A few days back a prolific sock master Shinas/Anwar Sadaat was banned Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shinas/Archive after a check user. Now he has popped up again using an open proxy in Germany. He was earlier using an IP range 117.193.32.0/19 to edit articles and is currently using the 84.19.160.0/20 open proxy range to edit the same articles. Comparing edits from known IPs ([1] with [2] and [3] with [4] [5] with [6] indicate this is Shinas/Anwar Sadaat. A google search reveals 84.19.160.0/20 (Keyweb AG IP Network) is a open proxy used for spamming. I am reverting his additons.

My question is what do we do with open proxies like this? do we block them? (if yes i request a range block on this)--Sodabottle (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Also FYI: he has opened a new account in Commons; compare [7] with [8]). I have posted in the admins notice board there.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If they're properly open proxies, yes we'll rangeblock them, usually after it's been confirmed and the range properly determined. This range appears to belong to CyberGhost, so if someone wants to download the free version and confirm what ranges it uses these days, list them here or at WP:OP, as well as list some of the IPs being abused, that would help speed things up. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I downloaded Cyberghost as suggested. It is using the server 84.19.165.217 to connect as anonymous. Which is the same as the IP used today by the sockmaster. On December 8 he used 84.19.169.163. How do we identify the range from this?--Sodabottle (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the rangeblock calculator: "Range 84.19.160.0/20 (up to 4096 users would be blocked)" --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!!. So dear admins, can someone please block this range (or should i go through WP:OP?)--Sodabottle (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've proxyblocked 84.19.169.160/28 pending more information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't block today's IP - 84.19.165.217. shouldnt it be a /20 block instead of /28?--Sodabottle (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a variety of network providers in that range. Personally I'd rather target the blocks on abusive known proxies, and so I've now blocked the 84.19.165.208/28 and 84.19.169.224/28 CyberGhost ranges. Feel free to mention any other examples and/or (admins) adjust the blocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The organization delegated those ranges also seems to own 217.114.211.240/28, according to RIPE. Anomie⚔ 21:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

LAz17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lunalet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Issue

Lunalet (talk · contribs) has been making personal attacks against SMasters (talk · contribs) since December 4th. This has gone to the point of harassment.

Desired outcome

Lunalet (talk · contribs) will desist in making personal attacks against SMasters (talk · contribs) and will stop harassing SMasters.

Background

On December 1st, SMasters sent out a large number of neutral messages to all of the GoCE users informing us that there was an election going on. The purpose of this election was to elect new coordinators for the Guild. The election was by simple affirmation voting in "support" sections, with another section for comments or questions. He also sent out ~18 neutral messages to other users who have actively used our services, encouraging them to vote too. (This was acceptable since non-GoCE members were permitted to vote in the elections.)

Development

On December 3rd, 01:36 UTC, Lunalet makes his first post to the election page asking about SMaster's AWB run. [9] On December 4th, 00:01 UTC, Lunalet makes his first canvassing accusation. [10] Just after this, he makes a post containing the edit summary "support the only good candidate" (supporting Diannaa). [11] I then read this and ask were SMasters was canvassing, [12] and he answers "see question 4". [13] Suspicious of canvassing, I then struck my support, [14] but reinstated it when I noticed Lunalet's talk page was full of civility violations. [15] After a bit more of this passes, I reply to Lunalet's harassing, [16] upon which he directs a personal attack at me. [17] Lunalet then sends out messages to users whose articles were specifically copyedited by Diannaa. [18] Diannaa then asks why Lunalet did not send messages to the other 4 candidates. [19] I then reply to Lunalet's personal attack against me, pointing out how he appears to be attempting to destroy the Guild. [20] Lunalet then dodges Diannaa's question. [21] Lunalet then makes an even more blatant personal attack on SMasters, [22] which I reverted and warned him for violation of personal attacks. [23] There also are no "oppose" sections on the election page since it is simple approval voting. Lunalet then undoes my revert claiming that it is not a personal attack. [24] Finally, SMasters replies to this new personal attack. [25]

I would also recommend reading the page since there is a great deal more I have not mentioned here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the issue at hand, you don't need four sections for this. To minimize how much longer this lengthens the table of contents, I've removed them, and replaced them with markup that has the same effect in terms of bold.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed a large quantity of civility issues from this user. I first became aware of their behavior at an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun Way Flight 4412), where they were making lengthy and fairly uncivil posts with regard to positions they did not agree with. When queried they accused pretty much every user who voted keep of tag teaming (see User Talk:Lunalet for this). Their posts to the aforementioned AFD were this account's first posts on wikipedia. The user is obviously not new, and does not claim to be. Lunalet claims to not remember the name of their previous account. I find this hard to believe, and based on Lunalet's present behavior consider it highly likely that their previous account is subject to active sanctions. However, I have no idea what the previous account is and as such am unable to file a SPI case. And as Checkuser is not fishing I don't think a request would be granted. I left a note for this user on their talk page regarding WP:CIVIL, which was responded to with a terse and fairly pointy message. My reply has since gone unanswered, as have all other posts on Lunalet's talk page. A check of the user's contributions to see if they were still editing turned up the user's participation in the Guild of Copyeditor's Elections, on which which Lunalet appears to be making pointy edits, possibly unfounded accusations, borderline personal attacks, and potentially causing disruption through canvassing. Hopefully someone reading this thread recognizes the behavior and can determine the name of the previous account. If not, there is probably enough disruption here to warrant a block, though Lunalet should be given the opportunity to respond here first. N419BH 07:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea about the stuff re SMasters, but endorse N419BH's comments; Mjroots, will, too, I expect. This is an obvious returned problematic editor; wade through the evasiveness on their talk and you'll see. I did last week. Bzzt. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The guy is a self-admitted sock, and I reported him 2 weeks ago and nothing was done. Maybe they will this time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Between trolling, he has some odd habits, like moving stub tags[26][27][28]. Seems to use AWB or some similar program, correcting "dashes" and such. Doc talk 10:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(ears burning) FWIW, I don't buy Lunalet's assertion that they can't remember their previous username. I agree with N419BH that the user is probably a sock, and the puppetmaster is probably under active sanctions. I'm not sure whether suspicion of sanction evasion is sufficient grounds to indef the account. However, sock or not, the editors behaviour is open to scrutiny and may be grounds for action in itself. Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The account's most recent edit as of now says it all[29]. For me, "Knowledge of policy" coupled with a deep misunderstanding of policy = Possibly Frustrated Troll. And that is not a "personal attack", mind you. The forming consensus seems clear that this is a disruptive account and one that may need a "wake-up call". This[30] edit is also "interesting" and may give a clue to the account's identity. Doc talk 11:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, Doc. And thanks to LHvU↓ and Google Chrome OS for sponsoring the free in-flight wifi. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You may well be onto it, as the one editor's last edit was shortly before the other editor's first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

AIV wouldn't do anything, just like 2 weeks ago, but hopefully an admin here will take care of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I was the admin who blocked LAz17 for 3 months and, if I recall correctly, declined to block Lunalet - since it was not obvious socking - when reported by Baseball Bugs. I think I suggested an SPI request, should there be sufficient grounds, because if positive it would mean the editor is evading a block which is an indef on the sock account and possible repercussions for the master. It seems to me that there is sufficient evidence now to present in an SPI report, and I suggest that option again - any evidence of disruption from a block evading sock will likely result in strong sanctions being applied. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I declined Bugs' most recent AIV report, in spite of a strong itch in my banhammer hand. Concur with Less that there is an SPI case in this. Favonian (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sock or not, he's been attacking other editors from the get-go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That edit to Laz17 looks like their only slip-up. I don't see any reason why Lunalet would visit that talk page unless they were previously familiar with it, and the timing is extraordinarily coincidental (Laz17's last edit was a mere 4 hours before Lunalet's first). Anybody see any other behavioral links? I also think it likely that this isn't the only sock we're dealing with. I bet he's created another account due to the extensive heat on the Lunalet account, as the contributions, quick at first, have slowed to a trickle. Looks like Lunalet is now a SPA for Guild of Copyeditors. I bet there's another one out there now working in other areas. Just a hunch. N419BH 20:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

