Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive509

User:LAz17

Violation of wikietiquette, stated "Zenarh, go fuck yourself" "Nazi pig!" [1] PRODUCER ^(TALK) 16:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Given notice, and final warning. This account has a documented history of gross verbal abuse that will land this editor with a block for future occurrences. Let me know if it occurs again. seicer | talk | contribs 16:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A lucky escape for him - I was filling in the block reason form (having taken a few minutes to find and read the previous ANI episode) when I checked back here to see that Seicer, to whom I am more than happy to defer, had already dealt with it. Bencherlite^Talk 16:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do when the guy insults me in such awful ways? (LAz17 (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Rise above it? Walk away? Raise a Wikiquette query? Certainly not the above. --Rodhullandemu 17:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You certainly should not respond with the same types of insults that are directed towards you. That action will result in you being blocked, which does nothing to help your situation. The best thing to do if you are insulted is to first remian calm, next try discussing it with the editor in question on their talk page, asking for clarification/refactoring the offensive statement without attacking or insulting them. If that does not produce any results (it IS worth a try though, even if you think it won't work it shows good faith on your part) then you can bring it to a noticeboard such as WP:WQA, WP:RFC, WP:ANI etc. The point is even if the other editor was offensive and baited you, if you rise to the bait you are more likely to be the one blocked, which I assume you don't want considering you are still on Wikipedia and editing the encyclopedia. Whenever you have a conflict the best thing is to walk away and cool down, as editing when you are angry will just land you in trouble, and will make others focus on your behavior, rather than seeing the editor you have a conflict with as the problem. Good luck. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there any rules against baiting, so that the baiter can be punished? (LAz17 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Not specifically, but if you really can't ignore such behaviour then you raise a Wikiquette alert or start a User request for comment, where the community will decide whether the actions were indeed baiting and hopefully work out a solution to the situation. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I will just add that even without having been directly involved in any disputes, I think it is a problem that baiting is so often allowed to slip by. In my opinion, in the case of a heated dispute the person who makes a baiting comment should face the same blocks, restrictions, etc. as the user who rises to the bait with "f-off" or some such. However, this is simply my opinion, as I am not even an admin let alone in charge of Wikipedia, and my above comment certainly does not mean I condone incivil comments in response to provocation, just that the provocation should be dealt with as harshly as the incivility. Theseeker4 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Baiting another user to provoke a policy violation may be seen as gaming the system (WP:GAME) which I believe is solid evidence of bad faith, which in turn can lead to an indef block. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Before we go any further with this, would LAz17 be kind enough to show us the baiting of which s/he is complaining? Reviewing the conversation in question, I see this from LAz17, which is obviously highly inflammatory, to which Zenanarh responded with this, which I'm not condoning, by the way, which earned her this from LAz17. Unless I'm missing something, I see a Serbian user provoking other editors saying that half of Croatia belongs to Italy, to which the response is predictable, to which LAz17 unleashes a foul-mouthed volley of abuse. Exactly the behaviour that the WP:ARBMAC restrictions are designed to eliminate. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user granting himself unblocks

Resolved

 – It is not unlikely that other issues will arise with this editor but this particular issue is resolved; marking the discussion as such.

Pretty self-explanatory.—Kww(talk) 14:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, does that really work? I think I'll grant myself adminship, and shrink any wikipedia evildoers down to little tiny gnomes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Barneca has it handled. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) If he screws around again, I'll protect the page. If he resumes edit warring when the block expires, he should be blocked 2 weeks. Or a month. Or indef. --barneca (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor might have been hoping the template would trigger the software to unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's called faith-based editing. You could mess with him a little bit. If he tries it again, extend it again. If he tries to BLOCK himself, shorten it a bit. He'll think HE's doing it through reverse wiki-psycholoy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of filing a WP:SSP case against the editor in question since I strongly believe him to be a sockpuppet of banned editor Brexx. Brexx has previously placed unblock notices on his own talk page, see this. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that you are right. I knew this all seemed familiar.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) New unblock request reverted, talk page protected. Jesus, he just needs to keep his pants on for 2 stupid hours. Part of me wants to extend the block for disruption and general lack of clue, but... meh. I have grave doubts about his editing behavior when the block expires, tho. --barneca (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Barneca seems to be away from his desk. He protected Away From Home's talk page until December 21, when I'm sure that he meant for the talk page protection to expire on January 21 as the same time as Anywhere But Home's block. I tried to leave ABH a message, and could not.—Kww(talk) 18:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it now, sorry, I'm an idiot. --barneca (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know that you could do that. Thats funny.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And it starts again. Series of edits by ABH with bad punctuation and spacing, I caution ABH about punctuation, HalfShadow removes the bad edits, and ABH reverts the edits without making fixes.—Kww(talk) 19:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, this is a separate topic from a blocked user using his talk page inapropriately. Also, HalfShadow's rollback was an improper use of the tool — ABH's preceding edits might not have been very useful to the article but they're not blatant vandalism. The original issue in this report is resolved, I suggest this discussion be marked as such. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

True. I also fail to see how this merits inclusion in ANI. So the user has a problem with periods at the ends of sentences. Fix them and move on, It might have saved time, but I don't know why the entire edit was reverted.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue with behaviour is edit-warring: restoring changes you have made that other editors have objected to without discussion or correction. Perhaps tangential to the report title, but not tangential to the behaviour that lead to the original blocks.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Edit warring and proving to others that you are a difficult editor to work with -- by continuously making typographical errors, misspellings and so forth -- results in a diminished working environment for others. We are not cleanup crews; if the user cannot spell or even adhere to basic English grammar and punctuation, then by all means, play in a sandbox until that user can comprehend what we are driving home here. seicer | talk | contribs 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec to Kww)Well, let's make sure we carefully pick our battles here so that we're not marginalizing real concerns in the process of accusing him of anything and everything. HalfShadow's rollback was inapropriate and ABH (regardless of whether or not he proves to be who I believe him to be and regardless of any other editing concerns) has full rights to revert that rollback since his edits were not vandalism. Furthermore, the onus is not on ABH to start discussion about the reverted rollback, it is on HalfShadow to explain his use of the automated tool to undo multiple edits without discussion. ABH may be doing 1000 things wrong but this is not one of those things, he had every right to revert that rollback. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I had thought he'd since been blocked. Given his antics thusfar, I thought I was helping to clean up: RBI and all that. My mistake. HalfShadow 23:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

IP hopping/Sockpuppet

A case of edit war was presented at WikiProject Football (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Dagoberto) and, as i, upon a careful look, saw a familiar "face" emerging, added some info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#DAGOBERTO_-_Adendum).

That edit war between user PauloZin (User:Paulozin) and an anonymous user is not new to me, because the anonymous user is none other than BRUNO P.DORI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bruno_P._Dori), banned for disruptive editing, which consisted in enlarging football players' infoboxes needlessly, only working in that area. He was duly warned (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bruno_P._Dori) and finally indefinitely blocked.

I recognized, before and after his ban, more than 30 (!!) anonymous IP with the same disruptive pattern. Here is a sockpuppet list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bruno_P._Dori). Another pattern is that he engages in no talkpage discussions, does not respond to messages and, in over 1000 contributions (all IP added), has not written one single edit summary, none, immediately re-reverting actions that have been reverted (Three-revert rule constantly violated), inclusively leading to some articles being protected (example here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sergi_Busquets&diff=260741413&oldid=260737132). As stated initially, when i referred to the edit war between Zin and Dori, see these examples retrieved from Dagoberto Pelentier's (football player) edit history (continuous reverting of article, no edit summaries whatsoever, with lots of the aforementioned anonymous IP from BRUNO P.DORI appearing, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dagoberto&action=history). Finally, that article had to be protected too (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dagoberto&diff=265109211&oldid=265090772).

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Has there been any activity in the past two weeks by any of those listed IPs? The last date I see is January 5th. Tan | 39 01:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nurse practitioner, ongoing sockpuppetry

G'day. As a relatively new editor I'm requesting assistance with Nurse practitioner which is being targeted by a very persistent user via various socks. Recently some were blocked, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrse. Two more suspected socks popped up and I reported them, though it seems I may have done so incorrectly by clicking a link on the archived investigation case which added a section. I would be grateful if someone could keep the page watchlisted for a few days as I suspect my inexperience may just make matters worse. Cheers, Basie (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I semiprotected the article, which will at least slow things down and increase the work cost of creating more socks. I also went ahead and blocked Ewalsh842477 (talk · contribs) as a pretty obvious sock of Nrse (talk · contribs). I'll try to keep an eye on the article as well. MastCell ^Talk 00:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a weight off my mind. The user counter-accused me of being a sockpuppet, which even though obviously spurious makes it a bit dodgy for me to continue to revert them. Cheers, Basie (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over that. :) MastCell ^Talk 00:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another PoliticianTexas sock: DianaRuiz

Resolved

 – blocked by Protonk. --barneca (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

DianaRuiz (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is probably a sock puppet of community-banned editor PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs) (PolTx for short). PolTx has generated several dozen known sock puppets; the last was TrentZee (talk · contribs) who was blocked 04:35, 19 Jan; the DianaRuiz account was created 00:30, 21 Jan, and over a period of 6 hours edited 10 pages, many of which have also been edited by PolTx. This seems unlikely to be a coincidence. Some more specifics:

• most of the DianaRuiz edits involved tinkering with the colors in the infoboxes of northern New Mexico high schools, also a favorite PolTx occupation; for example:
  • in Albuquerque High School, DianaRuiz diff, Thomasalazar diff (Thomasalazar (talk · contribs) is a known PolTx sock)
  • in Rio Rancho High School, DianaRuiz diff, JosephTatum diff (JosephTatum (talk · contribs) is a known PolTx sock)
• made a comment at TfD on Template:NNAA 4A, a very obscure template edited primarily by the PolTx socks Thomasalazar (talk · contribs), Martinez07 (talk · contribs), BradlyRM (talk · contribs): DianaRuiz diff
• characteristic misspelling "Unica" (for Uncia): DianaRuiz diff, 76.113.50.208 diff (see edit summary) (76.113.50.208 (talk) is a suspect PolTx sock)
• charateristic capitalization "Fix" in edit summary: DianaRuiz diff, DianaRuiz diff, Joseph Tatum diff
• DianaRuiz has expressed a desire to write an article about Espanola Valley Mariachi Band (diff). PolTx's activity has been concentrated in Albuquerque and Espanola, New Mexico; for example Española Valley High School is written almost completely by PolTx socks.

How about a block on this editor? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A clear case of WP:DUCK I'd say.--Atlan (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nicely laid out info; I'll go block now, if it hasn't been done already. --barneca (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, would have posted here earlier but I was called away from the computer right after blocking the account. I've seen a few PolTx socks around and this fits the editing patterns pretty well. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

IP hopping/Sockpuppet - UPDATE

(Before anything, please check item #26 in this page)

Also before starting my commentary, i would like to make it clear i am almost sure this is not the right place to insert it, it is just where i last reported.

It is clear i am treated with absolutely zero respect by people dealing with these matters of reporting (before i could understand it, since i "sent" 2 or 3 reports without having registered; now i have an account). It's about the 3rd or 4th time i report vandals and receive absolutely no commentaries whatsoever. Not even constructive stuff like "please address this or that area, this is not the right place, or construct your sentences better, with this or that input", nothing. I know what i am saying because most reports are addressed within minutes of being inserted. This last one as only been "sent" yesterday, but my last three have been in their respective (hopefully, i am not sure) fields for over a week, and have not been worthy of one single commentary.

Ok, rest assured yours truly will not bother you anymore. I have a couple of wiki-mates (including one admin, whom has incredibly helped me in the past in reporting/blocking vandals, SATORI SON (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Satori_Son)), and will thus try to deal with vandals in my own meager means, contacting with these people when it is in order.

Sorry for any incovenience (obvious there were plenty), keep up the good work,

VASCO AMARAL, PORTUGAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Vasco. Here is the feedback you asked for. You must have noticed that Pasd08 has been indef blocked as a result of your report, so you are getting some results. A few points:

1. Please don't refer to ANI cases by number (as in 'check item #26 on this page') since the numbers change every time a section is archived.
2. Complex sock cases are not quick to resolve, and in your last complaint about Bruno Dori, you did not even give the IP address that you suspected was him.
3. You left one complaint about Dori at the *Talk* page of WP:AN3, where it doesn't belong.
4. If an alleged sock is edit-warring, and you are willing to tabulate all the diffs to prove it, you can submit at WP:AN3. This is quick if the case meets the requirements.
5. You should get familiar with submitting at WP:Sockpuppet investigations, which is the best place to handle things like the Dori case. EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin impersonator

Resolved

 – Blocked. —kurykh 06:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not technically vandalism, but Your Principal (talk · contribs) is claiming to be an admin on his user page. I removed it once, he replaced it and called my edit vandalism. It seems that all of his edits are personal attacks on other users in notice board discussions. Very strange, an admin should probably have a look. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This one sent my spidey senses tingling. Checkuser showed Your Principal was the latest in a string of sockpuppets from JIM ME BOY. Raul654 (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch, Raul. Dayewalker (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Betacommand socks

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Betacommand socks (archiving comment, discussion on subpage has been archived for two days Fram (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

Question on suitability for speedy deletion

Cheetah255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have several articles under construction in his or her userspace sandbox. Earlier today, Justiceiscoming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the article Caitlin's Way (video game) as a crude copy-paste of the visible text at User:Cheetah255/Sandbox/Caitlin's Way (video game).
Cheetah255 indicated to me that he or she did not desire that that subpage be released into article space at this time, and expressed a wish to more or less re-userify the article. Since cross-namespace redirects are out, that's more or less tantamount to requesting the deletion of the article. Would this article qualify for a {{db-author}} from Cheetah255, even though he or she wasn't technically the "creator" of the article space article, or should the article just be PROD'ed or taken to AfD? --Dynaflow babble 01:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as a copyright violation, since there was no credit given by Justiceiscoming to the original author (which is needed for GFDL purposes). Bencherlite^Talk 01:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, its source in the other user's userspace was attributed in the original copy and paste version, so it wouldn't really be a CSD G12 case, but I guess it's all the same in the end, as long as this deletion doesn't unfairly prejudice the article's chances once the real author decides to recreate the page to float his or her final version in article space. --Dynaflow babble 01:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like I came in too late, but assuming GFDL requirements had been met, here's what I would have recommended:

Politely explain the situation and ask Justiceiscoming to db-author the article. If he does not, there's not much that can be done: The article must be treated on its own merits and AFD with a recommendation to merge its edit history into User:Cheetah255/Sandbox/Caitlin's Way (video game)'s is probably the way to go. If it's a "pure" copy and paste then there's no need to merge edit histories, just recommend deletion. If the outcome is "keep" then merge the edit histories anyway, but leave it in article space. By the way, if all editors making non-trivial contributions agree to an outcome - delete outright, merge to userspace, merge to articlespace, keep both, or whatever, then IAR/CONSENSUS overrides the need to do AFD. I think this is called WP:COOPERATION. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think Justiceiscoming should be told this is not done. People keep drafts in their userspace for a reason. Unless you've contacted them and they agreed to make the article live, it's best to assume the article is not yet ready. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

An old "friend"?

Resolved

Might want to check out Chris G molests young kids. (talk · contribs)--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 09:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sleepers and IP address have been blocked. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism spree

Resolved

 – All done. Thanks. Doulos Christos (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Cross-posting from WP:AIV. 85.16.164.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on a vandalism spree. Thanks. Doulos Christos (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user creating multiple attack accounts

Should this be possible? Bencherlite^Talk 12:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(Answers own question) Aah, account creation wasn't disabled in the original block. I've blocked the first few of the new accounts, but have to run. Can someone finish? Bencherlite^Talk 12:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be cleaned up a bit more, now. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Socialism2009

• Socialism2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Socialism20091011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user creation log

I don't know what this user's aim is, by creating two accounts, but most of his posts are discounting legalities created by a capitalist government, and his contributions only consist of articles relating to that. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I do not see a constructive contributor here. He is also using wikipedia as a forum to note, or discuss how a capitalist government, such as of America, is bad, re: But since most people live paycheck to paycheck, if they lose their job they're "starving", especially if it takes months or years to find another job, if ever. And don't argue that there is welfare, soup kitchens, etc to help feed them, because that's not the right way to keep people from starving. There is such a thing as lying through omission of such data because someone doesn't want too many people or nations to think that anyone in America has ever starved to death. Most people in other nations would be shocked to hear that America has ever had one homeless person, much less millions, & especially children sent west on the Orphan Trains.

Please weigh in.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

One edit per account outside talk-space, and both edits seem OK-ish (adding a link to The Landlord's Game to Renting and adding a link to Hooverville to Ghetto. I'm not necessarily seeing an unconstructive editor - possibly they just need tickling with a clue-stick? I've not looked at their talk-page comments; I'll take it on trust that they're soap-boxing and agree that this needs reined in. [Disclaimer: not an admin, politically biased towards this editor (even if they to my right ;-) )] Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(Both now welcomed (thanks, Dougweller); I'll continue to monitor their contribs. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

All I can think of right now is "Help! Help! I'm being repressed! MuZemike 15:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You should be thinking of Life of Brian, splitter. Huh! Holy Grail indeed! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio advice

Is the Stu Ungar article a copyvio of this? Or vice versa? I see no mention of Wikipedia or GFDL on the zimbio website, but I do see "Some rights reserved" at the bottom. Am I wrong? (For the record, they are exact copies of each other) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That article was posted "Sep-23-08 4:05pm", and the history of our article predates that, so I think it's safe to say that it was copying us.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well technically, they were copying this... but I believe the same logic still applies.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In the future, you may want to go to Wikipedia:Copyright problems.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did consider going to the noticeboard earlier but it doesn't look particularly active. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Broken infobox?

Why isnt the skis section showed in this article: Arthur Khamidulin. The Rolling Camel (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Because if the "club" field has no value, then the "Professional Information" section doesn't display at all, even if a value has been given to "skis". Incidentally, the infobox has been moved to Template:Infobox_Ski_jumper , so when you're fixing it you might like to update the reference. _Gb^T/c 16:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, questions like this are probably best asked at the help desk. _Gb^T/c 16:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Elplatt (talk · contribs)

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.

---

OK, this is spreading over too many venues. There are now plenty of eyes on the talk pages and no admin tools are needed at this time. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

---

This editor has been regularly trying to add a list to Children of alcoholics and previously Adult children of alcoholics. Several other editors have tried reasoning with him, please see the talk pages of both articles, Please consider a block, I think a temporary block might be not only in the interest of WP, but the user too. FWIW, I think Elplatt has made useful contributions on other articles. Thanks --Richhoncho (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• His most useful contribution right now is to propose merging those two to a single article with some actual content. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, it was my suggestion to merge these 2 articles and a different editor who suggested the 3rd article. This user created Children of alcoholics to get round the arguments relating to an earlier article. Here's just a sample of the reverts, would also be useful to read the edit summary and talk pages. [2][3][4][5][6]--Richhoncho (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm involved here. But at the moment this user is unilateraly edit warring against consensus on talk, and defending with wikilawyering about needing a "policy reason" to exclude material that most people see as irrelevant to the subject and questionable under BLP. I've tried to reason with him, but I'd ask that some admin who is uninvolved in the content issue look at his behaviour and warn/act as appropriate. Also, can someone uninvolved keep an eye on the editing here. See here and study the various threads on the talk page for context.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• You're right, I was wrong. I have left the user a warning. Any repeat and think a block is in order. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Guy, the wisdom of Solomon. Let's hope this is enough. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am the user in question. I would like to make a few points here in my defense.

• The original deletion was for WP:BLP reasons. I agree that some material was a violation and have only restored the rest ([7], [8]).
• I did not create Children of alcoholics to get around User:richhoncho's arguments, because he provided no substantial arguments. I created the article because he argued that the first article was actually about a different topic (see Talk:Adult children of alcoholics#List of ACOAs).
• User:richhoncho has repeatedly lied about the content of my sources (see Talk:Children_of_alcoholics#Verification_of_Eve_Ensler_as_a_COA).
• I was the first to report this incident, but no one responded (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive505#ACOA_Edits).
• I have asked members of the WP community for the best way to proceed, but have yet to receive any responses. (see User_talk:PhilKnight#Handling_dishonest_editors).
• I firmly believe that the content belongs on WP, and I am willing to follow appropriate avenues to get it there.--Elplatt (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As you've been told constantly, the "appropriate avenue" is discussion on the talk page to get consensus. However, at the moment you are the only editor who believes that this material belongs in the article. Make your case, but then respect the consensus. It appears that some editors have BLP concerns, whilst others question the relevance of the material, but none agree with you that the material belongs. If you want to change that you need to persuade, not edit war or wikilawyer.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't resort to name-calling. I am open to discussion, but you and your friend have only responded by repeating that you don't think the list should go in, without giving a valid reason. --Elplatt (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As some who has used the words "sockpuppet" and "dishonest" to describe other editors and called me a liar on this page - even to the extent of emboldening the word, I don't think you are in a position to complain about name calling. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have stated that the material is not relevant. You disagree. So, we see what consensus says. At the moment it clearly favours exclusion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Elplatt, it looks like you believe that there is some kind of "burden of proof" on those wishing to remove material. That is not, and I think has never been, policy here. As it stands, several editors have voiced opinions, but only one supports inclusion of this material. If you are not happy with the consensus that seems to exist, you should follow dispute resolution to try to more clearly establish what consensus is. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:37, 22 January 2009 (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.

Continued IP hopping abuse

Resolved

 – Semiprotection applied

See this archive for the previous discussion on this vandal. Diffs of vandalism by seven different 72.251.44.xxx IPs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. swaq 16:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected Porsche 911 two months. If this fellow gives up sooner, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How will we know when/if he gives up? ;> –xeno (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is disappointed that anons can't contribute to the article for that amount of time, they could ask for temporary unprotection and see what happens. Also it's regrettably possible he will develop an interest in other articles, in which case a LOONG rangeblock might be considered (not just 1 day). This range would only be 72.251.44.0/24, so making it a long block could be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK/Next update inadvertently protected

Resolved

 – Will leave it move-protected. Cirt (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Template:Did you know/Next update page has apparently been accidentally protected through cascade protection. I tried to unprotect but as I'm not that familiar with cascading protection and how it works, it didn't work. Can an admin with more experience of this function please unprotect the page? It shouldn't be protected, as many of our updaters are non-admins. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about {{Did you know/Next update}}, the template is transcluded onto User:Ameliorate!/DYKlock, which has cascade protection. I would contact User:Ameliorate! to find out why it is protected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ameliorate has retired from the project. What I'd like to know is why this has suddenly happened, since Ameliorate has been gone for some weeks and AFAIK there have been no recent changes to relevant pages. I guess as a short term measure I could change the protection level of DYLLock, but I have no idea what ramifications that might have. Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I removed the cascade protection from the DYLLock page but the Next update page still appears to be protected. I really don't know what else I can try. Gatoclass (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The page is still protected from moving [9] but not from editing. I logged out and was able to edit the page. I would recommend leaving the page move-protected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Template conversion needed

Would anyone be willing to convert the final six uses of a template at this TfD? I am about to close the debate but must step out shortly and don't have time to do the conversions. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 19:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elonka/ArbCom log → Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Martinphi-ScienceApologist_clarification

Elonka (talk · contribs) has made an arbitrary and antagonistic decision to place an attack list here. It was done by Elonka, a wholly involved editor in various pseudoscientific topics, to poison the well of editing. She is singlehandedly interpreting Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist as her basis for doing this, and I do not see where she has the right to do so. I have tagged the thread and asked a really uninvolved admin to delete it. I'd ask that it be oversighted too, but I don't want to case another kerfuffle. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While it might be removed - why would it be oversighted? That's a step too far for me - it doesn't reveal any Personal history, fail foul of WP:BLP etc. Removed - yes, erase - no. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm reaching on that one, of course. It's just that the attack list remains in the history of the discussion. Deletion by an admin is sufficient, just not perfect. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if you note my verbiage, I said "I'd ask" not that I was actually requesting it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You've been warned that your behaviour is on course for being sanctionable and you... keep on with the exact same behaviour? Well done. Sometimes I think the ArbCom vacated the OM case too rashly. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre: focus on the issue not on the person, and beware WP:NPA. Now then, can we all discuss the issue of the list with animosity toward none? The list has proven to be disruptive, divise and has had a chilling effect on a conversation that was proceeding apace toward a resolution. I have my doubts that that was Elonka's intent (although measuring intent is at best difficult) but it has been the effect. Let's focus on that, shall we? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, vacated what case? I didn't know they vacated a case about Elonka? Or Pseudoscience? I'm confused. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RFAR/Orangemarlin was vacated after you promised to stop being disruptive (and that's not a personal attack; the ArbCom did find you had engaged in personal attacks and the like). To be honest, I don't see what can be done here. The exacta of it being another Elonka thread and another of your ANI threads makes it kind of hard to take this seriously. In any case, I really don't want this to be dragged into evidence of my super-duper-ID-cabal-stalkathon™, so I'll just post this and be on my way. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whatever its intention, that thread has had no apparent effect other than to spew an additional 23 kB onto an already noisy page. I am not certain that administrator attention is required, but I suspect that the original poster desires that removal be performed by an outside party. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

To repeat: let us focus on the issue. Sceptre, that you and OM do not play well together in the schoolyard is well known, but let's assume that recess is over and class is back in session. Focus on the issue.

