www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JPMcGrath (talk | contribs) at 00:55, 1 November 2010 (→‎Response by JPMcGrath). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Tendentious editing by JPMcGrath on Gun laws in the United States (by state)

    This is an issue that has gone on for months, the most recent events are chronicled at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Brady_scorecard.2C_maps:_saga_continues, where there are also links to previous threads on the same topic. The issue was decided by consensus months ago, and suddenly JPMcGrath appears again claiming "There has been no rebuttal; rather obfuscation, obstruction, and dissembling" to his arguments, despite being given links to more than 30,000 words of discussion, as Mudwater demonstrated. He has been warned, has been treated respectfully and politely by both myself and Digiphi, but continues to push this POV. His arguments have not changed, yet he continues to add this content against consensus. At this time his actions merit "disruptive editing", and I'm asking for a topic ban on this. Rapier (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I read through the talk page and had a good look at the article history. It is clear that JPMcGrath is trying to edit against local consensus. His language and approach might be a low level of tendentious editing, but it's mostly a content dispute. I will warn him to cease edit warring at the risk of being blocked. I saw no 3RR violations. Basket of Puppies 00:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I am seeing is tedentious editing on both sides of a "no consensus" poll on the talk page.
    The response to a "no consensus" is not to go edit war over it on the article itself. It's to go back and try again to find an option that everyone agrees to.
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree wholeheartedly that is preferred. That is why, when Mudwater repeatedly removed the maps in July, I decided to avoid edit warring and try to discuss it with him. However, he evaded my questions about his justification for removing it, and when he finally stopped replying to my posts at all, that is when I restored the maps.
    Throughout these discussions, I have tried to engage those who oppose the map, and have made changes to try to accomodate their concerns. I changed the captions on the map to address their objections and SaltyBoatr made a change to them as well. When Hoplophile suggested the OpenCarry.org maps to balance the Brady map, I created those and added them. When Mudwater suggested adding a concealed carry map (although he later denied doing so, then admitted he had), I created and added the NRA/ILA map. I continue to be open to any other suggestions.
    In response, there has been not a single suggestion for a solution or compromise. Inexplicably, Mudwater even argued that it was a good thing that the article was "all trees and no forest"; i.e. that it had no summary information. While I cannot be certain what is in his or others' minds, it seems to me that the real issue is an extreme dislike of the Brady Campaign and that the only acceptable solution to them is the removal of the Brady map.
    It should be clear that I have made a good faith effort to discuss the disagreement and to try to reach a consensus. I am sure I could have done things better, but I am not sure how at this time.
    — JPMcGrath (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ——————————
    I had hoped for a reply to this, but I suppose I should have asked my question directly, so here it is: How do you (or any admin) think I should have responded to Mudwater's edit warring? — JPMcGrath (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ——————————
    I really would appreciate a reply to this. — JPMcGrath (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Finding an option that everyone agrees on may not be possible in this case. The discussion has gone on for more than seven months and now exceeds 30,000 words (yes, really). Many of the editors who have participated in the discussion have agreed that adding the Brady Campaign State Scorecard map to this article would violate NPOV by pushing a particular political agenda and by providing a soapbox for an advocacy group. Some have also stated that the map does not accurately assess the restrictiveness of the different states' gun laws. Others have suggested that the map might be appropriate for a different article -- for example, Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, or Brady Campaign, which currently does include the map -- but not this article, which simply describes the gun laws of the 50 states in as neutral and unbiased a manner as possible. At this point somewhat more than half of the editors have agreed on this, with a sizable minority not agreeing and saying that adding the map would be okay. Still others have floated the idea of balancing the map by also including another map that supports an opposing view, but there does not appear to be such a balancing map. Anyway, the article without the maps has achieved a very neutral point of view by simply presenting the facts of the laws, which are the subject of this particular article, without adding opinions of any kind. As I said, many editors have agreed that not adding the map is the best course of action. But editor JPMcGrath has refused to accept this and keeps adding it back. This is indeed contentious editing, as it has the effect of disrupting the article for the apparent purpose of advocating a particular political point of view. Here are links to the various discussions that have already occurred:

    — Mudwater (Talk) 00:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, adding the "Brady scorecard" to a state would be analogous to adding the NRA scorecard on a candidate (or anyone else's scorecard, for that matter) to a candidate's Wikipedia article. Having said that, YESPOV is indeed part of NPOV. The main point, though, is that editors must work in good faith to pursue consensus on how to present contentious topics. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree completely. While this isn't the place to argue content, I'll simply clarify that buried in those arguments is the point made by myself and others that an NRA map would be just as inappropriate. We aren't trying to push one point of view or the other, we're trying to remove all point of view and simply list the laws in an encyclopedic manner. When third-party analysis of raw data get interjected that is when POV problems occur, and as Mudwater stated above, there are already articles discussing the political debate about gun laws. The maps are included there and continuing to add them here despite clear consensus is the problem. Rapier (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a new clear consensus on that point. What I see is several editors who were on one side of the July "Remove all maps or not?" discussion - which an apparently uninvolved admin closed as "No consensus" - continuing the discussion and asserting now that you have consensus, without the participation of most of the other side.
    Nothing in the new discussions invalidates the July discussion. No effort was made to revisit it with another clear poll / RFC. It seems like some previously active editors are less active now, but that doesn't invalidate their participation in the last clear poll / RFC type discussion.
    ANI is not a replacement for going back to the page and holding another RFC. If those other editors are gone and it's a new consensus that's fine. But this is not the place - and attacking the lead map proponent for disruption is not the right approach - to solve the no consensus problem. Do it right, on the article. Get a consensus. If it's still "No consensus" then accept that. If it goes your way this time, with whoever shows up to bother to participate, then he will need to accept that as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We've had seven months and more than 30,000 words of discussion, including a Request For Comment, a posting on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, and a Request For Mediation. A majority of editors -- including myself -- feel very strongly that adding the Brady Scorecard map is an egregious violation of NPOV, and also distorts the facts, while other editors don't agree and think that adding the map would be okay. It seems to me that if many of the participants agree that the map would be a major NPOV violation, and pushes a one-sided political agenda, that trumps other editors saying that it would enhance the article slightly by providing an attractive graphic of summary information. Also, part of why JPMcGrath's editing is tendentious is that he keeps saying that editors such as myself have not explained why adding the map would violate NPOV, when in fact we've just spent the last seven months explaining it, over and over and from many different perspectives. There's a difference between "you've explained the reasoning behind your opinions at great length and in many different ways, but I still don't agree," and "you haven't explained the reasoning behind your opinions," but the difference seems to elude JPMcGrath. So, I find it hard to believe that prolonging the discussion any further would have much benefit at this point. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief, that debate is still going on? As I recall, the main issue with that map is that it presupposes certain things and gives a value judgment as to each state's attitude toward gun control. The problem is whether that map presents an unbiased assessment. Since they themselves are its authors, obviously they are going to judge which parameters to be used. Now, if you had a similar map from the point of view of the NRA, those two maps would be interesting for the reader to compare, and see if they "agree" on each states' attitude toward gun control, even though the groups are obviously on opposite sides of the issue. That is, the NRA might consider a restrictive state to be a "bad" state, and the Brady bunch might consider it to be a "good" state - but it's possible they might rank the states the same way, just flip-flopped in order. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this isn't the forum for content dispute, but to clarify the argument is that all maps offer up a POV that is inappropriate in an encyclopedic listing of state laws, not that the "Brady" map alone should be removed. Let's please be clear on the prime mover is, and not allow this to become an issue directed at a single point. Rapier (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to me that a map like that could be useful, IF it were verifiable and not pushing a viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It may well be useful in the context that Bugs describes, but it's simply not acceptable to keep readding it as it's been done here. There needs to be the wider context that Bugs is talking about if there's any chance for this kind of advocacy ranking to be relevant in a general state article. Shadowjams (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've un-archived this thread to allow for further discussion, per User talk:JPMcGrath#Warning. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. I will post my response as soon as I can get it together. — JPMcGrath (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Response by JPMcGrath

    First, I should point out that several of the statements made by SeanNovack are inaccurate:

    • He says that "the issue was decided by consensus months ago", which is untrue. That there has never been a consensus is made clear by the RfC here, and by Mudwater's multiple statements that "about half" of the editors agree with him.
    • His "suddenly JPMcGrath appears again claiming" comment appears to suggest that my attempt to get others to address the justification for their WP:NPOV claim was something new. In fact, I had been trying to get them to address this question from the beginning.
    • His suggestion that the fact that there had been "more than 30,000 words of discussion" means that my questions about the justification for removing the maps had been answered is nonsense. That there was a great deal of discussion does not in any way suggest that the discussion contained an answer, and the unwillingness of participants to point to an answer strongly suggests that it is not there.

    That said, I spent some time writing a response that went into this conflict in great detail, but then realized that rehashing all of the details of the disagreement would be tedious, not on point, and would ignore the central point of this discussion, which is the accusation of tendentious editing. According to WP:Tendentious editing

    Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view."