User:SMasters does not have any overlapping edits with LAz17, so it is unclear why he as been selected as a target. Sarek has removed the most recent post as a personal attack. Any further attacks by Lunalet and I would like to see a block for harrassment/disruptive editing. They are not here to improve the encyclopedia. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why Lunalet has singled me out as a target. Lunalet is not a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, has never worked on any of our projects, is not on our mailing list, and has never participated in any of the Guild's drives. The attacks started a mere five days after the account was created. I also don't buy Lunalet's assertion that they can't remember their previous username. However, I don't recall any major conflicts with anyone else, so I guess I might just be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Nevertheless, Lunalet has wasted all of our time here. The account appears to have little contribution to the encyclopedia except to make personal attacks and to cause conflict. Someone has mentioned that his strategy may be to cause disruption or to even destroy the GOCE by pitting the leaders there against each other. I am concerned that the attacks will continue after our elections are over. – SMasters (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: Lunalet was informed of this ANI by Reaper Eternal on 03:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC) [31]. Lunalet chose to ignore this and SarekOfVulcan's revert on 05:03, 14 December 2010 [32], and continued the attack by posting on the GOCE voting page on 00:08, 15 December 2010 [33]. This was then reverted by The Utahraptor [34], who was probably not aware of this ANI. The Utahraptor then posted a warning against personal attacks on Lunalet's page [35]. So, the attacks have continued despite several editors telling him not to do it, as well as several reverts, in addition to knowledge of the existence of this ANI, which he has chosen to ignore. – SMasters (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked Lunalet for 3 months, the same as LAz17 who I suspect is related, for their disregard of the concerns, requests and warnings from other editors. I still think an SPI is warranted, but perhaps it might wait for the next forgetful new account to start posting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks LessHeard vanU for your time in looking into this. I hope that any forgetful "new account" will not hound me. – SMasters (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LAz17. N419BH 20:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No further action needed here, OP has been informed of the correct area to request protection. Whose Your Guy (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The page on requesting protection recommends speaking to an admin before doing anything, and that's what I am attempting now. The issue is minor, but is vandalism none the less. The fighters record has been modified to show him loosing to a fighter in an event that has not been held yet (the event is tomorrow night.) I recommend and request the page be protected until 11PM EST US (after the event is scheduled to end.)

Sdamon (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the correct place for this request. Page protection requests are made here --> WP:RPP. Whose Your Guy (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got this my discussion reverted[36] and an unusual legal threat[37] from 69.31.68.51 who has a dynamic IP address. I think this is rather unusual for removing a sentence in Public opinion on climate change and posting the accompanying reason on the talk page. Maybe you can have a look and offer your opinion, because I'm a little taken aback. --CaC 155.99.230.249 (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is just someone puffing out their chest in an intimidation attempt. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Stuff like this happens every day here on Wikipedia. Whose Your Guy (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Just revert, warn, ignore. If that IP user (69.31.68.51) keeps making legal threats, he is asking to get blocked. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've warned IP 69.31.68.51 with {{uw-legal}}. Whose Your Guy (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Captain Occam

It would be very helpful if another admin or two could review that appeal request and give their opinion. I provided my take on the situation. Another voice or two would sort things out. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ RSN: www.al-islam.org → ANI: User abusing other editors → Talk:Battle of Karbala: www.al-islam.org is not a reliable source → SPI: investigations/Faizhaider

Among other disruptive actions, Humaliwalay (talk · contribs) is constantly abusing me and my edits [38], [39], [40], refusing to maintain civility by filling my talk page with many bogus warnings [41], using unreliable openly Shia-centric websites as refs which only provokes sectarian edit-wars.[42] [43]. Talk about a fearless no-respect-showing disruptive user [44], who even edit-wars with admins [45], [46].--AllahLovesYou (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I just asked you to have break, that was intended to calm down your aggressive and editing. "Need some break" is not abusive statement rather accusing someone wrongly of abusing other editors is an attack of accusation. You even claimed in the headline that abusing other editors, can you bring any abusive word which I used in front of us? I am in discussion with admin Dab here[47] where is the edit warring? - Humaliwalay (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I asked this on the article talk page, but someone needs to explain to uninvolved parties why the website is so bad as to not be a usable source.

I see that it seems to be a mildly advocative "Shia and Sunni aren't so different" site, on first impression, but I suspect there are levels I am not understanding on reviewing it briefly.

There appear to be very vehement feelings about it - those need to be explained.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO comments of [[ASE were more abusive as they tend to encompass whole community and definitely those comments point that per se user's comments, Indo-Aryans are some what inferior to Semitic-Arabs in addition those comments tend to defile dignity of Shi'a community by accusing them of forging lineage links.

But, imo, everybody should stick to the point and refrain from attacking believes, communities, nationalities, individuals, etc.

Finally, al-islam.org can be relied upon as it contains reliable articles such as [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], etc which are work of reputed Shi'a, Sunni & Western scholars. May be we should be cautious while referring to it as this website is an online library and all content at this website may not be NPOV or academic (as in the case of physical libraries) but that does not discredits importance of the website as source.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 19:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Who made the comment "Indo-Aryans are some what inferior to Semitic-Arabs", and where is the diff? A per se attack on another editor's culture/ethnicity/*ism is not acceptable, and editors really ought to keep such opinions to themselves while on WP. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Did I use "per se" right? I love needless latin.

The term per se means "by itself". Not sure that applies here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I also have a question: Why is it that the Arabic word for God File:Dcp7323-Edirne-Eski Camii Allah-ds.svg resembles a Viking ship? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

i have no answer to bugses question but i think per se is correclty used here. "per se" might mean "in itslef" but it is generally used to mean "without reservation or explicativeness", such as the legal term "negiglgly per se" which means "to negligct without reservation or reason". you could say that the attack was "per se" because he didnt say "SOME iNDO-aRYANS" were inferior but NOT all of them since the remark itself was unqualified. however, you might have done better to use another greek Phrase, ad hominem which means 'against the homan' or against the person you is talking to. User:Smith Jones 03:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ad hominem ("toward the man") would seem to be the proper phrasing here. Per se means "by itself" or "in itself"; separated from the rest of a particular discussion.

Can you provide the diff for Indo-Aryan being inferior to Semitic-Arabs? I'm not seeing it. I did find one reference to the theory that Iran's Muslim leaders are Indo-Aryan and hence not descended from Muhammad's family. If he made a broad and seemingly racist comment, I must have missed it. Although much of his argument has to do with sourcing, so he might have been talking about the quality of sourcing rather than the ethnic groups. But without the diff, I can't tell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the comment was made, then I conclude that "per se" was correct. Even if it's in a religious context, it can easily be misconstrued. And if not misconstrued, then whoever said it could have been making a point outside the religious context. In other words, hypothetical person who made that comment: don't do that. Xavexgoem (talk)

AladdinSE made the comments which I pointed out in my previous comments which can be found here, notably after I pointed out this I was reported for SPI by ALY which may be point out that these users if not SPs are working in collaboration and are not in Good Faith. I'll try to respond any further queries but my responses may be slow as I'm too much busy in my real life (I'll be back, may be after more than 12 hours). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 05:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That was what I saw. The actual quote is, "In fact, all the mullahs and Ayatollahs around the world, especially in Iran, claim de[s]cent from Muhammad and Quraysh when statistically they are not even Semitic Arabs but Indo-Aryan people and therefore cannot be descendants of the family of the Prophet." Where are you seeing anything about "inferiority" there? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – IP's have been blocked, so it appears no further action is needed or necessary. Whose Your Guy (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a clear case of being the same person, despite the latter IP being blocked for a month. Do i need to go through SSP? Simply south (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism 24h; seems to be dynamic IP so not matching the earlier 1mo block. Pretty obviously the same guy. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, changed it to 1 month based on further research. I don't know if it'll change faster than 24h. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What if i encounter them again under another IP which i think will happen judging what's happening? Simply south (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV or ask for a rangeblock here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

His disruptive edits: [60], [61]

This user has been reported on project pages mutliple times for tendentious edits and for creating problems, Now, without any support from WP:RS, he is suggesting that one of the two major cities in France after Paris, Marseille, is normally spelt in English with an "s". He has tagged the page twice now to suggest that this spelling violates WP:NPOV. It appears that he has decided that his next major battle on wikipedia will be over this topic. As far as I can tell, from his past editing history, he has no interest whatsoover in the content of the article or WikiProject France.

