've worked on it as a group effort from the beginning with other Users, most offering suggestions. I do not delete contributions. You're only kidding yourself if you think I hurt the article. The Problems section has been in the article for two years. The facts pertaining to all aspects of the car, good and bad should be more important for an encyclopedia article than reviews, as reviews are a combination of fact and opinion which can be biased depending on its source; nonetheless the reviews here are unmatched anywhere in one article. Your sole contributions to the article - non-automotive sourced criticism, was not deleted, nor were any other contributions from any User. I've added much automotive press sourced criticism past and present from 1970-2010, and reverted the deleted praise to keep the article neutral. If anyone is looking to render the article non-neutral or one sided its 842U.

A sampling below from the WikiProject Chevrolet Vega Discussion 842A initiated to accuse me of ownership, but did not participate in, concludes there is no ownership or conflict of interest issues on my part. In this sample it is clear by my working with other Users and the User comments below, the original accusations by 842U are false, and currently Biker Biker's discussion here is nothing more than frustration of his inability to OWN the article making major changes without discussion or approval by anyone first.

• Agreed, this is not the stubborn Vegavairbob I wrestled with, & I'm glad of it. I like this one much better. :D (I'm no angel, either, so... ;p) And moving the Wankel content to its own page IMO solves that one. I asked Bob this, & let me ask here, since there's still a problem: is there a page where the "aluminum block" section of Vega could be moved to? IMO, it's too OT to stay in, but too worthwhile to just junk. TREKphiler 07:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved large Aluminum block section to GM 2300 engine. A paragraph of the section retained (same size as reduced Wankel section) for Chevrolet Vega and Chevrolet Cosworth Vega pages as per discussion. Click links to view section versions on the three pages. Also I moved large Wankel section to a new page (with additions) General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine by the recommendation of TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura who made a new smaller edit for the Chevrolet Vega page. I made a few edits as well to the smaller version. Again click on these two links to view the new GM-Wankel page and the smaller Vega page Wankel section. Vegavairbob (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• As for Bob's adding his own pix, I don't see the beef. I added mine to custom car because there weren't any. If there are better ones (not just different ones...), replace them. TREKphiler 08:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see this article as having any issues really worth mentioning any longer. That one user makes most of the edits to an article is in itself not an issue, and I feel that accusations of ownership have lost their foundation. ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC) (Barnstarbob (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

And current discussion on Vega page -

• I do feel that Barnstarbob has managed to lose most or all of the ownership issues that were previously problematic. He is still a bit hotheaded at times (as correctly stated in the previous section), and I would suggest endeavouring to remedy this. Nonetheless, I think that these problems are best dealt with on Barnstarbob's own userpage and not here on the Chevy Vega page. I would like to separate any possible issues with Chevrolet Vega from the problems of User:Barnstarbob entirely, which for me does not currently require any major pruning to Chevrolet Vega. Welcoming further remarks, I am yours: ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)(Barnstarbob (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with the admins who have pointed out that this is indeed a content disput. The way to achieve consensus about content is by discussion, which Barnstarbob is steadfastly refusing to do, instead he states again and again that the page was "approved two years ago" and thus doesn't need chaning. As stated here consensus can change and that needs discussion not reversion. My beef is not about the article, but about Barnstarbob's behaviour in this content dispute and his refusal to play fair - which is why I have brought him to ANI. I welcome discussion, have invited him to discuss, but he won't. --Biker Biker (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was discussed in a lengthy discussion in Project Automobile RECENTLY of which you and 842U did not participate in. Had you participated you would know it has been determined the article no longer needs MAJOR pruning, or constant lengthening of the lead, or deletion or major changes in the sections, of which you have tried and failed to do on your own against the discussion outcome. I've tried to explain, but all did was start this accusation discussion, probably out of your own frustration of not getting your (own) way... Your editing including the External Link deletions and other changes were not reverted (excluding your deletion of the five gallery images) AS no MAJOR changes or deletions of the sections are needed or necessary according to the opinions expressed in the recent projects discussion and the recent article talk page. (i.e. "which for me does not currently require any major pruning to Chevrolet Vega. Welcoming further remarks, I am yours": User:Mr.choppers) My conclusion for what its worth is 842U doesn't care about those discussions based on his persistence of constantly making MAJOR changes to the article, and Biker Biker hasn't read the discussions at all. Stop deleting the discussion approved, careful, neutral work made by other Users either from their suggestions or actual contributions.

another discussion example...Ok ObtuseAngle, paragraphes removed. It has been returned to a shortened version of the lead used in the last article discussion. (Now it looks like other Wikipedia article's lead paragraphs). If you think anything else is not needed in the lead, please advise. (Barnstarbob (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

Looks good. I wouldn't change a thing. The shortened intro makes the article stronger. ObtuseAngle (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

But 842 has continued to completely change and lengthen the lead paragraph every few days, still ignoring other Users in previous or current discussions. 842 has been warned to stop framing criticism with HIS opinions. (reserved for reputable sources in Criticism) and now Biker Biker... the Problems section, as added by User suggestion to remove a neutrality flag, lists facts of the cars issues or problems in a separate section. It also is not reserved for 842Us or any Wikipedia User's opinions. This is not a web blog. The car's problems are presented with facts from referenced reliable sources. The fixes over the car's seven year production run are noted there as well as part of the article's factual and neutral tone. The Reception section lists all verifiable Praise and Criticism, both automotive and non-automotive sourced, past and present. As per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia Users are not to express their opinions of the subject of the article, rendering it biased or non-neutral. (Barnstarbob (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

For the last month or so, using the discussion page to cite the plethora of sources that encapsulate the Vega's legacy as a promising but seriously flawed product, I've tried to introduce information to the body of the article and to the lead. These edits have been continuously reverted by Barstarbob, previously Vegavairbob, despite all efforts to discuss the lack of balance in the article, as well as the article's reliance on promotional material from the manufacturer, his own photographs as well as photographs, photos of his own cars as well as bloated fancruft (a whole section on the article on fake wood siding application, but where is the ongoing damage the Vega continues to affect on General Motors reputation with small cars?). Most recently, the discussion page reflects Barstarbob's contention that books written by historians as well as Time, Newsweek and Popular Mechanics are somehow not worthy of being introduced into the article. Barstarbob has spent the last weeks discouraging edits, has attacked me personally, and has used a machine-gun approach to editing the article -- basically to protect his singular viewpoint. He insists on burying any information of substance about the car's broad legacy. Taken individually, these problems (i.e., the photos of his own cars) aren't egregious. But taken together, Barnstarbob is owning the article, trying to shut out any other points of view besides his own. He is essentially using the article to grandstand for the Vega – in an especially narrow, minutely-focused manner.842U (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying everything to get Barnstarbob to engage in a discussion on the article's talk page but he continues with his endless cycle of reverting other people's work. He has gone 3RR yet again today on some changes that I made and despite me starting a thread on the talk page he just ignored it and reverted my change. Please help. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has also just gone 3RR on the lead section despite my appealing on his talk page as well as the article's talk page for him to engage in discussion. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This post on his talk page, not on the article's talk page demonstrates his WP:OWN approach, refusing to engage in discussion on the article's talk page saying it is pointless. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is, unfortunately, a longstanding problem for Bob. I came across it a good six months ago, & AFAIK, nothing has changed. The apologist tone he's adopted (& insisted on) for the page is beyond POV. His unwillingness to accept even quite small changes to even page appearance (never mind content) without conflict is extreme.

I also find it odd he's changed usernames three times now. (Suspicious minds might think he's trying to hide something.)

I should also note I have a strong preference for early & long blocks for all forms of bad behavior, so judge my attitude accordingly. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of sources at the White Latin American article

The White Latin American article contains the following statement in the lede:

"Composing about 36% of the population as of 2010, White Latin Americans constitute the largest ethnic group in the region.[24][25]"

As I have pointed out in an edit summary [11], neither source cited refers to 'white Latin Americans' as a unified ethnic group. Lizcano [12] refers to 'Latin or Iberian' ethnicity in the English-language abstract, and from what I can tell via Google translate, makes no claim that there are unified ethnic groups crossing national boundaries - the article is however in Spanish, and I'd appreciate if someone familiar with the language will check this. The CIA Factbook [13] likewise makes no claim that 'white Latin Americans' is an ethnic group - though I very much doubt that the Factbook could be considered WP:RS on this subject, given the disparate reporting regarding ethnicity, and the total lack of any indication of sources. The statement that 'white Latin American' is an ethnic group is therefore WP:OR, and the figure arrived at is WP:SYN. Rather than responding to my comments, USER:SamEV has chosen to slap an edit warning template on my talk page: [14]

I consider SamEV's actions to be in breach of the expected standards from editors, and given his refusal to answer my objections to the above sentence from the article lede, ask that appropriate action be taken against him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the above to remove the <ref></ref> tags. They don't work well on noticeboards like this, especially if multiple sections use them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About Lizcano's paper I give you an analysis of the paper done in:[15]

Lizcano text is very generally used to support assertions that are central. The source is poorly used, poorly referenced, it does not indicate the precise spot where Lizcano says this or that. Moreover, Lizcano is talking about people "ethnic" (culture), and he often say "independently of skin color" when referring to any of the ethnic groups ('white or not). Speaks about "white" only when referring to statistics of population, but before anything else speaks of "criollo" in the sense of European (culture) transplanted in Latin America. Lizcano, never made explicit what is the method by which concluded that the minority criolla population is the largest component of Latin America.

As the paper is in Spanish, it's easier to believe it says something that does not actually say. Be manipulated very easily. I apologize for my English. Best --Jcestepario (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. As I suspected, it seems that Lizcano is being misrepresented. As it turns out, other contributors have reworded the lede to the extent that the edits made by SamEV are moot, and given his lack of response, I can only assume he is either unconcerned about the article, or has accepted that my objections to the original text are valid. On that basis, unless he attempts to revert to the earlier POV-pushing version of the article, I'm prepared to consider the issue closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this article[16] Lizcano gives a very long theoretical definition of what he means by "etnia" and "grupos etnicos" - he explicitly states that "Whites", "Mestizos", "indians" are not Ethnic groups in the normal use of the term, they do not have a common identity and they do not interact. He basically states that he uses etnia as a shorthand for "Ethnic Category" using "category "in the sense of Giddens' "social category" as a label applied externally to groups who do not selfidentify as members of such a group. He then goes on to use Barth's concept of ethnicity in a novel way as he says that the groups can be seen as being ethnic groups in the sense of sharing particular cultural traits as the ethnic categories share important aspects of their history (in this case mostly the geographic ancestry of their cultures apparently). The most important part is that he makes it very clear that he does not consider "White people" or "Mestizos" to be ethnic groups in the usual meaning of the word which implies common identity. To the question of whether these groups could have common identity he says emphatically no.(p. 13). He is also clearly aware that most scholars would consider it is highly problematic to talk about "whites", "mestizos" and "Indians" as "etnias" - since he goes to a great lengths to explain and justify his use of that terminology. He talks about "la misma distincion entre etnia y grupo etnico defendida en este articulo" - clearly implying that the distinction requires to be defended (i.e. it is not generally accepted). ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys, it's very unlikely any admin action is needed here. Perhaps you should find a suitable WikiProject to continue this conversation. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Osama bin Laden

I changed Osama bin Laden from semi-protect to full protect. I have had comments on my talk page for and against that action. Feel free to revert this action but I couldn't revert vandalism of the semi-protected page faster than the edit conflicts were happening. Rmhermen (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did the right thing. I had made the suggestion on its talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's too late to protect him. He gawn, bye-bye. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admins needed at Osama Bin Laden

Osama Bin Laden is dead and the article is locked down the sheer volume of Edit requests is swampin the talk The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) As of 8:10pm (PDT) the "official" announcement from the White House hasn't been made. CNN and Fox are quoting "unnamed sources", and have engaged in speculation before that turned out to be inaccurate. Suggest leaving the article at Full protection for at least 3 hours until something a bit more definitive comes out. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prodego unprotected it but has taken no action to remove the false information from the article. After ten consecutive edit conflicts trying to remove the "fact" that Obama had a press conference and announced this already (which has not occurred yet but is still in the article), I wash my hands of the matter. At least someone managed to get the I love Chooee. removed. Rmhermen (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obama is expected to address the nation at 03:30 UTC (about 5 minutes from now). –MuZemike 03:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admins aren't super editors - there is no reason to restrict that page to editing only by admins at this time. Prodego ^talk 03:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some eyes also needed on Death of Osama bin Laden, as I doubt this is going to be deleted. –MuZemike 03:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives has also been semi-protected for a bit. –MuZemike 03:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

President Obama is on TV now confirming it - however, obvious care should be taken with the article. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe also semi-protect "Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead" in case of an attempt to redirect it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS much? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too late Really shouldnt give people ideas Bugs The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 04:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and nothing of value was lost. God, I've always wanted to say that...HalfShadow 05:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing of value was lost." I wouldn't say that. Osama will make good fertilizer. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 06:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We may also want to protect "America, Fuck Yeah", as an article might be created from that redirect (I know, heaven forbid we (re)create new articles, WP:BEANS be damned). –MuZemike 06:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to repost it below - I'll comment here. I do think protection will be needed there for a while, there will be a lot of people trying to edit and it's no easier getting edit conflicts through on an active article than an active talk page. On the talk page, we can at least edit in a section and not affect the editing for other users elsewhere, so that seems the best bet right now. CycloneGU (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the precedent of Death of Michael Jackson and the WP:SNOW, I closed the AfD for Death of Osama bin Laden. I gave some further explanation on the nominator's talk page. Fences&Windows 03:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also need eyes on US Navy Seals, Delta Force, and other USSOCOM related articles. May want semi or full protection on all of them too. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep all'em articles protected until we see a Long Form Death Certificate, that doesn't have no fuzzy print on it. Let the "deather" movement begin!.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long while: Count me in! :-) Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