    I have clearly stated that I believe the article badly needs summary material, so that the reader can get a feel for the overall state of gun laws in the United States; as I put it at the outset of this conflict, the article is "all trees and no forest". The maps are intended to ameliorate that problem.

    I do not believe that in any way fits the definition of tendentious editing, so I would like my accuser, SeanNovack, to explain what is it in my editing that qualifies as either sustained bias or a a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view? What exactly is the bias or viewpoint?

    — JPMcGrath (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The point is that you are the only one that feels that summary information is necessary. Others feel it 'may be helpful', and the rest of us are saying that summary information is inheriently biased by the person doing the summary and has no place in this article that is supposed to be an encyclopedic listing of gun laws by state. The summaries exist in other articles, they simply have no place in this one. Rapier (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again JPMcGrath is saying that other editors have not stated any justification for the position that the Brady Scorecard map violates NPOV, and distorts the facts, and so should not be included in the article. I would encourage anyone reading this to click through the links I posted above, and look at some of the previous discussions, and see whether or not there are in fact very extensive postings on exactly that topic. Also, the term "tendentious editing" definitely applies, because JPMcGrath is ignoring what many other editors have said, and is continuing to add the map, which is very biased and advocates for a particular political position. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Mudwater: No, I was not claiming that you have not stated any justification; you have come up with several reasons. For example, you have said that you do not believe the Brady assessment is accurate, although when asked, you did not point to any reliable sources that said this. You have also claimed that including information from the Brady Campaign provides a "soapbox" for them, yet you have no objection to information from, for example, the NRA.
    However, none of the reasons you provided are related to WP:NPOV. I asked you to point to the language in WP:NPOV that it violates and you would not do so. I asked you how you came to the conclusion that your objections violate WP:NPOV and you claimed that you had done so previously. I asked you to point to your purported answer and you posted links to all of the discussion that had occurred on this subject. In short, you obfuscated and obstructed.
    In fact, you have never addressed the question of why it violates WP:NPOV. You have simply stated reasons that you don't like it and claimed that it violated WP:NPOV. The fact that you disagree with their assessment, or that you don't like the Brady Campaign does not mean it violates WP:NPOV.
    — JPMcGrath (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sean: First, I should note that, like your claims of a consensus, your assertion that I am the only one who feels it is necessary is just a fabrication. None of the RfCs have made that distinction and you have no basis to make that claim.
    But that ignores the point I was making. Tendentious editing is about being "partisan, biased or skewed", and believing that summary is appropriate clearly does not fit that. If that is the basis for your tendentious editing claim, it falls flat.
    — JPMcGrath (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've left this alone, but it's the same old story. A number of editors see it one way. JPMcGrath and generally one other editor see it another and when they agree with each other, they call it a consensus. If you fail to agree with them, you're just bias/partisan/POV warrior/etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I confess that I am somewhat perplexed and perhaps even a little bit amused. I did not say there was a consensus; rather it was SeanNovack and Mudwater. And I did not accuse anyone of bias; SeanNovack accused me of bias when he said that I had engaged in tendentious editing. So your comment appears to be a rather stinging indictment of SeanNovack and Mudwater. I would not expect that from you, so I am confused. Would you please explain what you meant? — JPMcGrath (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    JPMcGrath, you just said, "In fact, you have never addressed the question of why [the Brady scorecard map] violates WP:NPOV. " Here are a few selected diffs where I've done exactly that: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Those are just a small selection, all of them taken from the first of the nine discussions that I linked to above. There's plenty more where that came from, and tons more from other editors as well. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, you have given your opinion over and over again that the Brady Campaign scorecard is biased, and you have claimed that it therefore violates WP:NPOV. What you have not done, even though you have been asked to do so over and over again, is to show that WP:NPOV says material that is biased should not be included.
    As I have pointed out to you, WP:NPOV does not say that. In fact, it explicitly says that the article should represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". It also contains a section titled "Attributing and specifying biased statements". It clearly does not proscribe inclusion of bias; it explicity calls for it.
    — JPMcGrath (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your statement that I've never addressed the question of why the map violates NPOV -- which you've made many times -- is patently false, as the various links and diffs that I've posted clearly show. You don't agree with what I've said on that subject, but that's an entirely different thing. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not addressed the question; what you said about it is nonsense. It would be no different than if you said it violates WP:NPOV because you were eating cornflakes when it was posted. If your claim is not related to what WP:NPOV says, then it is just gibberish. It no more addresses the question than if you were to recite Jabberwocky. — JPMcGrath (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion of the Brady scorecard map has now lasted almost eight months, and includes multiple talk page sections, a Request For Comment, a posting on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, a Request For Mediation, and two postings on the Administrators' Noticeboard, including this one. We've now had more than 34,000 words of discussion. It would seem that you're willing to keep arguing indefinitely. However, we're long past the point of diminishing returns in this discussion. Many editors have agreed that the map should not be added to the article. That, I think, is the bottom line. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I suppose I have been patient, but I think that is a virtue rather than a vice, although I can understand why someone engaged in a filibuster might not be happy with it. Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but I am still hopeful that you will realize that your unwillingness to answer a simple question about your basis for removal of the map reflects badly on you.
    For the convenience of you and others, I will ask the question again:
    Since you have concluded that the Brady map map violates WP:NPOV, but you appear not to have based that on anything in the text of the NPOV policy, exactly how did you reach the conclusion that your objections to it constitute a violation of NPOV?
    If you want others to accept your conclusion. it seems to me you should be willing to explain how you reached it. Wou;d you please answer it?
    — JPMcGrath (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you telling me there's really nothing in the many discussions linked above which explains why people oppose this map? From what I can tell from a quick glance the issue is all maps not this one in particular. Nil Einne (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Nil. You are exactly correct. McGrath disagrees with and doesn't accept the reasoning people have given, so he's claiming his question remains unanswered. People have gotten sick of trying to explain it too him, and yes, it is all summary maps that are inappropriate. The NRA and Brady maps have the added issue of soapboxing and advertising for those organizations in addition to the WP:NPOV issues. Rapier (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ——————————
    No, not at all. They have given many reasons that they oppose the maps, such as their belief that the map is biased. However, they claim that the map violates WP:NPOV, but they have not ever explained why that is. I have pointed out language in NPOV that indicates that all significant points of view should be included and they have not shown anything in NPOV that suggests it should be excluded.
    As for the Brady/all issue, the Brady map was the first one to be added and it was opposed by several editors. Then, the OpenCarry maps were added at the suggestion of Hoplophile in order to balance the Brady maps. At the time, Mudwater argued that the OpenCarry.org maps should be retained, but the Brady map should be excluded and he actually suggested adding the NRA/ILA. I found it interesting that he opposed the Brady map, but supported all maps based on data from pro-gun groups. He later changed his position.
    Others have argued consistently against all maps, suggesting that anything from an advocacy group should be excluded. However, none have explained why it is OK that those same (pro-gun) advocacy groups are cited as sources dozens of times in the article. While I cannot truly know what they are thinking, it seems to me that the real opposition is to the Brady map.
    — JPMcGrath (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    British Isles disputants

    Unresolved

    Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BISE/October 2010 to centralize discussion and to save space on the ANI page.Please do not timestamp until this reaches the top of the page. –MuZemike

    Problem on BLP noticeboard

    Unresolved

    Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Problem on BLP noticeboard to centralize discussion and to save space on the ANI page.Please do not add a timestamp until this reaches the top of this page. –MuZemike

    DYK, plagiarism, the main page, reliable sources …

    Unresolved

    Conversation regarding concerns of frequent and egregious copyright and plagiarism issues featured on the main page has been moved. The conversation is both general and specific in incidents and, at this moment (12:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)), includes concerns about today's "featured article". Moonriddengirl (talk)