Another Elonka thread? What are you saying: that she's here so much in some capacity that wee should just ignore the issue? Or is it that as OM raised the issue it should be ignored? In either case, you would be wrong: this issue needs to be looked at seriously and without prejudice. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka is one of our more controversial admins, I'll admit. People complained about her a lot about her capacity overseeing the Israel-Palestine articles (which were, more often than not, instigated by POV-pushers who didn't like her attempting to keep the peace). Such threads tend to get boring after a while. That, and OM appears to have really thin skin. Quite a few things he complains about, most people take in their stride. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Again with the personal comments. STOP! Basta! Ist genug! Alto! Capisce? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My actions at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts are as an uninvolved administrator, trying to stabilize an article that has been in such severe disputes that it is currently under indefinite full protection (not by me). Several editors have been using the page as a battleground in the pseudoscience wars. I have been attempting to help stabilize the article, by invoking the discretionary sanctions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. That some of the battling editors don't like this, is par for the course in arbitration enforcement matters. A few of the editors (such as Orangemarlin, Verbal, and Jim62sch) are accusing me of being "involved" and therefore forbidden from using admin tools, but their claims are incorrect. I am neutral in the dispute, and have no preference on the article content, as long as it abides by policies. I've never been involved in editing this or any other articles in the topic area, and I have been doing my best to issue warnings evenly to both "sides" in the dispute. Additional administrator attention on the article would be appreciated, though be warned that the flame wars are intense, so put on your asbestos booties before entering.  :) --Elonka 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• As a completely uninvolved administrator, my inclination would be to remove it. It doesn't serve any majorly useful purpose, and, as can be seen from the discussion page and this thread, serves only to increase the amount of drama, of which there's enough already. Black Kite 20:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As I suggested at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts#Discussion, we can probably just move it to a subpage, as was done at Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log. This kind of list technique has been very helpful in managing a variety of complex and chaotic disputes. It helps administrators identify which editors are on the page, who's under sanctions, for how long, when they were notified, which editors are SPAs, etc. It's also very useful for the "after the fact" discussions, to track exactly what administrator actions were taken, and on whom. For example, months later, an administrator might be routinely accused of "blocking people left and right", but when there's a recorded admin log of exactly what took place at a given article, it's easy to see exactly what actions were taken, rather than relying on biased exaggerations. --Elonka 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Elonka's intervention on this article does not seem to have been particularly helpful. A number of administrators and one arbitrator have advised her against some of her pointed talk page warnings. Her idiosyncratic strategy for managing fringe science/pseudoscience articles could possibly be profitably discussed in the current fringe science ArbCom case, which until now has not examined the actions of specific administrators. I don't think most editors will agree that there is a parallel between opposing groups in nationalist-related articles and those editing articles on fringe science or pseudoscience, as Elonka has suggested. It would certainly be going out out on a limb to suggest that those representing the academic community of scientists form an "opposition group". After all articles on science on wikipedia must concentrate on mainstream science, just as the Encyclopedia Britannica does. The article chiropractic is much better managed now by editors like User:Eubulides who have some experience editing this kind of article and are medical experts. Mathsci (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Elonka's intervention has been and continues to be disruptive, and has increased the tension on the article. It has caused multiple problems and solved none. It should not be moved to a subpage, it should simply be removed. Although Elonka may be uninvolved in any content editing on the page (I haven't checked), she is deeply involved with many of the editors concerned (having repeatedly asked for several to be banned, for which she has been sanctioned by outside editors, while defending editors which were later banned). Her input to the debates is welcome, but her self-appointed role as a small-minded county sheriff is unwelcome and unwise. She is very involved and not at all neutral. She hasn't helped solve the problems (that was happening anyway), instead she has added new problems. Removing her from her role here would be removing a problem. I see above she is trying to scare off other admins by saying the flame wars are intense - this is not true, not that I've seen. The only person to have been "flamed" is Elonka herself (justly) for her disruptive actions. At the very least the list should be removed. Verbal chat 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have contributed to this talk page discussion and I am an admin. I do not think I have edited the list itself, so I am uninvolved. I do however have a POV. I believe this list would be best deleted, but two AfDs have said otherwise. I am far too busy at present to keep up with this vast discussion. Trying to read and keep up with that discussion over the last few week, does lead me to the view that Elonka's intervention has not been particularly helpful. It has just increased the volume and the noise, when it was possible that issues would get resolved. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bduke, I think you are confusing the list article with the list of editors on the talk page of the list article[10]. It is the list of editors which is causing the issues, not the article List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts which has indeed been to Afd. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not confusing that. I was just giving some background before both explaining to anyone who knew I was an admin why I was not being an admin on the list as Elonka is trying to do, and why I think her intervention on the talk page of the list is unhelpful. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you for the clarification, much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What a colossally bad idea. Elonka's NOT neutral in re: Pseudosci, and this essentially becomes a 'naughty list' with the undertone of 'all you, I'm watching you, waiting to pounce and punish.' This is a chilling effect for BOTH sides of this already contentious issue. No one is served well by this, and given that Elonka's published a list of who she's thinking about with regards to this title, I say that it represents a permanent conflict of interest for her to use her admin status in resolving anything with regard to any editor listed, ESPECIALLY as connects to Science and PsuedoScience related articles. ThuranX (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ThuranX, I agree with you. I cannot understand why Elonka thinks she is neutral. Elonka, please listen to those that do not see you as neutral -- if you were neutral, why all these comments?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 January 2009

I've already tried, several times, to explain the concept of perception to Elonka. Either I'm explaining the concept poorly, or she's just not getting it (unwillingly or otherwise). •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the list in question, I must say that I take no issue with the presence of said list nor with the involvement of an uninvolved administrator such as Elonka. I truly feel that any disruption that has come to the page following Elonka's arrival is not a fault of Elonka but rather the enormous amount of venom that follows her in the form of "anti-Elonka" editors. Several of the complaining parties have previous grievances with Elonka yet had little to no recent meaningful activity at the List of Pseudosciences and Pseuodoscientific Concepts article and talk page. Since her arrival, these editors have popped up out of the woodwork mainly to complain about Elonka's presence (most of them in an uncivil manner). Elonka has the best intentions to bring peace to an article which was in the middle of edit war turmoil just before she arrived; and though I am not thrilled to be on the list of "Editors notified of restrictions", I do recognize that I that I was fairly warned and that my presence on said list does not imply that I have been disruptive. Could the discussions move forward amicably without Elonka's or another uninvolved admin's presense? Quite possibly. Other than those complaining about Elonka, the majority of the editors have been quite civil and open to listen to each other's thoughts and suggestions. However, with Elonka (and SoWhy) present to monitor the discussions, I for one feel much more comfortable. Perhaps if those who have a personal grievance with Elonka would just chill-out and focus on the content discussion at hand on the page, there wouldn't be a need for all of these pointless histrionics. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you take no exception. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The administrative list on the list talk page is fine. It sticks to factual assessments of editors involvement in the page. If you have a problem with an item on the list, focus on that. If you dont like Elonka administrating this page, find another uninvolved admin and ask them to add their name to Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Administrators_monitoring_this_page. If other admins are doing the work, Elonka will be left with nothing to do. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that your last sentence, assuming it was not sarcastic in a way that paints Elonka in a bad light, is simply silly, yes?

The list is not fine only, and this is tenuous, in theory. In reality (as our presence here shows, it has been unhelpful at best. It's effect has been to disrupt, divide and derail helpfull conversation. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The list is fine? By what standard? Its not helping the encyclopedia. It is harming it. That is the only standard. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Or use admin recall, since Elonka promised to be open to that. Oh, wait, no, she reneged last time there was a COI problem, didn't she? I would not try to administer that page and Elonka should not either due to many past disputes. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, no one wants to be impeached, do they? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thirty-seven good faith editors recalled her. She didn't like the result. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think that's more indication of a flaw in the recall process (and really, any other straight voting process) than any fault of her own; that recall proposal was seen as a disruptive ethnic-fuelled vendetta. And you know how powerful voting blocks get; Jimbo almost had to step in during the last Arbcom elections because of vote rigging. (and OM: 50 editors opposed that same recall. Nice try.) Sceptre ^(talk) 23:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ooops. You missed her pledge. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ooops. You missed yours. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Which part of "this is not about OM, it is about Elonka's actions" is causing comprehension difficulty? Is there some way we could better explain this so that the comprehension difficulties can be attenuated? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please exemplify by way of diff how Elonka is not uninvolved at this article? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Elonka continues to add names to her attack list here. This is out of hand. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that, in demonstration of evidence that Elonka has a conflict of interest, and further, the appearance of Vendetta behaviors, at least two of those who supported her Recall are now on that list, Verbal and MathSci. As such, she's making them into bullseye'd targets. Since she has no interest in removing such an attack, nor seems interested in stopping until this is settled, I'm heading over there to remove that attacking hitlist immediately, per BOLD. ThuranX (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Elonka's intervention at the Muhammad al-Durrah article succeeded in remarkably calming down a very troubled article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • So? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The point I think Jay is trying to make is that Elonka is *gasp* trying to work for the good of the encyclopedia! Sceptre ^(talk) 00:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But so what? We aren't talking about "intent" we are talking about outcome - Methods that might work at one article might be completely useless at another. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to see this as a good-faith attempt by Elonka to resolve part of this thorny dispute, instead of an attempt of undermining NPOV; don't let history repeat itself. At the moment, this is becoming a cesspool of bad faith (which, admittedly, wasn't really helped by some of my comments). Can we all try to steer towards being like Richard Dawkins, not Madalyn Murray O'Hair? Sceptre ^(talk) 00:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is (and this isn't directed only at Sceptre, but also to Levine2112 and anyone else with similar sentiments) Elonka has been playing "uninvolved admin" for four months. There comes a point where you aren't "uninvolved" any more and you are heavily involved. She isn't a neutral party trying to resolve a dispute, but, rather, a heavily involved party and a party to the dispute. --B (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Removed by ThuranX, re-instated by Jayvdb. I have to say, I don't see what the list is achieving (well, I do - a large amount of pointless drama) by existing here. I don't know of any precedent for this, and without taking sides whatsoever, the fact that Elonka is adding people to the list who she has previously been in dispute with is unhelpful even if the list makes it clear that no aspersions are cast on those in the third section. Black Kite 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, out of this thread, please. You commenting in a thread started by OM is going to do nothing but stir the pot. No comment on other matters. Moreschi (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• To review a previous such "list of editors" in a different topic area (Israel/Palestine), and see what it looks like after the dispute is finally resolved, see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 9#Conditions for editing. Before my arrival on that particular page, the article had been in a state of more or less constant edit-warring and disruption for a long time. However, once the list was provided to give more structure to the dispute management, administrators were more effective at reducing the chaos, and the article has been stable for months now. This technique is not called for on every article in dispute, but for very complex situations, it really can be quite effective. For an example that's more directly related to this particular ANI thread, anyone reading here can simply scan the list of editors on the pseudosciences article, to get a quick-reference on which voices here at ANI are participating as "involved" or "uninvolved" voices in the dispute. It's a definite time-saver. --Elonka 00:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  Re "involved"/"uninvolved": Thanks for the explanation, Elonka! That makes sense! Now I see why the last part of the list can be useful. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see how this list is a good idea. It should have seemed obvious from the beginning that it would probably spark an edit war. I also have a difficult time seeing Elonka as a neutral problem-solver in this particular dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the list non-neutral in the sense that Elonka is only adding certain names to it? No, she is clearly adding the name of anyone who is active on the article. Has any evidence been presented which shows or suggests that the list is an "attack" list or a "hit" list? No, none, although this has been asserted/assumed many times. Is the level of outrage about the list of names demonstrated both here and on the list talk page justified? No, not even close.

A most illuminating spectacle. Landed little marsdon (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka has spent the last four months as an "involved" person and was using this list to attempt to establish by fiat that she is uninvolved. In other words, she alone is a "neutral" admin and will use the admin tools as she pleases. Heck, she even keeps a list of her involvement at User:Elonka/ArbCom log. Even if her initial involvement was as an "uninvolved admin", that ship has sailed long ago. --B (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to react in the strongest possible way to the actions of Elonka in this diff [11]. She added my name to her "list", after I posted twice on the talk page, criticizing her policing of pseudoscience/fringe science articles. This is a terrible abuse of her administrative position. It shows that she does not listen to criticism and bears grudges. Might she possibly be ill at present? That is the only explanation I can find for her actions, which seem to be uncalled for and highly irrational. I wonder whether she might stop this disruptive behaviour? Mathsci (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree or disagree with the appropriateness of Elonka's actions, this kind of personal speculation about her health or mental state is completely inappropriate. I suggest you redact your comment to reflect that. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have scored through my speculation. If I post two short messages to a talk page (now in a removed section), I do not expect my name to appear on a list of frequent editors of that page. Adding my name was a completely misjudged action on the part of Elonka. Mathsci (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, let's try to keep the discussion here cool and impersonal. Regarding your statement that the addition of your name was "irrational", a more appropriate term to describe your view would probably have been "erroneous". "Erroneous" is a comment about the action, "irrational" is a comment about the mental state of the person taking the action. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It did not refer to Elonka's mental state, just the nature of her action; "completely misjudged" seems an appropriate alternative. Has anybody thought of having a quiet word with Elonka - even by email or a text message - to sort these things out? There is a newly created article Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory, formerly a redirect to a BLP that I successfully nominated for deletion, that should be restored to the main article. Mathsci (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page at [[12]]. I'm not certain that "a quiet word" is possible. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of Sceptre's request, I have considered how I would act if this were a Good Faith effort by Elonka. I would act exactly the same, because the outcome of her actions is still the same, and I would say 'we recognize that you tried, but it is failing, and needs to be removed, and I would remove it, as I did. (Only to have it immediately restored, then re-removed by another, then re-restored by yet another editor, then re-re-removed by a third (fifth?) editor.) And I'd still support the removal of the list. ThuranX (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have called it an attack list. Such an assertion in itself implies bad faith. I think it could've easily been solved with a {{discussion top}} tag and a note on Elonka's talk that said "the list really isn't helping", in a more civil way than what was done. Then again, there is a trend in the psuedoscience area to have really awkward wording when pen is put to paper (for example, if the ID article went to FAC now, instead of two years ago, I'd reckon most if not all of the objections to promoting it would be the quality of prose). It's a trait often seen in controversial areas, but the most obvious problem (to an outsider) would be the language, not any sort of bias. Excuse me for rambling on here, but I think a major part of the problem in this instance is the way of communication is all wrong. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware you wouldn't call it bad faith. I'm not you. Consider MathSci's case. He posts twice ABOUT the list, and thus makes the list. that's Gotcha Behavior, and screams vendetta. it's unprofessional, unethical, and questionable judgment. ThuranX (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. The only good faith reason I can think of is Elonka thinking "oh, I forgot about Mathsci when I put the list together". I would expect him to be on a (impeccable) list of psuedoscience-area editors. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No this is not an explanation, because the list was compiled long before I made any contributions. I was aware of the main page because I knew it linked to Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory, a deleted redirect to a deleted BLP. I don't know what you mean by your last comment - perhaps you should remove it. Mathsci (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Elonka (per her revised recall conditions, written post her first set of conditions by which she was actually recalled under) uses these "lists" to then paint the picture that people on these lists are being monitored by her and hence are ineligible to even participate in her recalling. It also needs to be noted that the Community has given admins considerable "powers" (aka the "tools") to do the job that Elonka discusses below. Why on earth does she need more powers - especially those not granted by the Community - is largely beyond me and many other editors. Of course Elonka fails to answer the actual issues but continues to point the finger at all those other people out there. Shot info (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts about the above thread thus far: A few things are visible. First, many of the objections here are coming from editors who are already using the "List of pseudosciences" article as a battleground. A few are tossing around inflammatory terms such as "attack list", or claiming that administrative experience in this topic area equates to "involvement". But let's be clear here: The reason we're even looking at the article to begin with, is because the editors on that article have not managed to solve their own disputes. They (collectively) have been incapable of seeking consensus; they have engaged in incivility and personal attacks, rather than collegial dialog; some have been edit warring and editing tendentiously; some have been gaming the system; and things have gotten so bad at the article that it is currently in a state of indefinite full protection, such that no one can edit it.

We are here to write an encyclopedia. In order to do this, ArbCom has ruled that discretionary sanctions are available to the admin community, provided that a warning is given first. This topic area currently needs those sanctions, and the "list of editors" that is being used on the article's page, is an effective starting point to help the article re-achieve stability.

Administrators who are acting in ArbCom enforcement matters, are understood to be working in highly unsettled areas. (see the SV case). Discretionary sanctions are a major step, yes, but no better means has been suggested to deal with this dispute. If enough other uninvolved administrators were actively managing the page and helping the editors reach a collegial resolution, I (Elonka) would have no objection to standing aside. But as it is, few have volunteered more than momentary assistance. I tried ignoring the dispute at this page for a long time too, but things just kept getting steadily worse. So, I'm willing to roll up my sleeves and try to help this article. I am completely neutral in this dispute, and uninvolved as an editor in this topic area. The goals here are a stable editing environment, and stable and high quality articles. Given this article's history, arbitration sanctions appear to be the most effective tool towards stability. --Elonka 03:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that this post focuses on the big picture: the goal of administrative intervention is to improve and stabilize the editing environment. The "list" is demonstrably worsening the editing environment, and so it seems a no-brainer to remove it. All the more so since its upside is theoretical at best - any admin newly entering this dispute will of course need to reach their own conclusions about who is "involved", and to what extent, rather than simply relying on a list compiled by Elonka. I don't understand the insistence on keeping the list in the face of evidence that it's actively worsening the editing environment on the article. MastCell ^Talk 04:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with MastCell. BTW I do not regard this as a very important article on wikipedia - it's just a kind of curiosity. Mathsci (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason she is insisting on it is obvious - she is not an uninvolved admin, but, rather, a heavily involved user. But the list would codify her status as "uninvolved". On my talk page and on Killer Chihuahua's talk page, she has attempted to use this arbcom finding to say that she should be considered unrevertable. It's a ludicrous proposition, but adopting that list would legitimize it. --B (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On January 16th Elonka started a second private list on User:Elonka/ArbCom log. It seems to imply special powers as an ArbCom enforcer even when asking questions on talk pages. The last entry in the second list is concerned solely with somebody removing their name from her first list. Elonka seems to have stopped adding entries to the second list after her first list was shut down. Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok here is my feelings about this, I do not like having lists like this. As I said on the talk page, the list in design makes it look like the editors are disruptive. I mean putting in the list that certain editors have been warned already sounds to someone just looking in that these editors have had discipline of some sort or under arb restrictions. Then the comments that editors are SPA accounts and/or listing their account sign up date. To me this is at least close to don't bite the newbies. Lists like this have caused heated debates all over the place. Comments to User:Elonka have been extensive and by many. [13], [14], [15] Some of the comments lead to questions of whether accusations of WP:Cabal was being charged. During the start up to the RFC for the Guido case, Jimbo himself said that lists like this that marks editors in such a way should not be left up for long, just long enough to get the case together. [16] The set up for the talk page was considered an attack page by some but Jimbo said it wasn't but that it had to be moved to an RFC ASAP. My point is, this list looks like an attack list considering the comments made to some of the users and the comments made directly to Elonka. The difs are conviently located on User:Elonka/ArbCom log. I'm sorry but I feel list like this discourage editors to participate that maybe more neutral than the regular editors at the article. I would also love to know this, when is an administrator considered involved when that administrator has been active in many articles involving a lot of the same editors that she has cautioned, warned, banned etc.? I think Elonka has been involved via her comments to editors and sanctions she has given to be considered no longer uninvolved. Some of these editors that is listed as warned she commented on also at arb page, RFC and of course her recall. I see the list is now deleted with a comment to check the history with a link to it. For consideration of my comments I disclose the following, I did vote at the recall, I have commented on this talk page about this list and voted a couple times on suggestions for a new name for the article. I have not been censored in anyway by Elonka, or anyone else. I just feel very strongly about these kinds of lists anywhere other then lists made by the arbs on their pages, and I still have a little problem with lists being there as I think they mark an editor with a big scarlet red A as a trouble maker, which may not be the case or the reason for these types of lists. Thank you for listening to me, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't mind having my name listed on such a list. Jayjg's observation that the measures applied led to calming of disputes at an article is consistent with my experience at several articles. Signed, an editor such that one could list at least two such lists on which this editor appears, including the list pertaining to the List page about which the present list of comments is listed. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by Elonka

Elonka has given me a fake last warning. This is disruptive. Her behaviour needs to change. QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, no matter what you think of Elonka, YOU are the one who used VERY WP:POINTY edits to bait and provoke her. They were totally unnecessary and showed an absolute lack of Wikipedian spirit. You should be banned for your actions of late. These last two (as well as deleting or striking out other editor's comments!) are ban worthy. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Starting this section was unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Diffs: unnecessary provocation, also unnecessary. Her warnings were not only perfectly proper, I simply don't understand why she didn't block you. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A similar list of editors was deleted from a talk page. It is appropriate to remove lists of editors from other talk pages too.[17] See Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 16#Other frequent editors on this page and here. QuackGuru (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would not call it disruptive per se, but it is clear to me that Elonka is not accepted as an honest broker by a lot of the involved parties, so should not be taking administrative actions here and should not be trying to police the articles in the way she is. Incidentally, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elonka/ArbCom log. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Not being accepted as an "honest broker" by a lot of the involved parties probably has less to do with any negative trait's on Elonka's behalf, and more to do with the well-documented faction-based POV wars in this particular corner of Wikipedia. But, yes, I want to reiterate what Mathsci said: This section was ridiculous. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree with Swatjester on this. Also, this is a sad issue and the rhetoric is getting far too lofty. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Probation

Looking at the various editors arguing here on AN/I and the conflict on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, I would like to suggest something better. While the list Elonka created did not work as intended, might an Article Probation along the lines as this: Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. The probation did help in reducing some of the conflicts, it gave admin's the tool to stop most problems before they got too aggressive, and it served the community at large as a way to keep track of those who were there mainly to disrupt. Brothejr (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It might, if Elonka were to recuse herself from acting as an "uninvolved admin". KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the Arbcom ruling on discretionary sanctions for articles related to pseudoscience serve essentially the same purpose? In any case, I have added a notice of this ruling at the top of the article's talk page.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

When is an administrator considered involved in a disputed area? If the administrator hasn't edited the actual article that is controversial but has been involved in many notices to many editors about multiple articles in multiple areas? In other words, would an administrator be considered involved if they have been sanctioning and responding to editors for a long period of time, three or four months. This seems to be a question others are also asking. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This question needs to be answered! WP:UNINVOLVED says nothing of the sort and using just that as a reference, Elonka IS uninvolved at "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts". Unless there is some other standard which people are looking at, right now it is incorrect per Wikipedia policy to say that Elonka is involved at this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNINVOLVED states: "An administrator is considered 'uninvolved' if it is clear that they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality." MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "uninvolved administrators" from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience: "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions." I think "on the topic" means actual article content disputes, which Elonka doesn't seem to be engaged in on these articles. On some of those lists, ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arbcom ruling says, "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions." She has been in a current, direct, and personal conflict with me for a few months. During that time she sent a threatening and defamatory email to me, which I published on my user talk page. Certain individuals who are protecting her deleted it. I've forwarded that email to Arbcom, which is proof that she is an involved participant in these matters. I think she should be immediately desysopped.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think calls for desysopping are really helpful here, following from the principle that any kind of call for someone's head based on participation in a hotbed subject is generally unhelpful in solving the problem. Also, OM, deletion of published emails on your talk page is less related to anyone trying to "protect" Elonka, but more that a) we don't publish private correspondence on Wikipedia for several reasons (copyright being not the least of them) and b) It falls pretty squarely under the purview of what Wikipedia is not.) This is not to say Elonka is blameless or anything -- I really don't know because the whole series of events is so mindnumbingly complex it makes my brain hurt. That being said, I think we could do to lower the anger level from everyone here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not the first time Elonka has done this sort of thing

Apologies if someone else mentioned this and I missed it, but a similar list a few months back here [18]. Elonka included me listed as a frequent editor even though I hadn't edited the article in months but had made some comments critical of her on the article talk page. When I tried to get my name removed from the list, she threatened to ban/block me. I also note that she made a few minor edits to the article that were comparable in scope to mine (formatting and tags) yet she had a clear double standard by insisting that I should be on a Warned/Involved Editors List but that she shouldn't.

I hate to say it, but it sure looks like Elonka has a tendency to use her admin powers to try and crack down on people who disagree with her instead of trying to actually get difficult situations settled down. Since Elonka seems to have changed her mind on admin recall, maybe it's necessary for Elonka to back off from topics and users that she can't seem to handle in an impartial way and find other topics on which she truly can be neutral. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Some comments

Since my name's being invoked here and there, a word of explanation. While I've been rather busy lately and haven't been involved much, my watchlist which is far too large attracted my attention to this edits by Elonka.[19] While it makes a reasonable point about participating more on the talk page, it comments on using twinkle to revert and then adding a request to the talk page for protection, and says "what you did could be considered disruptive." Since the request for protection explicitly pointed that out,[20], the suggestion that it was disruptive appeared a stretch. On the article talk page replies to Elonka's suggestion of sanctions proposed that retitling be sorted first and that an "uninvolved administrator took interest, rather than one who has personal disputes with several involved editors and refers to them as a 'tag team'", so I made suggestions for possible retitling to discuss while the page was protected.[21] [22] When Orangemarlin added a comment, Elonka responded that she was not involved and had no personal conflict with any of the editors.[23] When Orangemarlin responded to what looks rather like baiting from Levine2112,[24] [25] Elonka posted a message to Levine2112: "Hi, I appreciate the support at the talkpage, but don't worry, I can handle Orangemarlin on my own. :) What would be more helpful, would be if you would keep comments focused strictly on the article, and what type of discretionary sanctions (if any) might be helpful towards stabilizing things. Any creative suggestions?",[26] [27] and two minutes later cautioned Orangemarlin that his comment "was uncivil and unhelpful".[28] [29] In the past I've noticed a tendency for Elonka to emphasise civility over article content policies, doubtless with the highest motives but inadvertently favouring Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing.