US Navy Seals semiprotected for 1 hr after ongoing foo... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, the term "deathers" is taken. [17] Ironically they are likely to be the same people as the "birthers"--RaptorHunter (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group semiprotected for 3 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC

Hah! Wikipedia is protecting the Navy Seals! Take that Marines. Googlemeister (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other Wikipedia-related business, we should go back to full-protection, as Spork4beans (talk · contribs) intentionally busted autoconfirmed to vandalize the article. –MuZemike 07:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death date

Since it appears that Osama died on April 29th in the morning when the operation was undertaken, it would be helpful if some people could keep an eye on May 2nd, since IPs are probably going to try to keep adding that as his day of death (I already reverted once), when that is just the date that his death was announced. May 1st as well, it seems. Silverseren^C 08:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, but the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, in a statement dated May 2, that "Osama Bin Ladin was killed in the surroundings of Abbotabad in the early hours of this morning". So, it appears bin Laden did die on May 2 (where did April 29 come from?). They're not vandals. -- tariqabjotu 08:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect people are getting their time zone conversions wrong. From what I've heard, it sounds like it took place around 12:30am or 1:00am on May 2nd (very early morning). ← George ^talk 08:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see my confusion. The article says that Obama decided to make the raid on April 29th, but it apparently wasn't actually done until May 1st, which the article doesn't say, but the sources do. Now, the question is, are we going by May 1st here or May 2nd there? This needs to be decided, because his death is being added to both days. Since Obama gave the announcement on May 1st here at 11:30 PM that Osama was dead, are we going by that? The Death article itself flip-flops on dates. Silverseren^C 08:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this is a discussion for ANI. But if it's clear it was 2nd May at the place he died then that's what we go by for the date of death (if it's felt that's needed for the article). The date at the US when he died is irrelevant for his date of death even if it was their forces that killed him although there's nothing wrong with also putting the time and date of the annoucement by Obama of his death (but the date/time of the annoucement shouldn't be confused with when he died). Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I made this section is because his death is being listed on both the May 1st article and the May 2nd article and it should obviously be on only one. If we're all agreed on which one it should be, then we need to take it off of the other one and make sure it stays off. Silverseren^C 10:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see any reason to have this discussion here particularly since it may take a few days to resolve yet that doesn't mean there will be many comments (meaning we will have to keep this open) and it will likely be missed by many who can contribute (not thinking they have to check out the ANI for what is a local issue that doesn't require administrative attention) and in the future anyone who wants to see how the decision was reached isn't going to find it in the archives because the discussion was at WP:ANI. Instead this discussion should either be at the ObL article (where there are already multiple discussions) or start a discussion at May 2nd (or May 1st) and linked to that discussion at May 1st (or May 2nd). Note that asking people to keep an eye on the articles here doesn't mean the discussion or where to list the death has to be held here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure in which place it should be had though. I feel like if it is done on the Death page, it's just going to be drowned in all the other discussion sections that are being made there. Silverseren^C 14:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Now his death is listed on both pages. This is not optimal. :/ Just one of them needs to be chosen. Silverseren^C 09:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue seems to have been resolved once the sources got their facts straight. It was announced in the evening of May 1 in the US, but it had happened in the early morning hours of May 2 in Pakistan. So the answer is, "May 2, local time". ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 18:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, but we still need to keep an eye on May 1, since IPs keep trying to add it in. And i've submitted a request for protection of May 2, mainly because a bunch of IPs keep trying to add in Voldemort's death, but also because people keep trying to remove Osama from it. Silverseren^C 18:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless the movie came out early, I thought Voldemort's death was scheduled for July 1. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 20:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to the Harry Potter Wiki, he did die on 2 May; it's been quite a while since the last time I reread the series, so I didn't remember by myself. What do you mean? Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, you're talking about the books, I suppose. The final movie is coming out July 1. I'm assuming the bad guy gets killed off. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 06:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, I didn't realise that. Order of the Phoenix was so far from the book that I became disgusted and haven't seen any of them since. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bizovne reloaded

Some of your might already remember Bizovne from my previous report. He was the one who started posting me some (un)kind notes on my talk in Slovak. Since some editors were dying to learn its content, I took the pains of translating it. This translation also includes the post Bizovne has made via his IP account since. IIRC he was warned (and blocked for 48 hours) for breaking WP:NPA before, but obviously he doesn't seem to be bothered by it at all. Also, since his IP account has been blocked for a month, he has obtained another one by going to a public library in Košice. Though the IP is completely different, the user's obviously the same, evidenced by the fact that he not only replied to his old discussion with the new IP address, but also posted a brand new thread on my talk page. Let me translate it for you in a hurry:

Hungarian fascist CoolKoon

Hi CoolKoon, I think that the English Wikipedia isn't the right place for pushing your fascist, irredentist, revisionist and Great-Hungarian opinions. Stop propagating the cooperation of Hungary and Hitler's Germany during WWII. You fascism has no place on Wikipedia.

I think that he really DID show a LOT that he doesn't want to be civil with Hungarian editors (especially myself) and that he doesn't regard them high either (evidenced by his edit logs: [18], [19] and [20]). He also seems to be a master of the Good hand, bad hand sockpuppetry. -- CoolKoon (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

193.87.75.82 has been blocked 60 hours for that above remark. Bizovne has been blocked 1 month for harassment and socking. –MuZemike 21:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there was already a WP:AE request open about him, where yet stronger measures have been contemplated. Comments welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

closing irrelevent tangent. I think we all learned something today. Back to the main point of the thread.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How, pray tell, have you gotten away with that user ID for 4 years? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] Assuming "Koon" rhymes with "Coon", that's not an acceptable username in English. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] Because it rhymes Bugs? Why don't you ask CoolKoon about his name?Fainitesbarleyscribs 22:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] "Coon" is a synonym for "Nigger". It's not acceptable. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unless it is, you know, his name. I can find dozens of real articles on people with that actual name: [21]. In general, AGF applies here as anywhere. We don't block every accidental string of characters which may rhyme with an inappropriate word. There are usernames that are perfectly fine, which also contain the string "shit" or any of a number of other clearly inappropriate names you can imagine. Are you claiming that David KoonMatthew Koon should be ashamed of their surname? --Jayron32 22:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] @Bugs. I know very well that is what it would mean to an American editor, and most UK editors would be familiar with it too. However, the tone of your remarks makes assumptions about CoolKoon, a Hungarian editor, which may well not be justified. Don't assume every user of English as a second or third language is fully au fait with out-dated US slang. What does "assuming it rhymes" mean anyway. What are you going to say if he says it's pronounced Ko-on? Or it's a misspelt version of Colquhon from his Irish Granny?Fainitesbarleyscribs 22:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] Better watch out for this article too.Fainites barleyscribs 22:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] Or what about those whose first name is "Adolph"? For example, the stigma didn't seem to affect legendary basketball coach Adolph Rupp much. –MuZemike 23:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] Whoa, whoa, take it easy, Baseball Bugs. The fact that I can understand English (and speak it a little bit as well) doesn't mean that I know/understand every single slang term used by the British, Americans, Canadians, South Africans, Aussies, or Indians. I don't have all day for watching B- and C-grade American (especially ghetto-related) movies where I could pick up these terms either. And besides, I chose this nick for the fact that it DOES in fact relate to my name. I prefer not to publish that in WHICH way it does though. If your curiosity is still left unsatisfied, feel free to send me an e-mail about it and I might even reply (except if you ban me for my nick.... - sorry, I though that you're an admin; thank God you aren't....). I'd also like to thank the rest of your guys for cooperation, support and assuming good faith. -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] I don't accuse you of bad faith. On the contrary, I assumed you were not a native speaker and wouldn't have known. I just wanted to know how come nobody in 4 years caught the obvious (to a native English speaker) racial obscenity that your username happens to sound like. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] For further info, see the Coon article. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] Guess what, I would've chosen this nick even if I WOULD'VE KNOWN what does "coon" mean at the time, because it relates to my name. I also think that PC is BS and people who get easily offended for "inappropriate word usage" (e.g. oh! Jesus! He used the F-word! And now the C-word! And the S-word! etc.) should really get stuffed, especially when they're offended at terms which are used without any malevolent intentions. -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] The word "coon" has lots of meanings in English - the most obvious one is Raccoon. There are a lot of people called "Coon" - for example Gene L. Coon whose name used to appear on the credits of the 1960s TV series Star Trek. If you want the word "coon" banned, Wikipedia is not the place to start. By the way, what are you going to do with the many people whose family name is Coon, Koon, or Kuhn? Will Wikipedia be allocating new approved family names to them?--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] If it's actually his name, then so be it. The illustration in the Coon article is what I immediately thought of when I saw the name "CoolKoon". An unfortunate coincidence, apparently. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have hatted the discussion on the username as it appears to be a case of misunderstanding. The discussion over the behavior problems alleged before we went on the little side trip can continue below. --Jayron32 00:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crosstemplejay continued gross abuse of the minor edits check box

User:Crosstemplejay has been marking almost all his/her edits as minor, when, after checking, many are clearly not minor or even close to being minor. The user was warned by another editor but has persisted. This behavior raises red flags as to "why". The only reason I can see is to hide the content of his edits from other user's watchlists. Safiel (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I accept the mistake, overtime, I had not realized it. My intention has never been to hide my work from others as you can see from my usertalk, I regularly seek help from more experienced editors. I will not repeat this mistake anymore. Thanks for the corrrection Safiel.--→CrossTemple Jay← ^{talk to me} 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok. I suggest you peruse this policy, Wikipedia:Minor edits It provides the guidelines as to when you can and cannot use the minor edits check box. Safiel (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, thanks Safiel.→CrossTemple Jay← ^{talk to me} 23:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another n00b and NexCarnifex

NexCarnifex (talk · contribs) came onto IRC and asked for help dealing with another user, the aforementioned Another n00b (talk · contribs), after he "spammed" Nex's userpage. After a quick look, the edits in question - [22] and [23] - are less spam and more outright vandalism. According to Nex, the vandalism was provoked when Nex added an image to an article ([24]), which he objected to because the image was "obscure creepypasta". From the looks of it there's not been a whole lot of discussion between the two, but it still doesn't justify the vandalism to Nex's userpage. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User has been notified, but on his talk page he admits that he did it "for the lulz", so my warning bells are already starting to move. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was intended to be humourous, as he persists in uploading this shock image, even though it is not appropriate or notable enough for wikipedia. - Another n00b (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homorous or not, it's still vandalism. —Jeremy v^_^v^{Components:V S M} 19:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so adding to a user's userpage is worse than uploading un-useful, junk onto commons?? I object. - Another n00b (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both appear to be edit-warring on List of Internet phenomena -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even the "original" image so it has no legitimate use. Tagged for deletion as an unused non-free copyrighted file. Fences&Windows 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rescuing from archive as the original reason I brought this up to AN/I (Another n00b vandalizing another user's page) was not dealt with and there appears to be evidence n00b is refusing to disengage. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 23:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beepoppab making legal threats over List of hub airports on his talk page.

I originally reported it in WP:AIV, but I was told to take it here by User:Daniel Case. What was thought to be a edit war by many parties including myself at List of hub airports has since turned into deliberate vandalism and personal attacks [25], trolling by deliberately putting in a additional incorrect entry [26], personal attacks [27] and legal threats. [28]. Warnings were provided [29], [30] and this recent one for the legal threat [31]. We have explained why his edits were reverted via the edit summary, but the user concerned has resorted to name-calling, trolling and legal threats (diffs are already provided above). Is everyone involved in this (including myself) in the wrong here? Sb617 (Talk) 02:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User notified. GiantSnowman 02:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just a quick note about the article involved in this case, and it's complete and utter lack of reliable sources - dare I BEBOLD and remove all unreferenced information? Methinks I'll wait until this other issue is resolved first... GiantSnowman 02:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Beepoppab indefinitely for the attacks and legal threat. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some help at AIV, please

We've got IPs running rampant for about a half-hour now. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longstanding copyvio

I've had to remove many paragraphs of text, from 2009, that User:Hookey-rox has copy and pasted from another website, both in articles he has created and edited[32][33][34][35]. He created another article last year (Acton Football Club) which was deleted for being a copyvio and he was informed on this on his talk page. From that point on, at the very least, he knew not to copy text from other website yet, despite continuing to edit, he was happy for all his previous undetected copyvio to remain in his articles. So, do I give this clown another warning or can someone here just get rid of him? Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps invoke WP:CCI? : TelCoNaSpVe : 10:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's been apprised of this thread, at least. : TelCoNaSpVe : 10:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing from 125.162.150.88 (Jack Merridew)