    Abu Ghraib images

    The use of a very large group of images of the Abu Graib prison and abuse case have been unreasonable restricted by putting them on the MediaWiki:Bad image list. I think this restricted use of a very large group of Abu Graib images is unreasonable and has been done by a single administrator without providing a good reason. I think that needs some discussion here. I request to lift the restriction of the use of Abu Graib images by removing them from this list. Regards. IQinn (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Putting them on that list doesn't "unreasonably restrict" them unless it prevents their use on an article where it would be unreasonable to prevent their use, in which case that article can be added to the list this ceasing the restriction. Can you be more specific? What is the reasonable use that's being restricted?--Scott Mac 00:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Leave it up to the creativity of our editors when and where to use them without unnecessary hurdles. Simply no reason to have the Abu Graib images on that list. IQinn (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure there is. Those are photos of people being tortured, which is always an extremely sensitive matter, and hence restricts their practical use pretty narrowly up front. For example, posting them on one's user page would not be permitted. Also, wikipedia is not a picture-hosting site like flickr or something. Putting a "very large group" of any types of photos in an article is typically not allowed. A mundane example would be that while we might have a hundred pictures of dandelions at commons, we wouldn't or shouldn't have a hundred pictures of dandelions in the article about dandelions just because someone likes dandelions - there would have to be some uniqueness and notability about the photos. Certain Abu Graib photos became well-known for various reasons, and could be notable for the article. A "large group" wouldn't be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:26, 30 October 2010
    These are all examples we can deal with by common edition practice. Torture is not a sensible matter and Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED. I found it almost tasteless to add the Abu Graib images of torture to the MediaWiki:Bad image list. I strongly reject this practice. There is still no good reason to do so. IQinn (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is a good reason, as I just told you. Maybe it would help if you would specify where you want to put the images, and how many of them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Using those photos except under very special circumstance would clearly be unethical and could even be a BLP matter. I think it is very prudent to have them on a list of pictures the use of which requires special thoughtfulness and better than average reasons. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How, exactly could use of those images in any non-vandalistic sense be a BLP violation, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    but is there any evidence that they were used unnecessarily? I think they could be legitimately be used for other articles that those relating to the subject itself, as they are some of the very clearest and best known images of torture. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not argue for permission from you to use them somewhere. I argue that that putting them on that list needs a strong reason. It limits the use of these images for most of our users as. As said leave it up to our users where to put them. There is no reason to restrict them fromt-up and let users go to additional processes. Having them on this list will automatically reduce the justified use of these images - as not many users have the patiences and skills to apply for the necessary exemption. The adding of these images to the list has already removed images from articles. Images simply vanished what could be interpreted as censorship considering the nature of these images. Just one example the image [File:Abu Ghraib 58.jpg] [7] (the image link does not even show up here) is included in Nudity#Punishment. The adding of the image to the MediaWiki:Bad image list has remove the showing of the image in Nudity#Punishment. The mass adding of Abu Graib images to the MediaWiki:Bad image list was unnecessary and has already removed valid use of the images. IQinn (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The argument you're making is a troll's argument. You should know better than that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't even know that list existed. If I were a new user, I'd simply assume I'm too stupid to add images; there's no explanation as to why it's not visible... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP is an excellent reason, and it trumps nearly everything else on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And who says it's not visible? I'm an ordinary user, and I can see the list and its contents. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as an example. Any BLP problem to use [File:Abu Ghraib 58.jpg] [8] in Nudity#Punishment? IQinn (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The file is included in that section but not visible. IQinn (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll bet that if you asked on Mediawiki talk:Bad image list, you could get that specific image allowed for that specific article. These images do still deserve caution in general, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As said i am not arguing for exemptions of single use of images in specified articles. That image should not have been removed from Nudity#Punishment in the first place and putting ever editor to a process of an front up approval for any use of almost all Abu Graib images on Wikipedia - that is the problem. IQinn (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also strongly concerned. Have these images "been used for widespread vandalism where blocks and protections are impractical?" Hipocrite (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it was nice of someone to goddamned inform me of this discussion (clearly someone decided to bring this to the forum in absolutely outstanding faith, seeing as he wasn't getting his way). I'm glad that everyone finally decided to bring it up after I had the discussion up for two weeks, and after I used common sense and only added the images with naked bodies (which were filmed against the person's will!) and used exactly the same criteria as the other images. Sometimes this place is such a fucking joke. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are unable to remain civil when your controversial administrative actions are questioned, there is certainly a problem. I'd also ask that you be more clear that the "someone" who informed you of this decision is not the "someone" who brought it to the forum. Hipocrite (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my point. And don't patronize me; yes I'm upset that people who didn't give a fuck in the first place when it was on the page for two weeks are all of a sudden up in arms about me doing exactly what's been done with other images and immediately bring it to ANI without bothering to try to work it out there first or even inform me of it. But fine, do things as you all will. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, those who don't even know the list exists can hardly voice an opinion; if the whole system gave some sort of hint or display a placeholder that says "go to Mediawiki:so-and-so to request exemption" I wouldn't see that much of a problem. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Forget about it; I've just removed the damned things; just about no one else could apparently be bothered to care about the contradiction or possibility of vandalism. I'm going on Wikibreak. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored Magog the Ogre's additions to the bad image list (but with an exception for Abu Ghraib 58.jpg on "Nudity"). Magog the Ogre's reasoning is correct, even though I do not appreciate his incivility above. The policy that commands the restricted use of these images is WP:BLP, specifically the WP:MUG section, which states: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed" (my underlining) The bad images list is an effective means to prevent the frivolous use of these images (e.g. on user pages). All normal uses of these images remain possible by making a request at MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list, but editorial consensus for the inclusion of such an image in any article should normally be established beforehand.  Sandstein  08:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For that to apply, wouldn't the images need to actually have any identifying information in them? Faces were blacked out, if visible - unless you are referring to the mugging-for-the-camera soldiers? Hipocrite (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (From my talk page) What matters, according to WP:MUG, is that the image is of a living person, not that it has identifiable features. The men depicted, at least, would recognize the images of themselves. Also I suppose they can be identified via court documents, etc.  Sandstein  08:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a change to how the bad image list is being used. How many thousands of images which could be used BLP violations do we have? Do we want them all in the list? I prefer the old way. If the image is used a lot for vandalism or blp violations it should be on the list, but not as an precautionary measure. Garion96 (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of this, it would be great if it could display an informative message (say, "<FILENAME> may only be used on pages it has been specifically approved. Please request approval at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list.").

    I also agree with Garion96 that the list should not be used as a precautionary measure, since it is antithetical to the wiki model to require an approval process before editing - no one can anticipate all possible legitimate uses of an image. If there's widespread disruption or BLP violation, fine, but in other cases warning/blocking may be preferable. T. Canens (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That is true in principle, but the very existence of MediaWiki:Bad image list reflects community agreement that we make a precautionary exception to the Wiki principle with respect to certain images whose misuse may be problematic. (Protections, etc. are likewise precautionary). But I agree that the use of the image list for BLP rather than vandalism concerns seems to be rather novel, and if there are enough people who would prefer to have a policy discussion about that use first, that's OK with me.  Sandstein  12:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Community consensus is for to make an exception to images whose misuse is problemetic. Images which have repeatedly been used used for vandalism or BLP violations. For that old slippery slope argument :) I think the Abu Graib images should be removed from the list. Garion96 (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The BLP concern is a red herring. These images are BLP violations in themselves, as much on their own as in the Abu Ghraib article or any other. The BIL is stop images being added to articles. So which articles does this being prevent them being added to? -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just add my voice to those opposed to such additions. I've never seen any of these images used for vandalism or even inappropriately. The arguments in favour basically demand that all of the hundreds of mugshots are also added, as well as all images which cast any unidentifiable individual in a bad light. That's just a waste of time unless they're actually going to be used for vandalism, and there are many more relevant pictures which could be added instead. It's much better to remain focused on the images which are actually regularly used for BLP vandalism, like penises and pussies used in infoboxes. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the images are copyright violations, then they should be zapped anyway, and then the BLP question becomes moot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the images for now. If consensus changes that the bad image list should also be used as a precautionary measure they can be added again. Garion96 (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. No reason for those to be on that list.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TigreTiger blocked as a sockpuppet

    I seem to recall this sort of strange, idiosyncratic and rapid-fire redirecting from the puppetmaster some time ago. I blocked him for edit warring, he cut loose with this bizarre, anti-American rant and I lowered the boom on him. Would someone with Twinkle please revert this user's edits and redirects? Back to my wikibreak, or so I dearly hope. Thanks, all. PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note from TTsecondary

    I would like to inform you about the following: This is a secondary account of User:TigreTiger. I know creating this is against the rules, but I think you can understand from the following why I do it. Also: I cannot edit my talk page, despite the fact that the box there says a means for appeal would be to do that.

    NOTE: I WILL NOT USE THIS ACCOUNT (User:TTsecondary) FOR THINGS OTHER THAN TALKING ABOUT ACTIONS BY User:TigreTiger

    First: User:TigreTiger is not User:Schwyz! I don't know what people see to think otherwise. Since I don't know on what the claim is based, I cannot defend/bring arguments to show otherwise. Anyway, I reviewed some of the Schwyz stuff and found Schwyz got never blocked during the time he edited. So even if User:TigreTiger = User:Schwyz, there is not block evasion or so. Anyway, if Wikipedia Admins want to have blocked TigreTiger indefinitely, because of his last edit on his talk, then this is fine.

    I just want to tell you that running a revert script on all my edits can have bad side effects

    Disambiguation, three example edits, not all these edits are marked with the prefix "Disambiguated"
    Article duplication under variant names, when converting to English and to standard naming, I found this duplicate

    I had no time yet to go into the merge process. Now the name standardization on what is common for lakes in South America and WP:UE was reverted. Now it will be harder for others to spot that they are the same. The "(2)" marker was not best but I used it as intermediary solution until I would have found out which one to merge into the other. See "What a mess! We now have, for examples, Rimachi Lake and Rimachi Lake (2) which used to be Lago Rimachi and Lake Rimachi. Clearly that wasn't improvement upon what was there before. Uncle G (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)" - He seems to have no clue that they are the same.