The same "argument" (whatever it is) would presumably apply also to Lyon, for which the old-fashioned spelling in English has an "s". Pmanderson has not brought up this city ... yet. Pmanderson's activity seems to be an attempt to disrupt wikipedia to make a WP:POINT.

On the talk page of Marseille—and I will not repeat the arguments or the links here—it has been carefully explained that most major English-speaking newspapers, the Encylopedia Britannica, British airlines, travel guides in English and the British and US consulates in Marseille all now adopt the spelling without an "s". This has made no impression on Pmanderson - it seems that he believes that he is simply right and doing a huge service to wikipedia in righting a terrible wrong. The issue has no real importance, but he has made it so. Straight WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct.

I have reported this bizarre activity here in the hope of nipping it in the bud. It could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, from the point of view of ongoing problems with this editor. It certainly seems to be "his style". His block log speaks for itself.[62] In this case he has made an unsupportable but hardly very interesting claim seemingly devised to waste other editors' time. I am unable to see any possible benefit editing of this kind could have to this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Marseilles and Lyons are perfectly normal English spellings, as used in the Oxford Dictionary of the World, for example. DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not only "normal", but also common in English. Pmanderson has only himself to blame for acquiring a reputation that allows bringing his actions here based on a vague handwave toward his past problems, but in this content dispute he would seem to be correct, even in the argument that you have invented on his behalf without asking. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) True, but that is hardly the point. As with Mumbai/Bombay and Calcutta/Kolkota, things change. The US government is not pedantic.[63] [64] Tagging in the way Pmanderson did was clearly not a helpful approach to improving this encyclopedia. It does not quite rise to the level of tagging articles like Europe, for example, but it was not far off. Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the U.S. Government is pedantic; the Board of Geographic Names tends to prefer systematic forms to what English-speakers actually use (as the guideline on geographic names explains) and in principle their decisions are binding on the Federal Government.

But this complaint is another effort to settle a substantive dispute by false claims of misconduct. As the move discussion on Talk:Marseille would indicate, the fundamental issue here is my unwillingness to simply accept the opinions of a major contributor to an article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. Pmanderson's edits today have nothing to do with calm and reasoned discussion. He has chosen to adopt a battleground attitude on an article, in which, until today, he appeared to have absolutely no interest. I am currently on wikibreak, so have only a few articles on my watch list. Pmanderson's edits today on Marseille are amongst the most dire I've seen in almost five years of watching the article. Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Recommend WP:DR. Nothing else to see here (other than to note I just blocked PMA for similar activity, but hasn't edited the project space since). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised to learn that Marseilles is now being spelled "Marseille" in English. This must also come as a bit of a shock to the citizens of Marseilles, Illinois, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As my recent edit at Talk:Marseille will show, the (current) French spelling seems to be catching on with the sort of columnist who laces his prose with malfamé and bistronomie. It is still a less common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the POV-title tag. There may be a good-faith discussion of which spelling should be used, as happens from time to time with many geographical names, but this cannot reasonably be framed as a "POV" issue: no "point of view" is promoted by using the spelling "Marseille" as opposed to "Marseilles" or vice versa, except on the sharply limited issue of which is the correct spelling. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But there are two - which is why dispute resolution will be welcome: The point of view there are no distinctive English forms of names - and even more seriously, that the anglophone Governments do and should determine English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a legitimate article title/requested move issue that is subject to dispute resolution on the basis of which title better comports with our guidelines on geographical names. Appropriate dispute resolution seems already to be well underway with the RfC/RM discussion that is now taking place on the article talkpage. Adding the "POV" tag does nothing to advance a decision as to which article title should be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Little enough in all honesty; but if we cannot even protest the entrenched territorial cliques which seek to use articles to promote a political or (as in this case) a linguistic program, we have very little hope of checking them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What "political programme" is this here to promote? Who are these ""entrenched territorial cliques"? What is wrong with my "grasp of the English idiom"? Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For third parties (and on the off-chance that this is ingenuous):

• As I said, "in this case a linguistic program": that the characteristic English forms of names should be downgraded, and English be subjected to Government standards.
• Well, to begin with: "grasp of the English idiom" isn't idiomatic; neither is "dire" (unless you're writing Tolkien parody); nor is Marseille; the reactions of anglophones in this thread alone should have been enough to make the last clear.
• And as for the clique entrenched on the territory of the article: I invite any curious reader to look through Talk:Marseille and see how the self-declared "most frequent editor" has been behaving. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting now that English might not be my native language and that is why I have not agreed with your point of view? Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If English is your native language, you have an abominable grasp of idiom; if it is not, you have an abominable grasp of idiom, but this would be explicable. I believe l'idiotisme anglais would be correct French; but I will defer to a literate native speaker. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

But really, if having a tag added twice is "amongst the most dire" things to happen to the article in years, the real complaint here is that I have not immediately conceded to Mathsci's opinion and his grasp of English idiom on his article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

See above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My Webster's, dated 1994, gives Marseilles as the preferred and Marseille as a secondary spelling; Lyons as the preferred and Lyon secondary; and Rome (not Roma) as the English name for the Italian city. So it seems that the "Marseille" and "Lyon" spellings, without the "s", are the ones that writers have actually tried to impose on us, to override the traditional English spellings "Marseilles" and "Lyons". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This input is welcome, but would be better placed on the article talkpage, where the requested move discussion/RfC is in progress. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson's conduct continues to be disruptive. As well as adding various other drive-by tags and dramatic notices of innacuracy, [65][66] he just tagged a reference to Thucydides in the article, claiming that Thucydides did not mention Massalia. But that claim is wholly inaccurate, since I checked the reference directly in Thucydides and also in a secondary WP:RS, a very long recent history of Marseille (in French). This second bout of tagging is as disruptive as the first. I cannot guess what Pmanderson's motives for this type of editing could be, but at first glance it appears to be unrelated to improving the encyclopedia. He has now reinstated the questioning of the quote from Thucydides. I find the edit summaries that he left with his talk page diffs extermely aggressive without provocation. [67][68][69] It seems that Pmanderson is questioning a number of statements which are not in doubt, although, as always, could be better sourced. On the other hand—and I think he has decided to take this as a personal attack—I pointed out that he himself probably does not have access to a detailed history of Marseille. I do, but at present I see no point in using my own history sources to edit the article when overnight it has been transformed unrecognizably from an anodyne backwater into a full-blown toxic WP:BATTLEGROUND, (In RL I am very busy finishing off a research paper, which probably will be linked by another user to one of the mathematics articles. That partially explains my wikibreak from articles.) Maunus has written that the tags are not merited.[70] He wrote in his edit summary: " Probably the tags should be removed altogether this looks like someone is trying to make a WP:POINT". That is my feeling too. Mathsci (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed before that Pmanderson is quick to tag. It would be helpful if he could use the tags as a last resort only (i.e., when prolonged discussion has failed, or when he has looked for sources and found none, but removal is being reverted), and then only if the text leaves verifiability or neutrality issues. We shouldn't use tags to signal that we personally dislike something. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for intervening SV. The Peloponnesian war is one of the texts that has been studied to death (we had to read book IV at grammar school in England) and there are numerous commentaries. The particular seven word sentence referring to the colonisation of Marseille has generated pages and pages of comments. Here is one example that runs over three pages (310-312). [71] More modern ones place the history in the context of recent archeological discoveries and in fact are unsurprisingly in agreement with most of what is in the article. The ancient history of Marseille seems to have some kind of fatal attraction.[72] Mathsci (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This appears to match a textbook definition of WP:POINT - I have asked PMA to explain his reasoning and intent.