• 125.162.150.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

An IP address is accusing me of "bad faith"[36] and "harassment" [37]. The IP address has now received 4 warnings [38]. Since the IP appears to be attacking me, I would like another admin to intervene and block if the IP doesn't stop. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what those warnings for edit warring is for. You seem to be doing the same thing? Nymf_hideliho! 11:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same old story. Jack makes a table sortable on year, which most folks consider an improvement. Gimme removes endashes from date ranges because Safari 4 (!) doesn't sort them properly. Jack puts the endashes back per MOS:ENDASH on the grounds that hardly anybody uses Safari 4 anymore - it's now on Safari 5, a free update. Gimme then perversely decides that "since the changes that allow sortability to work are repeatedly removed, consensus appears to be that sortability is not desired"[39] and removes the sorting functionality. Jack puts the sorting back, and the cycle begins again. Gimme knows how to make the table sortable for Safari 4 (because I showed him how), but would rather escalate a situation to an edit war than do the fix or update an outdated browser. This combative behaviour really needs to stop: it's perfectly possible to have tables with sorting functionality on date ranges that also comply with MOS. --RexxS (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's often not as simple as just a "free update" to Safari - for example, Safari 5 for Mac requires OSX 10.5.8 or later, so people who have not bought 10.5 cannot use it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They can use Safari 4.1. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that - but the suggestion above is that Safari 5 is needed, and I'm pointing out that that is not always an option. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

either undermines the idea the " to " is warranted. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That IP address is apparently Jack Merridew. I first encountered him here on a Article Rescue Squadron page, where he was making unhelpful comments like this, this, and this. For the most part, the rest of us just ignored him and went on with the discussion. However, when this happened, I filled out an SPI report, found here. I didn't know the situation with Jack or whatever is going on with Arbcom and just thought he was a blocked user evading his block. Apparently, it's more complicated than that. As you can see from the report discussion, Jack was extremely rude and uncivil toward myself and Doc9871. There have also been multiple other incidences that i've noticed of recent hostility and incivity toward others recently. The history of his talk page could show some of that too, since he routinely blanks any warnings or notifications put on the page. Silverseren^C 11:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack should use his account per his sanctions that are still in place. His many accounts are blocked so shouldn't he have to go to arbcom and figure out how to edit again since he last retired/quit? Some of us can tell it's Jack editing with this IP but there are editors who do not know who this is plus with Jack being rude to some it just complicates things even further. If Jack wants to continue to edit than he needs to get an account unblocked or some other acceptable thing done. Right now it looks like he is socking around a block. Sorry Jack but that's what it looks like. Please go back to the arbitrators and get this sorted out, please. Just my opinion of the situation but this is only going to get worse before it gets better if he continues to use this IP and behave like has been shown. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees all WMF projects including Wikipedia, has declared open editing to be a founding principle. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of this issue, that founing principle does not prevent Wikimedia communities from sanctioning, and stopping from editing, users who are disruptive. This does not mean that you, Jack, are so disruptive, just that the "anyone can edit" mantra is not a defense against accusations of shenanigans, which Crohnie appears to be implying. --Jayron32 12:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But "they" don't stop most disruptive users; they're everywhere, making this project suck, driving away those who actually have a clue. The mob hates that.

@Crohnie; why the fuck should I allow myself to be tied to the Jack account with shite like this out there. The Jack account has been impersonated out there many times. What do you and the WHL coterie do when you spot me? Tie me back to that shite. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that's toxic in the extreme. As Fetch said, the problem with wikipedia is the *participants*. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack I have never been disrepectful to you like you are being right now. The reason is because the arbitrators, as far as I'm aware, haven't released you from using one account, the Jack Merridew account. Remember you withdrew your request to have those sanctions removed? This is the last I remember about this and though there is discussion about allowing you to have socks to play with, the discussion doesn't seem finished or accepted. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you in this thread? (it's a rhetorical question). Because I proved your friend WHL wrong across the board on a lot of issues; it's what's up Doc9871's ass, too, as he said on user talk:diannaa, and which she lit into him for. Look harder, the diff you're needing was already offered to you on Doc's talk. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing you've proven, at least to me is that you can behave poorly to other editors and do as you want and no one cares so neither do I. Yea Jack, you're right and all the rest of us idiots should go away and let you do what you want, so have a good time, I'm out of here. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack isn't sanctioned. My understanding is that his main account is blocked because, apparently, it was hacked. He is not personally under sanctions, and is free to edit under a new account or IP address, and may regain his account if he can prove to stewards who he is. However, this edit warring behavior is itself troubling, and should be addressed. --Jayron32 12:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I scuttled the accounts; they're blocked because I posted the password; sul:locked, too. The password was scrambled again after that. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate comments both from Jack Merridew on the overall situation and from Gimmetoo on RexxS's description above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme's been dogging my edits for a year, surreptitiously reverting at first, but always finding something to take exception to. It's harassment. He creates a hostile editing environment, as do far too many here. He went way over the line trying to ban me from cites last year, and has generally been a prat in all manner of discussions (with RexxS and Rossrs, too). He's unfit to be an editor much less an admin. RexxS is right, as far as he goes. Brad, you and others need to fix the toxic environment; many have left, leaving the field to idiots. Jack 12:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm cross-posting (a redacted version of) Rexx's summary of the technical issue to WP:WPT. Rich Farmbrough, 12:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
No I'm not since Rexx's post make it clear there is a technical fix here. Rich Farmbrough, 12:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
[reply]

Rex's fix is this, which snots-up the wiki-text for a tiny number of users (ma'af).

Some statistics are available here. Rich Farmbrough, 13:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
[reply]

Safari 4.0 usage is well below 1%. Anyway, the Gimme-shite issue is across the board; he's targeted most areas that I've tried to work improving structure. He's not the only one nipping at my heels; doc9871, I/Okip grawp ... the wiki-mob never forgets anything and is always vicious.

Brad, perhaps you could read through Talk:Yvonne Strahovski#Sortable table which is one of the issues Jack is referring to, with RexxS and me. Gimmetoo saw a problem in the sorting in the filmography table at Yvonne Strahovski, but failed to define the problem despite being asked several times, over the course of 2 days. See how long the discussion is. Gimmetoo should have said "The dash causes a sorting problem for editors using Safari 4". Eleven words. Easy to understand. We could then have fast-forwarded through to a solution. Any editor, let alone an admin, should be acting in good enough faith to provide an eleven word sentence to answer a question, instead of creating an atmosphere where other editors had to guess what he was on about, and then be ridiculed for failing to guess. From Gimmetoo's talk page, his question Has it occurred to you yet that "that particular incompatibility" may be something other than what you think it is? (Answer: No) Obviously RexxS had no idea what he meant, and I certainly didn't. And on and on it went with Gimmetoo refusing to give a straight answer. To RexxS's credit, when he finally realized what "the problem" was, he came up with a "fix". Satisfactory, rather than ideal. If Jacks's frustrated and fed up, I don't blame him, and going back to RexxS's comment above, I think RexxS sums it up well. Rossrs (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See [40] RexxS was condescending and insulting, and stated without reserve that everything I had said was "patently untrue". Do you and RexxS admit you were wrong in any way? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you link to another long chunk of dialogue that you could have nipped in the bud by actually saying what the problem was. Other editors made similar comments there. Both RexxS and I failed to read your mind, but you escalated it and kept it going. I don't know how RexxS would answer your question, but no, I did nothing wrong. I didn't understand what your problem was because you failed to spell it out, but that's your failing, not mine. Rossrs (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. This is *Merridew*?! And the IP is accusing me of "dogging" his edits? Absolutely unacceptabe. First, if that's true, then some of the responders here are WP:INVOLVED and have failed to note their involvement. Second, Merridew has a long history of abusive editing, including arbitration cases for targetting a user and for abusive editing from multiple accounts. If Merridew is still doing this, it's more than past time that Merridew was banned. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm uninvolved here wrt to past disagreements and who did what to whom and when, so I'm ignoring all of that. What I see here is a positive attempt to improve a table in an article, which caused a minor technical problem for an old version of a browser, and which was quickly fixed once the problem was properly explained and understood. Besides that, I see hints of people trying to restart old arguments and settle old scores, but none of that seems pertinent - now that the technical issue is sorted, is there anything of actual relevance that needs admin action here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, the technical issue has not been fixed on all involved articles. Second, the issue here is the IP/Merridew's targetting of my edits, and the IP/Merridew's accusations of harassment and "bad faith". Merridew has a long history of targetting other editors. If the IP is, indeed, Merridew, then the IP is continuing to edit without disclosing clearly who he is and the associated arbcom sanctions. The IP should be blocked at this point. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, regarding the technical issue, now that a fix is known then surely it just needs to be applied to the relevant articles, doesn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two fixes have been known for months. If the IP is indeed Merridew, then the IP is well aware of those fixes, and has knowingly not implemented either of them. The IP undid my fixes, and, indeed, appears to be systemaically undoing my edits. The IP has not opened discussion, and shows no interest in opening discussion on this issue. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not anybody else's individual responsibility to implement the fix - now that a fix is known that will enable to table to be sortable in the problematic browser too, why not just do it instead of all this bickering? If there is still a dispute about the best fix, go discuss it on an appropriate article page and decide by consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, and as far as I can make out, the *user* JackMerridew is not blocked or banned - the *account* was blocked, but only because it was compromised. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • When an IP knowingly removes a fix for a problem, that IP's editing is not good. When this is part of a pattern of targetting users, and with refusal to discuss the issues, it is WP:DISRUPTive editing and the IP should be blocked. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please post some diffs of this behaviour. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For instance [41][42][43], [44]. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so will the fix detailed above by RexxS make the standard "dash" version work in Safari 4, yes or no? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the IP doesn't want that fix [45]; also notice the abuse in that edit. There are many other disputed changes involved in the IPs recent edits. If this is, indeed, Merridew, remember that Merridew has a history of targeting users. One lead to arbitration; there is also [46] and [47]. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, those 'fixes' for a dead browser are unwarranted. We don't support telegraphs or Campbell Soup Cans, either. If such a fix is centralised, mebbe, but snotting-up thousands of articles to accomodate a tiny number ^{(an ever-diminishing#)} of users is just going to make a mess and impede editing by editors who know nothing of this faux-issue. You "dispute" anything I've tried to do, and don't discuss in good faith; that's harassment. You've ownership issues, too, mosty re hottie celebrity bios. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about some diffs of the discussions you opened on this topic that the IP refused to join? Or some diffs of him targetting users? These are serious accusations, and you are calling for a block, so please post these diffs too. --Diannaa^(Talk) 17:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has accused me of harassment. Why have you not asked the IP for diffs to support that very serious accusation? In any event, [48], and the IPs response was [49]. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was you making a pointy and sarky comment, and the other guy removing it. What you are being asked for is some evidence of *you* or someone else actually starting a discussion on the relevant issues and the other guy refusing to join in - not evidence of your demanding that he start it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the technical issue, please stop evasively poking sticks at the other guy and just answer the question. If you have a content dispute (which is what this is) then show us where the discussion took place and show us your attempts to resolve it. Where were the alternative fixes discussed? Where was it decided not to go with RexxS's fix? Where was the discussion held that resulted in a consensus to replace the standard "2001-2006" format with "2001 to 2006"? Where was the impact on Safari 4 users discussed? How badly does it affect them? Does it just make that column sort wrong or does it screw up the whole table? Where was it decided to go with a non-standard date format to fix a sorting problem that only affects less than 1% of our readers? That's what you should be doing - discussing this on its merits, not arguing back and forth just because you don't like each other -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP chose to re-revert rather than discuss, contrary to WP:BRD. The IP then continued to make disputed edits to multiple other articles, also without stopping to discuss. On the technical issue, see Talk:Ursula_Andress#Accessibility_and_dates, specifically near the end where RexxS said: "I've also restored the "1987 to 1988" format for the date range, as I can't see that producing any problems for any browser." Nevertheless the IP did [50]. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:BRD is only an essay, and you're still not presenting us with what was requested - evidence that *you* tried to discuss the issue and the other guy refused to join in, and so support the accusations you are making against him. (I had the comment below ready to add when I got an edit conflict, so I'm going ahead with posting it as it was - if you genuinely wish to solve this problem rather than just carry on fighting with someone you don't like, I hope you will respond positively). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I opened discussion on the IP's talk page. The IP did not engage, and has not engaged. Instead, the IP has accused me of harassment and continued to make the same disputed edits. Why have you not asked the IP for diffs supporting that very serious accusation? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking back into some of the history of this table sorting business, I came across User talk:Gimmetoo#Yvonne Strahovski from back in September 2010, where Gimmetoo was plainly and simply asked to explain what he saw as the problem. But he responded just as obtusely and tendentiously as he is still doing today, steadfastly refusing to just clearly state what he meant. I apologize if I'm wrong (and I hope I am), but what I think I'm seeing is a long-running personal feud rather than any genuine attempt to make Wikipedia better. Gimmetoo, I think you need to put up or shut up - start a discussion explaining the technical problem (not other people, and not your feuds with them, but the technical issue itself), and offer constructive suggestions for a solution so we can discuss it and get a consensus - I'm a Mac user myself, and one of my old machines still has Safari 4, so I can help technically -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in the light of the above, how about we stop the "It's all his fault" game based on selective quoting, and instead start a brand new attempt to solve the technical problem with table sorting and get a consensus on what to do? Then it will be sorted (pun intended, sorry), and we can all leave the playground and get back to making Wikipedia better. How does that sound? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boing, this issue here is abusive editing. The technical discussion has been had before, at for instance Talk:Ursula Andress. The IP editor is not helping. Technical issues could be discussed again if the disruptive editing by the IP is stopped. But if this IP is indeed Merridew, then there is another facet; Merridew has picked on editors before (see prior arbcom case, prior ANI) and has picked on me in the past. That needs to stop. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again I would like to call for some recent diffs giving examples. All you have here is some diffs of six-month-old ANI reports and references to a ban that was lifted in 2008. --Diannaa^(Talk) 19:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Gimmetoo, I have no previous interaction with this dispute, so I hope you don't mind me being open and honest here when I tell you that what I see is egotistical dickishness all round - I see each of you just trying to win a willy-waving contest, and little or no willingness from anyone to actually get together and solve the underlying problem. The arguments on this technical issue and the related fallout have been going on for at least 8 months as far as I can see, and I think the only way forward is tackle the issue itself is in one consensus-driven discussion that involves more than just the same three or four people - and not one that excludes any specific individual you don't like! I honestly don't think you will succeed in making this a one-sided accusation of abusive editing, because I see just as much dickishness from you as from anyone else - and again, that's just an honest observation. Basically, I'm offering to help solve the underlying problem, and if we can get a consensus about that then there should be no basis to any further arguments. But if all you're interested in is kicking shite out of each other and don't really care about Wikipedia itself, then I'm afraid I'll be walking away and leaving you to it. So come on, why don't you take a major constructive step and agree to join me in a civil discussion on the technical issue? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boing, I have been attacked by the IP in edit summaries, and in comments on this very thread. Are you going to do anything about that? Are you going to block the IP if there are any further abusive edit summaries or attacks? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My offer of assistance with a discussion on the technical issue still stands, but I thought I'd made it clear I'm not going to take sides in the dick war -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get that editor to discuss civilly, fine, but whatever I may or may not have done in the past does not mean that I have to be subject to never-ending abuse from that IP/Editor. If you wish to support and enable the environment such editors foster, that's your choice. If this IP is Merridew, then Merridew was under restriction to edit only from the Merridew account, though apparently the editor indicated a week ago intentions to disregard the arbitration motion [51]. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at quite a bit of this going back some time now, and I have to say I've seen bone-headed stubbornness that would be the envy of a Triceratops. So no, it is absolutely not a case of my allowing the other guy to carry on being abusive - and if you stick with the "I'm 100% right and the other guy is 100% wrong" attitude, then we are unlikely to get anywhere. If, however, all sides are prepared to discuss the problem openly as members of the same Wikipedia team rather than slugging it out like street brawlers, we might actually get somewhere. It's getting late where I am, so I'm going to get some rest - and tomorrow I'll find a suitable place for a discussion of the table sorting issue where we can hopefully get a consensus on what to do (and I've already downloaded copies of Safari 4.0 and 4.1 for comparison purposes). And I suggest you get some rest away from this dispute too - it is, after all, not real life. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tldr