    There are people with good knowledge of geography and they are driven out of the project. Portugal geography is partly covered worse in en WP than in other WPs, apart from pt WP. There is little work only. Wikipedia will have a hard time to get experts editing in Wikipedia if they are badly administered by people that have no clue at all of the topic at hand AND are unfair.

    Fixing typo, adding new dab target - new targets are needed for dab solver

    User:JaGa educated me about the dab solver tool, This is a great tool. But it only works if the undabbed target is on the dab page. So to have things on the dab page is really important.

    Fixing a link to point to the district article linked to from the template. The other one in fact should have no district content.
    applying naming convention
    ONE DE-DISAMBIGUATION, already performed

    I did disambiguation work on country subdivisions in Portugal and was just starting with lakes and rivers in South America. Since I know the naming schemes I can improve links like to Cundinamarca as a drive by product. I am also able to communicate in Spanish and Portuguese and I have seen lots of geographic names, so spotting Gocha and converting to Cocha (Quechua for lake/water) is easy for me (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huangacocha_Lake&diff=next&oldid=393737459). If you revert that you will just make WP containing more bad stuff again.

    Just wanted to make you aware of possible problems, with running a revert script on all my edits.

    I think, technically even if you block me forever for my last edit on my talk page, then - technically - you would not need to revert all edits? Would you? Imagine I had edited for 10 years and then you see one "rant" - block me forever and revert all via a script?

    Also, can you please tell PMDrive1061 to respect 10min threshold on new articles, like on Tuma River? CSD A3 says so. At least the expanded version got deleted below 10min. And that is what he blocked me for in the first place - for adding the expanded version. He also did not even add a reference to Tuma River in his first post on my page about short articles.

    His actions should be reviewed. He is too hardcore-right-wing. He reminded me on the Apache shooters in Iraq. He has the power (admin can delete pages, and block users) and uses his power. Wikileaks leaked war crime. And PMD is criminal too. If it was edit warring what I did, as he claimed, then he was a involved party - and used his admin rights to further his position. This is an abuse of admin rights.

    NOTE(REPEAT): I WILL NOT USE THIS ACCOUNT (User:TTsecondary) FOR THINGS OTHER THAN TALKING ABOUT ACTIONS BY User:TigreTiger.

    TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a reason you posted this same rant to User talk:Newyorkbrad? Are you expecting him to be higher up on some sort of hierarchy that the rest of us are not aware of?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it would be good an ArbCom member would know, because ArbCom can lift indef blocks. I have no other way. Unblock request on my own talk was immediately disabled by User:PMDrive1061, who didn't like my last Tuma River stub and killed it within seconds.

    Your new account has been blocked. Your message is here for everyone to read. If you want to formally request unblock, do it on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oop. Just noticed your talk page is blocked as well. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for acknowledging. User:PMDrive1061 knocked out an account that created a valid stub on Tuma River. I did make lot of valuable contributions to what I think. But User:PMDrive1061's block for creating an article on a river I received as highly unfair. TTtertiary (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, here's the rant he left on his original page:

    You are lieing, I did create a stub. But as I said, I guess you are ill. I think lieing is ill. If you think lieing is ok, then block me. I also think that blocking other people with false claims of "edit warring" is ill. You showed that you are ill already when you deleted the stub the first time and when you wrote on my talk without any reference to the deleted page. Sorry for you. But also people with limited brain can have a nice life, seems your life is nice with blocking and deleting. Mister PMDrive1061. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Tuma River will survive without you!!!!!!!!!!!! VENCEREMOS. LOS YANKEES hahaha. USA is ill. YOU ARE GOOD EXAMPLE OF USA-ILLNESS. ONE DAY WIKILEAKS WILL NOT ONLY LEAK IRAQ CRIME, BUT ALSO WIKIPEDIA ADMIN ILLNESS. 07:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

    He then went and created another rant on this "secondary account." Jeez, it was a 24-hour edit war block; he reposted that sentence as quickly as it could be deleted. All he had to do was use that print reference of his to maybe tell where the headwaters and mouth are, what towns it passes through, economic importance, etc. He put more effort into screaming obscenities at me than he did in writing content. I patently refuse to let someone like this insult me and my country in this manner. PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rant? I did explain the situation and pointed out problems with the roll back. To call my opposition to your abusive behavior "rant" does show you know you were out of line with your acts. You abused your admin power to further your opinion on my last Tuma River, which did not met A3 and even if, 10min threshold was not respected by you.
    You complain I did not put more effort into the Tuma River page? I expanded it and you blocked me!!! And then you indef blocked me!!! TTtertiary (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ip Trolls (again) at List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

    The quran is a non-fiction book portraying pedophilia the IP says (two ips, presumably the same asshole behind them). [10][11] suggest long semi-protection of the article. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Etc... [12]. Semi the talk page too. (In case anyone is wondering, there are no "portrayals of paedophilia or sexual abuse of children in the Koran.")Bali ultimate (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree that for them to add it to the article is inappropriate in the face of clear disagreement, but the next thing to do in that case is take it to the talk page. You continuing to remove their doing so, rather than engaging with them and stating why you disagree, is just encouraging an edit war. You can't remove talk page comments just because you strongly disagree with them—if they're dead wrong, that'll be clearly reflected in the resulting discussion anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't debate with some IP (probably a banned user) who's here to use binary articles like this to spread hate. I suppose we could include the Old Testament as another such book for "balance." Put down the wiki koolaid and be practical. Sheesh.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think they're a sock of a banned user, sockpuppet investigation requests are thataway. But when you disagree with an edit enough to revert it, even when you strongly disagree, and the editor who made it asks to discuss it on the talk page, that's a reasonable request. You're not required to participate in that discussion, but reverting even the request to discuss it is not appropriate. That is the appropriate next step if your edit is disputed and reverted—take it to talk. And as to the edit conflict addition, I don't even like Kool Aid. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Bali here (for what it's worth). reasoned discussion is one thing, but the 'mohammed->pedophilia' thing has proven to be such an extremely fossilized polemic that anyone espousing it can safely be assumed to be immune to normal discursive practices. err... or in English: no one makes that claim if they've thought about it even a little bit, so people who do make that claim aren't interested in thinking about it. wp:AGF is a good thing, but it doesn't mean we give the benefit of the doubt to someone who walks into the room wearing cock-fighting spurs. --Ludwigs2 18:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ←This page is a real problem—in scope, in potential for vandalism and bias, in referencing, and (until recently) in its plethora of "abstracts" that seemed to be for titillation rather than information or education. It's buying into a pack of troubles putting the Koran on there; that would open the door to a much wider scope in a tit-for-tat. And there are the cultural sensitivities to think about, too. Semi-protection would be good if this goes on. Note that the page narrowly survived another RfD recently. Tony (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What a dreadful article.--Scott Mac 03:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    well, maybe it's time to put it up for deletion. some of the included items are bizarre (Nausea has pedophiliac moments? not that I remember... Clockwork Orange features someone younger than 18 as the main character who has sex, but that hardly qualifies as pedophilia...). and technically speaking Romeo and Juliet belongs on the list - I think most scholars put Juliet at 12-14 years of age. I'll list it, and we can have the discussion anyway. --Ludwigs2 03:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "This article presents a list of books in which an adult character feels a sexual attraction to or sexually abuses a person under the age of 18". This is nonsense for a start, as a definition of 'paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors' Firstly, 'feeling an attraction' isn't abusive, and secondly 'the age of 18' is hardly an universally-recognised age of consent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree the definition is poor, I don't really understand your first point. According to the title, the list isn't solely about sexual abuse. It's about paedophilia and sexual abuse of minors. Are you perhaps confusing the common media concept of a paedophile (someone who abuses children) with the psychiatric disorder? I presume the list is intended to deal with the latter since otherwise it's a list of books potraying the sexual abuse minors and the sexual abuse children which doesn't make much sense. Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors was closed as no consensus. Corvus cornixtalk 05:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Help fixing history

    When fixing a case of mainspace squatting with the page Nimbus, I moved the page as I found it to Nimbus (technical festival) and started to create a disambig with the now free Nimbus page. It was only when I started to do so this that I thought to check the diffs to find that there originally been a disambig and had been overwritten by another editor. I tried reverting to the last relevant diff however my initial move and attempt to create a disambig meant I cannot move things back as they should be. I copied and pasted the earlier version to the Nimbus page and the pages now look okay except that the edit history of the page is divorced from the page. Can an admin please delete the current Nimbus page, revert Nimbus (technical festival) to the point when it was a disambig (this diff) and move the page back to the empty Nimbus page. Thanks and sorry about creating more work for everybody. KTo288 (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kudpung99 removing content w/out explanation

    Resolved
     – Blocked as a sockpuppet —Soap— 18:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Kudpung99 (talk · contribs)

    User:Kudpung99 created his/her account on October 21, 2010. Since that time, s/he has made scores of edits to various wikiarticles relating to various concert venues, mainly in North America. There are two issues for which I seek guidance:

    1. I am surprised that the system permitted the creation of this account since there already exits User:Kudpung. It would have seemed to have violated WP:U, especially as that policy relates to similar usernames. I would have thought that to create this account, a request would have had to have been made at WP:ACC. Moreover, User:Kudpung has had to disassociate himself from this new account by placing a notice at the top of his userpage indicating that this new account is not a sock of User:Kudpung, nor connected in any other way.
    2. As mentioned above, User:Kudpung99 has made scores of edits to wikiarticles relating to concert venues. Many of them remove significant tracts of content without explanation. S/he has been warned about this (see here). S/he blanked the page of that warning, which, as per WP:OWNTALK, one may construe to mean that the notice has been read and understood by the user. A week later, s/he was gently warned to use edit summaries (see here), and again blanked the page. Tonight, s/he was, again, specifically warned about removing content from pages without explaining the deletion (see here). While s/he has not edited since that warning, perhaps having signed off for the night, nonetheless I have, so far, reverted 15 of these content deletions (see here), with scores more of his/her contribs still to review.