I commented later "At present there seems to be room to find a constructive way forward, and I've not noticed any warnings being handed out. If warnings are posted to any editors, it would be helpful if the admin doing so pointed that out on this page. Both Elonka and, given my comments below, myself are rather too involved in the area to be making any blocks, if conditions do deteriorate to the point of warnings being issued and ignored, a report to ANI for an outside admin to take action would be appropriate."[30] One hour after that, Elonka added the list which has been the subject of so much discussion,[31] and replied to my comment "Ah, your name is currently on the list of uninvolved admins below, but if you would like to remove it, that's fine. For myself, I still have uninvolved status....".[32] My reply was that "as stated above I've no intention of using the tools, and given past disputes it's my opinion that you'd be well advised to ask an admin without your degree of personal involvement to carry out any actions if it reaches that stage. This procedure that you've initiated seems like overkill at this point and if anything is distracting attention from finding agreement on a way forward...".[33] That remains my view. While a mention on the talk page of any formal warnings would help to identify the alleged misconduct and facilitate any necessary discussion of the warning, I share the view that the whole list is more nuisance than help. . dave souza, talk 14:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Does she get credit that she doesn't mention blocking, giving any real warning, and seems to be prodding him towards changing his behavior instead of being an over aggressive rabid admin like many, many have done before? I can provide you names if you need. :) I would be extremely grateful if -Elonka's- response was the response I received from many admin in the past. I'm sure that Orangemarlin would not wish to trade his position for one of mine. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As I indicated at the outset, my attention was drawn by Elonka making an apparently reasonable request to discuss matters on the talk page. It's certainly polite, but focusses on "trying to act as an administrator on that page to reduce disruption, and what you did could be considered disruptive", with the clear implication of further sanctions which she has since applied. The actions by Orangemarlin were explicit and in my view reasonable: he requested article protection with the statement "Temporary full protection' dispute, User:Levine2112 and User:QuackGuru are battling over verbiage. I think that QG's version is the best, and I've reverted, but I don't think this is going to end. Maybe a page protection for a cool out period to discuss would be best."[34] In the context of article content covered by WP:NPOV/FAQ he reverted to what he saw as the mainstream position, drew attention to the edit war and requested admin intervention to allow discussion of the issues. Elonka did not caution the edit warriors, but failed to WP:AGF and accused Orangemarlin of WP:DE in the nicest possible way. Her proposal to introduce sanctions diverted attention from the much needed talk page discussion, as the responses indicated. When I proposed an alternative article title to get discussion going, Elonka was increasingly involved in arguments over her proposal, blatantly taking sides against Orangemarlin and with Levine2112. In my view both had made remarks breaching WP:EQ but short of incivility, and both could reasonably have been given a caution to that effect, but Elonka escalated her argument against one while siding with the other. Note that this was entirely a dispute over etiquette and proposals for sanctions, not over article content. There's nothing wrong with giving people reminders of ideal behaviour, and I did that myself,[35] but while it pays to be polite, it's also important that admins taking on the mantle of Arbitration Enforcement should be seen to be fair and reasonable. . dave souza, talk 11:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC) diffs rectified dave souza, talk 22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the implications via presence. I have had much experience with people trying to do that. As of now, I feel that if someone wants to block me, just do it. Don't say "this is almost blank, or that is almost blank". If I cross the line, warn me. So, in such a light, Elonka's concerns would be problematic. However, that is mostly for annoyance. I would suggest that the spirit of "don't template the regulars" would extend to don't bother the regulars about such things when you are a potentially blocking admin because it could be seen as rudeness before the fact.

But to get back to the point - perhaps ArbCom enforcement should be done in pairs or triples. We do have many people working it. I even think KC is working on it a bit, along with SB Johnny, in addition to the old cast and crew, including those like Tznkai. I would like to see KC and Elonka try to work together on the issue.

But to be blunt, does this date back to Elonka's involvement with Science Apologist? It -feels- like it might. I honestly have no sympathy for the guy, and I feel that -those- feelings are why I don't see Elonka in any kind of dark light. There could be some other thing that I am missing. I don't think it is just long experience in the matter. It feels like the bad blood was caused by a particular censure. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dave souza, parts of your statement are very much in error, and I'm not sure how you drew your conclusions. For example, when you said "Elonka escalated her argument against one while siding with the other", could you please provide some diffs? Because I'm unaware of what you're talking about. Or when you say, "Elonka did not caution the edit warriors," have you taken the time to actually look at the history of their talkpages? I very much did issue cautions, to both "sides" in the dispute. For example, here I told Levine2112 to stop repeatedly deleting the chiropractic entry,[36] and here I cautioned QuackGuru.[37] For another list of the warnings I have issued (the list is still in process, but shows that I've been handing out warnings to both sides of the dispute for awhile now), see User:Elonka/ArbCom log#Pseudoscience log. I would appreciate if you would refactor your statement to be more accurate, thanks. --Elonka 19:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Elonka, I do appreciate that you've been giving out warnings every now and then to what you call "sides" in the dispute. Since some of the diffs given in the first paragraph seem to have been a bit muddled, I've struck out and corrected them where appropriate. This comment tells Orangemarlin that you were "trying to act as an administrator on that page to reduce disruption, and what you did could be considered disruptive", but for some reason there seem to be no diffs in the talk page histories of User:Levine2112 and User:QuackGuru of you issuing cautions to them regarding that particular incident. You maybe felt that having left them messages a week earlier, that was sufficient, but frankly it didn't seem to be working very well. If I've missed something, I'll be grateful if you can correct me. Regarding "Elonka escalated her argument against one while siding with the other", that was the impression I gained from [38] and [39]. Since Orangemarlin was commenting on your behaviour, and Levine was attacking him, your partiality is doubtless understandable but a more even handed approach would seem to me appropriate when you're wielding the AE powers. As I wrote above, both could reasonably have been cautioned about making remarks breaching WP:EQ but short of incivility. My concern remains that by diverting attention away from reaching agreement on a way forward to discussing your sanctions, and apparently being unwilling to accept advice about considering a retitle to aim to resolve problems rather than discussing Potential ArbCom sanctions, your approach in this particular case caused more heat than light. Perhaps the approach is more productive where WP:NPOV/FAQ isn't involved. . dave souza, talk 22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom clarification

Since I don't agree that Elonka has the right or the "uninvolved status" to be the policeman for these activities, I have started this request for clarification. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is no such thing as an uninvolved administrator ... by this reasoning, there would be no such thing as an uninvolved administrator, because by taking any administrative action, one becomes involved. This is pure sophistry. A judge doesn't become an involved party in a lawsuit by making rulings in the case, and admins don't become involved in an editing dispute by acting as admins. Dlabtot (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

They do however, when they continually disparage one side of the conflict as a "tag team" which is a slur created to marginalise what is otherwise known as editorial consensus.

Elonka has overt hostility to one side of this debate, and I honestly can't fathom those who to refuse to acknowledge that and just wikilawyer with the "well she didn't technically edit this page, so she doesn't have a dispute with the editors here" talking point. It's flat-out insulting to my intelligence. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no preference on the article content: My goal is to stabilize the article so that it can be brought out of its current state of indefinite protection. To say that I've been favoring one side of the debate over the other is not correct, and I'm happy to provide diffs to prove that I've been handing out warnings evenly. Ultimately though I see this as a variation of "the wrong version". No matter how hard that an administrator tries to be neutral, someone's going to complain. --Elonka 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Elonka, you seemed to take it amiss that the article was protected in the "wrong version", as is of course standard practice. Given the immunity from normal standards of uninvolvement that you seem to take from your interpretation of AE Sanctions, that additional power carries with it an additional need for you to display fairness and impartiality. Unfortunately not all of your actions give that impression, as discussed above. . dave souza, talk 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

LGBT rights source alerts

Resolved

 – issue now moot. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

{{LGBT rights source alerts}} has been placed on a large number of talk pages of articles relating to LGBT issues. I consider this inappropriate, since the template is not relevant to the articles concerned but is an attempt to mobilise people who might be interested in related topics. Is it appropriate for me to roll back the addition of the template?-gadfium 04:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

good grief. cross-posting this here (posted to user's talk page before received message he/she posted this here):

following message posted to User:gadfium's talk: "not sure which talk page you are objecting to its placement on, but other than Socialism and LGBT rights, it only is on LGBT rights in (country) article talk pages (mainly to discourage the use of sodomylaws, which had been heavily used - and provide a way for editors to warn about outdated sources (if source #1 is out of date for countries A, B, and C, then it might be outdated for countries G, Q, and Z. This way alerts can be easily and briefly placed on all LGBT in (country) talk pages A-Z. If you think it is disruptive on a certain talk, feel free to remove or cmt it out"

This source template was posted to Asia and Africa articles earlier this month without incident, in light of another editor proposing deletion of LGBT rights in Benin, finished rolling out the template to Europe, Americas (to facilitate updating/fixing of LGBT rights in (country) articles. The only article talks this has been placed on are: LGBT rights table (continent), LGBT rights in (Continent), LGBT rights in (country), and Socialism and LGBT rights.

"I consider this inappropriate, since the template is not relevant to the articles concerned but is an attempt to mobilise people who might be interested in related topics. "

attempt to mobilise people who might be interested in related topics?????? it is on the talk page (not the article page), and is a warning not to use a certain source which previously was used. presumably if someone goes to the talk page of an LGBT rights article, this template is relevent.

Thanks, Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Which of the pages on which you have placed the template contain references from the source that you are warning about, and in which of those cases is this source considered unreliable? Those are the pages for which this template might be relevant. That might be talk:LGBT rights in Nepal and Talk:LGBT rights in the Marshall Islands (which is a redlink, perhaps the article doesn't fit the naming scheme). If you want to broadcast a message to all editors interested in LGBT issues/sources, please use the relevant wikiproject.-gadfium 05:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• If a certain source is wrong for 2-3 countries, then it shouldn't be used on any countries without additional sourcing. This is about human rights law, not whether buffy the vampire slayer says x or y in episode ##.
• Any thread not replied to within 7 days on WT:LGBT is automatically archived by the bot. Additionally, not all editors of LGBT rights articles are members of WP:LGBT, and even most members of WP:LGBT do not monitor all of the project's pages. If consensus is against using this good-faith method to efficiently (and un-obtrusively, since it is on a talk page, not the article page) warn against certain sources, then the tribe has spoken. but accusations of evangelistic spamming are a) incorrect and b) not in keeping with WP:AGF. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What the $%^$%^$ is this template suppose to do that actually requires it existing? Don't we already have enough warnings and templates to do almost ... anything! This one just wants us to not use one website or what is this about? aaaaahhhhhhh! attack of the templates!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.13.230 (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Add the source to WP:RSN and the project and delete the darn template. I cannot imagine what you are thinking, spamming talk pages with a template which discusses individual sources. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• good f**king grief people, can't you disagree without being WP:DICKs. i really DGAF if the template is deleted, but doesn't anyone understand WP:AGF? (and how many of you are admins?) peace. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Watch your langage, this template is obviously some sort of spam website link, i agree that the template should be deleted. Elbutler (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• • methinks dickish behavior is more offensive than "offensive" language, but i've censored my f-words above. (besides, as the Penis picture contributors would remind us, WP is not censored lol) I created the template in question (though I do not object to its deletion), and i can tell you it is not intended to spam some website. if you disagree with its application, fine, but all of you people (especially admins) should read WP:AGF before you run off more people from WP. AGF AGF AGF. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• I have blanked the template and replaced the TFD with author-requested speedy in the no-include space. For now have just blanked it (since it is transcluded on multiple talk pages). This template was created in good-faith, and was rolled out to Africa and Asia (where most anti-homosexuality laws exist) without incident. After rolling it out to Europe and Americas though, (and specifcally to New Zealand) it became controversial. This was a good faith attempt to improve the efficiency and reliability of LGBT rights in (country) articles, not to spam. per WP:DGAF, i dgaf, and have rendered the issue moot by blanking the template & putting it up for speedy. Will remove the transclusions over next 24 hrs. This was a good-faith effort and alot of you (not naming any names, as it doesn't apply to everyone) should read WP:AGF before you start going around being WP:DICKs. Thanks. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Thulasi12345

User:Thulasi12345 insists on recreating an article called "Vettaikaran" which has been deleted twice at AfD and prodded/speedied several times more - see logs for Vettaikaran, Vettaikaran (2009 film) and now Vettaikaaran which I have just tagged with {{db-xfd}}. I'm not sure what the procedure is here, but could someone please take a look because it looks like this will only continue. PC78 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've redeleted the page and again warned the individual. If it happens again a block is most certainly in order. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Amid.Abdullah

Amid.Abdullah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, per this edit, and the fact that most of their contributions tend to center around the Anonymous group, and things 4chan-anonymous-related such as Imageboards and Computer Security, not to mention this oppose to the trial runs of flagged revisions, because, as we all know, 4chan loves to attack this, any anything like FR would make it virtually impossible.

Anyway, to the point, I believe this user is one of those of the 4chan group, who loves to coordinate attacks on wikipedia, or such, and per the other edits the account has made, such as reducing the importance of various articles under the scope of various projects, even though the editor is not in those projects, I find worrisome. Does anyone share my feelings here? Please weigh in.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Hhhhhahaha

Hhhhhahaha (talk · contribs) is loading loads of copyrighted images without appropriate copyright, they're getting lots of bot warnings, but a person hasn't warned them about copyright. Would it be appropriate for an admin to do it? AnyPerson (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that user is a piece of shit. I am woriking my ass all day reverting crap from WIkipedia. Im so tired of Vandals who just come around and trying to ruin everything up for the fun's sake Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't go turning his userpage into cusses then. --( fi ) 04:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The next time you make a personal attack, such as the one I deleted at User:Hhhhhahaha, you will be blocked. Kevin (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyperson, I stumbled onto these uploads via a search for new-account contributions. I have warned about uploading copyright images and deleted all the images today, as they were found to have been copied from various other sites. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. AnyPerson (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Try doing something rewarding in the Real World. Then you may not feel so compelled to make possibly accurate but obscene and impermissable observations on the userpages of vandals. Edison (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Boxxy

I would appreciate more administrator eyes on this article, specifically the claims by Otterathome about its being a BLP violation and subsequent repeated blanking. He continues to blank the article as a BLP violation, and I would appreciate if an uninvolved administrator would sort out whether it is, and take appropriate action. seresin ( ¡? )  02:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a new user and I have been trying to create a good quality article about this internet viral phenomenon. I have read some of the policies and looked at other articles to model this on, and have tried to create a good version. The article is under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 21 but User:Otterathome is repeatedly blanking the article even when I add what are reliable sources (I read the reliable sources page by the way and I'm complying with it). This user has already been warned about his actions at User_talk:Otterathome#Boxxy_restored. I would like help here, thanks.--Hospitality Flawless (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm highly annoyed because I deleted the blanked article tagged as WP:CSD#G10 and did not see it was inappropriately tagged for G10 till I saw in the edit history that it had been restored for DRV. I would appreciate it if ottersathome would not blank articles and tag them for deletion when the article has been restored while being reviewed at WP:DRV. Dlohcierekim 02:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

G10 still does apply as the article describes the person as crazy, nonsensical and hyperactive all sourced from blogs.--Otterathome (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Only where the entire article serves that purpose, which this does not. Deletion is not necessary here to address your concern. Do feel free to remove the objectionable sentence (and there is only one), then discuss on the talk page, or nominate the entire article for AfD. lifebaka++ 05:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why did the DRV'ers agree to restore the thing? Clearly, if it met G10m they'd have upheld the speedy deletion. No. G10 says, "no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity." That is not the case here. You would delete the entire article for 1 and 1/2 sentences that could be removed without the article suffering. Dlohcierekim 02:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that Otterathome may be in violation of WP:3RR which I was just looking at - see [40].--Hospitality Flawless (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

probably not. the article is still under discussion at DRV. It is accessible through the history. Dlohcierekim 02:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The page says "Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." so it's really open to interpretation whether User:Otterathome has actually violated Wikipedia:Three-revert rule.--Hospitality Flawless (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer the WP:BRD policy over WP:BLP on "libelous" BLP violation content disputes as it allows a civil way to discuss the notability, and "libel" nature of the material, or lack thereof, instead of resulting in a edit war. After all, everyone has different views on what is libel. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, but there are currently 26 deleted revisions. Few of them are actually relevant to the current article, so I'm going to go ahead and restore all the deleted versions relating to Hospitality Flawless's version (which, unless I'm mistaken, was written from scratch) for GFDL compliance. This would be the versions from 23:00, January 21, 2009 to present; earlier versions should remain deleted. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 05:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Issues at All-Joe Team

I just blocked an IP for blanking and legal threats per a report at AIV, but I'd rather not completely ignore the substance of the threat. The article in question is 2008 USA Today All-Joe Team; I seem to recall similar claims that were made about an article with the substance of the Fortune 500 list. Second opinions on the copyright of the article's content would be appreciated. Kuru ^talk 02:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would atleast expect someone pretending to be a USAToday reporter to be able to spell "plagiarism". As for the article, if it's simply from a single, primary source, is it even notable? Grsz¹¹ 03:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Tabletop unnecessary white-space changes

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

This user has been contacted eight times in the last year about making unnecessary white-space changes (wikisource changes that have no effect on the final page rendering):

1. 2008-02-03: User talk:Tabletop#Compagnie Internationale des Wagons-Lits by User:Sladen
2. 2008-03-06: User talk:Tabletop#White-space changes on Iobox by User:Sladen
3. 2008-03-15: User talk:Tabletop#White-space changes on St Pancras railway station by User:Sladen
4. 2008-03-28: User talk:Tabletop#Biography by User:Necrothesp
5. 2008-08-16: User talk:Tabletop#Mack Trucks by User:207.69.137.25
6. 2008-09-18: User talk:Tabletop#Curious by User:Good Olfactory
7. 2008-10-09: User talk:Tabletop#spelling and whitespaces by User:Sebastian scha.
8. 2009-01-20: User talk:Tabletop#Spaces in section headers by User:Fram

on each of these occasions, Tabletop has ignored the request, by either:

1. ignoring it flat-out; making no reply, and taking no action
2. replying and talking about something else (eg. "problem of lack of space after full stops (periods) is most noticable in contributions by sub-continentals (IN,PK,BG,SL), who Are also Poorish At capitalisation!") but not actually responding

Thereby carefully not addressing the issue of unnecessary white-space alterations. The editors's other contributions (such as spelling corrections) are very useful and have been commended. —Sladen (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Call me a fool if you like, but I don't see how this is a problem, or requires Admin intervention. The technology can handle such minor changes. If you can point out a policy or guideline that is being breached, fine. --Rodhullandemu 02:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I was going to ask—is this somehow disruptive? I asked the user about it in Sep 2008 simply because I was curious if I was unaware of some formatting guideline or if it made a difference somehow, but not because I felt the user was being disruptive in doing that. The user justified it by stating that they thought it made headers easier for editors to read and edit. Given that reasonsing, the user's actions are not entirely superfluous, I suppose, especially if they are just doing it as they correct other errors that need fixing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • While I was going to seek some dispute resolution if the user continued to do this, I would not have taken it to ANI. The problems are minor but manifold: first, the user does not reply to talk page requests unless there is some indication that things will go beyond the talk page, apparently. Second, he then promises to stop, but continues anyway. I would rather have an editor who states upfront that he believes he is doing the correct thing than such a dubious way of handling things. Finally, the edits in themselves are minor annoyances, but there are a lot of those. From WP:MOSHEAD: "Spaces between the == and the heading text are optional". Combined with the two general principles of the WP:MOS: 1) internal consistency: he changes some headers, but not all, thereby breaking the internal consistency, and 2) stability of articles, "editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason": that it is his opinion that spaces between the == and the section name are easier is not a "substantial reason". Similarly, he is changing the accepted "references" to the equally accepted "reflist" without good reason.
  • These things are, again, minor, but there is no reason at all why he can not perform his good edits (mainly correcting spelling errors) without also imposing his preferred styles in a haphazard way in those articles. Having said all that, his latest batch of edits seem to contain less of these problems, there are some minor problems in [41] but if this is all that happens, I don't think I have any further complaints at the moment, and certainly nothing yet that warrants administrative intervention. If further problems follow, I would suggest informal or formal mediation. Fram (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits bodering on advertisement, by IP on Sathya Sai Baba

Kindly look into recent disruptive editing by IP ( 189.15.70.90 / 189.15.71.80 / etc. ) on Sathya Sai Baba. Self promoting consent is being added to a newly created section - it was attempted to cover the same in an academically sensible manner in the teachings section of the article - but attempts to the end is being continually disrupted by the IP - who apparently sees wikipedia as a place to project/advertize his merchandise. The IP user refuses, despite repeated requests to discuss his changes on talk and further covers up the nature of his edit with misleading edit summaries. Kindly look into the issue. Recent incidents: [42] [43][44][45][

White adept (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies if I'm missing something, but his edit looks to simply be moving text that already exists in the article. How is this not a simple old content dispute? You're both also a good deal past WP:3RR -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason for projecting it on top of the page with links to the cult's page is, as far as I can tell, to promote/advertise themselves. The user also completely refuses to address or give any rationale for his changes on talk - while all the time giving misleading edit summaries. The stuff is clearly part of the teachings section while the user adamantly insists on projecting the same - as if advertising - on top of the page. Also the content itself is disputed and puffed with praise drawn from self-published sources ( one written by a close "devotee" of this godman). Kindly look deeper into the issue. Sincerely..

White adept (talk)

Please, see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Article_uses_mostly_not_reliable_sources

Be aware that the agressive style from my response at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Is_wikipedia_a_place_to_sell_sai_merchandize.3F was an imitation of White adept's own style, as you can see at the ending of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Removal_of_Advaita_Vedanta_introduces_serious_omission

189.15.70.90 (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I started a notice in Biographies_of_living_persons Noticeboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sathya_Sai_Baba

This was my very first post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#What_if_Sai_Baba_is_really_an_Avatar.3F

And, be aware that White adept is a belong to a kind of "spin doctors" group that currently dominates Sai Baba's article and do not allow this very little improvement I am doing. They simply do not tolerate it. If you don't know what spin doctor is, kindly read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(public_relations) (I can't tell if they are paid or not.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.70.90 (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Another editor,on talk page of the article, very recently, accused pro-baba editors like the above IP for "spinning". The editor also pointed out several instances where the cult's propaganda has been used as a "source." Now this user, in all his cheap deceit, intents to turn the blame on me and other editors. At least kindly urge him to create an account - so that his edits can be kept track of.

White adept (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Consumed Crustacean" (funny username, indeed), I am sorry to put you in contact with such a misleading user as "White adept" and such a polemic article... I want to say thanks for your attention. I am tired - he really has done it to me. I am exhausted... and one of his preferred techniques is to WRITE A LOT.

His answer to the first attempt to include the Writing section is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#WP:UNDUE

He claims WP:UNDUE - I sincerely do not know what it means... but I do know that now he changed completely his reasons - he is finding a way - some way, any way - to get rid of my contribution.

I throw you a challenge: try to do a minimal change for making ANY edit that turns the article less biased and more NPOV. Just try. And see what happens.... This is what is happening to this carefully done TRY (that follows all Wikipedia policies!)

Thanks.

189.15.70.90 (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

For your information: the following link takes to the diff history from the first time that the "Writings" section was introduced, as a humble effort to improve the article (make a little step towards Wikipedia's policies): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=prev&oldid=265642703

You see how much noise White Adept has done in a single day against a so small contribution (the whole article is a horrible biased panflet against Baba - he does not mova a finger; someone adds a fair and simple carefully done positive contribution: he does not stop efforts for wiping it... what else can I say? Can you open a Request for Arbitration?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.70.90 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I have even called attention of the Mediation Comitee Chair, Ryan Postlethwaite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite#Sathya_Sai_Baba_article 189.15.70.90 (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

White adept wants everybody to read The Findings (a collection of lies about Sai Baba), and is trying to prevent every "Sathya Sai Baba"'s article visitor to read Sathya Sai Baba's own writings! (I had to link to talk page because I don't know if the content is currently in the main article or not!) 189.15.70.90 (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

LOLWUT??? WikiWar, anyone? MuZemike 08:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple users possibly sharing an account, using account talk page for messaging each other

Resolved

 – user blocked, without permission to edit own talk page

Beautiful&Educated (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The only contributions are too a now indefinitely blocked vandalism bot(re: Assman2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), and their user talk page, apparently talking to them self, or, as I noted above, possibly others who are sharing the account. From the contributions, I see a user, or group of users, who are abusing wikipedia's interface for their own needs, and hence, I do not see any reason why they should remain unblocked, or with the ability to edit their own talk page. Does anyone agree or disagree? Please weigh in.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I shall block and protect. waggers (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

KoshVorlon

Resolved

 – User removed/will not re-add inappropriate boxen. –xeno (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody do me a favor and explain to KoshVorlon that it is unacceptable to have a userbox that reads "STOP MURDERING INNOCENT CIVILIANS, ISRAEL!! " alongside an image depicting Israel's flag dripping with blood? Having this user's talk page on my watchlist has caused me to lose my patience with him/her long ago, and I know only bad things will come from further discussion if I'm involved. I've already explained, in a less than friendly way, that replacing the userbox will be met with a block. S/he still doesn't get it. Much appreciated, - auburnpilot talk 21:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Moreschi (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Notified the user of this thread. SQL^{Query me!} 04:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the "Terry Schaivo was murdered" userbox?--Atlan (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a he, and I haven't replaced the userbox since you removed it. I have also voluntarily removed the "Terry Schaivo was murdered " userbox as well.

— Kosh ^Jumpgate 14:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit war between Theology10101 (talk · contribs) and Snowded (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – seek WP:DR Toddst1 (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Theology10101 disruption of several articles

The above editor is taking a particular religious perspective and inserting it in several articles without citation (or with citations that are inappropriate. S/he is persistently refusing to discuss any change on the talk page. I have placed a welcome note on the talk page and several notes and one vandalism warning. On on article its now up to three reverts and while I think I am entitled to revert again on the grounds of vandalism I thought it better to bring it here so someone can talk with the editor concerned. Looking at their edit history this appears to have been a consistent pattern. Examples:

• Justification (theology) insertion of rambling unsupported text and comments (on the latest reversion to the effect that "There's nothing contraversial.The only thing you object is me.This change is because there's a need for transformation of the sinner in every way.FromThe acts of God to the sincere change of theSinner"
• Naturalism (philosophy) The insertion of religious statements about mans perfection and references to a religious web site which have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the page
• Liberalism Insertion of uncited text. Another editor did put a citation in place but it did not support Theology's text
• Rationalism Insertion of similar text to that on Naturalism (philosophy)
• Diet of Worms and Old Catholic Church also seem to have some dubious edits.