As a rule, not the sort of behavior a recently blocked, historically multi-blocked editor under all sorts of additional scrutiny should be engaging in. At all. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This statement is another effort to settle a content dispute by spurious conduct charges. In addition, it alleges that I said things I did not say, and do not hold.

While waiting for the RM to settle itself, I read through the article, and found the ancient history section seemed most implausible. It cites three sources.

• Thucydides is claimed to support the settlement of Marseilles in 600 BC. He does mention the Phocaean settlement at Marseilles, but gives no date. (I have now said three times that he mentions the settlement; all this is on the talk page; therefore Mathsci's assertion above is false.)
• A book called Vintage; the History of Wine is cited for trade between Massalia and Rome in 500 BC. It actually discusses the trade around 125 BC.

These claims, therefore, I tagged as failing verification, and added Talk:Marseille#History to discuss them.

The proper response to such tags, I thought, is to answer them; to fix the article, to convince me I am wrong, or to convince a consensus that I am mistaken. Mathsci did none of these; instead he reverted; so I restored them until one of the three appropriate means of resolution can be done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Tagging can often be seen (rightly or wrongly) as simply a way of signalling that we didn't get to make the edits we wanted. It's best to do it only after trying everything else, including prolonged discussion, and looking for additional sources yourself. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the the existing sources don't support the text, and my relatively careful phrasing has been read to assert something I have never said, I doubt additional sources will do any good. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google Books search shows several sources for the founding date, including this from George William Cox, published in 1874 (p. 156), which helpfully cites its sources in a footnote. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is another footnote in a more recent text dating the founding of Marseille to c 600 BC. [73] It is one of many. What is interesting here, and a reason for administrators to keep tabs on Pmanderson, is that this time he has chosen to disrupt in a disproprtionate and uprovoked way a neutral and uncontentious article, amongst the main wikipedia articles on France. I made a simple edit modifying "historically" to "in antiquity" in the lede [74]; then very shortly afterwards Pmanderson appeared to tag the section of the article concerned with classical antiquity. Pmanderson appears to be more interested in other editors than in content. Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, this date is likely taken from Jerome's Chronicle, which provides the date of 598 BC.[75] Whether or not it was the actual date... Well, that requires performing a source criticism of Jerome's work & an archeologist's interpretation of the numerous excavations of the city. But to determine that requires someone to pursue that angle in the secondary literature. -- llywrch (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Who was right and why in this dispute is beside the point here - all that can be resolved at the talk page. What is relevant here is how the dispute was handled.

If you add a tag in good faith and that tag is removed, especially with someone with whom you're already disputing, I suggest presuming WP:AGF and the R in WP:BRD and proceed with D. Do not engage in yet another edit war, no matter how sure you are that you are correct. This is an edit war

(cur | prev) 18:08, December 14, 2010 Pmanderson (talk | contribs) m (77,945 bytes) (Reverted edits by Mathsci (talk) to last version by Pmanderson) (undo)

(cur | prev) 17:50, December 14, 2010 Mathsci (talk | contribs) (77,826 bytes) (Undid revision 402439004 by Pmanderson (talk) tagging seems inaccurate) (undo)

(cur | prev) 17:21, December 14, 2010 Pmanderson (talk | contribs) (77,945 bytes) (→Prehistory and classical antiquity: not really.) (undo)

Again. No matter how sure you are that you are correct... don't edit war. Just don't. Take it to the talk page. I've learned that lesson without ever being blocked; how many more times does PMA need to be blocked to learn that lesson? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As this kind of information about the early origins of Marseille is copious and freely available in academic sources, there was no rationale beyond simple disruption for the edits of Pmanderson. At least PHG did his research properly even if he was at that stage pushing Greek colonistation of Provence a little too far. I would hope that Pmanderson might take note of what NYB, SV, GWH and Maunus have told him and drop this habit of disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Mathsci (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note the participants in the Franco-Mongol case; I know all about PHG. This continued series of personal attacks, to defend an innacurate rendition of a local history of a century ago, is indefensible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been warned for tagging the article by four administrators, Newyorkbrad, SlimVirgin, Maunus and Gerogewilliamherbert. He has now added tags and removed a substantial amount of sourced content. [76] What he has written contradicts one of the main sources,

• Duchene, Roger; Contrucci, Jean (1998), Marseille, 2600 ans d'histoire, Fayard, ISBN 2213601976

I have no idea why he is behaving in this way after the mutliple warnings he has received, but his block record speaks for itself. Mathsci (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have, as requested by SlimVirgin, on Talk:Marseille, found other sources; I have added them, with input from third parties; my sources may be seen in this exact reversion, which looks like Mathsci's fourth in the last 24 hours; see the history of the article. (There are better sources, which I could add shortly; but why bother when they will only be reverted.)

Please deal with this disruptive WP:OWN violation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I have reverted Pmanderson's later "essay-like" additions because they conflict with known sources. The legend of Protis and Gyptis was removed, despite being sourced. The legend has the same status as that of Mary Magdalen being conveyed on a sailless boat without rudder or oar from the Holy Land to Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer in the Camargue and then, following her death in a cave on the Sainte-Baume, being wafted by angels to Aix-en-Provence and the site of the cathedral of the St Sauveur. But the provencal legend is well sourced and discussed carefully in those sources. it can therefore be included in a wikipedia article (as a legend). Pmanderson included a phrase about a "romantic idea" that seems to be of his invention. But wikipedia is not Pmanderson's blog , he can't act as a historian here, and he should be editing according to the usual rules of wikipedia: no special rules apply to him. He should avoid removing sourced content just because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. His approach is unscholarly and adversarial. Nobody expects to read Marseille and suddenly come across a little essay on the history of Marseille "according to Pmanderson", an unknown author with unknown credentials. There are excellent sources and Pmanderson is simply not using them. Some of the principal ones happen to be in French: I don't find that in the least bit surprising. Once sources are known to exist on the history of Marseille, it's not a great idea to dismiss them and then attempt to cobble together the history from fragmentary sources elsewhere. Pmanderson seems to have a bee in his bonnet about French sources and possibly even the French: that does not in any way excuse his disruptive behaviour. Some of the comments levelled at me, which I have ignored, indicate that he thinks that I am French, which is not the case. Although on en.wikipedia, we do not use fr.wikipedia as a source, editors concerned with WikiProject France usually do pay attention to the corresponding articles there, which usually are written prior to the English version. (Exceptionally that was not true with Chateau of Vauvenargues but fr:Église_Saint-Jean-de-Malte_d'Aix-en-Provence has no English equivalent: that would be an article that I would normally consider writing, although not if I'm scared off WikiProject France by hostile editors like Pmanderson.) In the case of major cities, the French language articles can provide a useful guide to missing content. When the two corrsponding articles become widely divergent and contradictory (as was the case with Pmanderson's personal essay on the history of Marseille), alarm bells will normally ring. That is just common sense. Mathsci (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson is misrepresenting his own actions. He removed a lot of sourced content that he didn't happen to like. His actions are as disruptive as those that have resulted in previous warnings and blocks. He certainly didn't seem to like the legend of Protis and Gyptis, which he removed, That is a short section that I rewrote and sourced. Certainly SlimVirgin was not suggesting that he remove content that he didn't like, that he restore his tags and that he rewrite the ancient history section as a personalised essay from fragmentary sources. Pmanderson is not righting a great wrong. He is just attempting to manufacture a WP:BATTLE by editing in as awkward a way as possible. It is a classic case of disrupting WP to make a WP:POINT, as others have already commented. Mathsci (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci is telling great and small untruths. As his revert-warring will show, I retained the fable of Protis and Gyptis; what this good soul omits is the consensus of the sources that it isn't likely to be true - whether or not Massalia was founded in 600 NC, it wasn't founded like this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this be resolved by sticking closely to academic secondary sources? It would make sense to write up a brief suggestion for that section, together with the sources, and post it on talk for discussion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

IMHO - Both stepped clearly across the line. PMA backed away incrementally from his prior behavior but not from disruptive editing of the article. He did engage on the talk page, but kept butting heads with people. Mathsci kept reverting without adequate talk page involvement.