    In summary, s/he does not respond to postings to his/her talk page and will not use edit summaries explaining the deletions of large tracts of content from wikiarticles relating to concert venues. Suggestions? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Doncha just hate edit conflicts! I just wrote this detailed update, only to discover that it wasn’t necessary … nor is it necessary for me to file at WP:SPI. Thanks EurekaLott and MuZemike! — SpikeToronto 18:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Over the next few days, I’ll go through all of his contribs and revert, where necessary. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued tendentious editing by User:Communicat despite warnings and blocks

    Communicat (talk · contribs) has a long history of tendentious editing which is forming a significant barrier to progressing articles. Admin User:Georgewilliamherbert has previously looked into this in August and gave Communicat a stern warning on 25 August for 'fringe POV-pushing' (see also Talk:World War II/Archive 41#Communicat and fringe-POV pushing and the subsequent discussion) which was followed by two blocks for uncivil comments over the next few weeks. In short, Communicat has a tendency to want to add information which is not correct in articles (even when the sources they provide demonstrate this to be wrong) and is pushing a fringe source which has repeatedly been found to be unreliable and is edit warring when other editors try to remove the dubious material they add. I will provide two recent examples that demonstrate that this behavior is continuing:

    • Communicat has been seeking for some time to include a claim in the World War II article that the United States was in charge of the civil administration of North Korea in the years after World War II, despite the country being occupied by the Soviet Union. This began with a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page on 9 September (see Talk:World War II#Arbitrary break onwards) in which there was no support for including such a claim in the article. Despite this on 17 September they added material to the article which strongly implied that the US was administering all of Korea and added some further questionable claims about how the division of the country took place (diff) which I reverted. This lead to further discussion of the topic on the article talk page in which the sources Communicat was providing to support their view were eventually demonstrated to say exactly the opposite (Eg, they stated that the USSR did in fact administer North Korea after the war) - see the posts from 1 October onwards (particularly the posts by Hohum and myself on 3 October) and other sources which demonstrate that the USSR was administering North Korea were provided. On 10 October Communicat edited the article again but did not include this claim about Korea (diff) - I reverted this again as there was no consensus to include the changes and it contained several other dubious claims (this reversion was supported by the other editors active on the article's talk page).
    • Despite this, on 24 October Communicat added what was pretty much the text on Korea which had been rejected in the World War II article to the Aftermath of World War II article (diffs), again implying that the US was administering all of Korea (along with lots of other changes). This was reverted by User:Edward321 (diffs), leading to an edit war between him and Communicat. The end result is that Communicat is still trying to include statement about the post-war administration of Korea which had no support from other editors and was proven to not be supported by the sources he or she was providing. I note that Communicat has a history of turning existing articles into POV forks (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II.
    • As the other example, Communicat has a long history of wanting to add dubious material sourced to someone named Stan Winer. Despite discussions at Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Industrial capacity and production, Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#WW2 origins of Cold War, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45#User: Communicat and Talk:History of South Africa#new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities (and in passing in several other locations) which concluded that this author is not a reliable source, Communicate is still adding material referenced to self published works by this author to the History of South Africa article (diff: [13] on 17 October) and edit warring to restore it after it was removed by Edward321 (diffs: [14] (20 October) and [15] (21 October). Once again, he or she is ignoring a consensus which has arisen from extensive discussions and repeatedly adding dubious material.

