Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General Site directory • Editor's index • Image and media copyright • Admins' noticeboard • Incidents • General sanctions • Page protection • Bot noticeboard Content Content noticeboard • Biographies of living persons • Ethnic and religious conflicts • Fiction • Fringe theories • Original research • Neutral point of view • Reliable sources • Copyright violations • Spam • Proposed mergers User issues User page help • New user help • Editor assistance • Help desk • Vandalism • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sockpuppets • Oversight • Long term abuse • ISP reporting • Conflict of interest Noticeboards Edit warring (3RR) • Wikiquette alerts • Arbitration: Requests / Enforcement • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment • Requests for feedback • Drawing board

Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Shortcuts: WP:AN/I WP:ANI WP:AIN Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. Any user of Wikipedia may post here. Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. As a courtesy, you must inform other users if they are the subject of a discussion (you may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so). Frivolous complaints and unsubstantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong here. Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. For incidents involving the possible misuse of administrative powers, please attempt to engage in discussions with the admin before posting here.
Are you in the right place?	Using this page
To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see administrator vandalism intervention. To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts. To report improper deletion or request undeletion, see deletion review. To report improper usernames, see usernames for administrator attention. To request page protection, see requests for page protection. To report edit warring, see the administrators' edit warring noticeboard. To report long time edit warring/abuse, see Long term abuse. To report suspected sockpuppetry, see Sockpuppet investigations. To start a ban discussion, see the administrators' noticeboard. To request permanent deletion of dangerous personal information, see requests for oversight. DO NOT make such requests here; reports here are visible to everyone. To get assistance in resolving disputes, please see dispute resolution.	Please add new incident reports to the bottom of this page. Sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically. When moving long threads to a subpage, add a link to the subpage and sign without a timestamp: "~~~"; this prevents premature archiving. Move to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/[concise title]. Also consider adding/updating a status tag (e.g. {{unresolved}}). Lengthy posts may be placed within a toggling collapse box. Use {{subst:Collapse top}} at the top and {{subst:Collapse bottom}} at the bottom. Threads will be archived automatically after a period of inactivity. If you see a thread that should not be archived yet, please add a comment requesting more discussion, or if it is already archived, remove it from the archive and readd it to this page, preferably with a comment.
What these pages are not
This page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues. For incidents involving the possible misuse of administrative powers, please discuss concerns with the admin before posting here.

---

Contents 1 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis 2 There is a conspiracy against me 3 Outing? 4 user:Viriditas Wikihounding 5 Article ownership and personal attacks by Nukes4Tots 6 User:77.252.190.250 7 Honduran move warring 8 Violation of editing restriction by Rotational 9 CENSEI / Fife followup 10 PoliticianTexas sock 11 User:ElPilotoDi 12 Late Show with David Letterman 13 User:Pmanderson 14 User talk:Tikkuy 15 Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 23#File:Neda.jpg 16 Small anon block needed 17 ASIO File 17.1 User Block Requested 17.2 Blocked 17.3 Oh, the irony 18 "Outlines" 19 User:Stuart D. James 20 Someone replacing flag images: possible vandalism 21 User:User:Sebas1955 copyrighted image problem 22 IP 81.97.19.159 23 Admins vs contributers 24 Breaking news

[edit] 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

Currently, the page is 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Please see the talk page. I need to get back to my article work, so it would be impossible to try and deal with any of it further. It needs more eyes on it for the following - page move warring, edit warring, possible POV problems, possible BLP problems (these are living individuals involved and it deals with a potentially criminal act that people have been tried at the World Court for), and other problems. Some admin were previously involved in page moves. Since this is a major event and is ongoing, this wont be solved soon. I hope this can be handled in a way that doesn't lead up to some of the problems on other political pages (I need not remind everyone of what happened at the Sarah Palin page). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow! A military coup overthrowing a democratically elected Government is a "constitutional crisis" per the Wiki WP:NPOV! Need I say any more? Sarah777 (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read the sources and the page, it makes it clear that their Supreme Court ordered the military to remove him so their Legislature could appoint a new President. That is not a "military coup", especially when such would be against various international laws and a crime only a judicial body can determine. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If it walks, waddles and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck. This is a military coup. End of debate. Sarah777 (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP has higher standards than that. It would be unacceptable to label people as violating a law without a judiciary body determining such. Now please take your off topic comments elsewhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be unacceptable to label people as violating a law without a judiciary body determining such. Would it? Do you have a verifiable source for that assertion? What is a judiciary body? A dead judge? The North Korean Information Ministry? I can hardly be more "on topic" than pointing out the massive breach of WP:NPOV that is involved in Wiki calling a duck a goose. Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess the entire membership of the Organization of American States and the UN general assembly (not a single dissenting voice) are wrong too? Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

None of those are judiciary bodies and have no ability to determine criminality or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources call it a coup, but first let's determine what reliable sources are.

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press. —Wikipedia:Reliable sources

• The Washington Post published this Reuters story:
  "'I'm afraid to say my efforts were unable to achieve this,' Insulza said after talks with pro-coup officials in the capital, Tegucigalpa." "Insulza held talks with members of Honduras's ruling Liberal Party and the Supreme Court, which ordered the coup, to try to convince them to reverse Zelaya's overthrow." (bold added)
• July 3, from the Times in Britain:
  "Manuel Zelaya, the ousted President of Honduras, will never be allowed to return to his country, the leaders of last weekend’s coup said yesterday." "It gave the leaders of the coup until tomorrow to comply." (bold added)
• This is from The Associated Press:
  "Zelaya was toppled in a military-backed coup on Sunday and flown out of the country." "Hours earlier, Honduras' Supreme Court, which had authorized Sunday's coup, said it wouldn't agree to reinstate the toppled leftist leader." "Insulza said late Friday that Honduran officials had given him documents showing that charges are pending or have been brought against Zelaya, charges that purportedly justify the coup." "Nations around the world have promised to shun Micheletti, who was sworn in after the coup, and the nation already is suffering economic reprisals." "Italy withdrew its ambassador to protest the coup". "A Ousted Honduran Finance Minister Rebeca Santos on Friday told international finance ministers in Chile that the coup has already hurt the economy." (bold added)

Reliable sources like The New York Times[1], Washington Post[2], the Times in Britain,[3] The Associated Press[4], Reuters[5], and the Wall Street Journal[6] all call it a "coup".

Here's what BBC News has reported: "In the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, Stephen Gibbs finds out what people think of last weekend's coup, which exiled President Manuel Zelaya." "In the hours following the coup, the airport in the capital Tegucigalpa had been closed." "Despite the coup, the atmosphere at the Honduran border seemed normal".

The United Nations[7] and the Organization of American States[8] both call it a "coup".

Coup supporters have an incentive to be in denial, but the rest of the world isn't buying it. Arguments against the word "coup" are WP:OR, and therefore irrelevant from a Wikipedia perspective. Coup apologists are disproportionally well-represented, by Most Interest Persons, here. The point of view that this was anything other than a coup, is not represented in the free press. In the world, it's just a fringe opinion.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

This page in a nutshell: Article names should be easily recognizable by English speakers. Titles should be brief without being ambiguous.