--Snowded TALK 05:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not true. Snowded is being nonproductive and reverting every edit I've ever done without giving adiquate explanations. He doesn't look at the material and refuses any and all explanations and has been harassing me. Theology10101 (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll let the edits speak for themselves. Theology10101 appears well intentioned but does not understand the nature of citations, or the need to gain consensus on the talk page when a particular edit is challenged. --Snowded TALK 06:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand the nature of citations and Snowded rejects them without explaining his reason why -the content- is not true. Which it's fully true and cited from multiple source. Please take a look at my work, including the talk pages, and how Snowded's has been treating the editors on Wikipedia...Thank you Theology10101 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, snowded has repeatedly told you about why the references are inappropriate, particularly on the Naturalism talkpage. You refusing to listen is not the same as him refusing to say. Ironholds (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Snowded harassing and being non-productive

This was a seperate thread, two sections down. Have merged. Viridae^Talk 06:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This user is refusing to be productive on these any article I've ever edited. He doesn't give any reasons why he rejects any content that I've ever given...in addition to giving out rederic on religion that is not productive. I stand behind all my edits and if you look into Snowded, I have no doubts you'll see my concerns. Thank you Theology10101 (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record the Naturalising Philosophy article is on my watch list. Having found the uncited and inappropriate edit there I checked back on other contributions and found three other articles with similar unsupported or inappropriate edits. I corrected those and placed a welcome notice on Theology's site as it was fairly evident we had an inexperienced editor. --Snowded TALK 06:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty wide edit war across several articles. Warned both editors about 3RR. Block either editor upon next rerversion of the other editor's edits. Toddst1 (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK Toddst1 so give some advice, If an editor inserts text on pages which is uncited and it is reverted my understanding is that they should attempt to build consensus on the talk page before reinserting the text. Did I get something wrong here? --Snowded TALK 07:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Third party opinion or more generally WP:DR. Toddst1 (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Theology10101

Resolved

Not sure where this falls, but is singling out certain users and threatening to leave them warnings if they so much as comment allowed? I got added to the list for asking him to comment on edits rather than the editor, and er, warning that that section might be a bit inappropriate. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could politely ask him how that attitude squares with his Christian charity? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering how he has replied to polite requests I cannot see that working. Further development: an uninvolved editor removed that section of the talkpage, informing him it was inappropriate, and he replaced it. Ironholds (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

and perhaps the previous closing admin can see that this was a case of dealing with vandalism not an edit war --Snowded TALK 16:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor I have asked for the removal of the content in question. BigDunc^Talk 16:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it and left a note. Black Kite 18:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Squeezety

Squeezety (talk · contribs) - This user's sole purpose has been to delete a sentence from the lead of Garth Turner, citing "redundancy": [46] Of course, the nature of leads is that the information they contain is *supposed* to be redundant with the rest of the article, as I explained in my edit summary here and, in great detail, on the user's talk page here. The user has taken no notice of my explanation, and has continued deleting the sentence. Absent a willingness to discuss this, I think a block is called for; of course, I'm an Involved Administrator. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Final warned, let someone know if he keeps at it. MBisanz ^talk 15:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Troubles issues

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/The Troubles Jan23. I have subpaged 2 threads dealing with The Troubles-related issues to the above subpage to save it clogging up ANI. I haven't had a chance to look at this yet (and it's 1am here) though I will try to look tomorrow. I suspect that all 3 threads would be better dealt with at WP:AE, although a more in-depth look may be necessary. Black Kite 00:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Further: I have returned the below thread to ANI after a reasonable request. Black Kite 20:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive conduct

I like to bring this incident to the attention of Admins. The reason I’ve brought it here is, first it is conduct related and second the actions of an experienced editor who is familiar enough with the Troubles to know better. As has been pointed out by User:Barneca the new editor came out swinging, and User:Barneca has dealt with it. My concern is the actions of User:Mooretwin. Rather than offer some constructive and positive advice to this new editor, they feed into the editors disruptive conduct. Having being warned a number of times about their own conduct, and being given a final warning already they offer this advice which could only inflame an already tense atmosphere. It is for this reason, I consider it to be disruptive, and a slight on both Editors and Admins alike. Both Admins and Editors who have had reason to deal with User:Mooretwin’s previous disruption will consider this to be a personal attack on them. Such assumptions of bad faith in the form of advice needs to be challenged and discouraged in my opinion. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Talk about Police state! Can a man not express his opinions. He's not wrong from what I can see. What your doing right now completely vindicates what he's saying. NewIreland2009 (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:FREE Simon^KSK 00:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that applies here. He said certain users spend a lot of time here and guard their articles vigilantly. Are you disputing that? Is he wrong? The endless politics and drama of this place really would make a man very very cynical indeed. NewIreland2009 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite, I can understand why you brought the section below here as for the other two sections however this one included I'm not so sure. On the section above, barneca has sorted this out with a final warning. Because of the tone and manner of the edits I agree with barneca's actions. I simply regret it went that far and could have been avoided had the editor accepted the advice that was offered. On the section below no one will accuse Tznkai of being one of the sympathetic administrators contained in this accusation. While Tznkai continues to delve into the issue I’m happy enough to let them get on with it, and agree with your actions in moving it here. On this section however, I disagree with the move. While I can understand you’re rational, and the obvious connection with the Troubles ArbCom, this issue is one primarily of conduct. It is my opinion that Mooretwin offered provocative advice to a new user who was already in a heightened state of excitement. That it would inflame a clearly tense situation was obvious. In addition, Mooretwin makes a number of accusations about editors and admins and the clear assumption of bad faith. Now I could have posted to AE, were Mooretwin was warned about personal attacks, followed up with a warning on their talk page but decided not to. AE are not going to mess about on the Troubles, it will be a swift sharp block. I opted for ANI, on the issue of conduct which I stressed in my opening remarks, and suggested it be challenged and discouraged. No mention or suggestion of a block. By bring it here, you could precipitate the very thing I wished to avoid. I would therefore ask that you return it to ANI, and treat it as a matter of conduct. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Black Kite, hopefully it can now be addressed without much fuss. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Could I get some help killing these obvious sockpuppets/attack accounts? Thanks. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• unlinked –xeno (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice that all 51 of these attack account names were created in the same minute, at 08:54 UTC this morning. I thought there was a rate throttle on how many accounts could be created by any particular account or IP at any one time. Am I wrong about this, or has it failed to work in this case? -- The Anome (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Per IP, I think it's 3 per 24 hours (I think those were the figures noted during the IWF situation). I wouldn't know how it cocked up in this case. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 09:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. If they can get around this throttle, they might be able to get around others. Same account logged in from multiple IPs, possibly? What's the best venue for requesting that this be investigated and fixed? -- The Anome (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI. Request a checkuser there; see if there's been any skulduggery there. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 09:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's 6 Users per IP per 24 hrs (hence the ususual 6 socks serial sockers create). -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

More attack username creation, same MO as above

There's more of the same at 10:15 UTC, this time with 18 accounts created almost simultaneously, with the same MO as above. -- The Anome (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you killed them, or do you need help? If you do, contact me on my talk page and I'll go in guns blazing. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 09:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like other people have blocked them; but my main concern is that this is clearly a vandal on a roll, with the username throttling mechanism clearly incapable of slowing it down. -- The Anome (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Chris, it's the old non-hunter hunter, which I was unaware of when I first caught this. Hence, he's blocking ACB NEM NTE. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 10:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it make any difference that the accounts are not being created from scratch, but are all being created by sleeper accounts? The last batch was created by an account that was registered 9 months ago, has no edits (deleted or otherwise) and is now (clearly) indef blocked. _Gb^T/c 09:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It might. The question is, could a CU detect the IP behind the creation of these attack accounts, especially given they're flatly outing attempts or defamatory? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 09:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been able to test this yet but I'm pretty sure there's a bug in mediawiki that allows him to bypass the 6 accounts per ip limit (not going to give the full details per beans but I'll file a bugzillia once I'm sure this is a bug) --Chris 10:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I'm off to bed; I think it may be wise to keep an eye on RC for a while in case he starts up with a new account, and I need to get some rest since he's either pulling most of this stuff off of on-wiki communications or out of his ass (He's currently 3 for 10 on everything he's used to try and scare me away, which tends to have an opposite effect). -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 10:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy your sleep, I'll keep an eye on rc for the moment --Chris 10:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. The user knows my age, name and birthdate, and both present and prior cities of residence. Not that I've ever made attempts to hide them, but it might be helpful to know that the user is getting the information from Hivemind; the edits match up precisely with the information Daniel Brandt is making available there. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely; I'm not on there. The only info he's used on me is stuff he's either made up or gotten from what I've said or done on-Wiki (hence the 3 for 10 comment). -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 20:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Block evading IP needs blocking

Resolved

 – Blocked — Realist² 18:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave up reporting the block evasion a long time ago, but I'm at the end of my rope, guess I'll have to start up again. User:86.25.55.75 is evading block. The IP is highly disruptive, adding her original research or opinion about music genres. Needs blocking for the evasion alone. I got tired of reporting it, since she just changes ip or set's up another account and I know range blocks are out of the question. — Realist² 18:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. — Realist² 18:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't unblock Gsgfdsgfdgfdsgsdddffffffffffffffffffffffff

Resolved

 – Unblocked — Aitias // discussion 12:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC) ... and reblocked by Oxy. Garden. 23:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have granted the unblock request of Gsgfdsgfdgfdsgsdddffffffffffffffffffffffff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to allow a username change, but my unblock does not appear in the block log, and I can't seem to effect another unblock. Does anybody know what the problem might be?  Sandstein  11:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's showing in your log, and I can't unblock them as the "block cannot be found", even though your unblock is not showing in their log..._Gb^T/c 11:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

But isn't there something slightly strange about a user who made one edit before having their username blocked suddenly popping up and requesting an unblock (rather than just creating a new account) nearly three years after their original block? _Gb^T/c 11:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Looking at his contributions log (one edit from May 2006, and the unblock request today), and noting that he was blocked for a username violation in June 2006, my question is why is there a need to do a username change? Just have him register a new account. Horologium (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he wants the seniority of the account? –xeno (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'd recommend if the unblock doesn't work for one technical reason or another.  Sandstein  12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked. — Aitias // discussion 12:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do I have a feeling this is a sleeper account? D.M.N. (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I was considering suggesting someone keeping an eye on it myself. Generally, when they create a name like that, they aren't here for the best interests of the site. HalfShadow 19:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And re-blocked, it's only the approx. 573. of his socks trying this trick. There are 3 more points of evidence not already mentioned here that this is a gwp sock. I'm reluctant to specify them here, don't want to give tips since he steadily adapts to sock detection mechanisms, but I'm happy to email these to anyone interested. --Oxymoron⁸³ 19:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Either way this should have been usernameblocked. Protonk (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter page

Resolved

 – Guess you weren't too afraid ;)-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Could someone go over to the Jimmy Carter page and figure out how to fix it please. I'm afraid to touch it.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I fixed it.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparent disruptive editor User:Praiseandworship

Resolved

 – Blocked for 48h for 3RR; image issues sorted.

This editor seems to be shaping up as a classic disruptive editor. S/he replaced an image of Jesus on the Jesus article page with another image without any discussion (use your imagination to consider how long it took to reach consensus on the images used!!) and was reverted with a request to discuss; reverted the revert, was reverted again; reverted the revert, was reverted again. I and another editor placed 3RR/edit-warring warnings on the user's talk page. S/he then went to the Christ article and did the same (and was reverted).

• Jesus reverts of user's edits: [47], [48], [49]
• Christ revert:[50]

The problem of course with disruptive editors is that they move from one article to another, and the pattern is evident only to people who have the same articles on their watchlist or make an effort to check the users other editors, as I just did. I'd appreciate it if others would check this user's edits over the next few days. If there is a continued pattern of contentious edits across different articles, I think it would be appropriate to consider another warning and if necessary a block. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• They continued to revert and eventually passed 3RR. Since they have a history of edit-warring and have been blocked before, I have blocked for 48h. Black Kite 22:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this user's image uploads. Seems like the vast majority are bad faith copyvios. I'll be sorting through these, tagging appropriately, and speedy-ing the ones that fit. Anyone care to help?-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a few earlier; I'll take another look now. (Edit: looks like you got them all). I think this is resolved for the time being. Black Kite 23:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I got rid of the obvious ones. While I am still skeptical, the beach scenes are plausibly taken by this user. Some contain EXIF data, and they all seem limited to a small geographic area. We could ask to verify the source of those other images...-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my take on it too, and the paintings are almost certainly copyright-expired. Black Kite 00:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I did remember this user introducing a inappropriate article before with the intention of evangelizing, will put on watch list.... ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete of Mario Kart 360 (rumored title)

This has swiftly turned into a clusterfuck of massive proportions; it seems as though every IP/ newbie account on earth is hitting this page and recreating it. Could someone make it go permanently bye-bye? HalfShadow 00:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

it's a 4chan pisstake, check the first line (boxxy is a recent trolling meme from there) - someone make it vanish. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted and salted Mario Kart 360 (rumored title), Mario Kart 360 (precautionary measure), and doled out two indef blocks. If there is more, let me know. seicer | talk | contribs 00:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Rich Farmbrough

A few days ago Rich started using his bot, User:SmackBot, to add {{Ibid|date=January 2009}} to articles. As you make mass automated edits which are bad, in lieu of a bot reverting them, no human can be expected to use anything but rollback nor can see from his smackbot's talk page, thanks to me as he blanks it before discussions end [51], at least 6 users came to complain about it. I used rollback to revert this, much to my own displeasure (as I had intended to use my wiki time yesterday to write articles) and I thought it would end there. Today however Rich, as User:Rich Farmbrough, is rollbacking all the reverts of this tag made yesterday by me. By the looks of my talk page, he is using the fact that I got a few non {{Ibid|date=January 2009}}s as an excuse to do this (such as changing ref code to {{Reflist}}; the alternative was me previewing each revert, which would be ridiculous given the numbers), when he knows fine well he can have his bot do this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that SmackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) doesn't appear to have the mandate to unilaterally add this tag, only to date it if it were added by a human. Correct me if I'm wrong. Furthermore that Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) seemed to use some kind of mass-rollback script to complete this at an alarming epm rate for someone without a bot flag. –xeno (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Deacon rollbacked these edits without discussing with me. It is not an issue that he has reverted several hundred recent edits that are not those he is targeting (although they have a different edit summary) - recent stuff can by and large be redone - the problem with rollback is it undoes all the consecutive edits by that user to the article. So for example, edits the bot made in 2006, using code which will no longer run could be reverted. Adn there is no way to know which articles this applies to. Had deacon come to my talk page as clearly requested on the bot's talk page and discussed the matter there, we could have avoided a lot of work for both of us. I have rollbacked as much of Deacons rollbacks as I can, and am re-applying the removal of the template he finds so disquieting. I will be left with probably several hundred articles to go and check the history of manually. Deacon, you really needed to talk to me about this, rather than just apply rollback which is for anti-vandalism purposes only. Rich Farmbrough, 17:43 22 January 2009 (UTC).

Sorry but I find it highly unlikely that an edit the bot made in 2006 has not been followed up by another editor in the meantime. –xeno (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, he was [ab]using automated tools to add a controversial tags to thousands of articles, and now, after spending most of his day rolling back the edits of another user, he's trying to complain that another user used rollback to attempt to undo his efforts. Please, Rich, just remove this tag from all these article and use your bot more wisely in future. I don't want to have to spend another evening trying to fix your bot's mess. Incidentally, I did put a notice on the bot's talk, and all I got was you blanking my comment along with 5 others who agreed with me. Thanks, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I was just pointing out that his objection to the use of rollback ("...you may have rolled back more than the ibid edit, like an edit from 2006") didn't really hold much water. I agree that the bot ought stick to tasks it has been approved for and are inline with current consensus. –xeno (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What tags does that concern? I've seen the bot add recently the "ibid., op.cit. and so an are bad" tags with which I agree... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the bot has not been approved for adding tags, merely dating them. –xeno (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Xeno is correct. It's not a question of whether it's correct or not to add those tags but whether the bot is allowed to run a task that it was not approved for. I, too, think it is not and Deacon is correct to complain about it. Rich should have gotten approval first... SoWhy 18:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I was one of the people who contacted Rich about the tags. He responded extremely promptly and constructively and I considered the matter resolved. His changes for future runs are listed in this version of the talk page. [52]. It's hardly his fault that WP:FN says not to use ibid. in footnotes... — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Lucky you. I and other just got blanked (contrary to Wikipedia:BOT#Good_communication). Whatever WP:FN says this day of the week, and read its talk page too, this has nothing to do with the issues here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

YOU did not get blanked, don't be disengenous. I left a mesasge on your talk page. The bot's talk page is for stopping the bot. It is very clearly stated there that that is how it works. There was also a clear message specifically relating to this issue asking for messages to go to my talk page. The bot's talk page is archived as soon as I find messages on it - again clearly stated on the talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37 22 January 2009 (UTC).

The bottom line is that he should file another BRFA if he feels there is consensus for this task. –xeno (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I could hunt this information down myself, but I'm sure others in this thread already know the answers, I'll just ask.

1. Rich: was this task approved by BAG?

   I did this as part of general tag/fixup work. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37 22 January 2009 (UTC).

   So this template is getting automatically put in due to "general fix options" in AWB? If so that should probably be disabled while the template's usage is in contention. If its something you programmed in yourself, it is stretching the boundaries of what the bot was approved for. –xeno (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Deacon: how long did you wait for a reply to your question before you started rolling back?
3. Deacon: is there a deadline I don't know about? Rather than waste hours of your time rolling back edits, why not discuss with Rich, and see if he could undo things with his Bot instead? In particular, did your rollbakcs come before or after the talk page blanking that distressed you so much?
4. Rich: Do I understand correctly that you have either completed, or are in the process of, going back to the status quo before the Ibid run? That this consists of rolling back Deacon, then undoing the addition of the tag?

   Yes perfectly correct. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37 22 January 2009 (UTC).

5. Deacon: Assuming I'm correct, did you understand that this is what Rich is doing right now?
6. Rich: did you explain to Deacon what you were doing, so he wouldn't misinterpret your rollbacks?

   I left him a message, explaining that is was going to be hard to fix up his rollbacks, and expressing a desire that he would have talked to me about it. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37 22 January 2009 (UTC).

7. Both: Is it really true you each think that the blame for this solely rests with the other?
8. All: Am I the only one who detects a surprising lack of assumption of good faith from both users, people that have each been here long enough to know better?

   I hope I AGF, but the rollback tool is dangerous, and a blunt instrument. Talking is far more useful, because it is (was) easy for me to revert those pages accurately, now will take me some considerable time. Also all the edits had distinct edit summaries, so the mass rollback including edits which has quite different summaries seems to be taking the blunt instrument and using it with a blindfold. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37 22 January 2009 (UTC).

thanks. --barneca (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is that it is making my watchlists almost useless right now and I'm fed up with it. dougweller (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

@ Barneca, thanks for your mediation attempt, but this isn't a personal conflict; it will be resolved if and only if Rich/SmackBot reverts these edits (looks like this might happen) and uses his bot properly in future. There should never be a question of a bot adding controversial tags. These edits were started at least 4 days ago (that's how far back I saw him doing this), the reversions [by me] started earlier today/yesterday (though a bunch of ad hoc reversions were occurring before this). Rich was not responding, and only eventual response was to blank the page [really really helpful considering others may have had the same issue]. Smackbot doesn't keep talk archives so that's another cause for concern. Who knows how many problems like this have occurred. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It does keep talk archives. There is a pointer on the talk page. There was a message on your talk page and I replied to others too. Furthermore as you know full well having done the mass rollback, there was only one run, so again saying "started 4 days ago" smacks of disingenuity. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37 22 January 2009 (UTC).

I keep both SmackBot and Rich's pages watchlisted. Rich responds promptly and politely and is very easy to work with. I believe every concern I have brought to his attention (4 or 5 at least), have been handled this way, even though all (or at least most) of my concerns were completely unfounded. SmackBot's talk page is very easy to use: leave a message on the page itself to halt the bot, leave a message for its operator on the operator's page. SmackBot often is the only editor on pages for years at a time in my experience. A lot of cruft was created a long time ago and marked for cleanup, and SmackBot adjusts the cleanup messages every few years as the standards change. I only see such changes because I have entire categories watch-listed. I don't think SmackBot should add the {{ibid}} tag, the conensus seems to be that he should not add the tag, and SmackBot is now fixing that mistake. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary, from my point of view. This is a supposed to be a collaboration, while this may not have met with universal approval :), it would have been better to discuss and find a solution rather than engage on such a massive revert, Deacon's time and mine would both have been saved. Futhermore bringing the matter here just wasted more time and energy. Lets get on with the project and leave this behind. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37 22 January 2009 (UTC).

This thread appears to hinge on barneca's #6 above. Now that we know that Rich is removing the tags and the rollback was a precursor to that, I gather we can mark this as resolved. –xeno (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Rich, sorry I didn't see that bot kept an archive. My mistake. Though you shouldn't be removing posts so quickly. They aren't just messages to your bot, but also in this case public discussions. That I decided to take reverting your disruptive automated edits out of your hands was down to the ill-considered nature of the edits and your unresponsiveness, ignoring the complaints being a reasonable sign of uncooperativeness. That you subsequently decided to roll them all back with your own account was bad [besides being adversarial and immature, it also added to the server space and watchlist issues unnecessarily as well as violating rollback policy], but then to proceed to complain about rollback afterwards was really unconvincing and incidentally, since everyone here is an intelligent adult, counter-productive as it is obviously hypocritical. If you were planning before this ANI thread to remove all these tags, I'd be delighted to know the "technical" reason why rollback with a non-bot admin account was good first stage ... not communicating your intention being just the cherry on top. In any case, if you make mass automated edits which are bad, in lieu of a bot reverting them, no human charged with reversing their impact can be expected to use anything but rollback nor to care if he removes a few minor decent fixes in the process. Anyways, it's nothing personal and I don't mind you wanting to put a good face on it as long as you carry out your self-reversions and don't do it again. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And just out of curiosity, Rich, why did you continue using automated tool to place the tag when User:Dbachmann had already complained about it at Template_talk:Ibid, a discussion you saw? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• When they showed up on my watchlist (mostly opera and classical music), I sometimes moved them to the References section, if there were several ibids/op cits to fix. Otherwise I just fixed them before removing the tag. Just as a demonstration of how completely unsuitable this tag is for a bot to apply, it was plastered at the top of (and thereby defaced in my view) a featured article Dmitri Shostakovich when there was a only one instance of an op cit. out of 48 footnotes. Voceditenore (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• There are still a fair number of articles that smackbot applied this tag to that have not been removed: [53] . –xeno (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  I went ahead and removed these tags. –xeno (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

My block of User:DegenFarang

Resolved

 – Editor has been unblocked. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate if someone would review my block of User:DegenFarang, as he has requested. bd2412 T 21:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on your block specifically, but this user is extremely frustrating to try and deal with. They've been blocked four time now recently, and respond to every single attempt to contact them on their talk page by blanking with a juvenile insult [54] [55] [56]. I tried again to contact them in good faith after the most recent block, and they reverted me multiple times by deleting my comment with a small change [57] [58] [59], then finally blanked it [60]. Regardless of whether this block is correct, I would request an uninvolved admin have a word with DF about civility and working with other editors. As you can tell from all of the deleted messages on his talk page, several editors have had a problem working with him. Dayewalker (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The block is probably justified, given the personal attack. As I said on your talk page, protecting his talk page was a mistake, which is why he is correct to point that out but the way he did and the other incivility warrant a block (although I think a shorter duration would be enough, maybe 12-24 hours again). Regards SoWhy 21:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I said in that discussion, I protected his talk page because he deleted warnings, and I didn't want editors on other pages to be lulled into the belief that this is a user with a clean slate making innocent mistakes. The fact that he disguised his addition of the reference to John G. Roberts as an "asshat" by using rvv as his edit summary indicates that he knows how to game the system. bd2412 T 22:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My feelings after dealing with him on the Roberts article and trying to let him know how things work around here on his talk page, I think DF is one of the worst kinds of editors. Not the very worst kind, but definitely in the bottom five. He is a POV pusher who refuses to acknowledge consensus [61], who makes threats [62] and personal attacks [63] when things don't go his way. He refuses to discuss anything with anyone [64], and only wants to know enough wikipedia policy to file cases against other users [65] and his own unblock requests. This is the kind of editor who works just enough within policy that he's not an obvious vandal, but is uncivil and uncooperative to everyone he comes in contact with and wastes everyone's time and energy. I've tried to discuss this with him numerous times on his talk page, and he's deleted every one of them without discussion. I'm done with wasting time on him. I would again ask that an uninvolved admin take a look at his contribution history and try and have a word with him about consensus, civility, cooperation, and just general behavior on wikipedia. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no comment on the particulars of the current case, just a reminder about policy and practice surrounding warnings issued on user talk pages.

Note that users are permitted to remove warnings from their own talk pages without penalty. By deleting the message, the user makes it clear that the message was received and read. The purpose of a user's talk page is to communicate with that user, not to act as a log of warnings or as a scarlet letter. Removing a warning – even with no edit summary at all – is entirely permitted. Protecting a user's talk page solely to preserve the presence of a warning is not an appropriate use of page protection.