    As such, it appears that Communicat has not learned from their previous warnings and blocks, and is continuing to push POV claims using sources which have either been found to be unreliable or to not support their position. Responding to this clearly disruptive editing is wasting a lot of other editors' time and I ask that they be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not understand what this issue is doing on this "incidents" notice board. This is a content dispute.
    Responses to some points presented above:
    1. Quote: "forming a significant barrier to progressing articles". – The article Aftermath of World War II is or was unsourced crap. It was received absolutely no attention for many years. I have advised Communicat to work on that article instead of trying to tweak the limited space in the WW II article. I cannot see how Communicat's interest in the aftermath article could be a significant barrier to the article's progress!
    2. If Communicat's "text on Korea" had been rejected in the World War II, it was mainly because of the space constraints in the "aftermath" section of the WW II main article. There has been extensive discussion on the relative importance of topics on the talk page. There seems to be a consensus that the section needs to be pruned down, but no consensus on what is important.
    3. Stan Winer may not be a reliable source for WW II, but he is an respected South African journalist and a reliable source on the History of South Africa and apartheid.
    4. The issue of the "civil administration of North Korea" has been blown beyond all proportions. The sources seem to support Communicat's wording, but I do not know if the interpretations people are trying to make of this are correct.
    5. The last edit by Comminicat in the WW II article was on October 10 after extensive discussion and preparation on the talk page. This was blindly reverted by Nick-D two hours later. He made one edit in all of September with similar results. If any conclusions can be drawn from the edit history, it is more indicative of edit warring and stonewalling by Nick-D.
    It seems that the content issues are mingled with some kind personal antipathy against Communicat. These dissenting editors are now extending the dispute to new articles they have never before been involved with. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Communicat has a record of making edits that are not supported or even contradicted by the sources he cites.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Communicat's most recent attempt to argue against this was to dismiss the sources that contradicted him as the product of McCarthy Era censorship.[30] This is in spite of Communicat previously arguing that some of these sources were reliable [31][32] and ignores the actual publication dates of most of the sources.[33]
    Communicat's most recent edits to Aftermath of World War II involved him deleting a large section of sourced material as well as adding material that is not supported by the source he lists.[34] The source does not mention Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew [35] and does not say Churchill "virtually declared war" on the USSR in 1946.[36] Commincat's edits were also vague, so I clarified that Operation Dropshot was a contingency plan developed to counter of future attacks by the USSR if they occurred.[37] As the differences show, I clearly explained this in the edit summaries. Communicat blind reverted this and the rest of my edits.[38]
    Communicat has also been trying against consensus to introduce a self-published fringe source, Stan Winer, into several articles for an extended period of time [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] as well as repeatedly advocating Winer on several talk pages.[ [63] Communiucat is the only editor to think this source is reliable. That's not why I listed Communicat on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I listed Communicat because he posted a (now deleted) file claiming to be to be the copyright holder, Stan Winer. The picture has since been reposted without Communicat making that claim. (Information provided by Petri Krohn leaves me with strong doubts that Winer is the actual copyright holder for the picture.)[64]) Even after all of this, Communicat continues to try to use Winer as a source.[65][66]
    Communicat is often less than civil.[67] He has been blocked twice for lack of civility [68] and the statement that earned him his first block was left on his user page for 59 days[69], finally removing it 56 days after getting off the block he received for making the statement.[70] and three days after I reported it here.[71] Communicat has never apologized for his personal attacks.Edward321 (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You have repeatedly been making accusations that Communicat is falsificating sources. When you have been proven wrong, you have chosen new forums to make the same unfounded allegations.
    The "large section of sourced material" communicat removed from the aftermath article was left-over material from the WW II article I had moved there – right before I asked Communicat to work on the article. I see little harm done if it is removed from the lede section, especially if corresponding material is added to the relevant sections.
    The last reference by Stan Winer you have listed above was added on 1 September 2010, to the article History of South Africa. As I said earlier, Winer is a published authority on that topic.
    As to the copyright issue, I have expressed no doubt that Winer is the copyright owner of the picture of prime minister B. J. Vorster. The only place where it appears uncut, apart from Wikipedia, is this article by Winer.
    Overall, you seem to be arguing that Wikipedia should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view. Things look very different from the Southern hemisphere. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read and understood this thread. I refute all false allegations by Edward321 and Nick-D who appear to be working in tandem against me. I will not respond further in this forum to their allegations. These and other matters are currently the subject of an application to Arbcom, which application was formally lodged by me shortly before the apparent retaliatory posting of this incident notice. Communicat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    I don't think the crux of this issue is a content dispute. It's about disruptive behaviour. Communicat endlessly argues even when blatantly proven wrong, in the face of overwheling disagreement, when he has little to no support. He throws insults about bias and conspiracy, even accusing uninvolved administrator Georgewilliamherbert of bias when he tried to help. He has repeatedly pushed for Winers inclusion on WWII articles, and still refers to him on WWII talk pages, in the face of unanimous rejection by editors who voiced opinions there. Diffs to support this appear in earler posts in this thread, so I won't duplicate.
    Communicat does, very occasionally, do something constructive, is suddenly polite, helpful, and engages in reasoned discussion. But it is sporadic and random. (Hohum @) 16:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Hohum on this. It's not about content. Sometimes, Communicat is pleasant and collegial, but mostly, he accuses everyone of belonging to a cabal that is out to get him. The simple truth of the matter is that Communicat typically is asserting a fringe position that no one else agrees is valid.
    Contrary to what you assert, Petri Kohn, Communicat has quoted from sources that contradict him. He often cherry-picks quotes from various authors when the full context or other parts of the works contradict him explicitly. Two such instances are discussed at [72] and [73]. --Habap (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Petri, I am one of about 6 editors who has provided evidence that Communicat has added information that was not supported by the sources Communicat cited. Neither you nor Communicat have proven any of us wrong, or you would be able to provide differences supporting your claim. Of course, you should know that if you read the links I posted, just like you should know Communicat's last attempt at using Winer as a source occurred nearly two months after the date you list. I have never argued "that Wikipedia should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view" and am frankly baffled that you have claimed that I have done so. I don't even know what "a Northern point-of-view" is in terms of WWII. Finnish perhaps? Edward321 (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The issues here are already discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Edward321. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This Incident entry regards Communicat's behaviour, the Arb request is aimed at Edward321's, with no other involved party currently named by Communicat. (Hohum @) 17:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm that Arbcom has been requested to include Nick-D as an involved party. The relevant posting reads: Nick-D (like Edward321) has the peculiar and disruptive habit of reverting within minutes and without explanation material that I have laboriously contributed. He is apparently allergic to the courteous, customary and practical method of simply inserting a tag in submitted text, asking for correction, clarification, verification or whatever, with which I'd be perfectly willing to comply. Instead, he unilaterally deletes, undoes or reverts. I have repeatedly, consistently but unsuccessfuly attempted to engage Nick-D in thoughtful discussion, both on article talk page and on his user page. I repeat my request to have him joined as a third party in this application for arbitration, and I will then provide evidence of numerous previous attempts to resolve content disputes with him.
    Interested parties may care to note that Nick-D earlier refused consent to open and decisive mediation in respect of his own conduct, including partisan editing and gross POV bias. Communicat (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that even a casual skim of Talk:World War II and its archives is enought to demstrate that I, and several other editors, have discussed Communicat's proposed changes with him or her in very great length over the last few months (including posting explanations when they're reverted). As noted in my original post, Communicat has generally ignored other editors' comments and keeps rehashing the same issues and repeating the same unacceptable behavior. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have suggested some specific next steps that come from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution [74] as one or all of them may aid in resolving the current problems. --Habap (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Habap, I have no intention of withdrawing or otherwise backing down from my application to Arbcom, which is still under consideration by the committee.
    Nick-D and interested parties, as regards Nick-D's recent posting above: no useful insight into the issues at stake can be gained by any "casual skim" of the current Talk:World War II "discussion" page or archived editions of the page as suggested by the filing party. Certain complex, important and perplexing matters were and still are at issue, and they also have a direct bearing on Nick-d's (and others') persistent violations of NPOV policy. Anyone sufficiently interested, and with the time and inclination to do so, should read the current and archived pages carefully, objectively and analytically, from top to bottom, before reaching any firm conclusions of their own. In particular, they should note my numerous, unsuccessful attempts to engage in constructive article content discussion with Nick-d, and his facetious replies or absence of replies thereto. It's all there in the record.
    Suffice it to say that a perceptive reading of the discussions will prove that I have engaged in sustained discussion and serious attempts at negotiation with Nick-d (and others), with the sole intention of trying to find a solution to content problems, in order to help improve the article. My efforts have conformed fully with the letter and spirit of wiki's stated dispute avoidance policy. In response to which, Nick-D is now falsely and self-righteously alleging "Tendentious editing despite warnings and blocks". As Petri Krohn has correctly observed above, there has been no tendentious editing on my part. I would suggest that the wording of this ANI notice lodged Nick-d is itself tendentious.
    Misleading reference is made by Nick-d to "warnings and blocks". I was blocked for 24 hours by an "uninvolved" intervening administrator for remarking that some particularly disruptive and bellicose discussants were behaving like animals. Later, I was blocked for 48 hours for remarking that a certain editor was "boring" because he kept reviving a certain dead-horse issue that had already been terminated. These blocks had nothing whatsoever to do with so-called tendentious editing. Indeed, Nick-D's own reasoning is tendentious, and his lodging of this notice is riddled with lies and distortions.
    As for Edward321's claim that he is "one of about 6 editors who has provided evidence that Communicat has added information that was not supported by the sources Communicat cited": this party appears to have a slight problem with numeracy. He is one of only three editors who attempted to provide that so-called evidence, which in any event was not "added" to the article as falsely implied. In fact, Edward321 has himself submitted to the discussion page certain disruptive information that is contradicted directly by the sources he provides. All this too can be found in the discussion page, see my posting of 23:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Enough said. Communicat (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Communicat is correct that he did not add the incorrect info to World War II. On the other hand, has repeatedly proposed changes on the World War II talk page that are not supported or even contradicted by his sources (noted by Users Hohum,[75][76][77][78][79] Nick-D, [80][81][82] Edward321, [83] and Habap.[84][85][86]
    Communicat has added posted information that is not supported or even contradicted by his sources to the article History of South Africa (Noted by Edward321)[87] Western Betrayal (noted by User 67.122.211.178)[88] and Aftermath of World War II (noted by Edward321)[89] Edward321 (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    These and other issues are currently the subject of an application by me for arbitration, to which the filing party of this ANI has now been included as a third party in tandem with Edward321. An evidence page will be opened if and when Arbcom accepts my application, which is still under consideration. I consider it inappropriate to comment further in this forum at this time, which does not mean I concur with the allegations made. Communicat (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to note. The arbitration seems very likely to be rejected (currently 1/5/0/1), and shouldn't distract from this notice. (Hohum @) 20:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That's clearly the way it's going. Even if that unexpectedly and dramaticly changes, it would be best to keep this going as several members of Arbcom have said if they take it they will be investigating the actions of all interested parties. Edward321 (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This post was archived, but I've relisted it in the hope that an uninvolved admin will look into the matter. The RFArb is not at all likely to be accepted and Communicat's disruptive conduct there illustrates this ongoing problem rather well. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not being ignored, but it's not an easy or quick fixable situation either. Pls be patient for a bit; active discussions on moving forward in the community (Arbcom seems to be solidifying that they want us to handle it) should be happening starting Monday, I think. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks George. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason for Nick-D's filing of this notice, and the support given it by some commentators, may be summed up in just one sentence: They want to get rid of me so that they can continue allowing their personal political prejudices to get in the way of historical accuracy and objectivity, through practising a form of censorship by POV-bias and flagrant violations of NPOV.
    Arbcom, contrary to Nick-D's false innuendo above, has not noted any disruptive behaviour on my part. Nick-D remains a named party in my application to Arbcom, which is still under consideration. Communicat (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbcom was rejecting the consideration 5:1 last I looked last night, and several members responded positively to my suggestion that we can handle it within the community.
    I would like to request that all parties avoid further nastyness and retract any outstanding, such as your last above Communicat, that we can hold a constructive discussion on this starting now. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No offence was intended. It was a statement of fact, and it can be proved by me if or when arbom condones the opening of an evidence page.
    As for community involvement: You know perfectly well that you yourself intervened some time ago, and absolutely nothing constructive came of it. If anything, you had the unintended effect of pouring petrol on the flames. Revived "community involvement" as mooted by you would IMO be pointless and irrevelant at this stage, because unless things change for the better in terms of POV bias and stricter adherence to NPOV policy, I want nothing further to do with that particular World War II overview article.
    In the meantime, I suggest basic etiquette and procedure prevail by not prejudging the outcome of Arbcom's pending decision. Thank you for your interest. Communicat (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If Arbcom choses to take up the case they can do so. They have indicated that they want the community to handle it, though that's not final yet.
    You don't get to pick and chose among uninvolved administrators, if you create an issue that rises to our collective attention. If others want to get involved as well, that's fine and normal. But you've got my attention and are going to have to deal with and live with it.
    Your reaction here seems to be on the border of intentionally burning all bridges with the rest of the community rather than giving us a chance to discuss this in an organized fashion. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia as a whole is not just the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it's the encyclopedia we all edit together. Even if you walk away from those particular pages, issues have been raised that call into question your interest in working with others constructively. You have also raised issues of systematic bias that need to be reviewed, but whether you can work constructively with other Wikipedians on these or other topics in the future are obvious and evident parts of the discussion that is to follow.
    If you want to burn those bridges, you can walk away from the project entirely now at any time. You don't get to burn them and just change articles, because if there's a systematic behavioral problem on your side it's going to happen again at those new articles.
    I urge you to step back from the precipice and to cooperate in constructive discussions on this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    POV and propaganda by User:Jrkso