"Coup" is the only name "easily recognizable by English speakers." "Crisis" is "ambiguous". -- Rico 00:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoa people! It is NOT up to us to establish whether this is a coup or a crisis or whatever. We report, not interpret. Here is a summary of what WP:RS's are saying:

• BBC - coup
• London Times - coup
• AFP - coup
• AP - coup
• Reuters quoting SofS Clinton - coup

I may have missed a wealth of sources describing this as a "constitutional crisis" - please correct me if that is the case. Manning (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. You missed an important one. Wikipedia calls it a "Constitutional crisis". Sarah777 (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a secondary source. Anyway the name has been fixed. Manning (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP makes it clear that those sources are not reliable because they do not have a judiciary backing. They are reporting rumor and innuendo. Until there is a court case, no one can be said to be participating in a coup, which is a crime. Furthermore, this entry at ANI is about edit warring, move warring, and other problems. Sarah has already proven on the September 11th page that she does not understand NPOV or abide by our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The judiciary can be involved in a coup just like any other organization. There is no reason why Wikipedia should swallow every judicial decision as gospel, especially not in this case. In Turkey you also have a tension between the judiciary and the government. Count Iblis (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, please reread - The World Court or some body like the ICTY would be a judiciary body that would investigate and try anyone involved if there was indeed a problem. Those are the international judiciary bodies. Due process is important to BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has been "fixed". This is WP:OR, nothing less. Since when did Wiki take it's naming policies from a concept called "judicial bodies"?!! (And I'd suggest that the 9/11 article (1) has nothing to do with this one and (2) proves that I understand NPOV perfectly. (our policies are an altogether different thing). Sarah777 (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So, to sum up: the entire world, all available reliable sources and the MSM call this a coup (aided and abetted by the Honduran judiciary) but Wiki now has a policy based on the WP:OR notion that if some "judicial body" (undefined) doesn't call it a coup then Wiki must ignore what everyone else is calling it? Sarah777 (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple common sense dictates that when an elected leader is removed by the military, it is called a coup. Common sense is anathema to the Wikipedia Mind(tm) usually, but in this case we are blessed by the common sense of reliable sources as well, who describe it as a coup. So please, let's ignore the whitewashing and wiki-lawyering, and title the page 2009 Honduras coup or some such. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! Otherwise I can hardly wait to apply this reasoning to a host of other political and military conflicts all across Wiki! Vast tomes are written in total ignorance of this "judicial" principle; wait till we start applying the ruling of Iran's judicial body (the Ayatollahs) to various conflicts. Must get to work on this straight away - major re-writes of the Israel/Palestine conflict called for. Sarah777 (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, consensus is against you on the 9/11 page for a reason - your understanding of POV and the rest is highly questionable. Your inability to understand the idea of due process and "proof" of a criminal act before declaring one is disturbing. These are WMF standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not reliable when they publish rumors or innuendos. Since only courts can declare a criminal act, any statement not by an official judiciary body counts as the above when it comes to BLP in determining if we can declare if said criminal act happened. Thus, this is not a "coup". It doesn't matter if "the entire world" says something, as the entire world could claim OJ Simpson was a murderer but his page will not reflect that. Furthermore, Tarc's comment is factually incorrect, as their Supreme Court ordered the removal and the Legislature appointed a new person. Having a strong POV is not a pass in violating the very basics of BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If the articles involved here are factually correct (and knowing wikipedia, I wouldn't take that as gospel), then OR has a point. A Coup d'état is stated to be the unconstitutional removal of the executive. If the nation's Supreme Court ruled that the President must go, and if they had jurisdiction to do so, then presumably it's not unconstitutional and hence not a coup. Note the many "if's" though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is way off the topic (which was move warring and edit warring :) ). By the way, I am fine about calling it a coup if an international court rules one, I just don't like declaring criminality before an official declaration by one with jurisdiction in the matter. Anyway, what about the word "alleged" which is normally used? That would be perfectly fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The OAS is apparently going to decide what to call it, sometime soon. What the "topic" here is, is not yours to control, even though you brought it. And since you questioned the sources' use of the term "coup", you opened that door yourself. It's clear to me that the sources are using the term "coup" a little more broadly than it's currently defined in the wikipedia article on Coup d'état. That doesn't necessarily make the sources wrong, as wikipedia editors have been known to try to make articles support a particular point of view. The legality of the President's removal appears to be in question, at the very least. Hopefully the OAS will provide some guidance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind to talk about it, and I admit that I am off topic too. I just don't want people to forget that there is admin attention needed to deal with edit warring and move warring so it doesn't get out of hand. The philosophical debate isn't that big of a necessity in comparison. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OR (is that a reference to the WP:OR you are promoting here?); in the case of 9/11 the majority proposition was that because the vast bulk of "reliable sources" called it a terrorist attack, that is what Wiki should call it. You supported that. Now you are saying that though the vast bulk of "reliable sources" call it a coup, some other principle applies because you have access to a higher governing body for Wiki called a "Judiciary Body". I rest my case M'Lord. Sarah777 (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Sarah on this one, if not necessarily with all her arguments. Reliable sources call it a coup. No reliable source I'm aware of calls this designation into question. Ottava, just because something is unconstitutional does not automatically make it "criminal". And no, we do not have to wait for a court decision to accurately report what reliable sources report. Your demand to wait for some international court decision is unreasonable - the international legal system does not work like this, and most likely no international court even has jurisdiction about matters that are internal to Honduras. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

News story today: "Honduras quits OAS over coup criticism" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

0.02 from the random reader: From when the courts must be NPOV? Are we saying the Supreme Courts of Thailand and Pakistan, themselves players of the political turmoils of their respective countries in the past 2 years, have the final say on how things should be called on WP? Given the situation, letting the Supreme Court of Honduras to decide the name of this article is probably violating WP:COI.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 05:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The unanswered question is, by what authority did the Honduran Supreme Court order the removal of the President? If it were a constitutional act, one would think there would not be such a huge outcry over it from various places around the world. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose one can easily get the text of the Honduran constitution-- to prevent needless NPOV dispute, as long a literal reading can support the Supreme Court to remove/impeach the President, the current name can stay.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 05:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Since OR is the one who disputes the "coup" terminology, maybe he should be the one to look for it. It would be enlightening to know whether they really acted within constitutional authority, or whether they invented a law for themselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In the past we have tended to decide naming issues based not on what is "right", or anything like that, merely what is useful. Whether this actually IS a coup or not is immaterial. Article names should typically be the name that is most likely to be looked for by the target population (the readership). Do we have studies on what's been searched for? I support using coup in the article name if that's the most common. (redirects from the other names, of course) ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] There is a conspiracy against me

Someone is registering new accounts, posting messages at talk pages I am involved in and editing articles I have edited, These accounts are using some of the same language as me, they are trying to make it look like I have created several account. Someone is trying to get me banned from wikipedia.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tastytreasures <<<====== Notice this name compared to mine.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dalwadi6

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Masasuijen

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hamas4life

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wolof359 <<<=====This guy showed up when I was blocked for 24 hours, doing the exact same edits as I have just been involved in and using the exact same language.

--User:Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 4:03 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I have posted as this user has asked too. Anyone?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of PCH. By the way, did you post this here, or did Supreme? If Supreme did so, you may wish to move your post so it doesn't come right after his, and to a place one line below it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Supreme is blocked, so I believe Abce posted it here on his behalf. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Any idea why someone would want to do this to you? -- œ^™ 03:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday I was blocked for 24 hours, a user named "Wolof359" showed up and starting editing the exact same articles I have been involved in using the exact same language. I think it was Arab Cowboy trying to fool people that I had created a second account to get me banned from Wikipedia.