Repeatedly restoring a warning deleted by a user is not considered a good practice, and is something that in itself can draw warnings and blocks. (If bad behaviour by a user continues after he removes a warning from his talk page, it is perfectly acceptable to issue a higher-level warning, to refer to the previous warning, or to issue a block — regardless of whether or not the previous warning is visible on the talk page.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a POV-pushing edit that was immediately reverted ... it takes time but I just sampled a selection of this editors edits and most of them are immediately or almost immediately reverted. They are not vandalism, but they show poor judgment and disregard for our policies like this whish seems uninformed by the finer points of NPOV. On the other hand I looked at past discussions on talk pages and s/he actually has seemed to try to collaborate with others in compliance with policy in the past. But the most recent pattern of edits is disturbing. Frankly, I would say that this is a well-intentioned if obsessive editor who could benefit from gentle mentoring, although the most recent behavior makes me unsure. As for the block - well, lots of editors, myself included, have lost their tempers or got cranky and said ill-advised things, even worse than this guy, without getting blocked. That said, I won't undo the block, I trust your judgment. But I think it would be far more effective if some more experienced editor who has had any positive interactions with this user were able to discuss with him the value of talk pages and a collaborative spirit for more effective editing. S/he actually has made some reasonable edits in the past, that is what gives me some hope. I think this is a newbie who has just reached that crossroads many of us took longer to reach: they are discovering the things that frustrate them, and are handling them badly. They can learn from their mistakes or they can get a lot worse. I think this one could still go either way. I am not defending bad behavior, just pointing out that some people can be mentored or figure it out given the chance. A block could slap some sense into this user, but I think coaching from someone s/he already respects (if such an editor exists!!) could make a big difference. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

DegenFarang seems to be having a really, really bad month. User:BD2412's 83-hour block looks proportionate. DF's charming responses in the unblock dialog don't inspire any leniency. DF has just removed a comment left there by the blocking admin, saying that it 'didn't add anything.' EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)DF is now unblocked. While he was still blocked, 68.31.122.204 (talk · contribs) posted this charming little personal attack [66] on his page. Dayewalker (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked DegenFarang, per the discussion on his talk page, and his agreement to be forthright in his edit summaries and avoid even the appearance of personal attacks. I understand his point of view, and he is certainly correct that I would not have blocked him but for his comments on my talk page - but that's because those comments drew my focus to his edits. I am persuaded that my response went beyond what was necessary to address the situation, and I will leave it to other administrators to review this editor's actions in the future. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

@ Dayewalker - something smells a bit socky... maybe just me. Garden. 23:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Do as ya'll wish with DF. For the momment, I find his conduct off-putting. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just FYI he DegenFarang has an autoblock unblock request template up on his talkpage.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As per this [67], looks like he still hasn't been unblocked. Dayewalker (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

An admin has found the autoblock and lifted it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Crisler

I was watching Dominick Dunne's Power, Privilege, and Justice tonight when it mentioned the Peter Gailiunas murder case. While wanting to read more on it, I discovered the Wikipedia entry on the guy convicted of the murder, George Anderson Hopper, was a blatant cut-and-paste copyvio from the Texas Execution Information Center ([68]). That article was authored by Crisler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

I discovered at least two more instances where articles were cut-and-pasted wholesale from this site, and blocked Crisler for 72 hours with a warning that the next block will be indef if he violates copyright again. I could use some help to track down any other copyvios this guy may have posted. Blueboy96 05:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Look in his histyory for those marked with an N; I'm currently looking thru them and running web searches to see if there's any more copyvios. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I know ... the articles he's started are mostly written in the same style ... I couldn't find any copyvios copyvios apart from the ones I tracked down and speedied, but wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something. Blueboy96 05:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nor could I. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 08:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bothersome user

I've tried to edit 2 articles related to the Friday the 13th series, but Bignole keeps undoing them:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friday_the_13th_(1980_film)&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friday_the_13th_(2009_film)&action=history

He is accusing me of original research when I am only adding a true fact, violating the following polices:

• WP:AGF
• WP:OWN
• WP:NPA
• WP:STALK (I have conflicted with him in the past)

I need some help please, so I can have my rights to edit. FMAFan1990 (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

On the first page, the user was inserting a trivial fact that had nothing to do with the statement he kept inserting it into. On the second page, the user was inserting an entire paragraph, that contained no source whatsoever, of his own personal observation. Not only was the paragraph trivial in nature with regard to the film page (i.e., if it is true it is not unique to the film but to all of New Line's films, and thus should be on New Line's Wiki page), but it does not have a source attributed to verify the information. I left messages on the users page explaining that everything needs a source, and that what he was adding to the first page was not relevant to the statement he was inserting the text into (which I have sense rewritten so that he gets what he wants without interrupting the sourced statement with side-dialogue about the release of the film). As for "stalking hime", I haven't followed him anyway given that I have been monitoring all of the Friday the 13th pages for several years. The last time we had contact was back in September when he was attempting to attribute a significance to the date filming ended because he saw a connection between it and the title of the film. As for "OWN", again, I wasn't removing anything without reason and I believe that I did rewrite one of his statements so that it didn't conflict with another sourced statement in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem though is your failure to assume good faith. I'll try to find a RS for the paragraph, if that's what you want though. FMAFan1990 (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like someone to take a look at it and see if they think it is actually relevant to the Friday the 13th article, or to the New Line Cinema article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I'd like to point out that you are both on verge of violating 3RR on Friday the 13th (1980 film). Hopefully you both have chosen to stop these reversions and settle down to discussing the issue. FMAFan1990, it is always a better practice to add information only after you have a source to support it, instead of just claiming existence of such sources. And I see no evidence of WP:OWN, WP:NPA or WP:STALK here. Bignole, unless you believe that the information added is blatantly incorrect and it is possible to source it, I'd suggest tagging it with {{fact}} and wait for a while to let FMAFan1990 to look for possible sources. ^LeaveSleaves 06:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify the issue with the 2009 film page, this is the statement:

The US distribution rights are with New Line Cinema/Warner Bros., while Paramount Pictures will handle international rights (distributing through either Universal Studios or United International Pictures in some countries, while Paramount distributes directly in others). This essentially mirrors the distribution setup for the original film, where Paramount had US rights, and WB had international rights.

Broken down, this is what I have a problem with, and why I removed the entire thing.

• "The US distribution rights are with New Line Cinema/Warner Bros., while Paramount Pictures will handle international rights..." --- This is fine, except the fact that it isn't sourced.
• "...(distributing through either Universal Studios or United International Pictures in some countries, while Paramount distributes directly in others)." --- This second part of that sentence is a personal opinion, which cannot be sourced and as such is original research. It can be made declarative, in such case it wouldn't be OR but just simple an unsourced statement which isn't entirely relevant because we do not break down which specific sub-division of a company is distributing a film in which specific country. We list the overal distributer (e.g., Warner Brothers, Paramount, etc.).
• "This essentially mirrors the distribution setup for the original film, where Paramount had US rights, and WB had international rights." --- This entire statement is original research, as it is drawing comparison to the original film based on personal observation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

IP doing large-scale reversions, possible sock

206.53.144.123 (talk · contribs) has spent tonight undoing reversions of other editors, so I thought I'd bring it here for discussion. It seems like this IP might be a sock of somebody. It seems familiar, but I can't put a name to it. Dayewalker (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was familiar, it happened recently as seen here [69]. I'm reverting the changes, if an admin would block for disruption we can resolve this one. Dayewalker (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• A week long enough? Let meknow if it needs extending or if he hops IP. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Doctor of Chiropractic

This article needs work, yes. However, there has been no AfD approved and yet editor QuackGuru (talk · contribs) keeps deleting/redirecting the article [70] [71] despite ongoing conversations on how to improve the article. I have already reverted twice, and in the interest of not fostering an edit war, I am here requesting that the article be restored by an admin so that discussions on article improvement can continue. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Undid the redirect, and gave notice to QuackGuru of this discussion. Quite frankly, I see no reason for the redirect. IF he doesn't like the article, either improve upon it (i.e. do not redirect), or nominate it for deletion if it is that bad. I'm not judging on the article itself, but you don't redirect, then state there is a consensus elsewhere when there is none. seicer | talk | contribs 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Seicer. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was this reported to ANI when this is a content dispute? This seems like forum shopping by Levine2112 which is a violation of WP:GAME. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not forum shopping unless he asked for relief elsewhere, was denied and sought it here afterwards. Forum shopping is "if mom says no, ask dad" in a nutshell. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(update) Ioeth has blocked QuackGuru for 2 weeks. I recommend that this thread be closed as resolved. --Elonka 23:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree QuackGuru was disruptive, 2 weeks may be a bit much, unless there's a history I'm unaware of. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I was just about to say the same thing myself. As to this article, there are two sides to a content dispute, and the other reasons given for the block appear to be "making up the numbers", to be honest. Black Kite 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was QuackGuru blocked for 2 weeks? Is that not excessive? It's a content dispute, where both sides were pushing the limits of the law. I think Seicer, whom most science editors respect, giving a warning to QG should be allowed to "set in" for a bit of time. If QuackGuru still pushes the limits, then maybe a long block is justified. This is unfair. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Elonka's activities in this whole issue is now under discussion at ArbCom. Since her one-person enforcement of restrictions against QuackGuru is one of the reasons given for the block, I think the block should be overturned. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never blocked QuackGuru.[72] I do support Ioeth's block though. --Elonka 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru was disruptive, and a block was reasonable. However, blocks are preventative, not punitive, amd 2, 3 days would have been ample. Two weeks seems a bit much, unless there's history I don't know, which probably should be mentioned. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Small correction: Most blocks are preventative. ArbCom enforcement blocks, however, are a different beast, as they are intended to be coercive, not preventative. They're also blocks that can't be overturned unless either by written authorization of the Arbitration Committee, or by massive community consensus. --Elonka 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Where the hell did I say you made the block? This diff will be useful in the future in your constant harassment of me and others. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've been emailed to look at this. QuackGuru was being disruptive. They were previously blocked for one week and have a lengthy block log. However, I recommend that the block be shortened if QuackGuru promises to behave. Blocks are loathsome and should be removed as soon as they are no longer necessary to keep the peace. Jehochman ^Talk 23:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely Elonka meant a better word than coercive. I hope. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• QuackGuru has had a long history of disruption and questionable editing behavior on this article; he's been cautioned and warned several times by a variety of admins. Heck, Tim Vickers read him the riot act pretty specifically a few months ago ([73]), though that did get him to shape up temporarily ([74]). In that context, and in the context of his previous blocks, this seems like a reasonable enforcement of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions. MastCell ^Talk 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe. But maybe someone should read WP:BAIT with regards to how he responds to things. I think there are two sides to this story, similar to the old SA/Martin battles. QG and Levine bait each other all day long, and it has to stop on both sides. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• QG's edits involved User:Landed little marsdon. Elonka suspected that LLM was a sockpuppet, but has said that so far checkuser has proved inconclusive. Mathsci (talk)

• I agree with MastCell, this was WP:BOLD and good editing, but this was unwise but borderline, and this was unacceptable. QuackGuru is too experienced an editor not to be aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Edit warring for your preferred version whilst instructing other people to discuss the change isn't co-operative editing. As to the length of the block, I think that reflects his previous warnings on this general topic, not this specific article. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with MastCell and Tim Vickers. The cumulative effects of an editing career involving much disruption, edit warring, and constant obtuseness gets to a point where the cup flows over and a longer block is warranted. Good call, Ioeth. QG is experienced enough to know that the BRD cycle becomes active and deliberate edit warring when the one making the Bold edit restores their version after the next editor has reverted them. That's an aggressive act of edit warring and deserves an immediate block. BRD should only go through one cycle, if at all, and on controversial articles it's often (with a few exceptions) a bad idea to use BRD at all.-- Fyslee (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• While it would not have been a pleasant decision, combined with the numerous prior blocks, the numerous warnings and notices regarding the RFAR/Pseudoscience case, and the general disruption by move-warring, I endorse the block. seicer | talk | contribs 14:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a notice on WP:AE regarding the block and this thread, just to make sure all of the bases are covered. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 14:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In an "interesting" and unwelcome development, User:Levine2112 has continued to unilaterally oppose the merge of this article, despite what I see as a clear consensus fr the idea at Talk:Doctor_of_Chiropractic#Background_to_chiropractic_section. I've left him a note requesting that he reconsider his action [75], but if this does not occur, I'd consider his actions rather disruptive. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that this user has previously been warned about ignoring consensus on chiropractic diff and threatened with a topic ban if he continued to do this. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of this thread at the time, I've just left a note for Levine asking him to reconsider based on discussion at the talk and especially in light of QuackGuru's very recent block for the same behavior.[76] Since Chiropractic and related articles seem to be the only area where Levine has difficulty, I would support a topic ban if the situation isn't rectified. Shell ^babelfish 17:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that he's already been banned once from Talk:Chiropractic, this seems the next logical step. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112's action was clearly in opposition to consensus.[77] I too would support a topic ban. How about, "Levine2112 is banned from editing any articles that are related to Chiropractic (broadly defined), for six months. He is still allowed to participate at talkpages, as long as he does so in a civil manner. He is strongly encouraged to be sensitive to a forming consensus, and to try and adapt to it, rather than fighting against it." --Elonka 18:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that much of the problems he has caused have been on talkpages (the reason he was banned from Talk:Chiropractic), I wouldn't make that exception. Why not give him the opportunity to develop a wider set of interests in areas where his strong opinions don't hinder his editing so much? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's usually best with arbitration enforcement discretionary sanctions to start with lesser sanctions (ban on editing) and then only increase to more severe sanctions (ban on editing and talkpages) if the earlier ones don't work. The hope is that Levine2112 will realize that he's on a short leash, and that the ban could be expanded unless he adapts his style. That said, I would not be opposed to an "all topic" ban if other uninvolved administrators feel that this is the best course of action at this time. Tim Vickers correctly points out that Levine2112 was indeed warned about a topic ban in early November,[78] in relation to the Chiropractic article. --Elonka 19:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've been asked to comment here, so I'll try to. My first interaction with Levine2112 was actually one of my first interactions with collaborative editing on wikipedia, at Sports Chiropractic. On that article he seemed to be (relatively) receptive to compromise and relented in the presence of clear evidence for a contrary position. I would probably support a weak topic ban along the lines that Elonka is proposing, with the provision that if it appears that Levine2112 is deliberately obstructing discussion, the ban be expanded. Protonk (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

First, much apologies to anyone who felt that my action of reverting the merger was disruptive. I took the day off yesterday and logged on this morning to find that the article was merged. Discussions for said merger only lasted one day and I did not feel that enough time had passed to say that there was a consensus. I was actually in the midst of proposing a compromise - one which I feel all parties would be okay with. I really don't see how this revert is a banable or blockable offense when in my heart of hearts I felt and still feel that the bold merger happened way too quickly without enough input from the community. I was under the impression that the best way to handle this was by AfD - where many times in the past I have seen votes to "Merge" - and based on this belief, I felt that the AfD process was the best course for us to take next. I read here now that AfD is not a way to get opinions on whether or not an article should be merged. I honestly didn't know that (and I question why there isn't some "Article for Merger" process which opens the discussion to the whole community). Anyhow, if everyone here agrees that there isa consensus which has formed in the one day this topic has been discussed, then by all means, please merge (and I will gladly be the one to make the merger happen). However, I would like to continue the discussion about reversing the merger so that the "Chiropractic education" article gets merged into "Doctor of Chiropractic" rather than the other way around. Again, I apologize if my action seemed at all disruptive, but I hope you all can see that I wasn't edit warring to defend my position but rather I reverted because I didn't think the proposal to merge had been opened long enough for discussion. Thanks for the consideration. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, in light of your revert, I think a weak topic ban is probably all we need do at present. I'm unconvinced by your argument that you didn't realize a consensus had formed, since you were the only person in this entire saga who has disagreed with this merge. Saying at this point that there was not "enough community input" seems to me to be hoping that if you ask enough people that some of them might agree with you. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that Shell Kinney warned you about previously, and since it is still occurring it appears that this warning, and your previous shorter topic bans were ineffective. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Tim, I got the ball rolling with the merger and ported in a lot from the prior "Doctor of Chiropractic" article. I am hopeful that this a good start to successfully merge the two articles. That said, I am still in support of the merger having gone the other way. I guess we can always discuss an article renaming in the future. As for the immediate future, I am voluntarily taking a topic-break from chiropractic related articles for the next two weeks. I hope this demonstrates my commitment to the Wikipedia project and respect for the Wikipedia community. In the meantime, you will see me actively writing and improving other articles in other areas as usual. I have particuar interest in getting Fancy rat elevated to Good Article standing and will be putting more efforts into that goal, among others. Thanks again for the consideration and understanding. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I think Levine2112's (LV) behaviour was reasonable given LV's understanding of policy at the time. LV apparently believed the situation was equivalent to unblanking a page that had been improperly blanked during an AfD after only 1 day of discussion. Under the circumstances, and since LV has been very apologetic and cooperative after being told that that's not how things work, I don't think any sanctions are necessary. Incidentally, I also thought AfDs were sometimes used when there was disagreement about whether to merge, and am not yet completely convinced otherwise. I still think Levine can properly ask for wider discussion for moving Chiropractic education to Doctor of Chiropractic (equivalent to the outcome LV wishes) by listing it at requested moves, though I could be wrong about that; anyway the discussion at Talk:Doctor of Chiropractic#Merge the other way? might make further discussion unnecessary. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 22:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Since Doctor of Chiropractic is essentially an oxymoron (chiropractic being no different from quackery), this should be merged into chiropractic education. Stifle (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Jackal4

• Jackal4 (talk)

This user refuses to listen to Epeefleche's warnings. I started handing the user warnings as well now. Will you please keep an eye on this user and block the user if needed? The user is creating a huge mess in lots of pages. Thanks! - Eugene Krabs (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just curious, but why did you go from a level-2 warning (00:58 23 Jan) to a level-4 (final) warning (1:38 23 Jan) on the user's talk page when the user had made zero edits after the level-2 warning was given but before the level-4 warning was given? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I don't know how to tell which warning is what level ({{<test>}}, {{< test2a>}}, ETC). I just go by what I see fits the user's edits. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Eugene Krabs, Epeefleche, and Ethelh are all the same person who is mad at me because he tried to take over the Ryan Braun article (see WP:OWN) and I wouldn't let him. He has since tried to take over every other Jewish baseball player article, added loads of crap about them winning various obscure Jewish baseball awards (not a big deal when there are barely a dozen Jewish players), and reverted countless edits I make because he didn't get his way. This guy is just trying to manipulate several accounts into getting his way; surely there is some rule against that.

Ex. Scott Williamson - I do nothing but link his position in the infobox, and Epeefleche claims I added the image placeholder that has been there for years. At Paul Wilson (baseball), some IP messes up the infobox attempting to retire him (he isn't retired, he played in the Golden Baseball League this year and it is sourced), I fix it and he reverts it. This has went on for the past few months and won't stop until one of us is banned. Clearly he is violating Wikipedia policies and rules and what not and should be banned. Jackal4 (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I am not him... and second, I agree with Epeefleche. Quit making it like we're the ones in the wrong when we're not. You're the one vandalizing. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what Epeefleche is doing, vandalizing articles and making me out to be the vandal.
If you knew anything about baseball articles and infoboxes on wikipedia, you wouldn't have reverted Paul Wilson (baseball)'s infobox back to what it was before I corrected it.Jackal4 (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice try... but no! It's exactly what you're doing. You're making us look like the vandals when we're not. Now stop this childish behavior or you will be banned from WikiPedia. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What is your excuse for reverting Paul Wilson and Ryan Braun? Jackal4 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are six examples of the many instances of innapropriate behavior by Jackal4:

1. Profanity -- Jackal4's use of profanity when dealing with those who criticize the innapropriateness of his edits; see, for example, his accusations of those who criticize him: "You wouldn't have triggered an edit war if you didn't ... fuck up articles": [79]. (emphasis added)

2. Adding innappropriate placeholder material, and refusing to go back and delete it. See his violation of the image placeholders directive, [80], which mandates that one not put up the ugly blank placeholder in lieu of a picture.

One (of many) examples can be found at [81]. The examples are many in his revisions over the past months.

I've cleaned up many, but many remain.

I asked him to clean up his dozens of innappropriate placeholder additions. His refusal can be found at [82], where he said, in part, "You'll be fine doing it yourself." (emphasis added)

3. Deletions -- A third example is his penchant for deleting perfectly good quote boxes that I have inserted in articles, and then continuing to do delete them when I reinsert them.

An example of this activity on his part can be found at [83].

4. Deleting others' communications on others' talk pages. When another writer complained about Jackal4's innappropriate behavior on a third party's talk page (where the third party had warned Jackal4 in the past for similar behavior, Jackal4 deleted that complaint from the third party's talk page. See [84].

5. There are many users who have complained about this behavior on his part, including his flirting with the 3-revert rule, and edit warring. You will not find this on his talk page, as he deleted the warnings, but if you go to the history page of his talk page you can find half a dozen users who have warned him similarly over the past few months.

6. Dishonesty, violating Wiki's Guideline against dishonesty. Another example of Jackal4's violation of Wiki guidelines are his violations most recently of the Wiki Guideline on Honesty.

When I indicated that Jackal4 had used profanity, and deleted others' communications on others' talk pages, Jackal4 deleted my comment, falsely writing in his edit summary "(removed false accusations)." See [85]. In fact, as detailed above, the accusations were correct.

I responded by asking "... how can you delete my comment that you used profanity on the basis that it is a false accusation? What you deleted details its veracity."

Jackal4 engaged in further dishonesty when he, in further discussion of this issue, wrote "(cur) (prev) 22:38, January 23, 2009 Jackal4 (Talk | contribs) (11,197 bytes) (Undid revision 266041160 by Epeefleche (talk) I didn't say what you said that was false)"

But in fact, Jackal4 clearly did just that. His edit summary, which he inserted to explain his deletion of my true statements, says precisely that. His dishonest statements are against Wiki Guidelines. See WP:HONESTY. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of this is content and style dispute. However, Jackal's vulgarity is highly inappropriate, and his removal of other users' comments from other users' talk pages is absolutely unacceptable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Insults by 59.101.23.24

On [86] discussion has gone off topic, and some users including 59.101.23.24 is calling other users (in which I'm included) blood thirsty maniacs, loosers and fascists. I warned him yesterday (23. of January) to stop, but he continued with his behavior. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected Talk:Serbo-Croatian language for 48 hours due to hate speech. We can ask regular editors to ignore Talk page outbursts by POV-warriors up to a point but I think this needs some admin action. Other suggestions for how to handle the unusual comments on this Talk page are welcome. This 59.101.23.24 seems to be a throwaway IP so blocking for WP:NPA may not be useful. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.--Čeha (razgovor) 17:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

User:68.45.90.254

Since August 2008, this user has repeatedly added unsourced information to the Jerry Lewis article, alleging that Lewis has an illegitimate daughter [87]. Despite numerous requests, the user has continued to re-post the material at regular intervals. WWGB (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of citation, this is a BLP violation and can be reverted on sight. The next time it happens, and if the IP is not already blocked by someone watching here, post it at WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a look and given that the contrib history gives precious little other than the complained of editing and the Whois appears to show the address is stable, I have blocked for a month. Just to be on the safe side I have allowed for account creation in case there is a different editor who happens to chance upon this addy, but that can be changed without consulting me if the facility is abused. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was about to either LTA-warn or block this IP, but I see LessHeard vanU beat me to it and anonblocked him for one month. Might want to keep an eye on it, though, in case this is a dynamically-assigned IP. Blueboy96 14:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Amid.Abdullah

Amid.Abdullah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, per this edit, and the fact that most of their contributions tend to center around the Anonymous group, and things 4chan-anonymous-related such as Imageboards and Computer Security, not to mention this oppose to the trial runs of flagged revisions, because, as we all know, 4chan loves to attack this, any anything like FR would make it virtually impossible.

Anyway, to the point, I believe this user is one of those of the 4chan group, who loves to coordinate attacks on wikipedia, or such, and per the other edits the account has made, such as reducing the importance of various articles under the scope of various projects, even though the editor is not in those projects, I find worrisome. Does anyone share my feelings here? Please weigh in.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm unarchiving this because there were no opinions on the matter.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything to be really concerned about at this point - the edits don't appear to be a serious issue. Keep an eye on their edits - and they haven't done anything for a few days - and if anything comes up, grab a nearby admin (I'll be happy to look at it if something does happen). Tony Fox (arf!) 19:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry at SPLC

An anon IP editor made this edit to assert that the SPLC has created "Westboro Baptist Church" as a new category of hate group. When I reverted it and asked for sourcing, Ramdrake quickly restored the same edit with a source that says the SPLC has named Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group. When I reverted that and asked for a source that supports that "Westboro Baptist Church" is a new category of hate group, Spotfixer immediately restored it.
I want to AGF, but this fits an ongoing pattern of editors tag-teaming at that article. And I can't fathom why three separate people would all unquestioningly make the same error in logic that being a hate group is the same as being a category of hate group. arimareiji (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it's because we each saw that you were deleting a reference to a well-known hate group and you did a poor job of explaining your objection. But if you want to assume bad faith and toss out wild accusations, feel free. Spotfixer (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak to the sockpuppet issue, but it's clear that singling that one group of bozos out, of the hundreds the SPLC has identified, is undue weight and is simply a POV-push by the IP address. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, now that the reason for the deletion has been explained, I'm leaving it alone. Spotfixer (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer, it's not much better to assert "I reverted it because I knew you were wrong without reading the edit." arimareiji (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I read the diff and the comment. That should have had enough information, but it didn't. Spotfixer (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If you had read the diff, you would have seen that by reverting you were asserting "Westboro Baptist Church is a new category of hate group." In which case my earlier assertion holds, and I'm stumped as to how three separate people could make the same inexplicable logic error. arimareiji (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As for myself, I reverted because reading Arimareiji's edit summary here, there was mention of a controversial edit (it's not controversial that the Westboro Baptist Church has been called a hate group), but no mention of the logical error of listing it as a hate group category. Had this been made clear through the edit summary, I wouldn't have reverted. Now that it has been explained, I of course agree with their removal rom the list of hate group categories. I believe the spat of reversal was prompted by an imprecise edit summary and that tag teaming has nothing to do with it.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither "I didn't read the edit I reverted" nor "I just knew it was wrong" is particularly civil, nor does it argue strongly against knee-jerk editing. Of which sockpuppetry is one example, though it's true that it's not the only one. And there are many examples of tag-teaming and unquestioned unanimity displayed in recent edits on both Talk and Mainspace of that page. arimareiji (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be careful here: what you call tag-teaming on the article I find looks more like you're trying to go against a rather solid consensus. Also, accusations of tag-teaming are quite uncivil in any case. Also, not bothering to write a proper edit summary and then accusing people of wrongly reverting your edits isn't exactly civil either.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is reasoned discussion. Agreeing with each other despite lack of policy wording to support you, and refusing to address policy wording that contradicts you, is not. It's a vote. arimareiji (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Poor Arimareiji!! Only he/she is able to offer "reasoned discussion" in explaining why talk radio hosts are a reliable source. Obviously EVERYBODY couldn't disagree with your "reasoned discussion" -- the existence of a conspiracy and multiple sock puppet accounts is irrefutable. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I could feel more sympathy for your view if it weren't for the fact that you consistently refuse to address the policies which refute you, cite policies which do not support or contradict you, rely strictly on an "I outvote you" procedure, and have even asserted that policy is only something to "fall back on" when votes aren't "a close decision." It was simply the last of many straws when three editors made the exact same blatantly-illogical edit (see above) and used the same reasoning (WBC=hategroup->WBC=new category of hategroup). And with all due respect, if there's no sockpuppetry - why are you so eager to dismiss checking editors to whom you haven't been connected? At the very least, you have a group of editors who routinely use each other's reasoning and wording and revert edits made by anyone not in the group - I'm far from the only one who's been the object of it. arimareiji (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody but you has mentioned a "vote" or a "straw poll" -- it's pretty easy to determine consensus when it's one person versus everybody else. What is not "a close decision" requiring the nitpicking of a half dozen different policy articles is whether your talk radio guy is a reliable source. You refuse to discuss his merits, other than labeling him a "windbag". Cite the policy in which "windbags" are considered as reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Without wanting to get involved in this particular dispute, I would like to point out that the article needs a great deal of work. There is a lot of undue weight given to the details of the lawsuits that the SPLC has been involved but only two sentences about their Academy Award winning films. L0b0t (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Users Anak Kalimantan and Khuntien Ngin

Khuntien Ngin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Anak Kalimantan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have only made contributions in Indonesian (or another language?) and in their user space. There, they have created several pages that seem to be about Indonesian musicians, or chatrooms (such as User talk:Khuntien Ngin/Rendy Marciano). At any rate, they do not seem to be here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Thoughts?  Sandstein  20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess the ideal thing to do would be to ask them to contribute to Indonesian wiki (if that is in fact the language) and continue their work there. In any case they do not seem to contribute to mainspace at all. In the process, delete all the subpages as they have no purpose whatsoever on this Wikipedia. ^LeaveSleaves 20:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well they're not talking in Hakka/Hakkan (?). But yeah, ask them to contribute there, or at the Simple English Wiki (I notice that the first user says they can hardly understand English, so they would be better off there). If that place isn't closing, that is... --.:Alex:. 21:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check

Am I getting too big for my britches, unilaterally banning people from talk pages for a day, at User talk:Andrew Parodi#Please knock it off and User talk:Pigsonthewing#Please knock it off? Seemed like a rational thing to do, but also felt I was pushing the envelope a little, so bringing it here for review and modification if necessary. --barneca (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

← (e/c)

Barneca writes on my talk page:

posted to User talk:Pigsonthewing and User talk:Andrew Parodi

I don’t suppose there’s any way to get you two to stop disrupting Talk:Eva Perón with whining, baiting, snide comments, overreactions, and the like? Having watched this mutual sniping for several days now, all I can think of is this, so consider this "official", whatever that means:

Andy Mabbett and Andrew Parodi are both banned from editing Talk:Eva Perón, Eva Perón, and each other’s talk pages, for a period of 24 hours. That should be enough to regain perspective. If this ban is violated, I’ll block for 24 hours. If disruption resumes after 24 hours, I’ll also block with no further warnings. When the ban expires, both of you need to make a very careful effort to avoid attributing motives to the other user, or calling anyone names, or indeed any immature behavior. Believe it or not, the best course forward will be to assume that you’re both trying to improve the article, and that some kind of compromise is going to be necessary.