Both parties are longtime users with extensive experience with dispute resolution. They both know what we expect of editors participating in a content dispute. Neither chose to act in accordance with our policy and community standards. Both are blocked for 48 hrs.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with the Mathsci block, George. It seems to be a "pox on both your houses" response, which can often be unfair. PMA has a history of this kind of approach, and a long block log as a result. I'm less familiar with Mathsci's editing, but looking at the diffs, he seems to have reverted three times between Dec 13 and 15, [77] [78] [79] and he brought the issue to AN/I to request help. I can't see how those reverts alone can fairly trigger a 48-hour block. He has only two previous blocks, both in 2008 and both regarding the same issue, as I recall, and it had nothing to do with edit warring. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We have a problem here in that George blocked Mathsci and PMA for 48 hours, then went offline. So now at least one of them (perhaps both) is arguably unfairly blocked with no one to sort it out. I'm reluctant to unblock Mathsci, because I would also have to make a decision about PMA, and as he's someone I've disputed issues with in the past, I don't feel uninvolved enough. But I'm not happy about seeing Mathsci blocked for 48 hours for three reverts in three days, accompanied by talk-page discussion and considerable provocation (in my view) from PMA. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Review and additional input on Mathsci's unblock request would be useful at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm highly inclined to grant Mathsci's unblock request. After review of this thread and the Marseille talk page, I'm not seeing any grounds for blocking him. Courcelles 04:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Mathsci_.28conduct.29, Mathsci's engaged in "borderline edit warring in May [35][36][37][38] and June.[39][40][41][42] This editor was also formally reminded not to edit war in the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration." To simply say that there was nothing to do with edit-warring or there was no grounds for blocking is questionable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, Ncmv, I'm not really familiar with Mathsci's editing, but I do feel this is a long block for a small number of reverts, and without warning that I can see, especially as he was making other edits that appeared to be improving the article by adding sources, e.g. here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is an unfamiliarity with the user's editing, then obviously it's going to seem like there are no grounds for a block whatsoever. I think the fact that he was warned in an arbitration ruling, the fact that the behavior was identified again in a more recent arbitration ruling with clearer terms (borderline) is quite sufficient to the point that you would expect the editor to avoid doing the same - without yet another warning. His restriction from that recent ruling was in the process of being lifted so he should be especially mindful of what not to do. What I am saying is that it is incorrect to assert that a block was unjustified (which is what you seem to be saying - according to Mathsci). GWH was familiar with the user's editing, and with the arbitration, as far as I am aware. All that said, Pmanderson did misuse rollback as well, and does seem to have been making pointy edits, so on the grounds that the block has served its purpose (as time served) and that per his unblock request, he will be more mindful of his reverts (and avoid that behavior in the future), I'd support Mathsci's unblock. (I'd oppose an unblock on the grounds that the block was unjustified.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the narrower picture here, with some awareness of the wider one, but it was justified here specific to the recent incident (IMHO).

PMA took the issues in good faith to the talk page, but kept doing things very nearly alike what he'd been warned was disruptive and told to stop.

Mathsci did less disruptive stuff, but kept doing it and didn't go to the article talk page to discuss it in good faith. He was engaged in other discussions there, but not with PMA on the key disruption points over the period he was reverting. Mere participation in talk page discussion (which Mathsci did over that time period) doesn't mean he was discussing what he was reverting enough to avoid it being at least marginally a sterile revert / edit war. PMA's larger disruption explains but does not justify Mathsci responding with repeated reverts rather than engagement.

Mathsci has responded reasonably and deescalated. He was seeking outside review prior to the last actions. Reduction to time served would be reasonable. I'm going to do that now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Confirming - Mathsci is now unblocked, reduced to time served. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been around Mathsci for a long time. He is an extremely good content contributor (I'd go as far as to say one of Wikipedia's best) who is mostly sensible but has a tendency to get prima donna-ish in some situations, and whose approach to DR isn't always the greatest. I'm less familiar with PMA but I think I've seen him/her around the mathematics refdesk and s/he is also pretty good. I didn't even try to read this mind-wobbling dispute much, so I can only think of this. Can't those two have WP:TEA instead of fighting? Anyway, I'm all for unblocking Mathsci if (without having to admit fault for edit warring) he says he's ready to edit again and that he can maintain calm discourse going forward. On general principles, that's probably also the right approach for PMA. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC) OK, Mathsci is unblocked now, which is good. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• @ GWH: Thanks for unblocking me and responding to other administrators promptly.
• General comment Slimvirgin's comment about secondary sources is a key point here and very well made. Most detailed material concerned with the history of Marseille is not surprisingly in French, since it is the history of a place. Writing about Porte d'Aix required buying the 50 page detailed booklet: I did not use the article on fr.wikipedia at all. (Looking at the French article now, it would be an idea to incorporate the newly added photographs of architectural details in a gallery, as happened at Arc de Triomphe, a move which I helped instigate.) I know of nowhere else where the detailed information could be found. The same applies to the history section in the article about Marseille, which I believe was originally a largely unsourced direct translation of the French wikipedia article. Often it can be the case that a book cannot be found on the web. The anecdotes about Francois I and the stranded rhinocerus on the Chateau d'If and the story about Louis XIV arriving on horseback and ordering his troops to fire a cannonball through the city walls are items a casual reader might tag as being unlikely. However, they are recorded in WP:RS. I cannot see any merit in using outdated texts from around 1900 to write history, Again that problem arose with Auguste Pavie, in connection with PHG, and although Pavie's own journals are available on the web, these are primary sources which can only be used in conjunction with secondary sources. In that particular case there was a recent illustrated monograph on French explorers (in french) which I used as the principal source for writing the article. The book is not available on the web except for snippet view.[80] Mathsci (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article speedied as purely promotional. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked 58.106.54.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) temporarily for legal threats. However, I am concerned that they may have true concerns regarding article content. I would request more experienced editors to take a look at the recent flurry of edits to determine if any of them need to be reverted to avoid trouble for Wikipedia. I have e-mailed the foundation and will notify the IP of the post. Thanks Tiderolls 03:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems closer to AFD or Speedy Deletion than anything. It looks like some legit concerns The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article and removed the unsourced negative stuff. I agree with TRA that we probably have a deletion candidate on our hands here.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a retraction of sorts on the IP's talk page. If another admin wishies to unblock I won't scream. However, I don't think this would help the present situation. Tiderolls 03:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's still a legal threat (against the "poofters"). --Mkativerata (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Article at AFD see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powerchip The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just waded through the page history. What a mess. I've made two revision deletions but other admins might find cause to do more. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I took out six more versions. No way am I going to let that stay in the history. - KrakatoaKatie 05:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The AfD is being hit by anon IPs and SPA accounts, one of which is making "statements" about someone's wife. Can someone look into that and block as necessary? One of the IPs is clearly also double voting as an SPA account. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I just speedied it -- it appeared purely promotional to me, and the opinion on the AfD was unanimously for deletion anyway. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've also salted the founder's bio, since it was created today for the purpose of attacking him. If notability is established, it can be unprotected. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't forget chip tuning, where that same person is mentioned. Uncle G (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I removed that and linked to here from talk:chip tuning. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – RabidMelon is the now-blocked puppeteer and all socks have also ben blocked - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Made by user RubinAttorney at Harry M. Rubin.[81] Edward321 (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, advice to contact the WMF at their contact page. Don't think there is anything else to do here. --Jayron32 01:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does that article look really socky? And if RubinAttorney is an actual attorney, I'll eat my hat. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked both User:RubinAttorney and User:RabidMelon as obvious socks of one another. RabidMelon restored the legal threat after it was removed. --Jayron32 01:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, maybe the page could be SPed for a bit? An awful lot of "new" account activity there. HalfShadow 01:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There are 2-3 other accounts (then I stopped looking) with a similar MO in the last few months, and with no edits to other topics. I suppose since they're serial, rather than concurrent, it isn't a huge deal. But if they show up again now that the most recent accounts are blocked, then semi-protection or an SPI for an IP block might be in order. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Another sock was created, so I've protected the article for a week. This looks like a long-term problem, and evidently they've found the IP reset button, so we might be looking at long term semiprotection. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The article in its current form appears to be very neutral; if anything, it's largely positive. Perhaps the complainant is of the impression that BLP's require their subjects' "permission". Otherwise, if the complainant could state what specific objections he has, that would help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Article looks spammy to me. I always want to delete such articles, but I know how hard that is. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
      • It could always be modified to cut out the spam and/or nominated for deletion. Not by someone threatening to sue, though, but by someone challenging notability or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I can't edit the article due to protection, and I hate getting sucked into such things anyway. But I notice it is currently sourced mostly to press releases and what I'd consider to be primary sources. If you AfD it, I'll support deletion, but WP practice in this area is so screwed up that it's likely a lost cause. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I changed C. M. Rubin (about Harry M. Rubin's spouse) to a redirect. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
          • If you take out the questionable stuff, how much would be left? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
            • You're basically asking what it would take to make that guy's advertising page acceptable to Wikipedia. I'm much more interested in deleting it on the grounds that we don't do advertising, than in spending probably 2 or more hours cleaning it up for him for free (and it would still be an ad, even after that). There's basically nothing in it sourced to high quality RS, but on the other hand, most of it is just fluff rather than being really contentious, so wiping the content indiscriminately (leaving a minimal stub) would be a bit pointy. I'd instead have to carefully weigh and research each bit of fluff for possible relevance/retention, rewrite stuff carefully to tone down the spamminess, check around for better sourcing, etc. I think we're not here for that, or at least we shouldn't be. The article is IINFO, a COI vehicle, and a drama magnet all at the same time, and it's just not worth it and we're better off without it. IMO, articles like this should be speedy-deleted and if an unconflicted editor later wants to write a neutral article about the person from scratch, they can do so. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Samuel_Adams_(beer) (partly about same guy, and his buddies) needs cleanup too. I hate Wikipedia sometimes. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) There seems to be quite a bit more at play here. The "RubinAttorney" account was created on the 16th. The "RabidMelon" account was created Sept 11, 2009, and has edited almost exclusively... articles about a children's author named Cathy Rubin and a book she wrote... which Harry M. Rubin is named as an editor for, as well as the Harry M. Rubin article. Going back through the history of Harry M. Rubin shows a looooong history of SPAs, probably all related to these same accounts. I'm going to file an SPI on them, but I'm wondering if we have either someone with a COI here or someone who has an unhealthy obsession with this family? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