This is his edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wolof359

At the Sea of Galilee article, I had written "Golan is not Israel." he wrote "also Syrian too because Golan Heights is not Israel."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_of_Galilee&action=history

At the druze article he did the same revert as me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Druze&diff=300029523&oldid=299739268

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Druze&diff=300097056&oldid=300032507

At the Mount Hermon Ski Resrt article I had written "not in Israel.", he wrote "not in Israel." :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount_Hermon_ski_resort&action=history

At the Golan Heights article he did the exact same revert as I had done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&diff=299954291&oldid=299950868

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&diff=300116308&oldid=300032437

I am involved in these four articles right now, but there was one article that he did not touch, and that was the Asmahan article, the same one that me and Arab Cowboy are arguing over. He let it be like Arab Cowboys edit. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, it smells like PCH to me, or one of the Axeman framers.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What is PCH?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How do I make a complaint against Supreme Deliciousness for helucination, false accusation, and conspiracy theory allegation? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Although I am not familiar with all of the articles/users/content mentioned above, the Golan Heights article was recently subject of a recent RfC. When the RfC was closed, the choice of the 3rd-party closing Administrator was not accepted (see talk) by some editors, and therefore the debate continues. Many editors have found SD's edits and viewpoints to be very controversial, including previous versions of his userpage[9]. Unfortunately, controversial edits and content sometimes leads to vandalism and wiki-hounding by uncivil editors (who should probably find somewhere else to play). --Nsaum75 (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Another Comment:

User Supreme Deliciousness is not interested in truth or facts on Wikipedia articles. All he wants to do is to make everything/everyone Syrian. This has brought him the wrath of many users, hence his hallucinations and conspiracy theory allegations. Please see other users's comments on his edits.

User Supreme Deliciousness's claims are biased and arguably racist. 'As other users have described User Supreme Deliciousness:

"I hope you are banned from Wikipedia soon for your comments on this and many other pages. You are a disgrace to Wikipedia (if not the human race)."--Gilabrand (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC). Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Za%27atar#Israeli_culture_theft

and

"Please understand that this is an encyclopedia. Statements must be supported by verifiable sources, opinion is not enough. Edits that are aggressive, highly political attacks on particular ethnic and national groups are not welcome here. And please try to read up on a topic before you edit. Your assertion that is is somehow illegitimate for a nation to adopt a foodstuff Za'atar is absurd. And your assertion that the Druze are not Arabs because they are not genetically Arab is not merely ridiculous, it is borderiline racism. Historicist (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Historicist (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)". Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness#Settle_down

The truth of the matter is that User Supreme Deliciousness is the one who deserves to be permanently banned, not just blocked, for the following reasons:

1. User Supreme Deliciousness has been edit warring with numerous editors, and most lately myself. Please see comments by other users about User Supreme Deliciousness at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Za%27atar#Israeli_culture_theft, among many many other pages including User Supreme Deliciousness's own user talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness#Settle_down, where User Supreme Deliciousness is proving to be unfit for Wikipedia.

2. User Supreme Deliciousness has previously taken his "crying wolf" complaints to two other administrators who have responded by telling User Supreme Deliciousness that they were practicing the same behavior of which they were complaining. Evidence: you personally blocked him yesterday for the same allegation he was making against me. Please see also:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

I can bring forth many more.

3. User Supreme Deliciousness has gone around using my contributions page, undoing every change that I had made to every page on Wikipedia, even on pages where they had previously shown no interest, and inviting other users to intensify the edit wars against me on all of those pages. Please see:

(1)

(2)

Again, I can bring forth many more.

All evidence from reliable sources has shown that Asmahan and Farid al-Atrash were Egyptian of Syrian-Lebanese origin. Yet, SD refuses to accept this fact. Instead, he's crying wolf and making false allegations all over Wikipedia. We had agreed to stop the edit warring and let the RfC take its course. SD's accusations here, here, and here, at least, are more than sufficient. Why do they need to be in the RfC?

--Arab Cowboy (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Arab Cowboy, you don't need to make any complaints of hallucination, false accusation, and conspiracy theory allegation. If it's the case that SD is participating in either of these, and his/her claims are false, it will be clear to administrators looking into the situation. Your tone here is very adversarial and not helpful to your cause. I've suggested previously that you stop echoing the complaints of others against SD in your own contributions, especially those that are uncivil. Your bold text comes across as shouting and distracts rather than attracts attention. If SD is indeed making false accusations, you have nothing to worry about, and you'd be better off just leaving the situation to speak for itself rather than provoking an argument with an adversarial response such as this one. Sancho 14:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, I suggest adding those users you listed to the case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arab_Cowboy. Sancho 14:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sancho, not all admins on Wikipedia have a thorough investigating approach like you do. My initial approach to SD's complaints all over the site was to ignore them. However, I have found that the majority of the admins on Wikipedia give all of 10 seconds to adjudicate a complaint. They do not bother contacting the person accused, falsely or not, to get their side of the story, and they just issue warnings, blocks, etc., right and left, without justification. SD had himself blocked a couple of days ago in the process of complaining about me, only after I had made a response like the one above. I had initially remained quiet and found that the admin warned me without giving any thought to the matter. If all admins had a scrupulous approach as you do, things would be easier and I would not have to waste my time on SD's complaints. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Outing?

Could admins please look at the following thread to see whether it is in line with WP:OUTING, WP:COI and WP:NPA:

• [10], in particular this part of the thread.

In the thread, mention is made of a conference centre that the editor is supposed to have managed. The name of the conference centre is given. Will Beback (talk · contribs) has claimed that the name of the conference centre is apparent from two sites which the other editor "linked to" themselves.

• I can't immediately see where user:Terrymacro linked to the second one of these sites, "feld.re-url.com", on Wikipedia: [11]. It's not linked to on his present user page, nor on any past versions of it, as far as I can see.
• The name of the conference centre is not present on either of the sites, as far as I can see, nor mentioned on any other Wikipedia page in relation to that editor, as far as I can see: [12].
• The information presented here by Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs) goes way beyond what the editor divulged on the one site they did link to on their user page.

Please examine to what extent WP:OUTING, WP:COI and WP:NPA apply, in particular the following sections:

• WP:COI#Close_relationships: "Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx.[2] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization."

• WP:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. — Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor."

• WP:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information: "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in "the real world". This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Edits attempting to out someone should be promptly reverted, and a request for oversight made to permanently delete the edits from Wikipedia."

Is the linked discussion thread fine, or is it a cause for concern? Thanks. JN466 16:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In a brief review, I see no posting of personal identifying or contact information. The fact that another editor was able to use an editor's self-chosen WP:REALNAME isn't outing. I do see an asserted and insufficiently denied COI, and calling a COI a COI is not a personal attack. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no outing because the subject has used his real name and linked to his biographies. The editor signed his real name on talk pages, etc, for over a year.[13][14]. He linked to his own websites, which included a description of his work history.[15][16] Those sites both included detailed biographies, one of which includes this sentence: "In the 1990's I was the finance manager for a 2,000 acre outdoor conference facility outside of Brisbane, Queensland, Australia."[17] Another one said, "For the rest of the 90’s I was the finance manager for an outdoor conference centre about an hours drive from the city of Brisbane."[18] The movement in question owns a conference facility which exactly matches that description. The person's earlier role as an officer of a new religious group is reported in movement publications.[19] The user has rebuffed the assertion that he has a conflict of interest regarding the organization in which he has held senior positions, or incidentally, that he did anything wrong by inserting links and material on his non-standard astrological views. However the COI issue is probably better addressed on WP:COIN.   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd add that the Prem Rawat topic has an unfortunate history of editors with disclosed and undisclosed conflicts of interest, and has had two RfARs. Advocacy on behalf or (or against) the movement has been a real problem on Wikipedia going back to at least 2004.[20] Considering that experience, and the recent case concerning Scientology, I think that COI is a legitimate concern.   Will Beback  talk  19:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started a (rudimentary) section at WP:COIN. [21] Perhaps you might like to add to it. JN466 20:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge the concern raised here, and that further discussion is appropriate at WP:COIN, however it I would point out that the information I posted about which Jayen466 expresses concern was in direct response to this:

• My involvement with DLM ceased over 25 years ago. I have never been employed by EV, and I am not a member of TPRF. Any common sense applied to the situation would clearly indicate that 25 years gives the necessary detachment to provide NPOV edits for articles related to DLM. There is no COI. Terry Macro (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I considered a detailed response necessary to counter what I saw was either a major misconception by TerryMacro or a deliberate attempt at concealment. Admins should be aware that these issues bear directly on article content. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