    User:Jrkso is posting wrong information and fabricated nonsense in the article Afghanistan. He was asked to remove his claims or to provide reliable, scholarly sources on the talkpage of the article (Talk:Afghanistan#Selective_quoting_and_falsification_of_sources_by_User:Jrkso). He refused and insisted on his POV. I took the matter to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Unreliable_source_and_falsification_of_sources_by_User:Jrkso. There, everyone agrees that Jrkso's edits are POV and factually wrong (quoting User:Paul Barlow: "t's palpable nonsense [...] Misrepresenting sources is a blockable offence, which could be taken to WP:ANI"). I mentioned that once again on the talkpage of the article. But he is ignoring it and once again restored that false information (in addition to another POV issue which is being discussed at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan; Jrkso is largely ignoring that discussion as well) and is blindly reverting. I won't revert him again for now (he has been reverted by User:Dmcq anyway). But I think that admin help is needed. This is not only just a POV issue, but a fact that this user is stubbornly inserting factually wrong and fabricated nonsense in the article. To make it even worse, he is actively falsifying sources to make his edits look "sourced". See my comments on the talkpage. The article is tagged. Thank you. Tajik (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tajik (talk · contribs) is Forum shopping and I think that is blockable offense in Wikipedia; his behaviour is very disruptive; he's falsly accusing me of all these lies; he removes from articles sourced material that he doesn't like to see, and to mislead the admins, he turns around and quickly file reports on me, so that way the admins will focus on me instead. Tajik has been edit-warring and blocked so many times. The sourced information which he's accusing me of was there in the article for months. He removed it yesterday and when I reverted his edit he began attacking me.--Jrkso (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be helpful for all parties involved to approach this more calmly. The quote in question certainly appears in the source that Jrkso specified, although its derivation is not made clear. It also, according to Google Books, appears in the Encyclopedia Indica of 1996, to which I don't have access. There are no surviving letters from Alexander but several ancient historians gave quotes that they claimed derived from his letters. In short, there is plenty of room to argue about whether the quote is properly sourced, but there is no good reason to claim that the quote was inserted in bad faith. Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Except for Jrkso, everyone else agrees that the claim is unsourced and unreliable. Most likely, it is a fabrication. And I reported Jrkso in here after User:Paul Barlow refuted Jrkso's edits and explained that his falsification of sources (with the attempt of misleading the readers) should be reported to WP:ANI if he continues his behavior. The biggest problem with him is that he is aggressively ignoring discussions. He automatically edits or reverts and does not even bother to explain his edits. It would be a lot easier if he discussed his edits BEFORE changing the article. See Talk:Afghanistan as an example. He does not even dare to answer questions directed at him. He simply edits and reverts, ignopring all the rest. Tajik (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Paul Barlow didn't mention my name or anything what this Tajik is asserting. The user Tajik is twisting things intentionally. And anytime another editor or an admin is mentioned in here, they should be at least notified some you failed to do Tajik. You didn't notify me either.--Jrkso (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote appears twice, once in the book, another time in the Encyclopedia Indica, but in both cases the wording of what Google shows is identical, "In a letter to his mother, Alexander described his encounters with these trans-Indus tribes thus: "I am involved in the land of a leonine and brave people, where every foot of the ground is like a well of steel, confronting my soldier.", so I think we have one claim repeated by someone else. I've spent quite some time on this and not only can I not find another source mentioning anything similar, all we know of Alexander's letters is what has been reported by other writers long after the fact, eg about 30 in Plutarch (4 centuries after his death) and in the Alexander romance, with scholars pointing out that many are certainly forgeries. Thus I'm really just repeating what Looie946 says, that there is no reason not to accept that the quote was inserted in good faith, but I also think that there is every reason not to use it. But that's not a matter for this board and is being discussed at RSN. Both of these editors do indeed need to calm down and avoid the need for Admins to act. Dougweller (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tajik is mixing up two things here. First, an argument about a quote regarding Alexander, where Jrkso was arguing too hard for a poorly sourced statement but seems to have given up. Second, an argument about the fraction of Afghans who are Tajiks, where the sources that Jrkso wants to rely on seem at first sight to be better than the survey Tajik wants to use. So I don't really see any basis for action here. What I will say is that Tajik should refrain from attributing the actions of other editors to an ethnic POV. Edits should be discussed according to whether they are justified by policy and sources, not according to the perceived motives for making them. These back-and-forth accusations of POV-pushing are very destructive and need to be stopped. Looie496 (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All I am asking for is that Jrkso should use reliable sources and that he should discuss controversial edits BEFORE changing the article and BEFORE attempting to start an editwar. So far, he has done the opposite: relying on unreliable sources and ignoring the discussion. As for the numbers used in Afghanistan: please see the respective discussion. They are now added to the article, and even Jrkso had to accept it. Tajik (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow my contribution, no where did I use unreliable sources, so why you keep accusing me? Ignoring the discussion? Where? I have explained my self in all the discussions and I'm still doing it here, so again please stop the lies and misspresentations. I left the opinion polls in the 2 articles to avoid edit-war. I don't see how private non-governmental opinion polls using only 6,226 Afghans can be made into a representation of a nation of 28 million, this is "Mispresentation of Sources" and as User:Paul Barlow said, it's a blockable offense. Something like that is not done in any other nations' article. Leaving this in the 2 articles means Wikipedia fully backs the misleading misrepresentation. The polls have many flaws, they don't mention the Aimaq groups, period! The U.S. Library of Congress Country Studies confirms that in the 1990s there are between 500,000 to 800,000 Aimaks counted in Afghanistan. The private polls are telling us that there are no Aimaks, makes us believe that all the Aimaks were killed or forced out of the country. It has Tajiks 37% but when you google "Tajiks in Afghanistan" the results come back as 27% maximum, and none higher. These private incomplete surveys are directly in conflict with the official government statistics. On the one hand, I'm told here that sources must have complete truth and etc, and on ther other hand these ridiculous private polls are used to mislead readers, etc. I'm just confused and so I decided to stop arguing, and even when I do that the disruptive user Tajik is accusing me as the bad editor, and is seeking that I get blocked. I tell him to stop but he comes with more lies.--Jrkso (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As an editor who reviewed material on both OR/N and RS/N; there appears to be some difficulty in the editorial community in relation to Afghan national and ethnic identities and the taking on board of expert external review of sources and claims at noticeboards. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review

    I have blocked this IP to prevent disruption. I believe that I may crossed over into content disputation, however, and would appreciate input. This IP has been adding what appears to be promotion of a neologism and a website/theory without any discussion across several holocaust/genocide related articles. I've not reverted any of their edits since their block in the event I have over-stepped. If I need to unblock, please let me know. Thanks Tiderolls 16:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Good block. Clear spamming. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you'd know... ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 16:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Block discussion: persistent copyright

    I have blocked this user for two weeks for yet another blatant copyvio. Frankly, if the copied content were not as brief as it is, I would have indeffed him, as he is the subject of an ongoing WP:CCI and does not yet seem to have indicated any understanding of our copyright policies. My request for this block review is really more by way of an "is this enough?" and because fresh eyes are always helpful.

    The incident that prompted the block: this paste from this source. See most recently this notice and the subsequent discussion. Previous ANI threads: here and here. His CCI is here. It has recently been undergoing review by another contributor who is finding more issues and who notified me of the most recent violation.

    If you think I should have blocked for a different length of time, please feel free to do so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In terms of not understanding: his response. (FWIW, see his talk page for bolded runs of duplicated text.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh! He really doesn't get it. Support an indef block until he does. Jon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.247.25 (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that response which fails to understand how expression of facts can be copyrighted, two weeks sounds pretty generous, if they really don't get it that bad they are a danger to the project. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to extend the block further now. But I have left another final warning concurring with Moonriddengirl. If he doesn't get it and will ask and discuss before doing anything else we can salvage his contributions going forwards. If he does it again, he's gone; I'll indef him if he does it again, or support anyone else doing so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Winchester2313 summarized

    Background: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646#Comment:

    In response to requests from admins who have not made a firm decision, here is the central case against User User:Winchester2313 these are the three most important complaints that clearly warrant sanctions against User User:Winchester2313:

    1. User Winchester2313 (talk · contribs) has in the past been warned by at least two admins to stop edit warring, see: (a) User talk:Winchester2313#Edit warring on Menachem Mendel Schneerson; (b) User talk:Winchester2313#Edit warring on Elazar Shach; (c) adding defamatory stuff User talk:Winchester2313#April 2010, (d) requested to stop blanking, vandalizing pages and personal attacks at User talk:Winchester2313#May 2010 and has been requested a few times on other talk pages to stop his intimidating behavior on several pages that he violates WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASSMENT when editing.
    2. At Talk:Elazar Shach he has displayed crude and ruthless behavior, name calling against editors who disagree with him. He has intimated that he is WP:OUTING as he taunts them "Now be nice Yonoson (or is it 'Rabbi' Rosenblum...)", that he's a "a brainwashed robot" (violating WP:NPA), as he directs his attack against User Yonoson3 (talk · contribs) naming him as Jonathan Rosenblum.
    3. He is conducting an edit WP:WAR at the Yitzchok Hutner article, not allowing me to add references and citations (see the diffs of my work that was in progress on citations [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] there are a few more) while he blanket reverts them all in the process violating WP:3RR, and hurls accusations, as he has done at other editors in the past in the hope of intimidating them away. He has already reverted the Yitzchok Hutner article 4 times [99] [100] [101] [102] in 24 hours with blanket reversals in utter violation of WP:3RR that destroy my good work and ignoring pleas to talk at Talk:Yitzchok Hutner#Expanding the article discussions.