SPI concluded quickly, puppeteer and sock all blocked. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest PROD or AfD for the article. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Would someone be able to quickly stop what's going on here - sorry I'm a bit busy, and don't have time for a proper 3RR and all that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Closer look - it looks like there's been a continual edit war going on since the end of October! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected the page to expire in 1 week while the situation is discussed here. Made sure to protect the wrong version. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As you were doing that, I was blocking one user for violating the username policy (impersonating a username). TNXMan 17:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that James.DC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) gets a message pointing out policy on edit warring and dispute resolution and that we leave the protection on the page to expire in the hope that things will calm down in the interim. Off to eat, I'll take care of it if nobody else has by the time I get back. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor made aware of policy and dispute resolution. Warned to not engage in further edit warring when protection expires. I've watchlisted the article and would encourage a few more admins to do likewise. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, folks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Obvious sock is obvious... and blocked. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:SantaColemanFan is probably another sock for the list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ECW500/Archive. (He helpfully left me a hint at my Talk page, here) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes this editor needs to be blocked. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

did hea ctually TAG HIMsELF!? as a sockpuppet? i gues that saves the checkusers some time!! User:Smith Jones 14:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I tagged the socks userpage. The sock put a sock tag on someone else's talk page. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he tagged my page to suggest I was one of his socks - kindly leading us straight to the ducks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

All of the ColemanFans (other than my account, of course) are created to harass me. I guess I was one of the first (if not the first) to give him a vandalism warning, so this has been going on for a couple of years or so. Thanks for blocking him. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There's something of a conflict of interest at Nassim Nicholas Taleb. User IbnAmioun (talk · contribs) wtites, on his own user page, "I just make sure that some contentious material related to someone related to me (NASSIM NICHOLAS TALEB) whose INTERESTS I represent is properly dealt with.". That user edits only Talib-related articles. There's the possibility that Asim samiuddin (talk · contribs) and YechezkelZilber (talk · contribs), both of whom seem to concentrate their efforts on Talib-related articles , are connected to IbnAmioun, but that's speculative at this point.

The general editing pattern is to praise Talib to the point that the hype becomes embarrassing. I've tried to dial the hype back a bit. I've only made 3 small edits to the article itself, all of which have been reverted. The discussion on Talk:Nassim Nicholas Taleb, though, is amusing.

There's a WP:OWN problem. Part of the problem is that Talib uses many neologisms in his writing, and IbnAmioun objects to use of the standard terms. ("Taleb, let me insist again, ran "protection protocols" rather than funds.") There's also a long-running controversy in the financial press over whether Talib's funds actually made much money for the investors. (This is a generic problem with hedge funds, incidentally, because they don't have to report their results to the SEC. It's not just Talib. But it offers an opportunity for hype, by focusing on the "up" years.) Mentioning Talib's detractors in that context, even on Talk, gets IbnAmioun very upset. And then there's just pure hype, like the infobox reading "Fields: Aphorist, essayist, epistemologist, statistician, risk engineer and trader". I changed that to "Hedge fund manager, essayist, statistician", per a New York Times references, and Talib's team had a cow.

Taleb is a noteworthy character, but the hype level here has been cranked up to 11 by his team and needs to be turned down a bit. Help from Wall Street types would be appreciated. --John Nagle (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What a mess. Tagged with Advert, Cleanup, and COI for now. Needs going through with a fine-toothed comb to remove all the puffery. I can't even figure out who the guy is because of all the flattery. N419BH 21:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a horrible mess. Most recently, IbnAmioun tagged an edit as "VANDALISM" in an edit summary because the editor was trying to maintain an NPOV. I've blocked the guy for 31 hours for NPA violations and his years-long history of other inappropriate behavior, ranging from WP:OWN to the shameless COI to the repeated history of legal threats (veiled and otherwise) (if anybody feels that a block is the wrong way to go, feel free to revert me and discuss it here). This isn't even the first time his behavior has ended up in this forum! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

hello mike,

IMHO this vandalims case is a good example. The success in 2007 is a widely reported news piece, with no one ever arguing it wass untrue. Now user Nagle edited this never doubted piece of news to "claimed success". I cannot argue whether it counts to vandalism exactly, but it seems to be out of line, and i can emphasize with someone seeing it as unacceptable Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

is this a veiled legal threat? N419BH 21:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I chose to assume that it was not when I reverted that edit. I do, however, think that there's a long term problem with the Taleb article and IbnAmioun's edits there; see previous discussions of various isues:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive544#Legal threats on talk page of Taleb
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive545#Nassim Nicholas Taleb
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive551#Legal threats on talk page of Taleb