@Jclemens: If you take a closer look, you will find that at least one of the links in the section leads to a document purporting to give the editor's birth date and private address. JN466 21:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING doesn't specifically prohibit linking to sites that give further information. To take a hypothetical example, many links to references include an author's biography that will include information like birthdate and job title. Linking to such a webpage does not violate the policy. Remember that the user added himself as a source to articles.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the URL of the site in question begins http://www.geocities.com/rawatsucks/ ... JN466 22:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Relevance?   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any specific assertion that an involved Wikipedia editor created that page? Is there any assertion that the page was linked without apparent other purpose than to introduce the personal information into Wikipedia? WP:OUTING does not specifically deal with including links to information hosted elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There are clearly several valid concerns here that need to be balanced: editor privacy, civility and the prevention of COI editing. I am not sure the way these competing concerns have been handled here has been in line with best practice, even though I sympathise with the motivation for providing the information, recognise the potential validity of the COI concern, and see the inherent difficulty involved in demonstrating COI without outing. At any rate I'd suggest that any future discussions hinging on private details had better be conducted off-line. ;)

As you say, WP:OUTING does not cover linking to external sites, however Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#External_links does:

"Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against persons who edit Wikipedia for the purpose of attacking another person who edits Wikipedia is never acceptable. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any person who edits Wikipedia through the posting of external links is not permitted."

The site linked to clearly is an attack site, comparable to Encyclopedia Dramatica; it uses four-letter words about this editor's faith group, and purports to give his private details – his name, address, and date of birth. JN466 10:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing, in current Wikipedia parlance, as an attack site. (Where's Dan T?) I see no evidence that the site was linked to in order to attack or harass a user. Rather the situation is a user who edits under his own name has denied a fairly obvious conflict of interest. He ignored subtle requests that he abide by the guideline, and has indstead insisted on escalating the dispute, saying literally, "put up or shut up." The webpage contains a purported legal document that shows he was the director of a movement facility, additional evidence of his conflict. If Jayen466, who has made repeated filings against editors, would like to take on the task of convincing Terrymacro to abide by this site's editing guidelines offsite, then I'm sure that help would be appreciated by everyone. In the meantime, I suggest that we redact the link.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Link redacted.   Will Beback  talk  02:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was out of town for a few days and not getting online as much, but I'm back now... The wording quoted above was the "compromise" that stuck by the end of the "BADSITES Wars" which could be kinda-sorta tolerated by the two factions, one which wanted a flat ban on linking to anything whatsoever, for any purpose whatsoever, in a so-called "attack site" (weren't you allied with that faction?) and the free-speechers (my own faction) who saw any such link bans as contrary to the spirit of this site. Even with the compromise wording which wasn't as draconian as the original BADSITES proposal, any accusation that some site or other is an "attack site" is something that produces more heat than light, and can easily be abused to try to squelch criticism and cover up conflicts of interest. *Dan T.* (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] user:Viriditas Wikihounding

[edit] Article ownership and personal attacks by Nukes4Tots

Nukes4Tots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been exhibiting unacceptable article ownership, displayed a clear unwillingness to discuss issues before reverting them, and has more recently been foraying into personal attacks as part of his ownership attempts. Please take a look at his recent contribs and read some of the reversion edit summaries for textbook examples of ownership. I will provide some edit diffs as well:

Reversions (just examples - again, look at his contribs)

• [46]
• [47] (hostile edit summary)
• [48] (racist edit summary? i honestly don't know)
• [49]
• [50]

Personal attacks

• [51]
• [52]
• [53] Absolutely unacceptable.

Ignoring or removing attempts at discussion (I realize this is his right as it his his user talk, but his refusal to discuss anything compounds all these issues)

• [54]
• [55]
• [56]

Finally, his own confirmation of his reversion-heavy editing: [57]

I would allow for all of the times he has reverted and edit warred me to be ignored due to ongoing discussion about changing firearms structure that is taking place (which he is not participating in) but ignoring all of those his behavior still is unacceptable. Some guy (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any evidence that you'd tried to resolve the personal attack issue previously, so I left the user a friendly final warning. If the behavior persists, let me know. There isn't any direct evidence that I can see of article ownership, however. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no circumstance under which we should tolerate messages such as [58] ("Go fuck yourself, dumbshit"). In view of the user's repeated previous blocks for personal attacks, no particular warning ought to be required, and I have blocked him for a week.  Sandstein  16:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"No circumstance"? Just look at the section farther up the page, where an admin said pretty much the same thing to an editor,[59] and no one seems to think it matters. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Constant reversion instead of modification of edits is a sign of ownership, isn't it? I know he has used reasons straight out of the ownership examples continuously, has actively tried to discourage "new" or just unfamiliar editors from editing his pet articles by reverting them, calling their edits vandalism, and occassionally posting on their talk page. Anyway I guess it doesn't matter at this point; I suppose I'll try posting a message on his talk page about WP:OWN and encouraging him to read it. Some guy (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

He deleted it and accused me of stalking him. Surprise. Would anyone else care to explain ownership policy to him? Some guy (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any point in explaining it to him again. It has been mentioned in AN/I thread(s) concerning him and the fact that he has deleted you posting can be taken as an acknowledgement that he has read it. Reposting it at this point would be superfluous and potentially inflammatory. If the user continues to exhibit WP:OWN issues after returning to editing then tat can be addressed directly at a later date with these warnings and notes all taken into account. Recommend dropping it for the time being and giving the user a chance to edit more collegially first. Mfield (Oi!) 01:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. Thanks. Could someone mark this as resolved? Some guy (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:77.252.190.250

Over the past several days, 77.252.190.250 (talk · contribs) has made several contentious edits to a large number of BLP articles, not citing a single source. Due to the fact that some of their edits are obviously vandalism (claiming that Dakota Fanning is the sister of Evanna Lynch, and that Michelle Monaghan is the sister of Dominic Monaghan), I have reverted every one of their edits (those that have not previously been reverted). I request that others keep an eye on this editor. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

All true, but at this point its 6 hours stale; we should certainly keep an eye on this IP to see if it starts up again, but I am not sure what good blocking would do right this minute, since we have no proof that this person will use the same IP again, and they do not appear currently active. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandal has started up again from same IP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And the vandalism continues. Why would there be anything wrong with blocking an IP that has been used by the same person for four or five days in a row, even if they are not currently vandalizing? Which, of course, they are, right now. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just issued a level 4 warning. It doesn't appear as if English is this editor's first language, though. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no, the IP is editing from Poland. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Honduran move warring

I have started a thread at Talk:2009 Honduran coup d'état#Move warring?. Today the page has been going back and forth between 2009 Honduran crisis and 2009 Honduran coup d'état with no apparent consensus, and no talk discussion by any of the movers. I have no opinion as to which is better, but I suggest that the 'coup d'état' version be move-protected and the 'crisis' redirect be fully protected to deter any more cut-and-paste moves. Use WP:RM if consensus is obtained for a different title. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

See also #2009 Honduran constitutional crisis above. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that warring and move protected it about 10 mins ago, leaving a message on article talk about it. Mfield (Oi!) 22:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"2009 Honduran crisis" would seem to be the obvious thing to call it, especially as the coup itself is causing repurcussions that go beyond the mere act of kicking the President out. Honduras has managed to isolate itself from the world community, at least for the present. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, that discussion belongs on the article talk page.  Sandstein  09:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There is or was a large section above on this very issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of editing restriction by Rotational

Rotational (talk · contribs) is under an indefinite editing restriction. The specific sanction is:

"Do not revert-war to make any article formatting change that is against the guidelines in the Manual of Style; in particular, you must not revert another revert in order to change the level of a heading or the position of an image."