Further, when the ban expires, Andy Mabbett will stop indenting Andrew's comments (it's hurting more than it's helping, and appears designed to cause offense), and will respect Andrew's request to keep all further comments on the article talk page, rather than Andrew's user talk. If Andy truly believes "warnings" to Andrew are necessary, he will do so thru an admin or WP:ANI.

Both of you are being disruptive, both are unacceptably abusing the other, both are acting like [preemptively redacted].

If you disagree with this ban, I suggest you take it up at WP:ANI before making another edit to the above pages; it will be easier to lobby for overruling me at WP:ANI, than from inside an unblock template.

I can't "stop disrupting Talk:Eva Perón with whining, baiting, snide comments, overreactions, and the like" because I've not started so doing. You will find only one editor attributing motives to the other user, or calling anyone names; also repeatedly making false accusations of nationalist bias, exhibiting clear-cut ownership, making personal attacks and falsely claiming to have been the target of personal attacks; and already reprimanded at ANI for improper behaviour in this matter; "reverting without discussion", or "edit warring with a variable IP address to avoid scrutiny" (Barneca's description). That editor is not me. (I can supply diffs as evidence for each the aforesaid, but it will be tiresome to have to do so). Andrew Parodi's improper indentation makes others replies to earlier comments appear to be replies to him. The last time I corrected this, I did so at the explicit invitation of Andrew Parodi. How else does Barneca propose that be remedied? I note that despite having "watched this … for several days now" Barneca has not posted there, nor to either talk page, before the above.

Talk:Evita is also pertinent. Somebody should put a link to this discussion on Talk:Eva Perón, since I'll apparenlty be blocked if I do so, or refute the latest false allegations made against me there (example: "the fact that your nationality influences your view of Eva Peron's greatest significance as derived from the fact that two English men wrote a musical about her"). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a WP:BOLD and fundamentally correct action by Barneca, there was no progress being made by the adversarial editing of the article talkpage and quite possibly the tone that had developed was impinging on the likelihood of other parties attempting to resolve the matter by reasoned discussion - the few that joined in had appeared to simply aligned themselves with one or the other faction. To respond to Andy Mabbett, this is no longer a matter of who is right and who is wrong but a case of allowing the article to be improved by editors without such an investment of emotional baggage. I think the two parties should honourably withdraw and allow others to discuss what is best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) "this is no longer a matter of who is right and who is wrong" In the oft-surreal world of Wikipedia administration, you may be right. After all, I've been scrupulous in using edit sumamries and talk pages, involving WP:THIRD and even, when appropriate WP:ANI, in the face of increasingly hysterical accusations such as those listed above; so why shouldn't I be tarred with the same brush as the person making them? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is not the first time that Andy Mabbet has been brought here for modifying the style of other people's comments. The simple solution is to stop doing it, which would then make threads like this unnecessary. We are, however, completely wasting our time if we try to get Andy to admit fault. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support (EC) Barneca's actions, and Guy's assessment of the reactions (as evidenced above). ThuranX (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c with 3 or 4 people) Andrew Parodi's latest rant is, indeed, worse than Andy Mabbett's behavior, and I'll go take a closer look at it now. possibly deleting any attacks. Over the top behavior is not excused by less eggregious behavior from one's "opponent", but neither should it be viewed in a vacuum.

The reason I included Pigsonthewing in the ban is twofold:

1. My take is that Andy, while often right about something, often makes a concerted effort to condescend and belittle those who disagree. This is not good in a collaborative editing environment. I really want other editors to look thru the talk page, and see if you agree. If I’m imagining things, I’d be happy to retract this, but it’s definitely my feeling.
2. I recall (will have to sort thru history if this is disputed) Andy’s fascination with adding a user page link to User:Docu’s signatures, claiming it was for other editors’ benefit. Same thing here with the indents; while there might possibly be a benefit to readability, it is outweighed by its annoyance to the person being “corrected”. I have a feeling this is intentional, although I could probably be chided for a lack of good faith in this regard.

Thanks in advance for any outside views. --barneca (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is thank you very much for intervening. I will not edit the article or the talk page for the next 24 hours. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have overlooked my comment above: "The last time I corrected [his indentation], I did so at the explicit invitation of Andrew Parodi" and "How else does Barneca propose that be remedied?" . Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: that was not a serious invitation. I was dramatizing the fact that I found your indentations of my comments to be offensive and patronizing. At any rate, this isssue is immaterial because you had already indented my comments without any invitation to do so. You need to learn to keep your hands off of the comments of other people. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

it's almost always best in situations like this when dealing with a particular article or group of articles to give a short block or topic ban both parties--its exactly like protection to stop a revert war, or 3RR. It shouldn't be seen as judgment on the merits. DGG (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Barneca still sane: check. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd coincidence, though, that Andrew Parodi apparently invited Andy Mabbett to edit his comments, but still had a problem when it was done, and Docu apparently thanked Andy Mabbett for editing his comments, but it turns out that he didn't appreciate it after all. Looks to me like Andy Mabbett is not terribly good at interpreting how others want him to edit their comments, so should probably stop doing it. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: he had already edited my comments without my permission. THEN he "schooled" me on it, talking down to me as though I'm a child: "again correctly indented your comments." [88] In "gratitude" I "thanked" him for doing what I never asked him to do in the first place and then asked him to do it again. His indentation of my comments were not meant to be helpful but to be insulting, to suggest that I am an inexperienced editor who doesn't know what he is doing -- and he is an experienced editor who is better than me and is going to tell me how to do it all correctly. My sarcastic comment was not an endorsement of his insulting treatment of me, but a statement that he is not better than me and I do not take seriously his suggestions that he is. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no "apparently" required; both examples were unequivocal and diffs exist to prove so. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There you go again. Have you not noticed that in both cases they then went on to complain, quite vociferously? So, it looks to me as if you are not very good at judging when to edit people's comments, and should stop doing it. That would have avoided two lengthy discussions on these noticeboards in recent memory. If people want to format their comments in a way you don't like, then let them. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There you go again. I have indeed noticed that they did that; and it tells me a great deal about both complainants and their complaints. It's not a question of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but of the harm done by such inconsiderate - deliberately so, on evidence - formatting - to other editors, and to WP. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, I think dialogue with you would be a lot omre productive if you took your fingers out of your ears and stopped chanting "LAA LAA I CAN'T HEAR YOU." So, until next time your alteration of someone's comments brings you back here again, adios amigo. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If I wasn't reading and understanding your comments, including the juvenile one above, then I wouldn't know how wrong you were. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Barneca has forgotten saying that he would "go take a closer look at [Andrew Parodi's latest rant] now. possibly deleting any attacks.". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I did look, but decided that you two were both sniping, and that selective deletion would be time-consuming, unproductive, and silly. Here's hoping that things will go better from here on out. --barneca (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I see: you decided that his false accusations of nationalist bias and other ad hominem attacks were on a par with me doing dreadful things like, er, asking him not to make personal attacks and to abide by other Wikipedia, policies? As to "hoping that things will go better from here on out", I've just refuted another of his blatantly distorted misrepresentations of my actions, made since your intervention, on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, putting information in the wrong section (your original edit made it appear that Evita the musical is an Argentine production [89]), referring to another's arguments as "straw man" arguments [90], being condescending and patronizing from the start (despite my initial attempts at diplomacy [91]), and editing another's comments without permission, are acceptable. I'm not the only one to notice that you have a better-than-thou attitude with others and have a tendency to edit others' comments. And, again, I was joking when I asked you to indent my comments. But it should probably come as no surprise that you didn't see that as a joke, because it has become apparent that you have no sense of humor. Thanks. (Please note, this editor had already indenting my comments anyway.) --- Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

About the "nationalist bias," I simply pointed out earlier that it was a consensus reached between myself (a former exchange student to Argentina) and an Argentine that the musical should not be mentioned in the intro paragraphs [92]. I then pointed out that the Spanish language version of the article does not mention the musical in the intro paragraphs [93]. I suggested that it is in the English speaking world that the musical is seen as of great importance in Eva Peron's legacy, but in Argentina the real woman is far more important and famous -- and this generalizes to the rest of the Spanish speaking world. I then pointed out that the musical is written by two English men, the musical based on a book written by an English woman, and the editor who suggests that the musical be mentioned in the intro paragraphs is himself English. Is it really such an outrageous suggestion that an English person may see things from an English perspective? (And, yes, if you want to go deeper, you can easily see that the anti-Evita tone of the musical is ultimately founded in the anti-Peronism perspective of England, and the musical itself even dramatizes this. The artistocracy that rejects Evita sings in a British accent, and the musical contains lines like, "(She) gave us back our businesses/ Got the English out" ... "I don't think she'll make it to England now....") -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit which inadvertently put detail of the musical in the "wrong" section was changed before Andrew Parodi again removed the material. Examples of Andrew Parodi's false accusations of nationalist bias: "Right back at you, my English friend…your nationality influences your view of Eva Peron's greatest significance as derived from the fact that two English men wrote a musical about her. ([94])", "I postulate that your insistence that the musical be referenced in the opening paragraphs is correlated to the fact that you are English, as it has become apparent that you believe that the most important thing that ever happened in her life was that she was the subject of a musical by two of your countrymen. ([95])". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well at least they've both made my point for me. --barneca (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested page protections.

I know this isn't where to send this but please hear me out, because of Bambifan101's socks' new targets. I request that the next pages be indef semi-protected as well of all the other past targets: List of The Mighty B! episodes, List of The Mighty B! characters, Balto (film), Talk:Balto (film), Hotel for Dogs, Talk:Hotel for Dogs, Hotel for Dogs (film), Talk:Hotel for Dogs (film), Talk:List of The Mighty B! characters, Talk:List of The Mighty B! episodes, and List of Balto characters, and Talk:List of Balto characters. I tried the project page, but it was declined.

P.S. all of Bambifan101's recent socks were in the 68. range, perhaps a range block would be in order for an alternative? Elbutler (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean range blocks? I'm pretty certain blocking a whole set of IPs starting with 68. would be impossible to work. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ownership of article Sindhi people

I have been attempting to remove large sections of unsourced and NPOV statements from the article Sindhi people. All my edits are being reverted by editors User:210.2.140.194, User:Skatergal and User:122.169.71.248 (who may be the same user). They have refused to discuss the matter, in spite of requests by me [96], [97]; warnings [98] and even an Rfc [99].

The editors have flagrantly violated WP:OWN, as evidenced by their comments here [100], [101] and [102]

An intervention would be greatly appreciated.

Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Best Boyfriend Award

Resolved

 – Blocked for various lengths. — neuro^(talk) 09:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

An SPA, CollegekidWPU (talk · contribs), created this article about an undocumented and undocumentable, apparently, "award" from an nn website. A speedy deletion tag was placed on the article. A second SPA, Sporttrac004 (talk · contribs), removed the speedy deletion tag. A third SPA, Custommacs (talk · contribs), removed my afd tag and CollegekidWPU blanked the AfD discussion. A yet again fourth SPA, AppleiMac20 (talk · contribs), began vandalizing my Talk page out of the blue, then blanked the AfD discussion yet again. Could somebody please block all of these people? AnyPerson (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked some of the users for 72 hours (generous, I know, but if they start up again it's easy to knock it up to indefinite. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Not unsurprisingly, CollegkidWPU: "Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "AppleiMac20". ". AnyPerson (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Should I assume Custommacs and Sporttrac are also socks and extend their blocks to "when lizards become warm-blooded"? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Only on Conservapedia. bibliomaniac15 05:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

?? (is confused) -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's supposed to be a "they don't believe in dinosaurs" reference. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but I mentioned lizards, not dinosaurs. v-_^v -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but they don't believe in evolution either... Black Kite 11:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the feeling is mutual, too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

IP sock doing the large-scale reversions is back again

Resolved

 – Sock blocked. — neuro^(talk) 09:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

206.53.144.165 (talk · contribs) is back making large reversions to certain articles. We went through this last night (and remembered where I had seen him before) in this thread [103] here. He's obviously disruptive, I'll revert. If an admin could block, I would appreciate it. Dayewalker (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a Tfoxworth IP sock. Normally, I'd implement a rangeblock, but there's far too much collateral damage. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 08:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Insulted by a user

Resolved

 – Though no apology on either side, both parties are happy to walk away and try to continue editing in a productive manner. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been insulted repeatedly by User:Jimmi_Hugh on the talk page of Proprietary software. He used terms like: "you really are just talking gibberish now" "Your accusations of original research are pathetic" "I cannot believe I wasted my time on these arguments believing you to at least be rational", etc... You can judge by yourself how / if I triggered this behavior or not, as:

• I made only one edit to the article, and felt that I had to explain in the talk page why I did this.
• He replaced it by his own (previous) formulation
• When I tried to explain why I felt that keeping the old formulation was WP:POV IMHO (I did NOT revert his change), he seemed to became "heated", and he finished by insulting me.

It is NOT an edit war, since I did not change anything in the article after that: my first edit was also the last one. He seems to have a story of edit wars in this article.

Please note that I'm not requesting assistance for anything about the discussion / argument between me and this user (though I honestly think it was an argument only from his behalf, but I let you judge by yourself), but only because of how he called me. I don't feel I did anything which could triggered that. He wrote in one of his answers: "I wanted to ignore your comments on China, but that's just silly". I replied "And why needing to tag part of my comment as "silly" ? Try to moderate your language next time ;-) ". Then he kind of insulted me. Then he continued by sentences like "I call your claims absurd, your conclusions gibberish, and the very idea that me, without swear words, is not "cool", silly". Then "I will happily address these off topic comments with nothing but contempt for you" "I am sorry that you're a complete hypocrite".

I ask him to be blocked for a moment necessary for him to cool down, because I think that this kind of behavior must not be tolerated here. I see his behavior toward me as a personal aggression.

You may find in the thread that the last post in by another user who tried to help. I asked him on his talk page to resolve this problem because I thought he was an administrator (my mistake). He really tried to help on this matter, but he thought that I wanted to resolve the discussion, whereas I had a problem with the repeated insults. Hervegirod (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on the thread at Talk:Proprietary software as well. This is a typical incivility spiral, and I don't think a block is needed at this time. If insults continue, then WP:WQA is a better place to start than ANI; blocking isn't the first step, it's the last step. --barneca (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you repeat that please? At what time during the actual conversation did I insult the user? Making substantiated comments about the absurdity of false conclusions, and responding when he fictionalises comments from me, and insults my good faith, is not insulting someone. I haven't been uncivil, and while I admit to being off topic, I think to say that a block could ever be in order for responding calmy and rationally to character assisanation, is to admit you didn't really read through the conversation in much detail. While I thank you for your attempts to calm the matter, I don't like the insinuation that I have done wrong and simply, "let off this time". When I'm wrong, I swear, I'm rude, aggressive, but in this case, I hadn't attacked his character until my very final statement, long after his insults, and even then, a claim of hypocrisy, given the evidence, and the fact he was the one who insisted we stop talking about the article, seems perfectly fair. I'm sure in light of the fact you've offended me, and for the first time in days I am actually feeling responsive, as opposed to the perfecly cool discussive attitude I held before, that you'll seek to read the conversation and perhaps advise the correct user that insulting another users good faith, when they're making absurd conclusions, based upon fictional assumptions about the arguments I am putting across is no considered civil. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame you do not wish to consider two outside observers' opinions. Yes, I did read the entire thread, as I believe I already mentioned. In spite of the fact that there was some feedback going on, you were being significantly more rude than Herve, and I suspect a large majority of people who see your comments would agree that this was not civilized conversation. I had hoped a quiet word would be sufficient. I'll just repeat that if the insults continue, I suggest a post be made to WP:WQA. --barneca (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, an example? I do consider your views, I'm grateful for attempts to solve a problem, but I see no argument, only a discussion taken off topic by the other user. I also agree with Cyclonenim entirely, though I perhaps am biased by the fact he sees the fact there is no argument. There will of course be an argument if the other user continues to post off topic insults of my good faith, but I don't wish to start one, so I refuse to respond to him, unless your encouraging him to attack me keeps taking this out of hand. It is disconcerting that someone on the outside could look at reasoned response given in despite of the editors insults of my faith and ability, and his response to comments I've never made. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I also made a comment there prior to this discussion. This isn't really something an admin can help you with, you just need to try and find some form of mutural agreement to work by. Falling out helps no-one, I'm afraid. As Barneca said, in future (for civility concerns), try WP:WQA. Cheers, and happy editing. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree (of course, you will say ;-). Where is the incivility spiral. I don't think I was uncivil at any point. As I wrote before:

• he began by I wanted to ignore your comments on China, but that's just silly
• I did not "escalate", I just made the following remark because he began to take it in a personal way: "And why needing to tag part of my comment as "silly" ? Try to moderate your language next time ;-)".
• Then he wrote a lot of things toward me: "you are now a liar", "you really are just talking gibberish now", "Your accusations of original research are pathetic", "I cannot believe I wasted my time on these arguments believing you to at least be rational,".
• I warned him for this behavior: "Insulting people like you are doing now is not acceptable"
• then he replied: "My comments that what you said were gibberish" (I never accused his comments of being "gibberish", I don't know why he said that), "If you don't have a rational come back to the actual comments I made and an apology for accusing me of bad faith, then I will ask politely that you move along" (Again I never accused him of that !!!), "I will happily address these off topic comments with nothing but contempt for you", "So now, with a smile on my face yet again, I call your claims absurd, your conclusions gibberish, and the very idea that me, without swear words, is not "cool", silly". "I am sorry that you're a complete hypocrite" "I am sorry you want an apology you won't recieve" "I am sorry you don't possess the intelligence to read my argument". Do you think this is not enough ? I'm sorry but again his behavior his really an aggression toward me. Edit: I just read his response after having written the rest of this post, I won't comment it. But apparently he has a story of such behavior. See User_talk:Jimmi_Hugh#Civility_2. Hervegirod (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, it has already been noted that this is not a matter administrators can help you with since there are not any incivility issues, more just two people getting worked up over a topic. Calling things 'silly' may be considered aggressive by you, Hervegirod, but not by all. It's clear a block or any other admin status isn't warrented in this situation, and you guys should just take a break from each other or try and come a compromise on the topic at hand. Please, leave this to your user talk pages. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, It's not "silly" that is the problem, it's what he said after that. Forgive me if I'm not prepared to be called a liar, unintelligent, gibberish, a complete hypocrite, pathetic, and so on. Again I say: here I don't mind the article / the discussion / the argument, or whatever this "exchange of views" can be called. It's not the problem for me. Hey I just edited this article once because I was trying to help when I came there by chance !! Hervegirod (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, Ok, now you get a response here, and it's officially an argument. Where do you get off comparing this to that linked discussion on my talk page. If you've read that, you should be clearly aware of exactly how I act when I actually am civil, and your arrogance is unbelievable. The word silly doesn't compare in anyway to the foul lanugage I use when faced with irrationality, something I was proud I had overcome in my arguments with you, but still here we are. You have insulted my character, my faith, my contributions. You've fictionalised my history of editing the article and concpets that I am meant to have proposed. Yet, I haven't called you out, I've constantly attempted to stay on topic, and it was you and you alone who took us off topic. Your entire argument is flawed in the fact I sourced said edits, not with one, but three solid references, and you're now just becoming irritating. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"You have insulted my character, my faith, my contributions", "your arrogance is unbelievable" : again, will you never stop this ? Again: this is not a behavior I can accept. Hervegirod (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hervegirod, statements (such as "You have insulted my character, my faith, my contributions") are not insults, they are comments. You have to learn that not all criticism is intended to be insulting. Again, once you 'delve' (to steal Gutza's term) into critising a user, you have to expect to get strong words back in their defence. "Your arrogance is unbelievable" isn't a personal attack, isn't uncivil, but instead a comment on your behaviour. I am not going to say whether I agree with one side over the other. That said, however, Gutza has posted a comment below with some quotes I do take to be personal attacks, as he was insulting your nature (i.e. "I am sorry you're a complete hypocrite" and "am sorry you don't possess the intelligence to read my argument"). Such comments lead to no-where but exaggeration of the situation and are deeply unwelcome. Hervegirod, can I suggest you try to become less offended over any and all critism, and instead only bring up those which are personal attacks on your nature rather than a comment of your replies. Jimmi, I beg of you to try and tone down your language when talking to Hervegirod, since you should now realise it's only going to escalate this situation. If you could both adhere to these terms, you may start to find more progress being made both in relation to the article, and in your relationship with each other. Cheers. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Again I don't mind the article, it's the personal attacks that I don't accept !! Please note that when he used the term "silly" the first time I just wrote: "why needing to tag my comments silly ? Try to moderate your language next time ;)", this is not escalation nor spiraling behavior. However, Jimmi Hugh stated his very rude attacks after that. And Gutza did not insult me at all, he clearly quoted what Jimmi Hugh wrote about me. Hervegirod (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you not see the hypcrisy in accusing me of insult, at a time when I made no insult (the single insult i have made came long after threat and insult on your part), but then making absurd statements, that my claim to you having insulted me, is "not behaviour [you] can accept"? Claiming you're insulting me, is not insulting you, and how you cannot be embarrassed to say so, I couldn' possibly understand. I thank the other editors for there input, but to make comment on only my very final statement, the only insult I made, and not upon all the insult you have made, which I chose to ignore in an attempt to actually discuss the article, simply serves to fuel your unhelpful behaviour. I will apologise for my final statement, "sorry you don't possess the intelligence to read my argument" (I don't consider calling your hypocrisy out to be insult), when you have apologised for insulting my good faith, lieing about my procedure in reverting edits when I included sources, fictionalising my past edits upon said article and for wasting my time when you claim to have no interest in the article. Of course I mean this in jest, I don't expect you to apologise, and therefore I will not apologise, I consider the case closed and would like to get back to editing. May I also suggest, in the kindest possile tone, that if can't accept valid criticism (which strangely is the only thing you have actually brought up) then you find a cave somewhere? I did not attack you, I made reasoned claims about the fallacies in your argument and the way you made up things instead of reading my comments, I did not mean to offend, and would have apologised if not for the rude tone in which you demanded such returns. I do apologise, as always when these things are brought out of hand, to the administrators and other editors who had to spend time here instead of editing Wikipedia. I know it irritates me too be typing this instead of working on the Closed source software article, so I do feel sorry for my part in bringing you here. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor the inclination to look into this deep enough, but Jimmi Hugh did indeed delve into personal attacks with such remarks as "am sorry you don't possess the intelligence to read my argument" or "I am sorry that you're a complete hypocrite". As I said, I didn't look into what prompted such a reply, but this is definitely a no-no. --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely Jimmi Hugh personally attacked Herve repeatedly, and I've seen no evidence of personal attacks in response by Herve posted here. Focussing on the contributor, calling him arrogant, a liar, accusing him of being rude without evidence, are personal attacks. Telling him to "find a cave somewhere" is a personal attack. You do not have to use profanity to attack someone. Jimmi, if you wish to apologise, you should direct your apology to Herve. You have shown not one whit of evidence for your continual accusations. Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to your message here and at my talk, at your talk page. I feel further discussion here is not useful. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This comment was not directed toward you in particular. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

image removal

• User LOTRrules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

keeps removing images from

• Islamist demonstration outside Danish Embassy in London in 2006‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saying "Copyright violations as per WP:NFC. Images used are not properly liscensed and haven't been since they were uploaded by a user" I have already warned them twice to deal with images or putting on images for deletion, not the article they are used on.