There have been discussion attempts w/gimme since about last August; they never go anywhere. This didn't even start with the sorting or dashes; it was citation templates at first. Gimme has decided to take-on Merridew, since no one else has the "guts" to; said so last August or so.. Discussions with him never go anywhere because he's not acting in good faith; his intent is to pin my ears back and thwart whatever it is I'm trying to do. WP:HA-101. I LOL re his feigning to not have realized that I'm me; [52] [53]. He's seen this before. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes more accusations of WP:HA from the IP. Ironically, the IP notes a "toxic environment"[54]. Since User:Boing! said Zebedee seems reluctant to do anything about these sorts of comments, is there any admin who will do anything to encourage the IP to contribute without creating and expanding that toxic environment? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This editor was previously banned for repeated bad behaviour and this ban was only relaxed upon some strict conditions which are now being breached. The ban should therefore be reinstated. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Seren accuses Jack of incivility

I suppose in order to have people actually discuss on the ongoing incivility that Jack is exhibiting, I need to make this a subsection, since people just ignored my comment and keep going on about Gimmetoo's incident (not that your incident isn't important). So i'm just going to re-copy what I said above here so people can actually comment on it.

"That IP address is apparently Jack Merridew. I first encountered him here on a Article Rescue Squadron page, where he was making unhelpful comments like this, this, and this. For the most part, the rest of us just ignored him and went on with the discussion. However, when this happened, I filled out an SPI report, found here. I didn't know the situation with Jack or whatever is going on with Arbcom and just thought he was a blocked user evading his block. Apparently, it's more complicated than that. As you can see from the report discussion, Jack was extremely rude and uncivil toward myself and Doc9871. There have also been multiple other incidences that i've noticed of recent hostility and incivity toward others recently. The history of his talk page could show some of that too, since he routinely blanks any warnings or notifications put on the page."

Jack has been extremely uncivil to multiple people over the past few days. I strongly advise you to look at the discussion in that SPI report. Silverseren^C 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence of incivility would be here. This led to an edit war with Qwyrxian who thought it was an unconstructive comment, though Bishonen ultimately kept it. Ultimately unimportant compared to the stuff above. Silverseren^C 20:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Embarrassed, Bishonen hastily updates her Safari 3.] I "ultimately" kept it, Silver Seren? What does that mean? I wrote to Qwyrxian to stop reverting the IP as soon as I saw the edit war on my page. By then, however, Nikkimaria had already asked Qwyrxian why he was so insistently reverting the post on my page, which didn't look anything like vandalism to her (or to me), and Qwyrxian had already realised that he'd made mistake and apologised nicely to the IP.[55] And this you describe as "further evidence of incivility" (by the IP, not by Qwyrxian), and hint that the edit war was the IP's fault, not Qwyrxian's "who thought it was an unconstructive comment"? Yes, well, he thought so until he realised he'd made a mistake. Then he very properly apologised. You didn't think that worth mentioning, I guess. Silver Seren, your post about my talkpage is completely misleading, in a particular direction, which makes it uphill work to assume the slightest good faith of you. Clicking on your other diffs makes your "extremely uncivil to multiple people" look ridiculous, too. (And you feel impelled to let us have your text twice? What's that about?) I encourage everybody to click on those diffs and form their own opinion. Silver Seren, please go read WP:BATTLE. Slowly. Carefully. P.S. I have changed your header to a more neutral and truthful one. Bishonentalk 23:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Um...that comment wasn't meant to be an attack on your or to say anything about you either. It was meant to point out that Qwyrxian's trying to remove the comment was a little pointless (because I was sure someone else would have pointed that out if I hadn't said it myself). That, however, doesn't change Jack's incivility in the comment directed toward this ANI discussion. I apologize if I upset you, I never meant the comment to be negative toward you at all. I've gone ahead and removed it, so there isn't an issue. Again, I apologize. Can we instead focus on Jack? Silverseren^C 23:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Thank you, but it's a misdirected kindness to remove the words I quoted, as it makes some of my reply incomprehensible. This is something you should never do in a discussion. Please put them back. What you should do if you regret something you said is cross it out with the <s></s> code. Please don't bother to cross out anything whatever on my account, though; I didn't think you said anything about me, so we're in agreement there. I merely thought the "ultimately" comment was somewhat contributory to the misleading way you described Jack's role on my page. And I see you now (as a counsel of desperation?) suggest he was being incivil towards ANI on my page. Wow. Good job you can't see what people say about ANI on IRC, you'd probably faint. Bishonentalk 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I added it back in, as you've asked, but struck through the entire comment, since it is unimportant compared to the diffs I have at the beginning and below. I'm not sure if you're purposefully trying to direct this away from Jack, but can we please focus on the comments that Jack has made and I have linked to above and below? Silverseren^C 00:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And let me just add that Jack making comments like "another “anyone” hauling out one of the usual wiki-weapons. all part of teh toxic-wiki" and "wp:boomerang 4 teh trolls ;)" is not helpful at all and is what I mean by incivil. Silverseren^C 23:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention "you're not trying hard enough; you should be asking me to assume good faith, pointing out some of teh diffs on your list-of-bad-acts, that I call you a troll and an asshole. that's the wiki's core problem; it's open to all and fails to remove the likes of you." Silverseren^C 23:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silver, I'd have thought you'd learned your lesson about jumping in feet first by now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seriously, I know that we have past disagreements, Elen, but trying to redirect this onto me without addressing the topic of the section is rather unhelpful. Silverseren^C 00:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People who loudly accuse the community of some vice are almost invariably guilty of, but blind to, some variant of that vice themselves. → User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior#31 –MuZemike 00:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren is simply an ARS partisan who's taking shots at an ARS critic. Mostly this is left over from my sorting the A Nobody issue. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC) (sorting problematic editors for seven years;)[reply]

Have I ever really interacted with you, Jack? If so, it's been a long time since then, since I really don't remember you at all. The only reason i'm making this report is because of your hostile actions and words toward myself and others, nothing more than that. Silverseren^C 03:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This shite count? I'll have to look into whatever Elen and Bish are on about; Mike seems to see it, too. hint: flee. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case there was any lack of clarity, I was wrong (and admitted as such) to revert the IP's comment on Bishonen's talk page. I mistakenly thought I was seeing a pattern of disruptive behavior by an IP editor(s) across multiple pages via Huggle (there was a multi-page attack allegedly from the GNAA going on at the same time); this was compounded by edit summaries that appeared to confirm bad intentions. However, after the issue was raised on my talk page and I looked more carefully, I agreed that I was mistaken to call the edit vandalism, and apologized on my and the IP's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. You really need to not be so aggressive with the Huggle-matic. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• *sighs* This is why I dislike starting sections on ANI, because it's just like lighting a lamp to all of the editors that dislike me. I notice that no one responding to this section has yet to actually address anything in regards to Jack or the diffs I presented. Silverseren^C 01:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you dislike it, and are unable to fathom what causes the WP:BOOMERANG effect, maybe you shouldn't do it. Funny how often we get this on ANI: Stop talking about me, we're talking about that guy ! See WP:BOOMERANG: "Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny." Compare your experiences in the Noleander RFAR case, which I suppose is what Elen is referring to above. Bishonentalk 07:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Except all of you aren't specifying anything that I did wrong, you're just insinuating things about me. What exactly have I done wrong here? I'm not the one that has been making comments like Jack has above. Tell me straight off, what exactly have I done wrong here? Silverseren^C 09:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what you're doing wrong here; a) you're being a civility-prig. When I criticize editors, people take notice and teh subject usually fares poorly over time. b) people look unfavourably at editors doing the pile-on to an ani-cluster-fuck thing, which is what this little sideshow amounts to. ANI magnifies one of the wikis major problems; it offers a platform to anyone who wants to play the talk-like-an-admin game. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you're the one making comments like this. Silverseren^C 09:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Jack is a strange duck, he can be tough to handle, but he does good work. I have nothing remotely good to say about Silverseren, and plenty of bad things to say about him. However the greater point here is that this is an incredibly stupid situation. After what must be months of this battle playing out, the proper solution would have been to hold a binding RfC on the sortable tables issue, (another one on color use is in order as well), and then whomever's edits were going against said binding RfC would be warned then blocked. It should never have gotten this far. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC on colour has been had; twice, actually. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show us where the RfCs on the tables were held? (I'm planning to start a new one, so the old ones would be very useful). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 5
• Wikipedia talk:Consensus/RfC

the first ranges over a bunch of issues and is about a quarter meg ;) The second had a pretty wishy-washy close. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. What are you talking about with sortable tables? Is that Gimmetoo's thing from up above? I'm not involved in that whatsoever and know pretty much nothing about it. I made this section to discuss the incivility Jack has been showing toward multiple editors. Silverseren^C 01:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problems (caused by all sides - this is not one-sided) all stem from a disagreement about sortable tables -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about tables, or sorting, or colour, or cite templates, specifically; it's about my having been critical of a lot of poor users and poor editing over years and they and their friends endlessly nip at my heels and oh-so-much want to see me dinged. The mob loves to have a user offered up on the pillory. Wiki is a blood sport, with live targets. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Doc9871 involved in this dispute? Is that why Jack was bad-mouthing him in the SPI case? If not, then I don't see the relation at all between Gimmetoo's incident and mine. Silverseren^C 09:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you mention him first here? You notify him? The moar, the moar toxic ;) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable tables RFC

I'm planning to start an RFC on the sortable tables issue, which seems to be a long-simmering cause of aggravation. It's a content dispute, so it's not something to be fixed here at ANI. But as the main protagonists seems to be present here, if anyone knows of any previous RFCs or other attempts to get a consensus, would they please provide some links. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mean to say, RexxS has provided what seems like a good basic summary of the technical issue, at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Table sorting and ANI (though if people want to add to that, please save it for the RFC itself) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is needed; WHL's the only one who was strongly against sorting and she folded. This is about editors harassing me and that the AC's left old sanctions gathering dust for years. Moar broadly, it's about the extreme toxicity of this project. It's not getting any better, either. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have you saying it's all about other editors harassing you, and others saying it's about you harassing them. And we're certainly not going to get anywhere with the two sides just sticking their fingers in their ears and butting heads - frankly, whatever the origins of this dispute, you're coming across as bad as each other right now. If at least part of the root cause is disagreement on a technical issue, then resolving that technical issue has to be worthwhile, don't you think? Otherwise the headbutting over it, which has been going on for at least 8 months, will not stop. Anyway, thanks for providing the links above - I'll read them later and see where they lead -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On first glance, the two previous discussion you linked to above seem to be wide in scope. The specific disagreement here is about whether to accommodate Safari 4.0 in table sorting, and if so, how, as that seems to be what people have been edit-warring over. But it's all useful, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to colour RfCs, and you asked after table RfC; the one at ACTOR is both, and huge. It got into sorting rather late-on, and gimme was not involved in any of it. He came in a bit later and is reverting my on mere newlines (horizontal format of table, which is necessary for adding proper scope attributes to the headers). And anything else I do to his articles.

A much more important issue to settle would be the citation templates and list-defined references one.