The specific problem addressed by the restriction is Rotational's edit warring over his preference for right-facing images to be placed on the left.

He has violated his edit restriction at Alexander Francis Lydon by moving a right-facing image to the left under the ruse of removing an infobox,[60] and then subsequently reverting a revert of it.[61] Infobox or not, this is an unambiguous violation of "you must not revert another revert in order to change... the position of an image."

If an uninvolved administrator would undertake enforcement, that would be appreciated.

Hesperian 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Meh. Looking through his history, I see only this single, technical violation in recent days. He's also not edited in 14 hours. Wouldn't blocking at this point be punitive and not actually stop anything? Why not just warn him of this violation of his editing restrictions, and let him know not to do it again? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't go in for this "punitive/preventative" crap. Whenever someone blocks to uphold a basic community standard, someone screams "punitive"; never mind the fact that upholding community standards is fundamentally preventative.

Fine, whatever. Would an unvolved administrator please let Rotational know that he is permitted to violate his edit restriction once a fortnight from now on, so long as he makes a superficial attempt to hide the violation.

Hesperian 00:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made no attempt to 'hide' my edit since it is in accordance with MoS guidelines that suggest placing right-facing images on the left. Clairvoyance is something which should only be attempted by experts - in the hands of amateurs it could lead to dementia. Rotational (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't require clairvoyance; it merely requires an passing familiarity with Rotational's long long history of edit warring on this issue, together with explicit statements such as this one, together with an unambiguous violation.[62] Hesperian 11:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said that he was allowed to do anything like that. What I said was I did not see the need to block him at this point. If you could explain what effect blocking would have in this case, then I could understand the reason. Please do not put words into my mouth, or tell me I said something I did not say. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I did no such thing... but now you're doing it to me.

Okay, I'll spell it out for you. Rotational has been edit warring on this issue for years; that's no exaggeration: here's an edit war over essentially the same issue, from back in March 2007.[63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70] He was finally placed on edit restriction a couple of months ago, and managed to refrain from breaking it for a little while. Now he is testing the waters, seeing how much he can get away with. If removing infoboxes proves an effective shield for him to return to edit warring on this issue, he will do so. I'm asking for an uninvolved admin to prevent that, by enforcing his editing restriction.

Hesperian 01:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to state my point of view, which is that the effectiveness of restrictions is greatly reduced if the results of violating them are not predictable. Things like this should automatically lead to a short block, no fuss, no bother, block for a day. Looie496 (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have left a message for Rotational asking him to undo his last edit at Alexander Francis Lydon, which removed the infobox. I have warned him that if he continues to obstruct the restoring of the infobox, without first getting a consensus that supports his action on the talk page or at ANI, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A community discussion at the administrators' Incidents noticeboard has reached a consensus that you be placed under the following editing restriction. Do not revert-war to make any article formatting change that is against the guidelines in the Manual of Style; in particular, you must not revert another revert in order to change the level of a heading or the position of an image.
Firstly, which guideline states that an article has to have an infobox? Secondly, I made it quite clear that "I regard this as an illegal decision, which clearly flouts the guidelines of the MoS, and do not accept it." Lastly, your so-called community discussion' involved some half a dozen people, all of whom had an axe to grind, except for Joe Hepperle whose input was ignored. After the gangrape in which articles were removed from my userspace and placed in mainspace against my wishes, I have stopped contributing new articles. So if it makes you and your gang feel any better, block away to your heart's content and know that I have lost all respect for your judgement and a system which lends itself to harassing constructive editors. Rotational (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You could, perhaps, tone it down a bit. If you are interested in not getting on people's bad side, you are certainly going about it in a bad way. Being combative is not going to encourage people to listen to your side of the story. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if a case could be judged on its merits rather than on how sweetly I smile or how many friends I have in high places. Rotational (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, the merits are these: you have been forbidden from doing something. You then did that thing. Whether or not you agree with the conditions or not is utterly immaterial. → ROUX ₪ 05:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem not to understand the meaning of the word 'merits'. Rotational (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually no. But it seems that by 'merits' you mean 'whatever Rotational says', which is your usual argumentative style. I have had my fill recently of leading horses to water, so I'll leave it to others to discuss this with you. → ROUX ₪ 06:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a valid discussion to be had on whether a block to prevent slow-moving disruption is preventative or punitive, but that's perhaps for another day. Firstly, I've reverted the actual edit that breached WP:MOSIMAGES. We have a style guide for a reason, and if people disagree with tis content they should seek a consensus for change rather than simply ignoring it and writingtheir own version. There's no reason why an article must have an infobox, but no article should have a left-aligned image as the first content below the article name. Second, I will remind Rotational of the edit restriction. I haven't blocked him because he seems to have stopped editing, and it was only one variation. A block would have been equally valid given the edit restriction but on balance I decided to let it alone and see if the reversion is again reverted. If the breach is repeated then different action will be required. Feel free to disagree. Euryalus (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CENSEI / Fife followup

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TDC indicates the Barney Fifes, etc., are apparently not related to the User:CENSEI sock farm. I've asked a checkuser to look at one other possibility. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser has come back as unrelated. Tiptoety ^talk 03:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, either a driveby or somebody we haven't thought of yet. Thanks for your help. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PoliticianTexas sock

Per previous instructions (here and here), I'm requesting that User:ABQStyle be blocked for being a sock puppet of community-banned puppeteer User:PoliticianTexas.

Evidence: in this edit, ABQStyle changed the infobox on Albuquerque, New Mexico to use a copyright-violating image. That same image was previously added to Albuquerque, New Mexico by User:Burns37 on 11 September 2008, and by User:LamyQ on 18 September 2008 and again on 24 September 2008. Burns37 and LamyQ have already been blocked as PoliticianTexas sockpuppets. Given that the image in question has been deleted each time as a copyright violation (off en.wikipedia twice and commons once), it's clear that its return can't just be coincidental.

Thanks in advance... — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a CheckUser here. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why? The reason for the "(here and here)" that starts off my request above is that's when we were previously told to bring the report here to skip that process. Not second-guessing; just trying to find out if something's changed. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I did not look at those two links. That said, the reasons I have filed an SPI case are that 1) it helps to keep a nice paper trail of things, as well as document prior socks for comparison (especially for technical purposes) and 2) to check for sleeper accounts or the use of open proxies or tor nodes. Hope that answers your question. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that ABQStyle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs) (PolTx for short)

• PolTx has replaced the infobox image at Albuquerque, New Mexico a dozen times or so, each with a copyvio image that is quickly deleted. ABQStyle has reuploaded one of the copyvio PolTx images at Commons (Commons:Image:Albuquerque Infobox Montage Design.png) and placed it in the infobox. ABQStyle diff, LamyQ diff (LamyQ (talk · contribs) is a known PolTx sock)
• ABQStyle added a list of city nicknames and mottoes in the Albuquerque, New Mexico infobox (despite a warning comment in the text not to do so). This was also previously done by Brandynman (talk · contribs), known PolTx sock. ABQStyle diff, Brandynman diff

--Uncia (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that some IP editors are PolTx, and are also ABQStyle

Interleaved with ABQStyle's edits of Albuquerque, New Mexico are some IP edits that match earlier PolTx edits. This provides evidence that PolTx is active again, and may provide evidence that he is ABQStyle.