This isn't the first time the user has been inappropriately been removing islam related images. [104][105][106][107] I think a block may be appropriate as the user is clearly driven by religious motivation and has already been warned by another user too.--Otterathome (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

He might not be going about it the best way, but he's right that the images need to be deleted. There's no evidence that the claimed licenses of {{cc-by-sa}} and {{attribution}} are correct. --Carnildo (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What was the source for the images? (I can't check myself - they're gone already). Orpheus (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.sullivan-county.com/wcva/londonstan.htm - a page with no copyright information one way or the other, and certainly no Creative Commons dedication. --Carnildo (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I recognise them - they were from a muck-raking forwarded email. Good call on deleting them. I've replaced them in the article with a CC licensed image from commons. Orpheus (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I have found appropriate replacements from Flickr[108][109].--Otterathome (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

They aren't creative commons images, so they're not compatible with Wikipedia's copyright policies. Orpheus (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This can be uploaded [110].--Otterathome (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it can't. It's identical to one of the forwarded ones, and it's obviously mis-licensed on flickr. Orpheus (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why have you placed "a muslim user" beside my name? Is that appropriate? What has that got to do with the images? I suggested getting replacements but the nominator who called me a "vandal" seems to be a little Islamophobic. I suggest again Otterathome that you re-upload the images and apologise to me. I have been on Wikipedia longer than you have and I know the rules.LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 13:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the line.LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 13:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not edit other people's comments in a public forum like this, it makes following the conversations harder, or impossible. I looked for the 'muslim' line right after your question, then had to come back and keep reading to see you'd imperiously decided you had that right. ThuranX (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record I think you were right to remove the "muslim user" line. I agree that it was offensive and irrelevant. I did not find that it made the conversation harder or impossible to follow and I did not think it an imperious move, but merely practical. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I had every right ThuranX, and precisley how does it make the conversation harder to follow? He accuses me of fanaticism. If another user had written in brackets "a jew" wouldn't you find that offensive and irrelevant to the conversation? It was written in a context that was made clearly to isolate me from the Wiki community. FYI do not tell me how and what to edit. I know the rules and procedures. That I consider vandalism so it was necessary to delete it. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 19:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments - it's best not to edit others comments, regardless of whether they offend you. Incivility is not vandalism, either. Orpheus (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If removing racial abuse is against our guidelines, then the problem is with the guidelines. What Otterathome said is clearly incredibly inappropriate; what LOTRrules says is correct. Further, describing LOTRrules as a vandal and rolling back his edits is not only misuse of tools and offensive, but also damaging to the article by forcing stolen images back in. J Milburn (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. This is a common-sense IAR on the rule of editing others' words. Egregious personal attacks shouldn't be considered inviolate. I would suggest, however, some sort of tag like [personal attack removed by so-and-so] for continuity's sake. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I see the coward hasn't apologised yet. Thanks anyway. The little vandal should be aware of the rules next time. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 15:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible checkuser abuse, inappropriate block threats by admin AuburnPilot

Resolved

 – before Hullaballoo Wolfowitz digs the hole any deeper. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I generally edit from a public workstation. It is part of my local school/library network. Blocks on such a network would not be surprising from time to time. I believe that within the last month or so I saw at least one block on IP editing. Earlier this week, I received a nasty message on my talk page from AuburnPilot. [[111]] He claimed to have put one of the blocks on my IP address, and has threatened to block me over a dispute on removal of uncivil personal insults and BLP-violating content over a page in userspace. He has also made a claim, in the edit summary but not in the talk page message, that I am a sockpuppet of someone he did not name. There is no sockpuppet investigation, either. AuburnPilot does not have checkuser authority. No checkuser request regarding me is in the record. If a checkuser request were run, it would have been against Wikipedia policy for the checkuser person to disclose my IP address to AuburnPilot. If what AuburnPilot said about blocking my IP address previously was true, my privacy/user rights have been violated. If what he said is not true, his making such a false claim is grossly inappropriate. AuburnPilot also refused to give any basis for treating my edit as inappropriate. The content I deleted was a general attack on other users, plus specific attacks on two named individuals. One of them is a Wikipedia editor. The other apparently is not. (At least he does not have a Wikipedia user page.) Several recent discussions make clear that content like this should not be allowed. Even outside articlespace Example: [[112]]. I am not a sockpuppet of anybody. Auburnpilot has behaved very very badly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

So, why do you blank a paragraph from User:Calton that refers to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wyatt Ehrenfels? I can see where AuburnPilot (talk · contribs) is coming from. This edit I think is almost certainly you under an IP address. D.M.N. (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it was a personal attack and BLP violation. If you check my edit history that is where I do most of my work on Wikipedia. If you look over my edit history you will see much work of this sort, including at least one other deletion from a userpage. Why don't you do call for an actual checkuser under the rules? You will see that the claim is nonsense!! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it. I see no evidence of any checkuser abuse here. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If there was no checkuser violation, how did Auburnpilot find out my actual IP? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It is simple; you made an edit under your account name which was reverted, and you then made the same edit (with a similar summary) while logged out - there is AGF here, in which no-one has raised the point whether you deliberately logged off to avoid claims of edit warring. I would also note that you are now here confirming that this is your underlying ip, so it isn't that difficult to realise that working out the relationship is relatively easy (but it does help AGF that you are not deliberately avoiding scrutiny by logging off, as account abusers are more careful in trying to hide their tracks.) If you are sensitive over the ip address being known then you might wish to request deletion of the ip's edits from the various pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, I am not a checkuser and no checkuser has contacted me. However, when an account that is dormant for over two years[113] shows up to continue the user page blanking of an IP with no edit history, it's not very hard to connect the dots. I'm not sure where I "refused to give any basis for" reverting Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, but a diff to back up that assertion would be greatly appreciated. A quick look at my talk page history will show that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has never contacted me; s/he also did not respond to my note on his/her talk page. - auburnpilot talk 20:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It is the link to my talk page. How did you find out my IP without violating the checkuser rules? I have never edited as an IP. And if you look at my edit history old and new you will see many many many edits removing BLP violations. The text I removed was a garden variety personal attack. The only basis for your claim is your refusal to assume good faith. I would have expected that such editing as I have made, including this discovery of an appallingly bad BLP and privacy violation [[114]] should indicate that I am editing in good faith. AuburnPilot seems to be admitting that he jumped to his conclusion without real evidence. He does not contest that the text in question violates NPA and BLP. He should look before he leaps. Especially when he hurts the people he lands on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Users will sometimes give their IP addresses away through their behavior. That's called the "poor man's checkuser". I can think of a couple of examples recently where the user messed up and thus exposed their IP. It's one of those things that happens from time to time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that a CheckUser was never run on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:AuburnPilot 's actions and comments seem entirely appropriate to me. What he saw would raise alarm bells with me too.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to say anything, but as he has helpfully outed himself with this complaint, I might as well bring it up: that IP? It's obviously the return of the indefinitely blocked TruthCrusader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), banned for abusive and vile e-mails, among other things. I'll bet if this sockpuppet gets blocked, another long-inactive editor will suddenly pop up in a month, and I can even guess which one. --Calton | Talk 13:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hunington-Horstachio

User:Hunington-Horstachio seems to be on a campaign of some sort, but I have been unable to figure out exactly what. S/He appears to be applying inappropriate categories about corporate affiliations - and his initial edit on his talk page is a bit thought provoking. Not sure what, if anything, needs to be done. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This was reported at AIV, and I indef blocked after perusing the contrib history - I think it is a Bambifan101 sock also - as an editor uninterested in following WP policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone mind looking at Special:Contributions/Outofthedeluxe? This is a newly registered editor who has the same appearance. I'm not too familiar with the Bambifan behaviour, but this strikes me as close to the mark. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have indef blocked Outofthedeluxe (talk · contribs) as a VOA. Somehow I doubt that Lowe's belongs in Category:Cablevision. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 18:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How many bots to incorrectly edit an article?

Resolved

 – Interwiki links fixed; this is not a problem with the bots. Graham87 12:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be no place to post on Wikipedia about problems with multiple bots. Bots, different bots, keep adding Wikipedia interlanguage links to a page that supposedly shouldn't have them--it's a dab for a common name and the links belong on the article under the genus name.[115] Is this typical bot behaviour, that different bots will keep re-adding information that a prior bot added that was reverted? Is there a no-bots edit tag? Why isn't there a place to discuss general bot problems? --KP Botany (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There is {{nobots}}. I use it on my talk page archives page. Grandmasterka 08:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Grandmasterka, it looks like just what was wanted. And thanks for linking to your archives page as an example for placement. --KP Botany (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As a note, if a lot of bots are stumbling over a page, you should probably also notify the bot owners so that they can fix them. — neuro^(talk) 09:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I did go ahead and post a note on the talk pages for the four bots that have hit the page and edited so far. Thanks for the useful suggestion, though, in case I had not done it. --KP Botany (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for future reference, the bot owners' noticeboard would probably be the best place to report malfunctioning bots. Richard⁰⁶¹² 10:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, another useful comment. I will post a note there, also. --KP Botany (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The correct way to solve that problem is to fix *all* the other interwiki links first, as described at this interwiki bot FAQ. I have fixed all of the interlanguage links, and removed {{nobots}}. Adding it is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as there are useful maintenance bots, and the incorrect interwiki link adding is not the fault of the interwiki bots. If the bad interlanguage links are re-added again, then fix the interwiki links while reverting the bot that added them. Graham87 12:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you did. I looked at the FAQ and it describes, well, nothing particularly well, and it links to a script that does something, but it's completely unclear what it does (like the FAQ). I do see the reason for not using nobots on articles at all, but I have no idea what you did that I should do. The interwiki links looked correct. They were just being put on the wrong page. I even read a couple of the interwiki articles to verify this the first time. --KP Botany (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is this (I've run into the same problem): The bots were reacting to the fact that the interwiki links in some (or all?) of the non-English WP articles were to the dab page Tickseed rather than the Coreopsis article, where they should have been pointing. As long as those links remained in the other WPs' articles, the bots were just going to keep readding them to the dab page. You have to go to the foreign-language sites' articles and fix the links there before deleting them from the English WP dab page (which is what Graham87 did). Deor (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, heck, I didn't even think of that. Does it say that on the FAQ page Graham linked above? This is one of the problems with user essay FAQs, they're often poorly organized for finding information in them. Putting this simply on the bot pages would have helped. Oh well, it's hard to locate information on Wikipedia. Thanks for letting me know how to correct the situation. --KP Botany (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:66.183.27.165 anti-German and user page vandal

Resolved

 – Block extended. — neuro^(talk) 13:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:66.183.27.165 (contributions, talk, block log) first edited on Jan 13, inserting this diatribe, and their editing pattern indicates that the IP is the same person (see edits from Jan 14, Jan 22, Jan 24). Apart from inserting anti-German sentiment and accusations of Nazism into articles, their editing activities consist of user page vandalism to those editors who post warnings ([116], [117], [118], [119], [120]) and of blanking warnings from their talk page, causing editors who are not aware of the previous warning history to start with a warning level 1.

I'm posting this here because something about this IP (such as the methodical warning removal) looks like it is not a new editor who discovered Wikipedia editing a couple of weeks ago. Anybody recognise the editing pattern? And wouldn't it be appropriate to bestow a longer block on them soon? --Bonadea (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have extended a 1 week block to see if this forces them to change their modus operandi. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you do, Don't mention the war ;) MuZemike 16:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how posting this in a thread about an anti-german vandal is that funny... :/ CharonX/talk 19:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Gareth Penn

Resolved

 – Blp vios delt with, much less worrisome now. --Bali ultimate (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(I'm cross-posting this - i've already put this on the BLP notice board - because it seems highly problematic to me and hoping for a better chance that an admin will take a look.)

Could someone take a look at this? It's about an amateur sleuth obsessed with the Zodiac Killer and has a lot of material drawing comparisons between the writing styles, age, appaerance, background etc... of Penn and the killer, who was never caught. These sections seem largely original research or synth, using on line message boards for amateur sleuths and apparent or assumed similarities between the killer and Penn to connect the dots. I should probably just delete it all myself, but have already had a run in with an article owner so it would probably be best for an admin or someone more experienced to take a look; maybe i'm wrong, and it's skirting a BLP-vio rather than an eggregious example of one. (I've edited this article a ton today, take a look if you want at the state it was in before i began).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks for the heads-up. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Dane Cook question

Resolved

 – Semiprotected. Hermione1980 22:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There's been five different incidents of vandalism at Dane Cook in the past nine minutes. Has he been tagged on an online board, or is one of his specials running on TV right now or something? If it keeps up, an admin might want to slap a semi-pro on it just to save time. Dayewalker (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This edit [121] seems to show where the traffic spike is coming from. Little help, please? Dayewalker (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 1 day. Hopefully I got the non-vandalized version. Hermione1980 22:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza conflict talk page

Resolved

Reporting user blocked for one week for personal attacks, and arbcom case on Palestinian-Israeli issues made known to user. Orderinchaos 00:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I need your help and judgement here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Privacy.2Frespect_of_the_dead From one side they endorse Hamas, and from the other side they expect me to remain silent to that fact. And they pose baseless banning threats on me. Thank you John Hyams (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Any possibility of specific issues and corresponding diffs? Glancing, I can see some soapboxing from yourself, and nothing else of note (although, again, I've just glanced at it). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This is one of John Hyams' statements to another user "You are clearly a Hamas operative on Wikipedia, and this has to be dealt with" [122] --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That Hamas operative line was addressed to me, and even when he was called out on it by several other editors he stood behind it. For the record, I was born in Madison, raised in Chicago, and never in my life have I even met somebody associated with Hamas (the preceding message brought to you by federal law that bans material support of terrorist groups). Nableezy (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I regarded the above comment as crossing the line and warned John Hyams for attacking other editors on his (talk), he was unapologetic and accused me of harassing him. RomaC (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• This looks well beyond the point where light blocking would be appropriate. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. Deepsix him; we don't need that sort of garbage. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Support block. Not sure if any of you have looked at his talkpage but it is full of 'your people killed more people than my people' comments and arguments over the real world issue that have nothing to do with editing. Ironholds (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. In view of the continued discussion on his talk page, in which John Hyams continues to defend his conduct, I've blocked him for a week for personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as a battleground.  Sandstein  07:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Along the same lines, could an admin evaluate the edits made by the user who said this for at least the IP sanctions warning? Avruch ^T 14:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Y Done; formal warning and notification of possible sanctions issued to Brunte (talk · contribs).  Sandstein  15:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

User:John Hyams removed the block notice from his talk page, is this ok?--Cerejota (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't - block notices have to stay on talk pages until the block expires. It should be readded (which I will do), if it hasn't been already. — neuro^(talk) 09:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. — neuro^(talk) 09:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive / aggressive editing two users in astrology related articles

This seems to be based in a content dispute on some astrology articles. The dispute is between user:Someone963852 and user:BuckRodgers88. It has been escallating today with cross-postings on each-others talk pages, and a WP:AIV submittals by each reporting the other diff and diff (note: Someone963852 signs as "kashimjamed", so BuckRogers88's submittal is a bit off) - the time stamps of which show the AIV requests were submitted following their postings to each other, not following the reverts of each other. There seems to be some issues with WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL here. From what I can see, WP:3RR hasn't been broken yet; but the aggressive posturing and AIV submittals have me concerned that the situation needs to be addressed and both parties need to take a step back for a bit. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

BuckRogers88 is a troll who created an account today just to vandalize. What else is there to say. kashimjamed (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? , the fact that I created the account today is totally irrelevant, I was not vandalising, I explained to you what I was doing, and you were being very rude. I tried to be civil BuckRodgers88 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, you talk so much like Nathanael...Troll account much? --kashimjamed (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the one thing I got from looking at this was that many of these astrology articles certainly do need a large amount of work. Most of them are a mass of original research, unreliable sources, and complete bollocks. I've removed all the "Physical Traits" sections from all 12 articles, because they're laughably unencyclopedic.Black Kite 20:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone963852 is currently removing chunks of sourced material from articles, this is not the first time. — Realist² 20:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed so it wouldn't be against the N POV you biased kid. kashimjamed (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Agreed with Black Kite.

Stop with the personal attacks please. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Also everyone involved needs to stop issuing block notices. A content dispute isn't vandalism! Theresa Knott | token threats 20:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not issuing block notices, but sections that basically say "Some people believe that people of (X star sign) have (Y physical trait) just need to go - so I've removed them. If they're sourced at all, they're sourced to (Z random astrology site) which of course will probably say something completely different from (Z2 random astrology site, Z3 random astrology site ... Z999 random astrology site). Let's stick to the facts. Black Kite 21:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for background info, please note that users kashimjamed (who is user:Someone963852) and BuckRodgers88 have recently been cross-accusing each other at WP:AIV. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU Black Kite, FINALLY someone removed those crap off the astro signs. kashimjamed (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Since astrology is bogus anyway, whether it's cited or not it has the same validity. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well yes and no, if there is general agreement in the astrology community about something then it can be quoted with "Astrologists believe that... (cite}". However, when they can't agree with each other whether being born on September 17th makes you tall, dark-haired, beady-eyed and likely to become a dentist, or short, blond, bad-tempered and likely to become a circus performer, then for some reason my inclination is to remove such sections. (The one in my own star sign section was predictably inaccurate, which is a shame as I'd like to "stand high and walk like a Centaur" [123]) !! Black Kite 21:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Now look at what is on the person's talk page and userpage; I don't know if there is anything wrong with that. I hope G.W. doesn't come and vandalize post comments on that talk page (according to what is supposedly not allowed) ;) MuZemike 03:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How incredibly rude of kashimjamed/Someone963852 to blame me for sockpoppeting without the slightest shred of evidence. Isn't there a rule against this?? (above and in edit summaries eg [124]) Since showing up on Wikipedia he's again and again made unfounded allegations about me. This is getting tedious. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Here ya go, another one [125] Thanks for reverting it Realist2 --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You two speak the same, you created that account today and the first thing you do is vandalize an astro. article. Than here, you speak "all innocent" and use words like "civil"

Excuse me? , the fact that I created the account today is totally irrelevant, I was not vandalising, I explained to you what I was doing, and you were being very rude. I tried to be civil BuckRodgers88 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

like you always do. What an I suppose to believe? How did you even find this thread/discussion anyways, hmm... -kashimjamed (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

He was told about it by Barek same as you. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about how Nathanael found this discussion, but it doesn't matter anymore. kashimjamed (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am watching Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and saw a discussion about astrology. Thank you very much. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I want to merge Environmental Information Regulations and Environmental Information Regulations 2004. I used the merger template in November (?) but no-one responded either way. I decided today to merge them myself as it seemed quite uncontroversial. Someone reversed my edits (I wasn't logged in) as unconstructive. I corresponded with them they now support merger but still suggested that I spoke to a Sysop.

What we have is two articles about the same legal instrument - please could one of you help me to effect the merger.

John Cross (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've re-done the merger. For future reference, you should use an edit summary when making major changes like that so it doesn't look like vandalism. --Carnildo (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Move of the Swedish-speaking Finns

Resolved

 – Admin intervention no longer required. — neuro^(talk) 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Podomi moved the article Swedish-speaking Finns to a new name, Finland's Swedes. Before the move, there has been a lengthy dispute on the talk page, without any consensus reached. No formal "Request for move" has been made. The former location of the article was a result of a request for move, made in October 2006 after lengthy, rather civil discussion. I would like an administrator to look on this move and if suitable, undo it, while the undoing the move is not possible without administrator rights. --MPorciusCato (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin intervention is no longer necessary there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Urgent editprotected request

Resolved

 – Duplicate discussion. — neuro^(talk) 22:52, 25 January 2009 (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.

---

Redundant to duplicate discussion on AN.

---

A recent change to a sub template of {{Coord}} causes many tens of thousands of articles to emit broken microformats. Please see the editprotected request at Template_talk:Coord#Non-consensual_changes. (The change was non-consensual, but I'll be taking that up separately; the more pressing matter is to repair damage). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The change was made today, per diffs on the {{Coord}} talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:11, 25 January 2009 (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.

User:Elordy1234

Resolved

 – Section removed. — neuro^(talk) 23:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Self identifying minor - nuke as per WP:CHILD. Exxolon (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHILD does not mandate nuking. Removal of information is enough, unless there are exacerbating circumstances. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud stop hiding behind semantics - "nuke" in this case means "delete identifying information as per WP:CHILD policy, delete revisions and restore non-identifying info etc" - sheesh... Exxolon (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Joke! Theresa Knott | token threats 22:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't see it - I read this as "I'm more concerned about your use of terminology than actually dealing with the serious issue you've brought up" - warped priorities much? Exxolon (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you see it wrong. Tagishsimon was clearly joking and has already removed the DOB in question. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ava lowery

Resolved

 – Deleted and redirred. — neuro^(talk) 00:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone delete this and recreate as a redirect to Ava Lowery - current and historical versions have very severe BLP violations. Exxolon (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've redirred it for now, just as a temporary solution. — neuro^(talk) 23:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. - auburnpilot talk 23:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Dogru144

Resolved

 – talked to Dogru144 on his.her talk page

Dogru144 keeps on canvassing for an AFD. Both users that he notified only made one minor edit to the article that is up for deletion. Schuym1 (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've counselled User:Dogru144 on his/her talk page. We're talking about (by my count) 1.5 instances of canvassing, which puts the whole things well towards the stormy tea-cup range of the Beaufort scale. My view: no further action needed unless something new occurs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I showed the editor the link to it on my talk page so I don't see why he didn't bother to view it (or maybe he did). Schuym1 (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Shuym1

Resolved

 – talked to Shuym1 on his.her talk page

This individual has erased my communication to other editors on their edit pages. This user has erased my comments on his page. He has erased my personal communication to an administrator. I opened my communication with Shuym1 in a friendly manner. Dogru144 (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You were canvassing! Schuym1 (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And I can erase whatever I want on my talk page per WP:TALK. Schuym1 (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you can, User:Shuym1.

I've counselled User:Shuym1 on his/her talk page. Could I gently suggest to the pair that they calm down, avoid adding fuel to the pitiful flame, and await the outcome of the contentious AfD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I cite the following from the WP:Canvassing page. In as much as it says "If you intend to canvass," I take it that WP condones a light amount of canvassing. I contacted two people. That is not mass canvassing.

I have read the following; and I have read the chart in WP:Canvassing. I would think that my canvassing was limited. I am not being nasty, but can you spell out how this is not appropriate, given the following?

If you intend to canvass

The following guidelines for cross-posting "friendly notices" have wide acceptance among Wikipedians:

• Be open. Do not make cross-posts that initially appear to be individual messages.

• Be polite. Wikiquette issues are extra-important when a message is likely to be read by many people.

• Avoid redundancy. Rather than copying the same five-page essay to twenty talk pages, write it once, in the place where it is most relevant, and then link to it.

• Do not use a bot. If you're not willing to spend the time personally sending the messages, don't force us to spend the time reading it (or throwing it away). Also note that running bots without authorization is almost guaranteed to get both your account and the bot account blocked.

There are often better alternatives to canvassing. For example, suppose you've written a new article, and you want people to see it. Simply add links to it from other encyclopedia articles, where it is relevant, and also add it to appropriate categories. This increases the exposure of your article, while simultaneously benefiting the encyclopedia, without the need to directly inform your fellow contributors.

Dogru144 (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dancing Obama and BLP violation consensus, need uninvolved admins please

Talk:Barack_Obama#Dancing_Obama

Meco (talk · contribs) keeps reinserting a BLP violation (3-4 times now) on talk. I just removed it yet again here, I'm not the only one to have done so. Consensus on talk was it WAS a BLP violation. He was previously warned by Seicer, an admin, here. Can some admins please pipe up on the Obama talk page section or his talk with their views? Thanks. rootology (C)(T) 14:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a BLP violation and does not belong either in the article or on the talk page. The only possible exception would be if a notable commentator had made that ugly comment -- and it appears that has not happened; it's Meco's personal opinion. So I say keep it out. Antandrus (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that line of conversation likely to improve the article? no. Is that article on probation ? yes. Should that editor be ejected from the page if he persists? yes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, the editor needs to be told (more than once, if necessary) that it's a BLP violation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The material he seeks to insert is, by his own(redacted from the article talk page) admission, his opinion. Further, his premise that if he adds it, reliable sources will come, is nonsensical; if he's so sure sources exist, he should find them first. Per BLP generally, and the probation status specifically for this, a short block to prevent further additiions is probably gonna be needed. ThuranX (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked Meco to clarify that he will agree to not reinsert the material again. rootology (C)(T) 16:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It would seem to be a blockable matter to revert war on either side of this. But please note, this is a stale matter in that Meco's last revert was almost 24 hours ago now. For better or worse, Rootology seems to have the reverted "the right version" just before filing this report. I will urge Meco to leave it at that. Nevertheless, I do not see how it could possibly be a BLP violation to comment that Obama's dancing ability is something less than star quality. It is reasonable to discern consensus on the Obama talk page is that it is not a BLP violation (not that a BLP vio is okay, but that no BLP vio took place). It appears to be an honest if colorfully worded comment that, although unlikely to lead to an edit to the main Obama article, does reflect sourceable subject matter (I've produced a number of sources on the talk page) that could conceivably make it to one article or another. People ought not to be too trigger happy regarding discussion of non-harmful / non-defamatory matters on the Obama talk page, because without an open dialog it is unlikely that we can have orderly, productive editing around here. Rather than WP:BITE-ing, being officious, or edit warring about it on either side, I suggested that we patiently explain to the poster that the material even if sourceable is not relevant or significant enough for the page, and then close the discussion or let the archive bots do their work. Now that the material is deleted again, we should just leave it at that and go on to more productive matters. Wikidemon (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am quite content at the development in this case, and I would like to acknowledge Wikidemon as apparently the only sober intervener able to present some cogent reasoning on this matter. I think this is a bit sad, as I have also experienced in the past that a vast majority of administrators who see fit to weigh in in analogous situations that aren't of the run-of-the-mill variant tend present very little independet thinking and capacity to step up to protect the gist of free reason. I am not going to revert this material anymore. __meco (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jb5-hy

After 3 years this user suddenly uploads someones photo and inserts it on Asperger Syndrome? Looks like a hacked account. See also: Special:Contributions/Jb5-hy. Fenke (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

With scant evidence, I think the sequence might be that Jb5-hy genuinely believes that the File:FSchmitt.jpg shows an Asperger Syndrome person doing something vaguely Aspergerian. Could I suggest that rather than jumping to the hacked account supposition, you engage with Jb5-hy and see if (s)he'll explain his/her actions? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I don't believe the original user returned after 3 years, blanked his user page and uploaded this image, which does not look like a particularly japanese environment. But I will ask if he has permission to upload this portrait. Or nominate it for deletion. Fenke (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Tfoxworth

Resolved

 – Blocked 24 hours ACB. — neuro^(talk) 08:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

206.53.144.103 (talk · contribs) is back can some one block. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP sock doing the large-scale reversions is back again. - dwc lr (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Kevin (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert warring IP on large number of chemical articles needs a block FAST!