At the very least, IbnAmioun has a COI on the subject of Taleb, and he should be encouraged to follow policy when editing that article. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat, but it's sure as hell evidence of a severe "OWN" problem of the sort we can't continue to ignore. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) IbnAmioun is requesting to be unblocked, reasoning: "Representative of person under DANGEROUS smear campaign." I take that to mean that he claims to be Mr. Taleb's lawyer. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that this situation has been going on for years. IbnAmioun is currently blocked for 31 hours; it seems very likely that he'll go back to POV-pushing in this article as soon as the block expires. It also seems that this isn't the first time he's been at ANI, with no significant change or improvement. Personally, I think that a much stronger hand is called for. I've added the article in question to my watchlist, and I'm perfectly happy to do the 'escalating series of blocks' thing on his very next biased, uncivil, or WP:OWN edit... but would it be easier, given the history, to just impose a topic ban now? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The conflict on Taleb's page can be traced to a few finance professionals who seem to be particularly incensed about Taleb and his success. I am a finance professional myself, and I have edited many other pages. The amount of vandalism on Taleb's page is astonishing, either through simple profanity or through the dispute of facts, even when the links to stories are clearly provided or are easily accessible on the web. Nagle itself seems to have an issue with Universa, ignoring articles like the one published by Bloomberg on Oct 14 2008 (available on the Bloomberg terminal, and copies of the text are available on the web). That kind of selective edit is more like a personal attack than a concerned effort for style and substance. MCarr (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to hype or discredit anyone here. Its obvious that Taleb evokes strong sentiments of all kinds from all kinds. The man has been under smear campaigns and even threats (death threats as well)- Nagle's behaviour seems to border on obsession ( and I do admit it concerns me) the way he seems to discredit and obsessively ask for "audited numbers".such information might be private or only specific people might be privy to it. All I say is if there are issues with the article- lets discuss it in a civil manner. The guy keeps screaming for "numbers" and "proofs" when the article itself does NOT refer or include them. Lets solve this silliness and move on. Asim samiuddin (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Asim

To be fair, the subject area seems to be infested with SPAs of many sorts, not just those promoting Taleb. See the fun at this afd from a few months ago. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that I was tagged as a SPA by you; I have edited articles since 2006, and although my day job has not allowed me to dedicate enough time to diversify my edits, the aggressive editing on the related subjects does attract my attention. MCarr (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried to make a few edits on that page but quickly backed away because of the fan club protecting it. I have enough of this type of behaviour to deal with on other pages. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, a thread on this subject has been open for a day or two at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard.[82]. I was not aware of the prior ANI history with this article, and recommended dispute resolution.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

ANY neutral involvement in the taleb entry is desirable. The more people from here editing the Taleb entry the better, anyone coming from this page has no prior opinion, making the whole thing balanced and neutral Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(Ibnamioun is paranoid and he may have reasons as some cases were looking as if editors have a direct want to degrade taleb. In this case, for example an old case of reporter error was digged up in an argument that felt pretty much anti taleb. As the saying goes, every paranoia has its source) Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ibn Amioun is frequently irritating certainly, but in his defence I think we need to take into account cultural factors: I suspect there is a lot of pride in Taleb's home town, as well as in Lebanon generaly, that someone from the region has achieved such prominence on the global stage. It is fair to say that often the Western media presents the Middle-East in a negative light, as a sort of Medieval backwater, and perhaps the fierce support given to Taleb may be a defensive reaction to this negativity. Anyway this is the sense I got when dealing with Ibn Amioun. I had some sympathy for him, despite his overly aggressive conduct.

I think Ibn Amioun should be given a fair go, keep in mind that at least he did disclose that he was from Taleb's home town. Inchiquin (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin please delete this revision? It is outrageous and very disturbing. Nowyouseemetalk2me 01:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Also removed the link from your post. Nakon 01:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Nowyouseemetalk2me 01:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem with the revdel, but blocking the IP was sort of useless since the nasty vandalism occurred 2 years ago and the IP hasn't edited since then. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I must have missed that, sorry. Unblocking. Nakon 01:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

CAT:RFRD. Especially for an old thing like that, email discretion is probably preferable to ANI urgency. Rd232 ^talk 02:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Hometown Kid keeps inserting chart-peaks to the Rick Ross discography without providing sources. I recently cleaned up the discography of Rick Ross as it was lacking sources and had a lot of unverifiable peaks. I have warned the user four times already at his talk page that he should not insert peaks if he cannot source them. Instead the user persistently keeps inserting peaks again that cannot be found in the currently provided sources and refuses to follow WP:V. The user claims at his talk page that he views Billboard's charts on weekly bases and updates peaks accordingly, but again refuses to follow wikipedia's policy and continues to alter Rick Ross dicography in a similar manner leaving messages of this kind in edit-summaries, 1, 2. I'd appreciate it if someone could approach this user in a way to help that discography remain sourced and verifiable. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Harout72 is removing some valuable chart data simply because they're not verified, and I already explained to him the reason why the sources don't prove all the chart positions he keeps removing. I told him instead of removing the unverified positions that he should put an asterisk beside each one showing that they're unverified, Drake discography is an example of what I'm talking about in the other chart songs section. Unlike Harout72, I've been always checking the billboard charts every single week that's they're updated, I've seen those chart positions before and when I add or update positions on wikipedia I usually include in my edit summaries that I'm updating it or adding it in because of what I saw. Also I would advice this guy to actually start check billboard charts every thursday when they're updated and stop heavily depending on the the verifiability of the sources provided. Thanks.Hometown Kid (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly advise you to read up on Wikipedia's verifiability policies, before you get yourself in trouble. --Carnildo (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Question to administrators

What is the next step I need to take, because Hometown Kid keeps on making the same exact edits, again leaving all his inserted peaks unverifiable.--Harout72 (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at "All I Do Is Win" and it peaked at #8 according to the article already cited in the article. It charted twice according to the that list, first in February peaking at #89 and again in June peaking at #8. Mattg82 (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Copied from WP:AIV:

"*GageSkidmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - vandalism after final warning. I understand if it is decided that Gage wasn't warned enough, but I want to point the personal attacks Gage made against User: Jj98 andUser: Ctjf83. Gage is taking the nomination for deletion of New Kidney in Town way too personally. JDDJS (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly where he attacked another editor(s)? Also, you are taking the deletion of that article too personal (create two AFD) Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 05:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Check Ctjf83's talk page and Jj98 was attacked on the New Kidney in Town deletion page. Both are clear personal attacks. The only reason for him not to br blocked for a limited time is the lack of warnings he had (but I doubted he would've listened even if he was warned considering he deleted my warning with the summary "I don't need to be lectured") JDDJS (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This edit here [83]

and here [84] and this one here [85]. JDDJS (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

that is not vandalism for say "vandalism after final warning" (even the word with "v"). Also link 1/2 is not a personal attack, tell someone is not welcomed is not an "attack", and for the link 3, is a sarcasm, which is not an attack, just is a strong irony, why you don't take this to ANI innstead?Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 06:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :::Here he denies doing anything wrong [86] and here he shows he doesn't care about being warned. [87]. I believe this shows that he needs to be blocked to learn a lesson. JDDJS (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess ANI is a bit more appropiate. JDDJS (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)"

And so now the discussion continues here. JDDJS (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The comment on Ctjf's page was not a personal attack. He and I are close friends, and I was only expressing my distaste with his voting to redirect the article. Additionally, I'd like to retract my comment about the other editor. Gage (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• No vandalism or personal attacks have been made. Request this be closed posthaste as unnecessary and no admin attention is needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

How have no personal attacks have been made? I understand that only one counts now and it's not enough to block him, but the one attack still happened. JDDJS (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll let the Ctjf comment go (unless of course he says he took it as a personal attack), but doesn't it seem a little late now to retract what you said about Jj98 when both here [88] and here [89] you didn't. If it was up to me you'll be blocked for 24 hrs, but it is not up to me. Most likely you won't get blocked. However be careful what you say and how you say it in the future. If you attack someone again (especially in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Kidney in Town (2nd nomination) you probably will be blocked. JDDJS (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't threaten people with blocks when you're not an admin.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see "probably" as a threat...just throwing it out there. CTJF83 chat 13:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to remain mostly neutral on this, it takes a lot to offend me, so "knowing" Gage, I wasn't bothered by it, although *bites tongue*, he isn't always the most tactful user, but for the record, I strongly detest him saying JJ98 isn't welcome at WP:FG CTJF83 chat 13:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Resolved

 – Clearly no actionable conduct by Elen. Further discussion on CSD#G1 should be at WT:CSD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