125.162.150.88 (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good too - if we can define the problem clearly (as a technical issue rather then a "He did, he said" spat) then that might also be productive -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more accusations from the IP, contributing to a "toxic environment", yet no corrections, no warnings, and no demands for diffs from anyone. Fascinating. The technical issues pale in comparison to behaviour of the IP editor. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draft RFC

I've started a draft RFC at User:Boing! said Zebedee/Sandbox/RFC - please make any comments at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee/Sandbox/RFC. Please do not start any discussion in the RFC itself yet - I just want comments about any errors or omissions that should be rectified before it goes live. Actual discussion of the issue itself should wait until it's live. (And please note that any personal attacks or incivility at this stage will be removed) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting another editor's comments

Could an independent admin please assess whether or not this comment deserves to be deleted [56] [57] [58] [59] as per WP:TPO? To me, it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria listed (libel, personal attacks etc.) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not again, TT your presence at multiple such locations and similar situations is clearly a pattern of little benefit to the content of the project and something that multiple users have recently been pointing out to you to give up. Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Do you have anything to say relevant to the question of whether or not this comment deserves to be deleted [60] [61] [62] [63] as per WP:TPO? To me, it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria listed (libel, personal attacks etc.) ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 14:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not again indeed...it's been looking like every time TT gets involved in a thread it becomes about his conduct rather than the original subject. drama. drama. DeCausa (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Do you have anything to say relevant to the question of whether or not this comment deserves to be deleted [64] [65] [66] [67] as per WP:TPO? To me, it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria listed (libel, personal attacks etc.) ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 14:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know I promised to stay away from you but I'll keep this brief. An uninvolved administrator (User:Casliber)did assess whether the comment should be included or not and they concluded it should not. [68] Bob House 884 (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it met any of the criteria, Bob? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 14:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figure that the editors reverting here don't feel it fits under TPO as it's a POV editorial at the top of the heading rather than a bog standard talk page comment, Avanu's point might be relevant to the discussion section but to put it in the 'resolved' box gives the impression it was the consensus reached in the discussion. Perhaps this is an issue you should take up with one of the two uninvolved administrators who have already reverted you. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have answered the question, but since you're not an uninvolved administrator, it matters not. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 14:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't answer your loaded question, I did give a perfectly valid response though which you have chosen to ignore. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[ECs]To me, it doesn't seem to fit the criteria and therefore wouldn't need to be deleted. However, I think that both sides on this issue are pushing too hard seeing as this is a marginal comment that is neither needed, nor does it detract from the conversation. I could live with it either way and it seems that the editors involved are fighing over nothing. It's best to just ignore this.LedRush (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, an edit war over the "resolved" comment on a WQA thread about a user's comments on a now-withdrawn AN/I request for intervention on the Mexican American War hyphen-dash battles. I don't think it can get much lamer than this. If Avanu agrees to withdraw the "resolved" comment that people are fighting over, I think this can go away quietly, can't it? Avanu, you want to help everyone out and do that? 28bytes (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's done it's gone. Avanu closed it and two admins (not just Casliber) closed it. TT's just digging for drama. DeCausa (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to add more drama by making multiple accusations of drama on one discussion. Once should be enough, thank you.LedRush (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) DeCausa, I guess you already know this, but each time three or four people pile into every thread I start and say, "You're just creating drama" – that's the drama. If there weren't allegations flying round, and fingerpointing fingers being pointed, there would be significantly less of a problem. Well that's what I think, anyway. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 14:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like every time you accuse me of creating unnecessary drama by actually making you back up your image speedies in an FFD?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to intentionally disrupt this thread with irrelevant crap then I'm obviously not going to engage with you, other than to ask how you feel the FfD you refer to is going? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 14:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TT, You mean like going close to but not technically over the 3RR rule and hoping an admin will not interpret the reverting literally? And this showing you're fully mindful of calling 3RR on others. Looks like gaming the system. Just like borderline comments. All this teetering around but not crossing bright lines needs to stop. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is fucking ridiculous. If I went round inserting irrelevant needling drivel into threads, I'd be warned and reverted the whole time. Why do you feel you can and have to do it? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 14:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, um, actually, you do. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) My view was that the comment could be seen as a veiled or not so veiled negative reference to the outcome of the discussion. Given the ongoing bickering, it could be construed that a comment might lead to a continuation of bickering elsewhere. Hence it could be seen as disruptive/tendentious. Hence removing it would facilitate folks ending the thread. We need to be more proactive in removing borderline comments in situations of ongoing acrimony, which can (in the circumstances) be seen as disruptive, with folks keen on getting the Last Word in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I initially had a "where would this stuff wind up" concern at the MfD, later weighing in to delete, and now even more convinced now that WQA is a frivolous dumping ground for petty squabbles. Someone files a complaint, it doesn't get much traction, so filer closes with a "I'm taking my ball and going home!" style msg? No... Tarc (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, having seen him over the last few weeks at various venues, TT is now going beyond being just an opinionated editor, and is simply becoming an out and out source of constant griefing - far beyond what is warranted in any of the actual specific situations, descending into completely off topic TT-focused drama in every case (and yes, I do see the irony, but enough is enough). This disruption's been been toleratd for far too long, if he's ever been the subject of attempted corrective action it's clearly not worked. Normally the correct procedure would be to file a user Rfc, but, that's a voluntary process where there needs to be willingess on the part of the user to listen and self reflect, and in all honesty, who here thinks that would be anything more than a giant patented TT-syle wikilawyering clusterfuck? Come on TT, just knock it the fuck off and start acting like a normal person. I honeslty think you won't even be able to help yourself from responding even to this comment with some form of condescending wikilawyering side-stepping bullshit. Wikipedia is not therapy, and whatever it is you get from all this, it's not benefitting the project one bit, so I for one would rather you were given a temporary relief of your ability to do so, until you can come to some sort of self realisation, or permanent if you can't. MickMacNee (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what's your opinion about the deletion of the comment? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 15:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to say no one (or few) give(s) a fuck but there is significantly greatrer concern about you. DeCausa (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well rather than grumbling in an irrelevant thread, could I suggest that you either start a new thread here, open an RfC, file for arbitration or just plain cope. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I can honestly say I couldn't give a fuck about it. Had I given a fuck about it or considered it remotely relevant, I might have included something about it in my post, because, and here's the deal TT, I'm not a fucking moron, and when you ask the same question to what? four different people in this very thread, you can safely assume it's been logged in my brain as a concern of yours. As said, if I remotely thought it was worthwhile, I'd start an Rfc myself. But even now with this 'cope' crap, you make it screamingly obvious what a pointless exercise that would be. But, as you say, if you want me to go through the formalities just so we can get to a venue where such behaviour doesn't go over so well, I probably would, in return for said correction. It's not like I'd have a long wait for a certifier, or even need to look anywhere beyond the ANI archives for evidence, and as long as I switch my monitor to monochrome to avoid the deliberate choice of colour scheme, your talk pages too. MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I apparently started this drama [[69]], I'll say that my AGF reading of the Avanu's closing tag didn't interpret it as snarky. 1) WQA is voluntary and 2) nothing good was coming out of the thread. Gerardw (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am unsure what this report is really about. I removed the coment because it seems obvious that while an editor posting to Ani is allowed to close his own thread when the issue is resolved, that doe snot mean that he is allowed to take this as an opportunity to take the last word. I removed the comment once, two other admins also removed it. I don't see what the basis for any further action or discussion here is.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the original filer and some other editors don't see a problem with the language you removed.LedRush (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes that an issue? If three independent admins found it to be problematic, it cannot be said to be obviously unproblematic and the decision to keep or remove would be a judgment call. Of course if a larger consensus determines that the comment should be reinserted then that can be done, but honestly don't we have better stuff to do than make a large scale discussion out of this tiny issue? ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise?

Does this [[70]] work for everyone? (Anyone?) Gerardw (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I'm presumably not allowed to mark this thread resolved even though I started it (!) so if someone else would care to do the honours? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 17:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also have no problems with that solution.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) better. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better is good. Not sure how to interpret the sigh, though. Seems a bit snarky to me. Gerardw (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, leave it out. Mathsci (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this thread, and I'm super confused why it even was started. How is it 'snarky' to say that Wikiquette thread was not providing a positive outcome? The whole goal is to help two editors who have had an issue. It isn't about winning or losing. As far as I could tell, the tone of the discussion was very opposed to reasonable discussion -- "childish", "forum-shopping", "Maybe you should just drop the entire thing, including this WQA". So, I took the advice. That kind of situation doesn't produce anything positive. -- Avanu (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bahamut0013 using admin tools as an involved user

Delta bullying; followon to User:Bahamut0013 using admin tools as an involved user

It's not all about Bahamut0013. If Delta did something which deserved blocking, that would be appropriate at ANI. And his bullying may deserving blocking. Since most of the editors, closing the previous comment, refuse to consider whether Delta was doing anything improper which might require admin action, I'm reopening that for consideration.

I won't comment on it, as I've been opposed to much of what beta/delta believed to be policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delta and I had some discussion on it here at my talk page. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His attitude has been a constant source of problems for him. if it's continuing is a clear indication he should never have been allowed back on the project. I'd like to see some recent examples if you have some.--Crossmr (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity check - Francis E Williams

• Francis E Williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.156.183.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.43.161.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 109.144.234.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.225.199.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I've just blocked User:Francis E Williams for a week for carrying on baiting User:24.177.120.138 while the IP was blocked, after an acrimonious argument that has just been archived here, and I'd just like a sanity check if you wouldn't mind.

• He did this at the IP talk page, which was clearly deliberate baiting while he's blocked.
• The he did this at his own Talk page, which was clearly more baiting.
• I removed it and warned him here
• He responded by re-adding the baiting here
• I removed the baiting again and blocked him
• Back at the IP talk page he reverted my removal of his first baiting as a IP User:86.156.183.157, here
• I've also blocked the IP for 48 hours

Any thoughts? (PS: I'll notify User:Francis E Williams, but I don't see any need to aggravate User:24.177.120.138 further as he probably never saw it and this isn't about him - though I'll notify him too if anyone thinks I should). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now I just got this on my Talk page - clearly the same person using multiple IP addresses -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking, you look sane. :) In all seriousness someone's socking there it appears. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider your sanity checked. It all looks good to me.LedRush (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are all still not reading what has been written!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.234.182 (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I read it all but nevertheless concur with Boing! said Zebedee. Kim Dent-Brown^(Talk) 19:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, his Talk page and archives are very confusing, so your assistance is appreciated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And he's back with this - IP 109.144.234.182 now also blocked for 48 hours, and User Talk:Francis E Williams semi-protected -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Just out of idle curiosity, the IP addresses used so far are...

86.156.183.157 = BT, Southsea

217.43.161.176 = BT, Oxted, South of London

109.144.234.182 = BT Openzone (public access), London

80.225.199.69 = Tiscali dynamic IP, Hull

(Note I'm disclosing nothing that isn't easily publicly accessible - I used http://cqcounter.com/whois/) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You`re still all missing the point - have a look at the botton of the accused`s page about what he is up to now. There is a message that is pretty plain and simple. Maybe it`s going over the top of your heads guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.199.69 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

80.225.199.69 now blocked for 48 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, for repeated trolling and block evasion, I have reblocked User:Francis E Williams indefinitely - I think we'll need to see some commitment to stop this tendentious behaviour before he can be unblocked. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to adjust the block accordingly. As he clearly has access to a range of dynamic IPs, I have also temporarily semi-protected the IP Talk page he was trolling -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking seems futile, I don`t think he is coming back.

WP:SOAP, WP:DENY. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, but that`s where you`re wrong!. I`m not just abandoning my account, I`m leaving this site to it`s own devices. I have better things to do with my time left. Yes, it is sad that you are loosing the benefit and knowledge from what was a content contributor ( with real words and paragraphs not just sentences. it is bizarre that I have to try and make my point in this fashion, when you deny free speech that makes good sense. Take the blinkers off for goodness sake and step back and take a good look at yourselves, and what is considered to be "politically correct" talking but has no basis in the real world.. Nobody can teach experience, wisdom. Until the episode with 24.177.120.138 and his various accounts I had no need to be anything but a satisfied legitimate user with ONE static i.p. address and user name. I guarantee you, (and check out the logs) I have never created any other account in any other name. I only used legitimate means (my static i.p. address) to create the "sock" account to try and give back some of the hassle I was getting. I know what to do with internet access, as I have said before don`t underestimate my intelligence or access to resources. I can access thousands of i.p. addresses, not just via B.T.s networks. All the i.p. addresses used today are all new to me and the 217.43.161.176 was a fault on your own system which accidentally gave me access to edit. I didn`t get to Wiki until way after that i.p. address was first used for one edit only. Check it out see if I`m teeling the truth if you know how. You are all assuming who I am what I am and seeing the world throught your own system only. The guys that can sort these issues out have to have a degree of intelligence (not neccessarily an education). If I can do it, surely can`t you see by now that so can anyone else, and hey, I`m on old senile soon to be state pensioner who refuses to grow old gracefully, and still remembers being a teenager with attitude! You`re as old as you think yourself to be. Walk a mile in my shoes before you judge and dismiss my character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.7.252 (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.11.102 (talk) [reply] Your own system has attributed that edit to the wrong i.p. address without my help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.11.102 (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] Tell me, when does free speech become vandalisation? only in your own mind. I have no intention of vandalising any article or page as you incorrectly report, nor have I posted any declaration to do so, so please retract that accusation. I have some standards after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.11.102 (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] The only problem you are encountering here is that you insist on trying to carry on a fight when you need to drop it, and you keep trolling that other IP's Talk page while he's blocked. If you're really nearly a pensioner, surely you're grown up enough to just let it go so we can try to bring and end to the disruption? We stopped the attacks on you, and we will do so again if they continue. But if you insist on trying to get in the last punch, it will never stop - and I'm sure you can understand that, can't you? It's up to you really - if you'll drop the fight and stop insisting on retaliation (including reverting edits of unconnected editors with whom you have had other previous problems), then your account is still there and I don't see why you can't resume with it. Anyway, I'm off to bed now, so I will bid you goodnight and I hope you'll have a think on these words -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to see you're talking using your registered account on your Talk page - I've replied over there and will do what I can to help resolve this amicably -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, are we going to unblock Francis E Williams, or are we going to continue to let him edit through IPs? –MuZemike 05:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think unblocking would depend on how he responds in the current discussion on his Talk page. If he agrees to drop the stick and leave us to deal with the fight via the proper channels, I think we could unblock. I'd much rather get an amicable agreement than have a potential long-running IP sock war on our hands -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, re-reading his latest on his Talk page, I think it could be read as his having agreed to drop the fight (with just the "I have a final message for the i.p. user" possibly being ambiguous). If people think it would be beneficial to unblock now, I'll be happy to make it so -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• He just did this, which does not look positive, and I don't think we can unblock right now. Can't really keep User talk:24.177.120.138 semi-protected as that will stop 24.177.120.138 posting there too, and it will expire in a few hours. So if anyone can keep an eye on it for Francis E Williams coming back there as an IP, that would be helpful -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Levineps and yet another violation of his editing restrictions

Deja vu. Anyway, I just noticed Levineps (talk · contribs) recently violated his editing restrictions, which include, inter alia, a complete ban from performing any page moves. He violated this twice since his last block, on February 22, 2011 and again on April 19, 2011.