    The above three complaints summarize the situation. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Although Winchester2313 did violate 3RR, that was on October 27. Other than that, what you have here is an argument about fine details of content. You claim that you are using sources properly, Winchester2313 says you are not. There is no way that admins are going to be able to resolve this. Unless you two can find some way to compromise with each other, your only hope of making progress is to find some third party who is interested enough in the article to spend the time to figure out what is going on. Looie496 (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Incident at Mortal Kombat II

    User:Asperchu and I have conflicting ideas on how to proceed on an edit to the page concerning a rumored (but heavily cited) remake of the video game. I revert his entire edit as he rewrites the page to create more appropriate edits but also removes the conflicting information as well. We have been discussing it at Talk:Mortal Kombat II but it is to no avail as consensus cannot be established. This fails under WP:CIVIL and Content Issues and almost goes under WP:3RR. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd also like to note the personal attack on User:Geoff B that this same user has made. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 24 hours for this. Courcelles 20:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FINISH HIM! HalfShadow 20:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a tad inappropriate, HalfShadow. Nevertheless, the block was good. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the subject, I thought it was kinda apt. What can I say; some of 'em work, some of 'em don't... HalfShadow 22:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, I also thought it was funny :-) Finish Him will be understood by anybody familiar with the Mortal Kombat games. And I checked again and :-) ...yup, still funny. --HighKing (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    MickMacNee - talk protected.

    MickMacNee (talk · contribs) was blocked per an earlier ANI thread. Some people were trying to negotiate an unblock on terms, but Mick wasn't cooperating. On seeing this edit summary, I concluded that the talking was futile and protected his page. It was immediately unprotected without discussion.

    I think we are at the point where talking is obviously futile and this user should be considered community banned.--Scott Mac 22:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I note that PeterSymonds had already reblocked with talkpage disabled, that's probably a better way anyway.--Scott Mac 22:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of note that has now been reverted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So, two admin action have been reverted by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with no discussion whatsoever? This is very poor. I'm still waiting explanations.--Scott Mac 22:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The answer is, of course, "Fish". HalfShadow 22:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) (Disclaimer: I'm the admin who made the initial block; that discussion is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BISE/October 2010.) The full protection was not a bad idea, since it also prevented others from edit-warring about the addition of unnecessary commentary (but that seems no longer a current problem). As with any potentially controversial reversal of an admin action, of course, HJ Mitchell should not have undone the protection without speaking to Scott MacDonald first. The same applies to changing the block parameters to restore talk page access, which HJ Mitchell has now also done apparently without talking to Peter Symonds, the admin who removed talk page access. Unless a good explanation is forthcoming, this reversal of two equivalent actions by two other admins has the flavor of a wheel war, and may need arbitral action to address.
    I agree that MickMacNee seems to have no interest in discussing the reason for his block or conditions for a return to editing, and that therefore, in view of the aforementioned discussion, he is subject to a de facto community ban. I suggest that we leave it to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee, which he apparently intends to seize of the matter, to take any further action that may be required with respect to this ban or block.  Sandstein  22:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally agree with Sandstein here - reversing the actions of two different admins without discussion is really not a good way to go about this, though I can see HJM's reasoning. I appreciate that there's a chance Mick may get back to editing with some appropriate restrictions, but it's also clear that he's in no mood to deal with it at the moment, and that the community's in no mood to listen. Protecting the talk page and encouraging him to go via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee is probably the best way of this situation moving forward without further anger from Mick and trolling from others. ~ mazca talk 22:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there consensus to relock Mickmacnee's talkpage and refer him to the arbcom ban committee for any appeal?--Scott Mac 23:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems the best way forward to me. The discussion actually seemed to be deteriorating the situation. Courcelles 23:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I object. Removing talkpage access is a serious step that is not warranted here. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mick's talkpage should be unlocked, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I dislike McNee as much as he dislikes me, but I don't like to see anyone locked out of their talk page as it only serves to further bad will, If people don't want to see what he writes take it off their watchlist. If Arbcom ban him for ever and flog him off the site, then that's another matter, but so far that has not hapened. So leave the talk page unlocked..please.  Giacomo  23:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lock it and get this sorted out ASAP. This whole episode is doing nothing by harm to the whole project. Either get Mick to agree to some very clearly defined restriction and if that can't happen throw away the keys. Bjmullan (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a section on his talk page for Mick to suggest any editing restrictions for himself. Ask him if he is going suggest any for himself then take it from there. To be honest, if he refuses to take part in that then he's doing himself no favours and a talk page lock would then be appropriate. Jack forbes (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's been done. He told us to go fuck ourselves.--Scott Mac 23:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    C'mon he was being pretty baited. I doubt he meant it to you personally.  Giacomo  23:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Well, my opinion has just changed. If his reply to a request is go fuck yourself then locking the talk page might not be a bad idea. Jack forbes (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    PS; Do you have a diff for that Scott? Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    several--Scott Mac 23:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Leave his talk page unlocked. That edit summary was pretty brutal, but no less than BilCat's utterly boneheaded comment that caused it - and I don't buy for one second that he was not attempting to bait Mick. I've no opinion on his block, but if the people entering his talk page to discuss the larger issue do so with the intent of resolving the situation rather than inflame it, there is no need for a lock. Resolute 23:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? Is he not in control of his actions? He didn't have to respond to the bait. If someone is baiting, take that up as a separate issue, but if Mickmacnee isn't in control of his actions and has caused this much drama already, throw away the key.--Crossmr (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Bwilkins added the suggestion that Mick discusses what restriction might be put in place here Mick has edited eight times at his talk page without once adding any suggestions of what restrictions might be place on him. The guy doesn't want to participate in any real discussion about how his behaviour can be changed in order to allow him to continuing editing here. Bjmullan (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He didn't respond to it the first time. It was only after BilCat posted it a second time that he responded. If you want to add a civility parole on any unblock request, fine. But locking Mick's talk page did not appear necessary until someone seeking to inflame the situation came along. Given BilCat has agreed not to return, locking Mick's talk page could only be seen as punitive at this point. Resolute 00:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Article at User:Klitem1999 spam?

    I'm unsure what exactly to do about this article. It is linked from craigslist, and does not assert notability. It's also been edited only by one user, presumably the founder or an officer. I would delete for CSD A7, but this is in userspace. G11 may apply, but I'm not certain enough to just delete outright. Therefore I'm bringing it here for further review. --Chris (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Feels like G11, but I'm no expert. Vodello (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And CSD'd as G11, unambiguous promotion or advertising. Applies in userspace as it does in articles. Rodhullandemu 00:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything Everywhere

    Hi. Could an admin with a bit more clue than me (not difficult) please take a look at recent contributions by 91.109.7.124 to Everything Everywhere? These are 1 2 and 3 - I suspect that the editor is not genuine, and may be up to no good, but I don't know, and hope you might. The editing has bad spelling, which does not inspire confidence, and neither, really, does the whois record for the domain, which sounds a bit improbable. The address given looks on Google Maps like an ordinary street of houses - I can't see where a comms HQ might fit in there. Sorry, I know I should WP:AGF and all that but it did strike me all as a bit unusual. Can a clued-up Sherlock forensic interwebs type please have a look? If it is genuine I will apologize most prettily but I am worried that it may be fraud/joke/phishing/whatever and I'd rather err on the side of caution. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As a non-admin I've given the user a warning. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that very fast response. I continue to worry that it has actual fraudulent potential to harm people - what happens to data typed in if the links are followed? I still feel very dubious about the whole thing - if it is real, then their approach is - er - unusual, and if it's a joke then why go to the trouble of getting a domain? I'm confused. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll confess myself to be just as baffled as to the motivation here. It certainly looks non-genuine, but if you look at the links provided on the linked (very dodgy-looking) site they go to perfectly valid pages on genuine T-Mobile and Orange websites. One way or another these edits are either (a) wrong or (b) promotional, though, so continued reverting is definitely the way forward. ~ mazca talk 22:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like someone trying to sneak in a dab of spam. HalfShadow 22:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC on Gavin Collins needs closing

    This RFC needs to be closed with some sort of rational recommendation. This editor has been given ample opportunity to deal with the issues raised in the RFC and this discussion on his talk page fairly well sums up the editor’s view of the WP world. Those of us involved in the RFC and with this editor will move on once this one is closed.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=394080465"