From a current WT:CSD discussion, User:Elen of the Roads has been threatening to block me for making racist comments (I did not) and has repeatedly tried to ask me to retract some statement that apparently only he has interpreted as racist. I'd like him to immediately stop threatening me with a block, since it is clear I never made any comment that was even close to racist or meant to be. His behavior is entirely inappropriate. — Timneu22 · talk 17:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Given your comment that text you claim to be patent nonsense (it's poorly written, but understandable and imo not nonsense) was about a Hindu holy man of some sort and you described the text as a "piece of shit", I think he can be forgiven for interpreting it as racist. It's certainly borderline, imo. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 17:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As I stated later, the article could have been about any topic, but the words were pure shit. Elen is matching my comment with some holy man and calling me a racist. It's ridiculous, and I don't want to go on under his threat of a block for doing nothing inappropriate. — Timneu22 · talk 17:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

:I notice the lack of diffs in your report - here, let me provide some. The article itself has been speedied as promotional, but the text is here for the moment, as the author wanted it. It is written in a style used for devotional or praise writing, complete with transliterated Gudjerati. It is completely unencyclopaedic, but it does not warrant being described as GIBBERISH WITH NO MEANINGFUL CONTENT ... NONSENSE and it's insulting to the community when an admin cannot see this or a huge pile of shit (repeated a couple of times in the course of the discussion, and I notice here now as well). I have accepted that you don't mean to be racist (so I haven't blocked you) but I have several times now asked you to withdraw the statement, and another editor has also advised you on your talkpage that the statements appear racist. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What Elen actually said was Please withdraw your 'pile of shit' comment before I feel compelled to block you for what could quite readily be viewed as racist remarks. For my part I don't see your words as necessarily racist but I do consider them to be both extremely and pointlessly offensive and can see why racism might be suspected. It was plainly merely newbie, unencyclopaedic writing. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Elen made the mistake of assuming clue. The text in question is in fact remarkably well written, though thoroughly unencyclopedic in its current form. un☯mi 17:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Chaos is order unseen. To the unsensing mind there is no sense. un☯mi 17:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe I said something similar but rather less poetic Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No admin misconduct here, calling unencyclopedic but GF content a huge pile of shit or "gibberish" is mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Elen about 95% here, but note that saying someone is making "racist remarks" is usually a red flag in front of a bull, and they aren't likely to listen to you after you've said it. The comments might be culturally insensitive or culturally disrespectful, but I'd avoid using the term "racism" in almost any circumstance, as it is not likely to achieve whatever you're trying to achieve. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right Floq - it wasn't actually racist, although I did think it was for a few minutes. I did start with culturally insensitive, but the response to that was Cultural ignorance my ass. It's now apparent that it is just plain rudeness, anything Timneu can't parse is a pile of shit.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Timneu22, why didn't you contain the one-on-one dispute at User_talk:Jimmy_Pitt#Reverted_your_edit? You didn't even tell Jimmy that you were starting a new discussion at WT:CSD. Instead of keeping the argument small and civil, you turned it into a mob-scene. Such a large argument isn't needed for such a trivial incident. WP:SPIDERMAN. This could've been avoided. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Because there is inconsistency in admin behavior of WP:NONSENSE and {{db-nonsense}}. The conversation was about CSD policy, so my conversation was in the right place. — Timneu22 · talk 18:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Were you hoping to change CSD policy by posting there and if so, how so? How does changing policy link up with your claims of admin abuse? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to have this conversation three places. Go to WT:CSD. This discussion is about admins threatening blocks for no reason. — Timneu22 · talk 18:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Timneu22, I think you're forum shopping over having been called on WP:BITE, to put it mildly. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As someone who spends most of his time doing NPP myself, I'd ask for everyone to just take Timneu22's behavior for what it is- venting. This is a part of CSD that is wildly (mis)interpreted by a lot of people, and really needs some reform. The fact that he's given you a rude awakening shouldn't change the fact that you seriously need to listen; those of us on NPP have had our chains jerked direction after direction on this issue. Cut him some slack; blocking him over this would just be too reminiscent of a play I'm all too familiar with. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Gwen Gale, since no one accused me of WP:BITE, I have no idea what you're talking about. Further, I'm not forum shopping. I went to WT:CSD to discuss the poorly-understood guideline, and I'm here because an admin is threatening to block me about nothing. I'm not sure where you're getting your information. — Timneu22 · talk 18:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You were wholly mistaken as to the content, you should strike what you said about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

@Timneu22: I still find the argument pointless. The article was deleted at 12:40 UTC, yet the argument persisted for hours. Plus, you didn't even reply to Jimmy's response before starting the WT:CSD thread. I feel that you abandoned your discussion with Jimmy prematurely. Your "There seems to be a clear inability for admins to understand patent nonsense" and "It's insulting to the community when an admin cannot see this" comments makes it clear that you were talking about Jimmy's conduct rather than CSD policy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Only on the subject of this ANI - I don't find that Elen was out of line, maybe a bit bitey but very understandable considering the events. Context is everything and certainly if I were commenting on an article that was religious in tone and another editor replied that the articles subject matter was a piece of shit my first knee jerk reaction would be to go on the defensive.

On the wider issue: As someone, as of the moment I post this, is outside of the CSD discussion I can understand both sides - but clearly the comments made by Timneu22 could be taken as being about the articles subject that was/is being discussed and not the wider interpretation that *any* article that is a "piece of shit" be made part of the criteria being discussed. The problem is that the discussion was not presented as specifically about a deletion criteria, but rather the full text of an article was posted under a header that says Inability of admins to recognize patent nonsense and ends with the Timneu22s' comment that it's insulting to the community when an admin cannot see this. That alone already places Admins in a defensive position. And when Timneu22 replied with a direct quote from the article/source and than summarized that quote as nonsense, non-encyclopedic, and a huge pile of shit it really comes off as being the articles subject matter - not about CSD G1. So, again, on the subject of this ANI I see no true "poor conduct" at all by Elen. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know; I thought it was obvious that the conversation was about the inconsistent way admins tend to apply G1. The title certainly meets the logical definition of poisoning the well, but there's a lot of frustration involved here. I can't 100% blame him for his tone, really; if nothing else, it finally drew attention to something that badly needed it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Since it has been raised, the criteria for deletion as patent nonsense says the following

1. Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all, such as a passage of lorem ipsum text. This would include strings of characters produced by dropping an object on the keyboard.
2. Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it. If the meaning cannot be identified, it is impossible to accurately copy-edit the text.

I would just like to point out that neither of those criteria apply to this article, and there is no question of admins failing to understand the criteria, failing to apply the criteria correctly etc etc. Yes, I have a slight advantage in that although I can neither speak nor read it, I recognised the foreign language, so I didn't immediately think that the article title was nonsense. But the text is perfectly readable and plainly about an individual who is very highly regarded by the author for religious reasons. It's not confused at all, it just uses a style which is not used in the West. I note that Timneu has been called on this multiple times - saying something is nonsense when what he means is "this does not belong in the encyclopaedia." Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Nobody's getting blocked, the article has been deleted but may be re-created in a more encyclopedic form, and concerns about our definition of "patent nonsense" have been directed to Wikipedia talk:Patent nonsense. So there don't seem to be any active incidents to administrate. The wording of the patent-nonsense CSD is unfortunately operator-dependent - to me, the article was patent nonsense. It was apparently intended to mean something, but was so confused that I didn't see how it could form the basis for an encyclopedia article. If I were to write an article on the subject, I'd feel compelled to scrap that text and start from scratch. On the other hand, Elen clearly saw this as "poorly written content that can be improved", and thus not nonsense.

Unfortunately, "nonsense" in this case apparently contained both an implied and an inferred value judgment, which seems to be the reason things went south. It's one thing to say that the article is written incomprehensibly (to the point that it should be scrapped and a new article built from scratch), and another to call it a pile of shit. Similarly, it's one thing to ask someone to tone it down, and another to call them racist. Anyhoo... MastCell ^Talk 19:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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