• 98.23.210.53 (talk), 98.23.192.108 (talk) Providing party affiliations of city councillors: 98.23.192.108 diff adding affiliations, 98.23.210.53 diff re-adding after revert, TrentZee diff (TrentZee (talk · contribs) is known PolTx sock)
• 98.23.204.5 (talk) adding exact same nicknames and references as ABQStyle did above; see discussion above. 98.23.204.5 diff, ABQStyle diff

--Uncia (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:ElPilotoDi

An immediate block please, the user is uploading a vast number of inappropriate images of copyright violations to all the Madonna (entertainer) related articles and is undertaking user page vandalisms. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you try WP:AIV? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Late Show with David Letterman

The comic made poor jokes about Sarah Palin's daughter - no not the 14-year-old but Palin's 18-year-old who was an unwed mother; the talk-radio folks apparently can't milk this enough. Palin herself made appearances to make much of it, Letterman apolgized and she accepted. Really, I'm overselling this. Some very determined folks just need to inject this first on David Letterman which we've been able to halt but keep on plopping it in Late Show with David Letterman. Palin since has announced her stepping down as US Alaskan governor. The Letterman joke is seemingly on her public image article and that seems, IMHO, an acceptable place for now. Could others have a look at this? There seems no concensus to include this as yet and now I'm avoiding edit-warring with possible socks. I'm stepping back for the moment could others uninvolved have a look? Thank you! -- Banjeboi 05:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What administrative action do you seek with regards to this issue? Hobartimus (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a semi-protect might be appropriate as my gut tells me we may be dealing with a sock issue. Anons and new accounts wishing to re-insert this would then need to discuss on the talkpage. I'm not terribly interested in sorting out which of the accounts actually may be socking and frankly those that are good at it know how to evade being detected. So absent some outside opinions I think semi-protect would help on this situation. -- Banjeboi 06:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• The same thing is happening now at David Letterman, as User:Arzel is trying to reinsert it. Unitanode 07:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Semi-protection of the appropriate articles would seem to be in order. This is basically POV-pushing and trying to make a big deal out of a little blip. Plenty of folks have commented on Palin. Letterman is just one guy. If you had every comment made by or about those folks, you'd have a large book. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • David Letterman is getting some good edits by IPs, which would be collateral of a semi. If we're dealing with serious socks, problem would reoccur as soon as unprotected, so we permanently lose beneficial edits. The Late Show page issue involves established editors as well as anon and newbies (semi wouldn't block them). Are we expecting useful material to be contributed by *any* editors who aren't serious enough to bother filing an editprotected on the talk page? I'd support protection but only as a stop-gap while burning down the sock-store. DMacks (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pmanderson

During a long debate about moving the alpine town of Merano to Meran, the final decision was to move it. Already during the debate, the user relied heavily on non-factual arguments, often making assumptions about other users nationalities instead [71]. As a French-Swede who has never lived in Germany, I find it strage to be called a "German nationalist". Such irrelevant comments border on insults, andother users than myself objected to it [72]. The decision to move was based on the fact that both Merano and Meran are used in English, and the principle is to use local majority names; this was already the case in 115 of 116 municipalities in the province before, and the move brought Meran into line. Rather than accepting the decission, or at least continuing to challenge it on the talk page, the use took to edit warring to support "his" name of the aticle. [73], [74], [75], [76]. While technically avoding a violation of 3RR, the user is clearly edit warring over the name issue. Once again insulting [77] the motives of those of us who wanted the move to bring the 116th article on Alto Adige in line with the 115 others. He even tried to report the user who restored the page for edit warring [78], showing that he is well aware of the policy. The user's disruptive and insulting behaviour does nothing to improve the situation.JdeJ (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The English version of the official homepage of this town [79] uses Merano. (There's only a link to the german page in the article.) So do the Baedeker guide, the Blue Guide to Italy, the AA Guide to Italy [80], the English Michelin Guide [81], etc. Aren't these guide books the place to look for English-speaking usage? Perhaps it needs a few more people to comment. Mathsci (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As was shown during long discussions lasting two weeks, both Merano and Meran are used in English rather often. For communities in Alto Adige, we follow the local majority language and that is the case for all of the 116 communes in the province. However, my report here is directed at PManderson's behaviour, not his views. He may argue against Meran as much as he wants, I even welcome him to do that but I object to his manner of repeatedly insulting editors who do not agree with him and I find his latest trick of resorting to disruptive edit warring when decisions don't go his way to be immature and unconstructive.JdeJ (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have had a number of disagreements with PMAnderson. His arguing style is always assertive, sometimes aggressive; but I have never found him to employ deception or "non-factual arguments", nor to edit in bad faith. On the contrary, PMAnderson's arguments are usually far more rigorous than those of his opponents. The diffs presented are, arguably, evidence that PMAnderson has uncharacteristically fallen foul of the ad hominem fallacy; but that's about all I see here. Hesperian 12:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian, I take your word for it that that has been the case in your disagreements with PManderson but I do not agree in this case. Other users, including myself, repeatedly tried to get him to present factual arguments but with little success. I even asked three sraight questions to sort it out [82], but they remained unanswered. The other user supporting the same view as PManderson, Ian Spackman, has remained civil and factual througout the discussion. And yes, I do object to being called a "German nationalist" time and time again. Given the history of German nationalism, I consider it a serious insult. I have pointed out to PManderson that it is both insulting, irrelevant and wrong (I'm French, not German) but he continues to use it. I fail to see how repeatedly using a label that he knows is both incorrect and considered insulting isn't "non-factual".JdeJ (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just tried Google (English). When I typed in meran without clicking "Search", Google's AJAX lookup of popular terms gave "merano" and "merano italy". AFAIK "Merano" is normal in English and I only know "Meran" as the name of a chess opening variation.

I've checked the relevant discussions at the [83]. Support for "Meran" was entirely based on a WP guideline which says that normal English usage takes precedence in English WP, and ignored all evidence about what English usage actually is - both there and in this discussion. IMO PMAnderson's use of "disputed" tags was quite justified.

By pushing for hard for anything other than "Merano" on English WP, the supporters of "Meran" are guilty of peristent POV-pushing and edit-warring. for any of them to complain of edit-warring by PMAnderson is outrageous. --Philcha (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Philcha you are off topic - the issue is not whether he is right in his views but the manner in which he pursued those views. If the consensus was to move to Merano then Pmanderson should have accepted that or followed the proper venue for rediscussing the topic not by singlehandedly impose his view on the article. This is editwarring. It is not editwarring that a group of editors propose a discussion, establish a consensus and act accordingly. furthermore it is of course incivil and a red herring to accuse opposing discussants of being "german nationalists" - german nationalism has nothing to do with it and it is incivil and against the assumption good faith to asume that an editor has his opinion because of his policitcal views and not for the reasons he himself gives. Reviewing the evidence I think Jdej is correct in his assesment of incivil and disruptive behaviour frm Pmanderson. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Maunus above, Philca is completely off topic. Philcha, I have no problem with you or PManderson thinking the page should be named Merano. I do not agree with your argument for it and you do not have to agree with mine, but that is beside the point. The point here is conduct, not views. What you are saying is that you think people who agree with your views may behave as they want, because they are right. People who do not share your views are by default guilty of "outrageous" condunct. Not because of they way we behave but because you have decided our views are wrong. While this tells us volumes about Philcha's views on freedom of expression, it has nothing to do with the report on PManderson. He is reported for repeated insults, not for being right or wrong.JdeJ (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this complaint seems to have been whittled down to "how dare he call me a German nationalist!". And judging by sentences like "Yes, I do object to being called a 'German nationalist' time and time again", there also seem to be an implication that he has done so numerous times. Time, I think, to inject some reality into this discussion:

PMAnderson never actually used the phrase "German nationalist". Initially he said "Very strongly oppose. This is the German national faction on the loose; there is also an Italian national faction (have they been notified of this?)."

Then follows a whole lot of "how dare you!" rhetoric in which he is twice misquoted as having used the term "German nationalist". This is a gross distortion of what he actually said. Characterising a group as a "German national faction" is miles away from calling an individual a "German nationalist", especially when he refers evenhandedly to an "Italian national faction".

Further down, PMAnderson says "This disruptive nationalism has gained no voices; this should be closed."