The last incident for which he was blocked was also a page move violation, in January 2011: ANI report here. The full restrictions, as well as the enforcement log, are documented in a collapsed box on his user page. postdlf (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was lower-casing the parenthetic word in the title, and he might be forgiven for that move had he also corrected it from "politican" as some bozo had renamed it to a couple of weeks ago. Someone else had to do the spelling correction after Levine moved it. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 22:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he had performed the move correctly by fixing both issues rather than just that one, the ban was made absolute, without regard to the merits of the move performed, because he proved that he couldn't be trusted with that editing ability. postdlf (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm just saying that he could maybe try and defend himself if he had done the move fully correctly. In this case, it doesn't make sense. Whether it's "(Politican)" or "(politican)", it's still messed up. "What was he thinking?" (Rhetorical question.) ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 22:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot I was banned, I thought the period was over. It was a completely innocent move on my part.Levineps (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Why would you think that?postdlf (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Levineps: Your sanctions are specified in a drop-down box on your user page. For your future reference, they are in force permanently, or until such time as the community sees fit to remove them. That time is unlikely to come if you keep "forgetting" that they exist.

As an aid to his memory, I would suggest that Levineps be blocked for a month, as I believe his last block for violating his sanctions was two weeks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. postdlf (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His last block was for a week, so this one is for two weeks. Next one will be for a month. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, Elen, I would suggest you increase the duration to three weeks or a month. When I blocked him back in February, I erred on the side of assuming good faith and didn't increment the block duration, but I stated in the ANI thread that three weeks or a month would be the next duration. I'd suggest treating my February block as though I had incremented the duration because the reasons I gave for not doing so clealry don;t apply now there's been another vioaltion. HJ MitchellPenny for your thoughts? 15:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to give him an extra week for that useless excuse. 'I thought it had expired' indeed. I don't want to appear a meanie - what do others think. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's his fourth block for his fifth violation (the first time he was just given a warning), his third page move violation, and the second time he claimed that he innocently thought his restrictions had "expired." Two weeks is too light. postdlf (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've convinced me. Mitchell did warn him last time it would be a month. I have amended accordingly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Radio 2, again

all users notified

• Ocaasi (talk · contribs)
• TheRetroGuy (talk · contribs)

• 188.221.183.71 (talk · contribs)
• 132.185.240.124 (talk · contribs)
• 81.20.49.81 (talk · contribs)
• 82.132.248.69 (talk · contribs)

• Prior AN/I thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive611#Andrew_Peach
• Prior talk thread: Talk:BBC_Radio_2#Bio_Info
• Current talk thread: Talk:BBC_Radio_2#Andrew_Peach
• Relevant article section: BBC_Radio_2#News.2Ftravel.2Fcontinuity_staff

Further chapter in the annals of BBC Radio 2 announcers. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive611#Andrew_Peach was a prior edit war over whether Andrew Peach should be listed as a 5 Live presenter; now it's over whether he's a daytime/evening news reader. IPs are back requesting we counter an alleged mission of AP to "big himself up" which is the ips' terminology for allegedly exaggerating his reputation. The IP(s) is(are) personally invested in this and work for the BBC. I'm approaching 3RR or over it, but the initial series of reverts were due to changes without sources. There are sources from 2008/2009 which place Peach as a daytime news reader. Since then, updates in RS are spotty. Sources have been provided which could synthetically show that Peach has been replaced, and the ips suggest he be listed as an evening news reader; but there's no explicit mention regarding this position of his in the past 2 years and no full published schedule from the BBC. The ips have proposed just merging categories to avoid any 'rank' issues, but given their COI, I'm hesitant to do so. Assistance requested to investigate RS, edit-warring, page protection, and possible sock/meat puppetry. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 02:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC) updated 10:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to referee in this disagreement some months ago, but without success. Both sides seemed unwilling to reach any compromise so I have stayed pretty much out of it since then. This argument is at least two years old now, so we need a solution to bring it to a close. TheRetroGuy (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so much on a side, except for being quite resistant to COI editors motivated by suspicions, accusations, and personal vendettas. If someone else would like to mediate this, I'd gladly step away from the page. Ocaasi ^c 11:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major COI/POV-pushing issue

Has this: http://hurryupharry(.)org/2011/05/04/raining-on-sergeant-len-matthews-parade/ (remove parenthesis to access to the link - damn spam filter!) already been reported? Is it already being dealt with? If so, sorry for interrupting. But if not: how could this happen? Such a blatant manipulation? Cheers to all, Insert coins (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This The Promise (2011 TV serial), seems to be the relevant article referred to on the website link above. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 15:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed person

İrf Temrjukovna Oruç seems to be non-existent in reality but the editors that probably are sock-puppets have been trying to use both reliable (but not relevant) and non-reliable sources to pose this person as existing. The speedy deletion tag is constantly being removed and the article needs immediate attention as it has been subject of cross-wiki spamming in several other wikis in other languages. Excuse me if I have used inappropriate language as this is my first attemp to use the noticeboard; but this example should be examined closely by some administrator, and the editors should be examined for clashing IPs. I hope I am not doing anything wrong for the wiki. Thanks already. --Stultiwikia^{text me} 15:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on whether not the article is a hoax, but in general if you have to explain how the article is a hoax, it is not obvious enough for speedy deletion. Since the speedy tag kept being removed by relatively new editors, I'd suggest taking the article to AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's a hoax. I agree generally about the 'if you have to explain' bit, but in this case, the alleged mother of the alleged Irf Oruc is Black Widow (Natalia Romanova) - see Marvel Wikia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With that and other info (like the non-existing father and the explanation I made to some other administrator, I assumed any admin taking notice would immediately understand it is a hoax and there would be no need to further explanation. It has been standing there for a while and also in other wikis; so I was tired of explaining everything from the beginning all over. Anyways, thanks a lot to both of you. Cheers. --Stultiwikia^{text me} 15:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would a dash of salt be helpful here as well? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a BLP, and BLPs (or other biographies) don't generally have infoboxes in the sense that it is uncontroversial to add them. (E.g. there is long-standing consensus that opera composers generally don't get infoboxes.) I don't understand the concerns of the editor who is removing this infobox, but has I have noted on the talk page of the article, this infobox serves no purpose other than drawing unwarranted attention to irrelevant trivia. Hans Adler 17:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm. This is what I get for not reading it well enough. Thanks, Elen. lifebaka++ 17:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 28 birthdays

I watch the November 28 page. Over the last month IPs ( mainly 213.105.50.94 and 84.92.218.161 )have been added a large number of people with birthdays on that date. Probably averaging a couple per day. I assumed these were legit since I checked the person's page and they gave November 28th as their birthday. However I've just looked a bit more closely and it appears the anon IPs are updating the original bios first, changing the birthdate and sometimes other information and then making the November 28th entry. Examples include Tristan Lake Leabu, Adele Parks, Rachel Rath (imdb gives October 2), Richard Bean. Sorry I didn't spot this earlier - SimonLyall (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an enormous tangled mess. I came across the November 28 page after blocking User:213.105.50.94 for the continued addition of unsourced DOBs to BLPs without sources. While going back through their contributions it's apparent they've been at this since October 2010. They also appear to be making similar changes under User:84.92.218.161. All of the DOBs are being changed to November 28, then added to the November 28 page. We would need to revert November 28 back a June 18, 2010 version in order to attempt to undo the potential damage. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and rv'd to the 11 June 2010 revision. I'm going to request protection. —Jeremy v^_^v^{Components:V S M} 20:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I would add the protection myself, but as I've blocked one of the offending parties it would probably be best to leave it to another admin. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good bet would be that it's the birthday of the editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hijacking of an AN/I section by Bus stop to discuss an off-topic content dispute.

User:Camelbinky has raised a complaint aboveregarding comments I made, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism. Since I have responded to this there, this is clearly not the place to discuss this further. However, User:Bus stop has chosen to use this section to make comments regarding a long-running content dispute - not the subject of Camelbinky's complaint, and as such off-topic. In spite of my request to desist, [80], Bus Stop has continued, even while admitting that he/she is "trying 'not' to address the real reason we are here". [81] Can I ask an administrator to either delete Bus Stop's off-topic comments, or at least try to get the discussion back on track - This is AN/I, and the content dispute has nothing to do with Camelbinky's complaint. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—in fact virtually every other post in the discussion is going on and on about whether Jewish refers to a "nationality" or a "race" or a "religion" or a "culture" etc. I have weighed in on that topic. If my comments are off-topic they are no more off-topic than virtually every other post found in that thread.

Yes, I admitted to not addressing the real issue which is your abrasive dialogue with your fellow editors. Am I required to address that too? Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jewishness is not a "nationality" or a "race". With Judaism's unique history, Jewishness can be considered a type of "ethnic group". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney R. Crowley and User:Kraxler

I am having issues at Rodney R. Crowley with User:Kraxler. He is an excellent editor and researcher, adding lots of material and lots of new articles on topics for New York State, an area that I also create articles for. However, in a classic example of the pride that comes with ownership, he keeps removing the infobox at Rodney R. Crowley saying there is an error in it, but he will not fix the error or say what the error is. He asked for a third opinion at User_talk:Lifebaka which supported the infobox, now he is venue shopping until he gets the opinion he is looking for. He is also restoring dead links and removing references that I am formatting into the standard inline citation method and restoring his version of having them as external links here. He has also called me "mentally retarded" at Talk:Rodney R. Crowley and "half-illiterate" at User talk:Lifebaka and my edits "vandalism". He has a habit of reversing any edits I make to articles he has created, for instance here where I add links to place names and change the lede from the German Wikipedia style to the English style. You can get an idea here of his combative editing style as he follows me from article to article undoing my changes. Here at Talk:Arthur William Wallander, he demands I post a death certificate to be able to use the information from the Connecticut Death Index, in an article he has made no contributions to. Here he kneejerk reverts my removal of a recursive link that I put in myself and then I deleted it, he revert it back in place. Good editors can disagree over many issues and this happens all the time, so it is always best to get other people involved to resolve issues. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like somebody who knows the Wikipedia guidelines reading the recent edit history at Arthur William Wallander, Rodney R. Crowley and Benjamin S. W. Clark, including talkpages; and the discussion at User talk:Lifebaka#Complaint, and give me a third opinion on what to do. Kraxler (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you do is you put the infobox back, and you stop edit warring over it, because BLPs generally have infoboxes. If you delete it again, you can be blocked for edit warring. If some of the information in the infobox is wrong, then you correct the wrong bit. If you don't know how to do that, you say on the talk page what bit of info is wrong, and another editor can fix it. And you don't call anyone "mentally retarded" or I will block you myself,as that kind of attack is completely unacceptable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox has been restored and the issue resolved to my satisfaction. So much drama for a such a minor issue. It appears that he was removing the box because there wasn't a succession to the position but it had several people serving at the same time. It took a few seconds to change the box parameter to accommodate that once made clear that was his objection. We still have the issues of calling me "mentally retarded" at Talk:Rodney R. Crowley and "half-illiterate" at User talk:Lifebaka. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is resolved, but the behavior by Kraxler here leaves much to be desired This edit in which he states that "I resent it that a mentally retarded copy-and-paste wizard hijacks my time to eliminate errors introduced in a correct article, and tramples on almost all wikipedia guidelines. I will have you blocked permanently as a vandal, there is already enough evidence to show it. Now you are already hiding sources that contradict you, and state "may have been", hahaha." is just the most egregious example. Kraxler seems to have taken ownership of this and other articles he has created and has reacted to content he believes to be at issue by making wholesale removals of everything RAN added. The more collegial action would have been for Kraxler to either fix the material he believed to be incorrect, limiting his removals to only the data he deemed to be incorrect and discussing the issue on the talk page for either the article or contacting the editor directly. The edit warring and threats of blocks are entirely unjustified. Alansohn (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need third party opinion to-

find out that I'm not the only one who thinks User:Imbonwwwww is an ass (excuse my french - but I had to deal with this antisocial behavior for close to 4 months now). Okay, first of all please check his edit history. It's like his sole purpose is to revert me and other select users. That's all he does, follow our edits and reverts them. Doesn't respond to discussion invites and makes absolutely no constructive edits whatsoever. I swear this guy has my contributions in his watchlist. Kuebie (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be doing the same thing to Historiographer (talk·contribs) too. Doesn't seem to have made a non-revert edit in a while. Had another account in the past do we think? S.G.^(GH)_ping! 13:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the following accounts appear to be the same person:

• Efficiency54WS (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Imbonwwwww (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gaia1CB3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Efficientvegetarianmn2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Efficiency J Lam 82 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Farmingpasbw7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Efficiencyc62 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Vegetarianliux64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mendel 56 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Efficiency576os (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• TsDavid51 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Vegetarianmn2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Einstein Li 37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gaia5074Q (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Steven Tim M. (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Efficient vegetariannnwf607 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Vegetarianliux64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser (log) · investigate · cuwiki) dup of above —DoRD (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC) TNXMan 13:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Gaia1CB3! That makes soooooo much sense. Thanks for looking into that. Now do I have to go through a medium to get this dude to stop harassing us or is his accounts automatically blocked? Kuebie (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been taken up at WP:SPI? If the user is the sock of a blocked user, they'll be blocked pretty quickly. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Thank you. Kuebie (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the registration dates, Efficiency576os is the master account. Is there any reason all of these shouldn't be summarily blocked? —DoRD (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only use one account Imbonwwwww. The above people are not me. And I asked Kuebie/Historiographer to use one account. These accounts edits are often POV and removing opposite views. Please see edit historyedit historyedit historyedit historyedit history. I hope him stop removing facts and use the wikipedia promote his personal views and mislead readers.Imbonwwwww (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except not. Confirmed, all those plus a couple more blocked. — Coren^(talk) 23:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Middleton madness

I protected the article James William Middleton after finding that editors were edit waring to replace this tabloidesque material.

I further removed this thread from the talk page. Wikipedia isn't a forum for discussing unfortunate google results with "gay" for BLP subjects. I was reverted by Colonel Warden, which I view as inappropriate.

I stand by both actions. But as I have voted to merge or delete the article, I'm being accused of content bias on my talk page. Hence, I submit my actions for review.

As this comes on the back of salacious tabloid crap being added to Pippa Middleton yesterday, I sugest more uninvolved watchlists would be good.--Scott Mac 17:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand Scott Mac's concern - I wasn't keen on that gay/Google stuff myself. But he seems to be too heavy-handed in both locking down the article and trying to control discussion on the talk page too. We have to be able to discuss topics in order to arrive at consensus. It seems improper for Scott Mac to be prejudging the issue when he is involved in discussions about the article himself. He seems to want to control the article by personal fiat. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Given I've never even edit the article that seems a wide description. Stuff about googling someone with the word "gay" has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia article.--Scott Mac 17:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was content about this aspect of the topic with multiple sources in the article. The talk page discussion therefore related to article content. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have sourced more articles than tabloid newspapers discussing the info but now i cannot add them in. In the deleted thread all was perfectly relevant to technical issues viewing the content.Nirame (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure we need any additional administrative action here, the article is locked for a few days to protect it from the addition of tabloid titillation type additions and you can use that time to make WP:Edit requests and seek consensus on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dont feel that is possible, it has already been shown that discussion threats get deleted there and blocking threats are issued if they are returned .Nirame (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well - perhaps have a read of WP:Policies and Guidelines especially WP:BLP - and return to the talkpage refreshed. All that titillating sexual speculation is more correct in a celebrity magazine than a wikipedia BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • (ec) No I don't think Scott Mac wants to control an article that he hasn't edited; rather, he seems to want to uphold and protect BLP policy in spirit and letter (which is admirable). Rather than reverting, you should have come here if you wanted more eyes on the actions being taken. Don't see a reason for further action. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scott Mac wants to delete the article per his previous comment at the related AFD. This makes him involved. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting is not deleting. Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

his actions work to achive the same. how can users work on the article to adress issues raised in the deletion discussion if they cannot edit. requesting changes on the talk page would be pointless as the user removes i progress discussions from there. Nirame (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The oly thing I have removed is your replacement of this shit. This has nothing to do with building a quality article.--Scott Mac 18:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't swear at me. That shows you are removing what you personally regard as that rather than letting people reach consensus. I returned one thread one yet i have been threatened with blocking and sworn at. You are showing abuse and bias. Nirame (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you submit material which is fully compliant with BLP policy, you will have nothing to worry about; when editors submit material which fails to meet that standard, it does not just frustrate a couple of administrators - it frustrates the Community at large. If you don't want to be blocked, heed the warning. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just be happy that you weren't blocked for this policy violation. HansAdler 18:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What did i violate by returning that discussion once and where does is say i can be blocked for one reversion?Nirame (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP, which states "Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." It also states "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" and "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." All right up in the lede. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the other user is saying that singular action could have done it which seems ridiculous. not a number of actions as your quote is refering to.

@CW: If you really insist on going on about Scott MacDonald being involved, I'll unprotect and reprotect the page myself for the exact same duration. Stop focusing on any supposed involvedness and actually address his and others' concerns. NW(Talk) 18:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded (or is that thirded?) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, BLP falls under the exceptional circumstances clause further below in the policy (and the fact that Scott opened this review and requested more uninvolved eyes on these pages alleviates any involvement concerns). The responsibility is firmly on the editor to demonstrate that any BLP material they submit on any page on Wikipedia is fully compliant with BLP policy, both in spirit and letter; that onus does not shift to the admin who removes material which fails to meet that standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have long-standing consensus that this type of material is only included in blp articles under exceptional circumstances, and even then normally only in a very restrained way. Although WP:BLP has some passages that are marginally relevant, this is not really discussed there. Perhaps it should be, so that we have a specific section to which we can point those who are familiar with the Sun or the Mirror and have never looked into Britannica, so don't know the difference between a tabloid and an encyclopedia. Pseudo-news from pseudo-newspapers is simply unacceptable as sources, and any reporting about the excesses of the tabloid press that makes it into reliable sources needs to be treated in such a way that we don't become yet another instrument in victimising the subjects. Hans Adler 18:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had I known that the inexcusable tabloid nonsense I saw on recent changes patrol yesterday that spurred me to AFD this article would get so ridiculously extreme, I would have come here first and asked that the article be speedily deleted and salted per WP:HARM and WP:IAR. This poor guy, who has never done anything to be remotely notable enough to pass WP:GNG, is getting shat upon by the tabloid press, and editors are claiming notability specifically so they can throw sharp rocks at him. If I were him I'd be enraged. This is a living person; we should have more sense than to allow an article to exist simply because tabloids are spreading juicy gossip about the subject. --NellieBly (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both Middleton articles (Pippa & James) should be deleted. There existence smacks of recentism, as nobody cared about who these 2 people were, until their sister married Billy Mountbatten of the House of Windsor (aka Prince William, Duke of Cambridge). GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People need to realise: Wikipedia exists primarily to validate the readership of Hello magazine in their belief that encyclopaedic knowledge of the relatives of the rich and famous-for-being-famous somehow confers nobility on themselves. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, this is the most recent edit to Pippa Middleton. Are the sources being used here reliable or British tabloids? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those 2 articles are becoming an embarrasment to the project. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Osama bin Laden merchandising

moved to another forum; apparently redundant here; see WP:AN#Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden_merchandising
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I wanted to discuss merchandising at Talk:Death of Osama bin Laden, but this user Rklawton (talk) immediately deleted my addition thus accusing me of adding spam. He now accues me of simply amusing myself at his and other editor's expense. I would like this topic reinstated as it seems to be perfectly valid and has not been suggested by any other contrubutor. Another editor, User talk:N5iln, who mistakenly gave me a warning, has apologised for being over-hasty and has made some useful sugestions. Thank you. 86.172.225.184 (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] You've cross posted this at WP:AN... please have a read of WP:FORUMSHOPPING for an explanation of why this is discouraged & frowned on --Errant (chat!) 22:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] You did add spam. I can't help but be amused by this. This is like saying, "I'm not trying to advertise for Coca-Cola, I just want to start a discussion about the refreshing beverage that is sure to quench your thirst, which has been enjoyed by many generations all over the world and can now be purchased at a reduced price at Wal-Mart and other leading retailers, for a limited time." Even if that wasn't your intent, the way you phrased it (putting links to sales web sites and saying that there was lots of fun merchandise) really made it look like you were doing so. Please keep in mind our guideline at WP:ELNO. -- Atama頭 22:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] Or the old TV ad about calling person-to-person-collect and asking for someone named "Wehadababyitsaboy."←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move war over typography of en dash versus hyphen

Moratorium on hyphen page moves

banned user

92.28.84.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wants blocking; appears to be banned user Light Current. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-admin comment) Blocked by Gfoley4. WikiPuppies! (bark) 00:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)An admin has now blocked it for 7 days. There is a lengthy analysis now, on the ref desk talk page, essentially confirming that these subnets, including 92.28, are from the banned user "Light current". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for IP block

A user has investigated the various IP's used by Light Current, and they all "trace-route" back to a single IP: 62.24.255.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Is it possible to issue a block to that IP, and if so, would that choke off the troll? I'm talking maybe a week, just to see if it helps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told that such a block won't have any effect. Is that true, and if so, is there anything else that can be done, beyond some broad range-blocks? ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 04:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no, respectively. Individual IP blocks longer than about a day are also pretty pointless. You'd need an ACB or hard block on every range being used. I'd think that's quite unlikely given Tiscali's scope. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 10:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's Opal now. And his old IP range was blocked for a month last year with nary an effect, so it's very likely blocking his current IP ranges would be similarly lacking in collateral damage. But at worst, we can just keep swatting that mosquito whenever he turns up. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 10:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those ISPs all kind of merge into one, and hold some monster ranges. A quick look tells me he's using 89.243/16, 92.28/16, 92.25/16, 92.29/16, 78.148/16, and 78.150/16. That's simply not blockable unless you can narrow it down a lot. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 10:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about trying it for a few days and see if anyone yelps. It worked before. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 10:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about nearly half a million (identified) IP address from a very popular UK ISP. There's no way I'm going to condone that kind of block. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 11:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then it will have to be shoot-the-fish-in-the-barrel for the foreseeable future. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 11:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone attempted to file an abuse report? How is Opal about responding to abuse reports? - Burpelson AFB✈ 17:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone email me details on this user's editing patterns? I might be able to create an abuse filter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot problem