Then follows a whole lot more "how dare you!" rhetoric in which he is again twice misquoted as having called someone a "disruptive nationalist". Another gross distortion of what he said: it is the difference between calling a political/national position disruptive, and calling an editor disruptive.

Then, right down the bottom, PMAnderson finally uses the word "nationalist", but again in reference not to an editor but to /both/ factions: "There is no consensus to change here; there never has been. There is an uneasy stasis between two factions of nationalists, both of whom will say and do almost anything for their National Truths."

These repeated accusations that PMAnderson called you a "German nationalist" are not sustainable. Go away, figure out what he actually said, and come back when you can post a complaint that isn't full of falsified quotes. Then, and only then, it might be conceivable that we would see PMAnderson as the problem here, rather than you. Hesperian 14:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The comment about "disruptive nationalism" was a direct answer to a comment I made, so I don't think my complaint misrepresent the situation. A bit surprised to see that Hesperian seems to want to pick a fight, or why should he choose to always go for small insults if he can ("go away" "come back when you can post a complain" etc.) rather than saying the same thing in a polite and civil way?JdeJ (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

JdeJ had the courtesy to mention this filing to me; I thank Hesperian for his answer, which I should probably have put worse.

JdeJ has repeatedly stated his nationality to be French-Swedish, and I believe him; his problem is that he believes Wikipedia guidance is (or should be) that we should always name settlements in accordance with the linguistic plurality, even when this is contrary to English usage (like Cologne) and when the majority is 51.5% (as the last Italian census showed for Merano). His actual concern would appear to be the Swedish-majority settlements in Finland, for which English usage would appear normally to be the Swedish form; and he has invented a novel and superfluous "rule" to defend this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I thank PManderson for his response, it seems our views are not as far from each other as the last weeks debate could make one believe. While I don't believe the local language majority should always dictate our naming policy, it is probably true that I place higher emphasis on it than PManderson. Needless to say, I have neither the authority nor the intention of inventing any "rules" about it. I will be more than happy to discuss this issue further with PManderson in the future, and I hope such discussions can focus on facts and that edit warring is avoided.JdeJ (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not place less weight on the principle he has invented; I place no weight on it at all; neither does anybody else. It is, per the discussion linked to, a temporary expedient, for places for which we have no other evidence whatever what they should be called. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Tikkuy

This user is continuously adding fancruft and improper sources to the Chillin article and reverting to the fancruft version when other users are cleaning the article. Please help as I'm sure warning s and explanations are of no use. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You two are edit warring over content. Please stop it and use WP:DR instead, e.g by seeking WP:3O input. There is no need for administrative action here, except perhaps to block any user who continues the edit war.  Sandstein  09:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm deleting any unreliable source and unsourced information which the user is thinking that I'm doing on purpose. I left a detailed explanation on the user's talk page regarding WP:RS and WP:V but inspite of that he continues. There's no point in going to WP:DR or WP:3O or I would have done that. You can see that other users have the same opinion. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think you'd find that most users are of the opinion that Legolas2186 is only concerned in adding his or her own findings to every page they go to and is not concerned with making the wiki a collaborative project. Any time somebody adds verified and reliable content to a page, this person reverts their edits again and again. They then call it 'fancruft' and claim it is unverified when in fact the sources are very reliable and include such web sites as MTV, the ASCAP database, etc. This person deserves to have their account blocked for continuosly making disruptive edits and going against consensus. Tikkuy (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You are bordering on intolerance. You have continuously added blogs and unreliable sources to the article even when being directed to WP:RS. Any unreliable sources are always removed. Where is your consensus regarding this? I'm afraid you are failing in your reasoning. The MTV link has been kept using <ref name=""/> tag. But I believe you donot know about formatting to learn that. And about other users, they are very well aware of what I do here. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's funny that you're allowed to add as many web sites as you'd like no matter how unreliable they are, but if someone else tries to make an edit in good faith and attempts to be constructive, you revert their edits until you get your way. Unfortunately, you continuosly reverting my edits won't dissuade me from making them again. You need to understand that you cannot always get what you want and that other people's opinions and contributions matter just as much as your own. Most other users who have experienced your disruptive behaviour on Gaga related articles would say the same thing. Tikkuy (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the edit war on Chillin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) continues, I have blocked both editors for 24 hours.  Sandstein  13:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 23#File:Neda.jpg

Could someone please close this discussion? It's been open for two weeks. Shouldn't be a difficult close, but most of the regular closers have taken part in the discussion. J Milburn (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do need to point out that the image that was being voted on is no longer the image that they were voting on. Rgoodermote  18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, forgot to purge. Rgoodermote  18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Small anon block needed

Another problem has cropped up on the Mariah Carey articles. An anon in the 93.149.194.0/24 range has taken to removing "pop" from every spot where it occurs in a genre:[84][85][86]. Charmed36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting him. I requested that Charmed36 not simply revert, but supply references when he reinserted "pop", and he has partially complied [87]. I wish I could say 100% complied, but that doesn't seem to be the case. This has been going on long enough that it has become disruptive. I'll complain at Charmed36 again about not including sources when he reinserts, but it would be nice if someone could put up an anonymous editing block against 93.149.194.0/24 to try and put a stop to this.—Kww(talk) 12:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ASIO File

A community decision was made to redirect the article at AfD. A user has repeatedly[88][89] reverted to the pre-redirected content and has unilaterally rejected the community decision. I have restored and protected the article to prevent this happening again. The user and I have some history, with which I will not bore you. However, I'd appreciate a check on my use of page protection by an uninvolved admin. Thanks, Papa November (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be Frei Hans (talk • contribs • block log). The Junk Police (reports|works) 13:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur with protection of redirect. I have also left a message on Frie Hans talkpage confirming your actions as correct. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User Block Requested

The editor involved in the above page Frei Hans (talk · contribs) should be considered for a block based on the evidence and pattern of engagement submitted at this WQA filing. This kind of needling and disruption is intolerable. Eusebeus (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Papa November has already started an WP:RFC/U against the user (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Frei Hans). I would see what that accomplishes first in hopes that a block can be avoided in the interim. MuZemike 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to think that this RFC/U could encourage Frei Hans to reform his behaviour and that a block won't be necessary. I'd appreciate it if people could head across to the RFC and put in their 2p. Papa November (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He filed an SPI just now - evidently he thinks Verbal and A Man in Black are your sockpuppets.[90] If he continues to do this, especially if he doesn't respond to the RfC, a block may have to be made, hopefully only a short one to stop his disruption. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He's refusing to comment at the RFC and is just updating his SPI to include every user who warns him. Can an uninvolved SPI clerk please make an assessment ASAP on this, please? Papa November (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised I haven't wound up on that list yet.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving him twenty minutes more. If he doesn't come up with anything, I'm just gonna' close it as disruptive. If anyone would rather skip the wait, I won't complain. Watch that you don't jinx it, Sarek. lifebaka++ 17:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

*cough* This is kinda' ridiculous now. It appears my generosity has been rewarded. Could someone just close the fiasco quickly? lifebaka++ 18:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

← OK, there are now ten very well established, totally unconnected users on that list. This is pure disruption. Could someone please make an assessment ASAP before he manages to unveil our evil conspiracy? Papa November (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What the heck? I gave him advice (based on the WQA filing) this morning, and yet I don't make his list of obvious Socks? Where's the justice??! FFS, this sucks! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Such is life. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I've blocked for 24 hours. Sorry to those who didn't want to see a block here, but this seriously didn't look like stopping otherwise. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, hopefully the 24 hours will give him time to reflect and give me time to finish writing my thesis! Papa November (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 18:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Good block. The SPI filing out of retaliation is total nonsense. --Caspian blue 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He did a tit-for-tat WQA filing this morning too ... don't forget that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to add Caspian Blue and Bwilkins to the check user request???---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I bet if we CU'd Balloonman, we'd find out he really is Spartacus! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

...or that User:Joey the Mango is User:Abductive (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abductive/Archive). MuZemike 18:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• At a guess, it would seem we are dealing with someone who has some sort of mental illness. Hans Adler made some persuasive comments to that effect at the RFC/U. Perhaps out of respect and us all generally not being douchebags who mock mentally unstable people we should wind this down and stop with the jokey? → ROUX ₪ 18:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it's only a temporary block, we should facilitate a way for Frei Hans to allow him to respond to the RFC/U on his talk page until the block expires. If nobody opposes by the time I finish lunch and get back home, I'll boldly facilitate that. MuZemike 18:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point I should make a note: he already feels that a whack of people are ganging up on him. The RFC/U is not going to help that belief. I'm one of the most patient folks, and really am having trouble with the behaviours here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What is our other option then after the block expires? I think it's safe to say that the SPI accusations et al are likely to continue tomorrow, so what process do we follow to avoid further disruption or, at the very least, what do we do if and when this happens again? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The only option is to indef block if the disruption continues. Blocking is not a punishment but rather a protection of the encyclopedia. It doesn't matter whether the user has a mental illness or not if they are being absolutely disruptive and are unwilling or unable to modify their behavior. An indef block is the only way to prevent this type of thing from going on if they come off of their block and are not at all willing or able to stop the disruptive actions. Mental illness or not, disruption of this sort can not be allowed to continue without action; we can try to accomodate someone who has a problem, and be more patient with behavior than with a simple troll/vandal, but if a user's actions are consistantly disruptive, they need to be indef blocked, whether they are trying to be disruptive or honestly cannot help it. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, the irony

User:Free Hans has been blocked as a sockpuppet of user:Frei Hans. Let's be vigilant! Papa November (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's block evasion (see Free Hans' edit, which has clearly occurred during the block) and hence warrants a reset and/or extension of Frei Hans' current block. MuZemike 00:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

...and now re-blocked 31h. MuZemike 00:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reset, 31 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Outlines"

Outlines have been around under various names since 2001. See also Wikipedia talk:Outlines#move this out of main namespace please. The Transhumanist    21:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Stuart D. James

This user is running around to IP talk pages trolling and claiming to be an admin. No constructive edits whatsoever. contribs --LP ^talk 19:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is sufficient to get an indef block. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. I wonder if he noticed that all his edits are public? - Jredmond (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Someone should have a chat with Brad Polard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log), Bacon Man 832 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log) and Art Sampson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Art Sampson looks like a SPA with some kinda' grudge against whoever Edie Money is, and I've blocked the account indef to prevent abuse. lifebaka++ 19:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher's a Checkuser, I think she was being subtle while telling us the accounts are linked. Seems odd to bring them up if that wasn't the intent. --M^ask? 20:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect very strongly that this is not Stuart D. James, but someone making racist and vandal edits to besmirch the reputation of someone with that name. I've deleted the talkpage, and would appreciate if someone else would delete whatever else may be appropriate to delete. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Someone replacing flag images: possible vandalism

Special:Contributions/88.64.76.179 is replacing images of countries' flags: check their contribution log. It looks fishy but I'm not sure. Please undo his changes if necessary. Chutznik (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, when you tell them about this thread, you could ask them to explain the motivation behind these changes. –xeno^talk 20:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:User:Sebas1955 copyrighted image problem

Sebas1955 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading images which they claim they have permission to use, citing OTRS tickets. But there are a number of other images they have uploaded which they claim to be the copyright holder of. Can an OTRS person verify the claims they're making concerning the copyrights they're claiming to be providing to OTRS, and could an admin give them a lesson in copyright? In addition, they seem to be working in tandem with an anon to insert the images into articles. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] IP 81.97.19.159

This user has written some very very abusive and obscene remarks on my user page. Thankfully another editor reverted them but I was very offended and disgusted by the remarks. Could you please block the user in question. Here is a link if you wish to investigate http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Christian1985&diff=prev&oldid=299688509 Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That was 5 days ago. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To explain the point a bit, it looks like that IP editor was only using that address for one day, so a block would probably have no effect. Looie496 (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Admins vs contributers

Administrators do a tremendous job of keeping some form of order on Wikipedia. However it is user generated content that has allowed Wikipedia to grow to almost 3 million articles. Needless to say, but it's average-joe contributors who have created the bulk of the content in these 3 million articles. In fact, according to a recent study[93] anonymous editors contribute the "highest quality" content. Because of these facts, administrators should not look down upon ordinary users when it comes to matters of content. Users volunteer their own time and effort to research material in libraries or online to provide their material for free to wikipedia, which is an honorable thing to do. So what is transpiring on the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy is somewhat disturbing.

The administrator User:Dbachmann recently reverted four months of user-generated content. He then sought other administrators to protect the page. In a recent straw poll on which version was preferred, some administrators, such as User:Dougweller and User:Akhilleus, participated in the poll and they all sided with Dbachmann. Whereas the regular users User talk:Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka, User:Wdford, User talk:AncientObserver, User:Taharqa all favor restoring the previous version and allowing users to generate content. In short there is a clear division, we have administrators on one side who prefer to protect a particular version, and we have regular users on the other side who want to generate content. Is this a fair contest in a content dispute?

Secondly the administrator who protected the page, User:William M. Connolley, appears to have picked a side in the content dispute. Recently Luka posted on the talk page that Dbachmann, who got the article protected, is known for his arrogance and abrasive editing. He cited the following as evidence.

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_(2)
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_3
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann

Apparently, Connolley didn't like the fact that Dbachmann's behavior was being discussed and deleted the aforementioned complaints about Dbachmann's behavior[94]. He then went on to defend to Dbachmann stating that "Dab's one of our best and most conscientious admins, and Wikipedia is in his debt for giving time and energy to keeping these inveterate POV warriors at bay summarises it" [95]. Connolley is presiding over a content dispute involving Dbachmann, yet he sounds his praise for him. It is pretty obvious whose side Connolley is on and fairness cannot be expected from him. Connolley completely ignores the fact the numerous editors have complained about Dbachmann, and one complaint reached the arbcom where Dbachmann was reprimanded. This clearly means that the Arbcom acknowledged some of the complaints made by users were valid. In this case it is, inappropriate for Connolley to be defending Dbachmann.

Dbachmann has been around wikipedia for a while, but sometimes longevity causes arrogance. Most administrators here don't have three RFCs and one arbcom hearing about their conduct. In summary a group of administrators have decided to take a side in a content dispute. They have decided that they know content better than regular users simply because they are admins. Imagine if admins decided that because they are admins, they should decide the content in the article about atomic physics. Let users generate content, and let the admins maintain wikipedia. Jay Waxman (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a funny culture. Since this is your first edit since August 2008 and only have 15 edits from August 2008, some may accuse you of something. I do not think your grievance will get very far. New users are not given the same weight as some others. Whether this is right is a different question. There are a number of essays on the topic, such as protecting the wrong version, cabal, etc. A lot of alphabet soup like WP:JARGON, WP:SOUP, WP:SHUTUPNEWBIE, WP:SHUTUPADMIN, etc. Good luck! Keep on writing (or maybe stop writing if trying to write provokes anger). User F203 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder who you're a sock of. → ROUX ₪ 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is true that anonymous users do much good and provide valuable content, but they also provide the largest amount of cruft, spam, POV-pushing, disruption and general annoyance. Someone have to work keeping that at bay and mostly only registered users do that job. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking news

Patrick Tracy Burris bears watching, Patrick tracy burris has already been deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've RD'd both for now to Gaffney,_South_Carolina#Serial_Killings_of_2009. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)