A bot [85] is removing an important superfamily from an insect genus. I undid the edits and asked on the bot's discussion page why this was going on. The bot includes a link that lists the changes, but does not say why it is removing this superfamily; it's an important grouping in agriculture, and the articles are almost all written from that perspective; and the superfamily is not elsewhere in the article. The bot may be doing it according to a recent dissertation, but that would be original research, not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The bot continues to operate although I posted a bug report. --184.99.179.238 (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should take a look at WP:TX. According to this policy, these ranks should not be included. I made those articles and I certainly did not make them for their "agricultural" importance, so I dont know where you got that from, but I agree they are agriculturally important. Anyway, I was not aware of the policy that these ranks should be excluded at the time I made the articles. Now that I am, I dont really care that they are removed. Finding these minor ranks is not difficult: just click on the family rank and you will see to which superfamily the species belongs.Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor rank means different things for different taxa. If no minor ranks should be included, they shouldn't be coded. There is a reason for including this particular subfamily, it's well-known. The bot didn't move the information from the taxobox to the article, it removed the information completely. By the way, did you copy the mining descriptions from the database or vice versa? --184.99.179.238 (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The database does not have a description of the mines for 90% of the species. I got the descriptions from other pages and research articles mostly. The database cited mainly has info on the distribution and host plants. Anyway: it seems you have an interest in leaf mining species, why dont you help out making articles, I could always use a bit of help! :) About the removal of these ranks: I will leave this discussion to the people who suggested removing the ranks in the first place. Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, plus minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted." This superfamily is important to understanding the classification of the genera. Not all species and genera have relevant superfamily; these particular genera have a relevan superfamily that is frequently included in discussions of the taxon, and this where the bot is removing the superfamily. --184.99.179.238 (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary provided by the bot includes a link to its approval. It seems to have been briefly discussed at the relevant wikiproject, and I have added a comment there pointing to this report (see WT:WikiProject Lepidoptera#Discussion). Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a discussion. It is a list, without explanations, about removing superfamilies from articles that already have genera, and so on. This superfamily should be included in its genera articles. See my arguments above. --184.99.179.238 (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruigeroeland is entirely right that this minor rank ought to be removed, as was agreed, and as was approved for the bot. Contrary to the IPs assertions, it is not important to understanding the species involved. Indeed, the superfamily Gracillarioidea is a much less well known taxon than the family Gracillariidae, and our article on the superfamiy is tiny compared to the article on the family. There are indeed cases where taxa at minor ranks are important for a taxobox; this isn't one of them. The bot is right to make the changes it is making. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no discussion about the importance of the family versus the superfamily until you said this right here. This decision should have been made before the bot removed the superfamily. The family is very well known, but the superfamily is also very well known and studied as the superfamily. If the superfamily were also in the article, removing it for these genera would not matter, but the superfamily is being removed from the articles. The phylogenetics of the superfamily is a current hot topic, an encyclopedia provides basic information like this: connecting this superfamily to members. This is one of the times where the minor rank is important. The bot operator is wrong to program the bot to make this change. --70.57.230.148 (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, was it agreed to remove all superfamily for all genera of Lepidoptera? Are all superfamilies as little known as Gracillarioidea versus its family? There is no discussion about this. You've come and said the bot was right to remove this one superfamily. I disagree. Now, is it correct in removing all superfamilies? Where is that discussion? That is what the discussion should have been before the bot started removing all the superfamilies. --70.57.230.148 (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more point in response: the size of Wikipedia articles is not proof of anything at all. --70.57.230.148 (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I defence of the bot I must say that it was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lepidoptera#RfC, the talk page for the wikiproject covering all moths and butterflies. I notice you are well-known with the subject of Lepidoptera, but seeing you use an IP instead of a username, I think you are not very active on wikipedia. Might I suggest you make a username and start watching the talk page mentioned earlier? If something like this happens in the future, you can jump in and share your opinion. I do use wikipedia often and have seen the discussion but was neutral on the subject of removing these ranks, hence I made no comment. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The basic position that minor ranks should not be included in taxoboxes (the core part of this bot task) is of very long standing at WP:TX, and (as far as I know) enjoys universal agreement. I have seen no evidence that the one superfamily in question is substantively different from the many others that are routinely excluded from species-level and genus-level taxoboxes. To answer your question, then, yes, there was agreement to remove all distant, minor ranks from taxoboxes for taxa at low rank; this was both in the form of the long-held guidelines on taxobox usage, and the specific discussions surrounding the bot task. That task only covers Lepidoptera, but only because that's where the bulk of the problem lies, and for no other reason. The link between a taxon and its members still remains, but we cannot include all taxa in the taxobox, which is intended to be a summary, so we exclude minor ranks except ones very close to the subject taxon. This is all explained at WP:TX. If the membership of Gracillarioidea is under debate, then that debate will take the form of which families (its direct children) to include (and possibly individual aberrant genera), but will hardly list them species by species. Thus, we see that the superfamily is not of direct relevance to the species – not in the same way that the family is – and the species are not relevant to the superfamily. One last note: I did not claim that article size is "proof" of anything, but I do think it rather suggestive that a taxon which you claim to be of central importance to these species has such a weak article. In general, better known taxa have longer articles; having such a short article at Gracillarioidea (one which does not mention any of the reasons for its being a "hot topic") does nothing to convince me of its importance. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to 184.99.179.238, the bot does not stop after a bug report is filed. The bot performs multiple tasks and a unrelated bug report may stop a scheduled task from performing. It will stop after a block or when the appropriate shutdown page is activated. This was linked in the bots edit summary. This task was approved after 2 RfC's which ended with consensus for the changes. The BRfA was approved by the BAG. The more information link led you to the BRfA where the list of changes is available. Also on the page are links to the two RfCs and the filed bot request which probably provide the information you are looking for. Noom _talk ^stalk 15:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, shut the bot down pending comments from the opposing users. Noom _talk ^stalk 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy shutdown on that, Noom. I'm surprised an active contributor didn't see the RfC for this at WT:LEPID or the note about it at WT:TOL. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newcomer AnnNorwood interfering with deletion processes

Removed CSD tags from Rosetta Walker here and here, removed AFD tag here and blanked AFD discussion page here. Probable sock of RosettaWalker, who also removed CSD tag here, SPI investigation pending here. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD and AFD tags removed again here. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a single warning having been issued - I'll issue one now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning issued, and as the early AfD responses made it clear it was an unfairly contested A7, I have deleted the article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT Template:Hansard-contribs

High traffic template is being vandalised with, potentially, disturbing images. Please see Template:Hansard-contribs. P. S. Burton (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's the right one? That looks to have been fully protected since January 2010 and not edited since -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be the transcluded template Template:StripWhitespace which has been vandalised (twice) by EvMurre10. Locking and blocking needed. Voceditenore (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes. I am absolutely certain. It is strange indeed, when I looked at it some minutes ago, their were several photos of a naked woman defecating. Maybe the picture was transcluded somehow. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected by Zzuuzz, returning troll and their underlying IP blocked. TNXMan 16:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin(s) needed at Bernard Finnigan

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Bernard Finnigan about whether the article should include coverage of an alleged serious criminal offense he's been reported to have been charged with. The complex issue is that while the criminal charge cannot be reported in Finnigan's home state of South Australia on legal grounds it can, and has, been reported in major newspapers in other Australian states. This raises issues over whether repeating the reports in his Wikipedia article would cause him harm, and so violate WP:BLP, and whether such material would violate the relevant laws (which Wikipedia may not be subject to). Could an uninvolved admin (or admins) please review this discussion? If the decision is to not include the material, the entire talk page discussion should probably be oversighted. Note that this has also been discussed at WP:AWNB#Troublemakers at Bernard Finnigan and that discussion may also need to be zapped. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ, is this another "superinjunction"-style case? —Jeremy v^_^v^{Components:V S M} 06:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - the issue seems to revolve more around Wikipedia's policies than legal issues, in my view. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should go to WP:BLP/N rather than here. There is some news coverage of the charges but not all that much on the scale of things. If I'm understanding, the guy was a .au MP and cabinet member, so the equivalent of a high-up US congressperson, i.e. a significant public figure, if that matters. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really great on US political systems, but if I understand it correctly, a more accurate description would be a senator in a US state senate. However, I'm not sure where a Minister would sit in the US model - perhaps a state senator with a role in the Governor's Cabinet? It's a minor point, but a US congressperson would be a national role, whereas in this case it is a regional/state role rather than a national one. His responsibilities were important within the state government, although not as one of the most senior positions.- Bilby (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, he is not a national politician per my current understanding after some talk page disussion. More like state or regional level (not sure exactly which). (edited). 69.111.194.167 (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No uninvolved admin has yet responded to this post. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what admin action is needed at this point. Article was protected for a day, things seem calm now, some sources are being gathered and evaluated on the talk page, not yet in article. I think there's general acceptance of updating the article once there's more independent sources (right now several newspapers reporting the incident all are from the same company, that may be pushing an agenda). 69.111.194.167 (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone needs to make a call on whether the discussion on the talk page (including my comments) needs to be deleted. The stories available on the internet are from different media companies BTW. Nick-D (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any reason to delete the stuff on the talk page. The stuff there is cited to published sources and is legitmate for article development. The talk page is noindexed so won't show up in most search engines. And with multiple independent media outlets publishing stuff about the incident, it's getting to be time to put it in the article if it's not yet there. At most, Finnigan supposedly has a court hearing on May 20th and it will all presumably be out of the bag after that. It also seems to me that User:Timeshift may be showing some ownership issues towards the page, though there's not major conflict over it at the moment. Yes I know that Fairfax Media and Newscorp aren't the same company (earlier sources were mostly from Fairfax). It may be that Fairfax and Newscorp have similar editorial perspectives though. Presumably a wider variety of sources will appear over time. I thought this blind item in the .au Greek Community Tribune[86] was amusing.
TLDR: I still don't see an immediate need for admin intervention. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Middleton

I believe the creator of this article is disrupting wikipedia to mock people and prove a point. Within the article he is repeating behaviour on purpose that he has just been chastising people for doing so. see here also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Otto_Middleton RafikiSykes (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I don't see what the problem is here. Can you explain? Drmies (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mocking? Not sure who I'd be mocking. Disruption? Hardly, I created an article which may not be notable, but it is accurate and verifiable. There's some humour involved perhaps. I'm not clear what your objection is, can you spell it out? Would you not have been best to come to my talk page and discuss this, rather than come here? What admin intervention do you want?--Scott Mac 01:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, the sudden creation of Middleton family related articles, has gotten out of hand. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's keep WP:RECENTISM in mind. Notability is not temporary. (I mean seriously, Checkers doesn't even has his own article.) Guoguo12--Talk-- 02:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be speedied, but let's cut the creator a little slack. He's been mopping up a lot of vomit today. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If you have nominated an article for deletion, and others vote to keep it... do make your point clear in the discussion, noting examples of articles that could exist under the rationale for keeping the one in question. do not create an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic just to get it listed for deletion and have others make the same arguments you are making." The user voted in the james william middleton deletion to delete it then protected it and later created this otto article to Illustrate his point and parody behaviour he took issue with in that article. see his posts here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_William_Middleton&diff=prev&oldid=427434609 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_William_Middleton&diff=prev&oldid=427423761 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RafikiSykes (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GiacomoReturned&diff=prev&oldid=427605646 See there for the mocking/supposed humour intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RafikiSykes (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• On Kate Middleton's brother's article, Scott Mac wrote "good grief, are we going to have articles on every Middleton repeating the same family information". Given his earlier approach to the other Middleton articles of course this one is a WP:POINTy piss-take. As sympathetic as I am to his point of view (and however amusing his response), it's "not allowed". DeCausa (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xiatica and www.artabase.net

Could someone take a look at Special:Contributions/Xiatica edits please ? They appear to be a single purpose account adding links to www.artabase.net which describes itself as "an online marketing channel for the fine art market". On the one hand it looks like external link spamming, on the other I'm biased so I don't have the heart to remove the links. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xiatica has very kindly stopped adding links for the time being pending clarification here. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. Interesting. I think, considering Xiatica's willingness to play by the rules, that no administrative action is required. Sean, would you agree that this discussion can be moved to the EL noticeboard? That's where it seems to belong. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds like a plan. I'll move it over there. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Xiatica_and_www.artabase.net. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of bad faith

Dave Snowden

Is it possible to put an article on permanent protection? A banned sock-master continues to obsess over that article, due to his anger with the article's subject. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler just to block if it is a single editor causing problems, which I have now done. I have also applied semi-protection to make it harder for sock puppets. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by Barnstarbob, formerly Vegavairbob

Barnstarbob had been warned recently here about that he could be blocked if he continued to attack other editors. He has recently been extremely attacking, again. He has a tendency to edit in a machine gun style, with lots and lots of edits... and he often archives attacks shortly after making them. Here is a relevant recent diff. Please lend a hand if possible. 842U (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are two warnings on his talk page now (yours and one from Beeblebrox). Let's see how things progress. One more tirade or personal attack will likely see this editor blocked for a while. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xiatica and www.artabase.net

Could someone take a look at Special:Contributions/Xiatica edits please ? They appear to be a single purpose account adding links to www.artabase.net which describes itself as "an online marketing channel for the fine art market". On the one hand it looks like external link spamming, on the other I'm biased so I don't have the heart to remove the links. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xiatica has very kindly stopped adding links for the time being pending clarification here. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. Interesting. I think, considering Xiatica's willingness to play by the rules, that no administrative action is required. Sean, would you agree that this discussion can be moved to the EL noticeboard? That's where it seems to belong. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds like a plan. I'll move it over there. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Xiatica_and_www.artabase.net. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of bad faith

Personal attacks

Could an admin have a word with User talk:194.66.216.40 and ask them to cease their personal attacks against me here, here and here. I have asked them to stop but to no avail. Mo ainm~Talk 14:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mo ainm has participated in an edit war and started slapping tags on my talk page and then didn't like it when it was suggested that he was taking the piss and continued to slap tags, pathetic stuff from a pathetic user. 194.66.216.40 (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked due to the ongoing inapproriate behavior. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have closed this Edgar but I think that it is worth mentioning that this IP's editing bears the hallmarks of KnowIG(talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked with talk page access removed and Apr Mar 28. First this IP is predominantly editing tennis articles which was KnowIG's bailiwick. The abuse of other editors is the same kind that KnowIG spews. I acknowledge that the IP has been editing since before K's block but this would not be the first editor who has operated as both a user and an IP at the same time. Most telling is that with this edit [87] (made before K's block) the IP answers a question posed to KnowIG. Now, as the IP has been blocked for a month I don't think that there is anything else to do at this moment but I thought that this should be on the record as we may be heading down the road of having to discuss a community ban of KnowIG. MarnetteDTalk 15:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I think you're right. Also, KnowIG followed editors to other projects such as Commons to continue to attack them, and this IP is behaving the same way. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Little Cambridge

Hello! Would someone with Twinkle please take a look at the contribs? I've been going through this guy's edit history for the past twenty minutes clearing out his stuff with no end in sight. This user is a blocked sock of User:LouisPhilippeCharles and went through his favorite subjects with nearly bot-like speed, creating such memorable one-page categories as "First Ladies of Burkina Faso." I'm looking at a good thirty minutes or more if I roll back the changes he'd made and to delete the categories manually; I don't have the time right now. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Snowden

Is it possible to put an article on permanent protection? A banned sock-master continues to obsess over that article, due to his anger with the article's subject. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler just to block if it is a single editor causing problems, which I have now done. I have also applied semi-protection to make it harder for sock puppets. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by Barnstarbob, formerly Vegavairbob

Barnstarbob had been warned recently here about that he could be blocked if he continued to attack other editors. He has recently been extremely attacking, again. He has a tendency to edit in a machine gun style, with lots and lots of edits... and he often archives attacks shortly after making them. Here is a relevant recent diff. Please lend a hand if possible. 842U (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are two warnings on his talk page now (yours and one from Beeblebrox). Let's see how things progress. One more tirade or personal attack will likely see this editor blocked for a while. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esad Mekuli

Does anybody know when this guy really died? There are two different death dates in the lead paragraph and in the infobox. B-Machine (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should be putting this on the article's talk page (it's not like admins know everything), but a quick Google search turns up this, which says 1993 is the correct year. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incivilities by Pmanderson