Resolved

 – He seems to have stopped for now. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/70.137.173.82. IP continues to make controversial formatting changes against consensus on WT:CHEM. Thanks, Xasodfuih (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Appropriateness_of_sectioning

...and someone please undelete Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). --EEMIV (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I propose an immediate 24-hour block for Phil Sandifer who deleted WP:FICT on the grounds that his unnecessary action has set an unfortunate precedent. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Restored. Tempers have been running high at FICT for over a year, but deletion was unnecessary and was likely just the result of a moment's overreaction on Phil's part. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I apologize for the deletion. It was an overreaction to an excessively long and particularly vicious (and largely uncommented on) rash of outright personal attacks and thinly veiled ones on the part of several users. This does not justify the deletion, which was hot-headed, ill-considered, and stupid. A block, I would argue, would be punitive. If that is desirable, go ahead - it certainly was a dumb move made during a flare of temper. However, I would personally think it is unlikely to improve the situation particularly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
      • It was stupid, yes, but no block is needed. Phil saw his mistake himself. Let's just get back to editing, shall we? SoWhy 16:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I think SoWhy sums it up. Blocks are meant to fix a problem, not punish somebody. Phil has given a full-throated and unequivocal apology. Unless someone honestly believes he's going to go around deleting more guidelines, a stern warning is probably going to be enough. Randomran (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I am wondering if most of those who have been participating in that discussion should sit things out for a bit and let some new blood in? I have seen in the past few days a number of blatant and implied personal attacks and incivility on that talk page and think things are getting too heated at this point to allow for really colloborative discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

While I was, and still am, pretty torqued at Phil, I resent any implication that I have either been trolling or acting in bad faith. My summary [126] sums it up:

Let's just take this thing to some forum where broad comment can be received. I don't think it pays enough attention to independent sources, but it pays enough attention that people can't claim that the guideline obviates the need for them. So long as no one attempts to add language that implies that material provided by people involved with the creation of the work can be classed as independent, I won't push for stronger mention. Phil, I recognize that I brushed up pretty damn near NPA there, but please take to heart that if frequently when you get involved in these debates your opponents wind up angry and foaming at the mouth, that's a problem, and not one that belongs solely with your opponents. I find discussion with you exhausting because of the constant restarts, and I'm not the only one that has commented on it.

.—Kww(talk) 17:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, now we have the unfortunate outcome that an accusation of bad-faith actions toward Kww and Thuran is permentantly enshrined in the deletion log. :( Protonk (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have brought this here, though I'm bothered by it, but seeing that Kww and Protonk, who are also involved at that page have mentioned it, I'm also pissed that I was blamed for this. I'm loud and vocal about Phil's techniques there, and I oppose equivocating about the nature of RS and independence of sources, so I'm clearly on 'the other side' of Phil's goals, but to blame just two editors for the collapse of that intended policy is absurd. there's plenty of opposition, and likely to be a great deal more. It's not like Kww and I took it down alone, though, if we did, I think he and I need a special Userbox for proposed guideline slaying. ThuranX (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw Poll

As a note, there is now a poll on the guideline (NOT for adoption, just a simple up/down as to whether or not it is in the right ballpark) available at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Starting_Fresh. We would appreciate some uninvolved interest there, even if it is brief. Protonk (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruption of wikipedia to push an unpopular policy

Great way to advertise the proposal you worked the most on Phil, (51 edits main page, 300+ edits talk page).

Lets look at the most recent timeline: G

1. Phil Sandifer "boldly" tags the page as a guideline, despite objections.[127]
2. Kww reverts Phil.[128]
3. 16:32, 23 January 2009, Phil deletes the page, with a personal attack: "Proposal was killed by trolling and personal attacks by Kww and ThuranX"[129]
4. 16:36, 23 January 2009 supporter of policy, User:EEMIV reports Phil to AfD
5. 16:42, 23 January 2009 User:Gavin.collins, a strong support of Phil writes a Straw man argument: "I propose an immediate 24-hour block for Phil Sandifer who deleted WP:FICT on the grounds that his unnecessary action has set an unfortunate precedent."
6. 16:46, 23 January 2009, Long time supporter Sgeureka undeletes the page.[130]
7. 16:49, 23 January 2009, Long time supporter Sgeureka here: "Restored. Tempers have been running high at FICT for over a year, but deletion was unnecessary and was likely just the result of a moment's overreaction on Phil's part."
8. 18:01, 23 January 2009, Strong supporter Bignole starts a straw poll, stating "informal, as in it doesn't mean that the guideline will or won't get promoted, this is for our benefit" Bignole is not the first person to comment on the straw poll:
9. 18:02, 23 January 2009 Phil Sander is the first person to support the straw poll
10. 18:05, 23 January 2009 Galvin Collins, who 1 hour and 17 minutes before was calling for Galvin to be blocked, is the next person to vote support, along with the other editors above.
11. 23:41, 23 January 2009 Despite Bignole's statement, that this is not an official poll, Protonk, posts a WP:CENT notice "Notability proposal for fictional subjects"

As politics teaches us, there is nothing like a crisis (in this example a page deletion) to stir up opinion and unite a group of people, forcing them to decide, notice how the "troll" KWW fell in line and voted support?

I notice that Phil was the very first person to comment on the straw poll, one minute after supporter BIGNOLE posted it and one hour 29 minutes after Phil blanked the page.

I notice that EEMIV reported Phil, a supporter of this policy, and that Gavin.collins, a strong supporter of this policy added a Straw man argument.

I notice that Protonk's (another supporter #4) then advertised/canvased the proposal here.

Phil's supporters have already dominated this ANI. Phil should be blocked for disruption, but he will not be blocked for disruption, because as my research has shown again and again, the rules only apply to those who don't have a large group of powerful friends on wikipedia. Those who do have those powerful friends can act with near impunity, including blanking proposal pages.

I will not be responding to comments here, I made that same mistake recently. Ikip (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Are you going to respond to comments on AN/I? Because this is a noticeboard to request administrator intervention in an incipient crisis. If you truly think that I, Phil, Bignole, Gavin et al. have all disrupted wikipedia in order to foist WP:FICT on the community and you want administrative actions (Read: blocks and topic bans) undetaken to fix it, you had better be willing to defend your accusations. Accusations which, I might add, which are contrary to reality (in what world are Gavin and Phil conspiring? Not this one), assume bad faith, make baseless personal attacks (Kww is NOT a troll), come unsupported by any real diffs (everything you have presented is common knowledge to posters in this thread). Protonk (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw "troll" in quotes as a way of disassociating Ikip from the term, so I didn't view it as a personal attack. Then again, I've just had my morning coffee and PopTarts (especially imported from the states), so I'm in a charitable mood. I really do dislike that Phil has essentially been rewarded for a pretty severe bit of misbehaviour. Believe me, the disagreement between Phil and myself is deep, profound, and extremely genuine. It's obvious that I didn't like his debating tactics, and I feel that my distaste for them is well founded. I had already pretty much given up on getting him to see reason already that morning. His effort to, after having finally accepted the requirement for independent sources, redefine the term so that it didn't mean "independent" anymore, needed cut off at the pass, and I did so. His resultant tantrum, where he spewed vitriol and deleted articles (which, at least in theory, could see him desysopped), was completely unacceptable. However, the immediate effect is that the proposal he has fought for is probably going to pass. A reward for bad behaviour? Arguably.

However, is that the important issue? No. Wikipedia needs a functional WP:FICT. The proposed version doesn't argue strongly enough independent sources, but it acknowledges their necessity. It will result in keeping a large pile of bad articles, but will also help delete a larger pile of worse ones. The idea of a conspiracy between me and Phil Sandifer to accomplish anything is laughable ... right now, I doubt we could be in the same room with each other and successfully contain our tempers, much less reach secret agreements with each other.

As for blocking Phil for disruption? Certainly not right now. I'm strongly considering an RFC, because it is possible that Phil genuinely doesn't understand why people react to him the way they do, and getting some explanations of that through in a less heated environment might be helpful.—Kww(talk) 14:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Kww. I don't even know you, I was quoting Phil who wrote: "Proposal was killed by trolling and personal attacks by Kww and ThuranX" I don't think you are a troll at all. 16:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Um...I've been seeing my name in here like I'm part of some sort of conspiracy. You want to know what I want handled, Ikip's constant personal attacks and accusations against me and several other editors. When I started a new thread over at WP:FICT to try and get people to move past some petty arguments between themselves and back onto the getting the guidelined finished, Ikip comes in and just starts attacking me for creating the thread, like I'm trying to create some subtefuge. Later one, He posted this comment basically calling Masem, Phil, Myself, ThuranX, and Protonk some sort of conspiracist who all share the same and are basically the only ones editing WP:FICT and will ultimately push it threw by ourselves. He ended it with the statement that we'd all start denying his accusation (thus proving him right). Except, what followed was various editors (the ones he listed as well as other editors) confirming that we all actually have some stark differences in view points about FICT and keeping articles (1, 2). Then I proved to him that had he actually checked the page statistics he would have seen that I have barely touched FICT's main page, and am no where near the top contributor to the talk page (like that would be a bad thing if I was) (here). Frankly, I'm getting tired of Ikip constantly throwing my name into some conspiracy ring like I'm trying to destroy Wikipedia, as I consider it a personal attack on my character - especially when he never has facts to back up these accusations, just edits here and there that he extrapolates into something else entirely just to satisfy his own arguments.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs)

Agreed. Kww and I are on the complete opposition end of the spectrum -well, I am, Kww's more open to wiggle than I am, but not by much. Bignole's somewhere in the middle, and Phil and Gavin completely at the far end of the inclusionist side. If Ikip had bothered to read things through, he'd know this. There's no way, at all, that I'd be at all interested in helping Phil manipulate his own thumbs to make this proposal come into effect the way he wants, much less manipulate all of WP. I don't think I've made any edits at all to the article page, if so, they were probably typographic or grammatical, I can't recall any policy adjustment edits there. Ikip's laundry list basically grabs every single regular editor discussing this on the talk page except himself and, as what i suspect is an error of omission, A Man in Black. he needs to get a hold of himself, and this is coming from one of the most-blunt speaking guys on that page, whose patience there is shot by the manipulations of discussion Phil has engaged in.

Further, I'm not even involved in a conspiracy with my own side, and haven't contacted ANY editors who agree with me, on or off wiki, about this. It's stupid and too messy to try, and we get more done, or less done (sometimes that's better)k, by staying on the talk page. ThuranX (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, I am sorry for the confusion, I never said you manipulated anything. I simply quoted Phil, when he deleted the page: "Proposal was killed by trolling and personal attacks by Kww and ThuranX"[131] I realize that you and Kww are on opposite ends of the spectrum. I can see how other editors comments above could confuse what I wrote. Ikip (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Gavin completely at the far end of the inclusionist side" - wow, never thought I'd hear that! I suspect he didn't, either. :) BOZ (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, he is. He's right behind Phil in arguing that the fact that people want an article means the topic of the article's notable enough, independent sources or not. ThuranX (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Either you've seriously misinterpreted something about Gavin's viewpoint regarding inclusion, or I have... BOZ (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Confusing? These were your exact words: "It is no secret that Masem, Phil Sandifer, Bignole, ThuranX, Protonk all have generally the same opinion about this proposal, and all have the same point of view about notability." -- That is a pretty clear statement that you believe(d) that all of us are on the same side, share the same views, and all-n-all basically WP:OWN FICT. I never mentioned anything about Kww, but the fact remains that you are attacking all of us with your statement, and have yet to acknowledge (at least to me) that you have made a err in judgement on that call (given that facts were presented to you that not only show we all do not share the same beliefs, but most of us don't actually operate on the FICT page beyond the talk page).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I even understand what you're suggesting. Are you actually trying to say that they got together off Wiki and choreographed this, because they believed such a disruption would *promote* unity rather than inflame tempers? Randomran (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess it is OK for admins to delete policy pages? That is what this all comes down too. Ikip (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

He got off with a warning, because he apologized and openly admitted he acted completely out of line. Saying "I'm sorry I won't do it again" goes a long way on Wikipedia, because sanctions are meant to correct the behavior, not punish somebody. If it happens again, I don't think he'll be so fortunate. Randomran (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, I probably agree with your inclusion criteria; however, I don't think Phil deleted it in league with Kww and ThuranX. I think his expressed frustration was genuine, i.e. it really was tension among these editors and not the editors somehow in league with each other to feign their annoyance with each other. A case can be made for incivility in that discussion, but I do not believe this incivility was somehow planned by those involved to draw attention. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

ANobody, "I don't think Phil deleted it in league with Kww and ThuranX" This is the third correction, I never said that. Anywhere. Other editors said that. Ikip (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not what it comes down to. You asserted that a conspiracy among longstanding editors existed to cram a guideline down the throats of an unwary community through the nefarious workings of a straw poll (without any evidence to speak of). If your accusations weren't so completely laughable you would probably have pissed a lot more people off. As it stands, we are well aware that you are treating this proposal as a battleground (see here). I'm involved, so I can't ask you to leave as an administrator, but I'm on the verge of asking someone else to. This is not a conspiracy. Assume good faith. Add substantively to the discussion or leave things alone. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

ANobody, "I don't think Phil deleted it in league with Kww and ThuranX" This is the third correction, I never said that. Anywhere. Other editors said that. Ikip (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm bummed that Ikip uncovered my massive conspiracy with six other editors to establish a notability guideline, but I'm glad he still doesn't know where I hid Jimmy Hoffa's body. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil, your snide personal insults do not hide the fact that you disrupted wikipedia to make a point. Again, is it okay for admins to delete policy pages? Thanks for being an upstanding administrator, an example to everyone on wikipedia. All that you have showed me that the rules only apply to those who don't have a large group of powerful friends on wikipedia. Those who do have those powerful friends can act with near impunity, including blanking proposal pages. All your fierce supporters, Randomran, Masem, Phil Sandifer, Bignole, ThuranX, Protonk, cannot mask that dirty fact. When you mock me with your personal insults in this case, you are mocking the rules that we are supposed to all follow. Ikip (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Don't continue to twist things around. Phil messed up. We all do. It wasn't "Ok". But don't even pretend like your post here was in spirit or content meant largely to point out the fact that Phil unilaterally deleted a project page out of process. Protonk (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

LMAO. Doowaaa?! I'm a fierce support of Phil? I highly doubt that. I believe if you trace my contact with Phil back to the beginning, we have frequently butted-heads on many topics and I usually do not agree with him on things (though, we don't tend to get into wars about it, just respectful disagreement among fellow Wikipedians). As for letting him get away with his actions, if you check the history, I (that's right...ME) was the first to tell Phil that he couldn't delete the page just because he didn't like how the discussion was going (I'm not an Admin, so I couldn't undelete the page, thus the best I could do was say so on the talk page of FICT). Once again you have shown that you have no idea what is actually going on, and are simply out to cause trouble. There is a limit to how much one can assume good faith about people's opinions and edits, and you've reached mine. Next time, try actually backing up your accusations with facts. It's what we do in the real world, and it's fun to do on Wikipedia as well. I'm done with this ridiculous argument, have a nice day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX as a big supporter of mine is even funnier. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

First time we agree. Ikip, you're clearly completely illiterate. I've been more blunt and brusque to phil than to anyone else in this project. I'm completely opposed to his 'free pass to fiction' proposal, and want a serious inclusion of 'independent reliable sources' in any such policy. That you can't see that's different from Phil's 'that someone wants to write about it makes it notable' idea means you should take up a new hobby. I suggest remedial reading. ThuranX (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The notion that these editors are involved in a conspiracy is hilarious. No, seriously, it made my day, as did characterizing Gavin as an inclusionist. Fun, fun. The inclusion philosophies of many of your supposed "conspiracy" are so far apart you'd think Ann Coulter had joined forces with Ariana Huffington to produce an article. Per above, do your homework. The ridiculous notion that any of these users is involved in a conspiracy is not only reeking of bad faith but a clear lack of clue. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Man. I'm just sad I missed out on being involved in this conspiracy. None of the cool cabals want me as a member. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave you a shout out above, AMiB. Sephiroth, if you have that video of Coulter and HUffington, and Arianna's being the 'man', please use my talk page. I have a greek progressive fetish. ThuranX (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I missed all this too, which may puzzle those who watch AfD (or my talk page) & know that i am generally a strong supporter of inclusive content on fiction. But I have been almost inactive on the policy page involved, and no longer even watchlist it. I do not think we will succeed in having an adequate solution there, and the argumentation has been too circular and too repetitive for my patience. I understand how Phil could have gotten impatient, and I would have been tempted myself--knowing that, I avoid the place, as I do most wp policy discussion not devoted to resolving individual issues on individual articles or sources, all of which are at least arguments of finite length. When there is a basic disagreement on what the encyclopedia should be, we have no way of resolving it except for mutual tolerance. If there is no such tolerance, we're helpless. DGG (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: This thread sucks

Never have so many words been typed in order to say so little (well, not since the G33 debacle, anyways...). I propose this just be archived and we move on. Enough stupid drama. Jtrainor (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: I must concur with my colleague/sockpuppet (depending on whom you ask). I've actually lost track of what this had to do with WP:FICT in the first place... MalikCarr (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally agree, except perhaps an admin should take a look at Ikips continuing to soapbox and make personal attacks against the "conspiracy group" (ROFLMAO) all over the place. That is the real disruption here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support I am glad we have all concluded that it is okay for admins to delete policy pages. I was simply showing the edit history of those editors who supported WP:FICT, and how this behavior makes a fair Straw poll impossible. The responses to what I wrote were predictably filled with personal attacks, calling me "illiterate" etc, and twisting my words into something they were not.
  Mock me all you want, but your really mocking the policies which we are all supposed to follow and showing that the rules don't really apply to everyone. This thread has shown that the only delusional or misleading editors are the editors who preach that wikipedia behavioral rules are fairly and justly applied. Ikip (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding matter

My proposal of 16:42, 23 January 2009 has not been formally responded to. If a block is not appropriate, then a formal warning should be issued to Phil Sandifer for deleting a guideline page. Regardless of whether he applolgised (he did, so that is a good thing), I think some sort of warning should be issued, as once news gets out that editors can do what ever they please, then we are heading down the slippery slope to chaos. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A block is not appropriate. Phil has apologised and we've moved on. A "formal warning" (from who? phrased how? to what end?) would serve no purpose, other than to provide some semblance of vengeance. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 10:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And you are...? Just to be clear, I am seeking a response or closure of this thread by an Administrator. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Redvers is an administrator. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Then I consider the matter closed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mark Thompson

Can we get some more eyes on Mark Thompson, director general of the BBC - there is an attempt to turn his article into a laundry list of quotes about one incident (oh and did you know his wife is Israeli? nudge nudge...). It was mentioned over at the BLP board (which is where I saw it) but it's clear this one is going to run and run... yes this stuff should go in but the current slant and tone is shocking. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the offending section per WP:UNDUE, but yes, it is probably going to be readded. Watchlisting, suggest others do the same. — neuro^(talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oop, turns out I did it at the same time as Cameron, so yes, actually he did it. — neuro^(talk) 23:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there an actual article on this 'incident' somewhere where we can direct people to? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

BBC controversies#2009: Gaza DEC Appeal, in ink of somewhat greenish hue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

<looks> I don't have my ten foot bargepole so will be unable to edit that article... --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Same editor now trying to run around BLP at DEC Gaza appeal --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirected and protected, doesn't need to be in two places. Black Kite 23:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You missed a copy --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, and communications with user started. Black Kite 00:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is ongoing - there is clearly off-site canvassing going on, more eyes needed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

[this is inline with BLP?] --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User Jeffrey Pierce Henderson

Resolved

 – 48hr blocked by Ohnoitsjamie

As much as it pains me to do this, I can only say - I tried. Someone please review these comments and take the action you feel you need to. You can take a look in the history of AN/I as well as Bench Press article to establish a history of incivility. Padillah (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban by CadenS

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24h

This user has violated his topic ban again (see the editors talk for previous violations. I think a block is appropriate here. — Jake Wartenberg 23:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Already noted - I was in the process of blocking as you posted. It is really unfortunate that this user refuses to understand or comply with his topic ban. He violated it on 21 January and although I should've blocked then, I gave him a final warning; the response can be read on his talkpage. Black Kite 00:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Question: Does his topic ban reset from the time of this violation? AnyPerson (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's covered here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:BatterBean's Jake Gyllenhaal forgeries back again

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked by AuburnPilot, hoax articles deleted

We've been through this twice before: here and here. This time, it's by YouMustLoveMe12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), hosted on User:YouMustLoveMe12. Time for deletion and another indef block.—Kww(talk) 13:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted and indef blocked. - auburnpilot talk 15:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Eleland

Resolved

 – Both editors dealt with - nothing more to be done here. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2009 (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.

---

User Eleland has been blocked five times previously, mostly for incivility, 3RR, and violations of the ArbCom I-P judgment, to which the article at issue in this matter is subject. Due to a content matter on Adam Shapiro in which he's not totally in the wrong, he's chosen to leave inappropriate language in reply to a comment I made on his talk page here and on the article talk page [132] As I said, content wise, he's not totally in the wrong, see my analysis here. However, nothing justifies the way he has acted in this matter. See also the foul comments he put on my talk page Obviously, this is matter that I can't handle myself as an admin, both because of personal involvment and because during my RfA, I recused from exercising admin powers in I-P related articles.Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I find that without my knowledge, another user who has my talk page watchlisted took the matter to WP:WQA. Eleland's response is vulgar and accusatory towards me, and continues the pattern, and can be found hereWehwalt (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to be accurate, those are really three separate blocks. The fourth and fifth blocks are actually changes in the length of the third block. The third block should have remained permanent, and now on his "fourth strike", it is long past the time for Eleland to be banned. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the number. You guys do what you want about it, but it is disruptive. I was spending a productive evening expanding the article on Franklin Knight Lane, an interesting Wilson cabinet officer, while keeping an eye on my own FAC and two other editors' FAC that I had offered reviews on, when up pops everyone's favorite potty mouth and I've spent the last two hours dealing with that and not building an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also agree that some long-term solution is in order. FWIW, and for full disclosure, I have had previous unpleasant dealings w/Eleland. See here. IronDuke 02:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad IronDuke said "long-term" instead of "final." But seriously, Wehwalt's protestations of ignorance, above, are laughable. I pointed out the use of worthless pseudo-sources to smear Shapiro in March 2008, Sceptre took action against the smears in May 2008, and Carolmooredc pointed it out again in June 2008. Wehwalt did not suddenly realize that straightforward application of BLP was "not totally in the wrong" until the matter came to broad notice; now he begins to distance himself from his own actions and plead carelessness. Bullshit. Wehwalt was happy to get away with libel, now he's trying to walk it back. Bottom line, he's a rogue admin caught pursuing a personal vendetta and now he and his nationalist comrade IronDuke are trying to use my four-letter words as a distraction. <eleland/talkedits> 03:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A distraction from what? I have nothing to do with the Shapiro article, and want nothing to do with it. I just want you to be civil. I'd ask again if you are willing to be, but you've indicated time and again you're not. IronDuke 03:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think my most civil, though we disagreed, discussions with CarolMooredc speak for themselves. She did not find it necessary to be uncivil at every turn, unlike you. I have no problem with saying that content wise, you are not entirely wrong, because right or wrong, or in the middle, everyone on Wikipedia needs to be treated with civility, something you have yet to realize. You are in quicksand, throwing handfuls of it at other people only will make you sink more quickly. If this matter has come "to broad notice" it is because I reported you at the page of an admin who has blocked you in the past and IronDuke reported you at WP:WQA, and then I brought the whole matter here. Wrongdoing hates the sunlight Were I the "rogue admin" who is "happy to get away with libel" and everything I said was "bullshit", to borrow your word, I woul hardly be parading it at every turn. For shame, Eleland. Your response to being admonished for your continual conduct is to attack both IronDuke and myself. I could say more, but you make my case so much better than I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I don't believe you are here to fix a problem reasonably and go back editing in peace. This is the third venue you are using so far. I am just amazed by the fact that no one is able to listen. You've been told by User:Gerardw the same thing you'd get here. What are you expecting? You are both wrong: Eleland for incivility that should stop (more than enough) and Wehwalt for his questionable edits (more than enough). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Wehwalt did the right thing by consolidating the issue here, with the most experienced eyes on it, rather than, say, Wikiqutte, which is largely ineffective (why do I post there? I ask myself the same thing.) It's depressing that you don't see good faith here. Your tepid rejoinder of Eleland is effectively an endorsement of his actions. IronDuke 04:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your last part of your comment is a bit out of line. Could you please read again my last part of my comment? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't believe it's out of line at all. It may be wrong, and I am, as always, open to hearing that. But I firmly believe Eleland has had many, many chances to reform -- indeed, he could be forgiven for his latest violation simply on the basis of previous lack of response. He keeps getting away with it, so why should he change. I don't think your comment would make him feel any more like changing than he has done so far. IronDuke 04:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand better now. Well, you are somehow right but you were talking about a long-term block which would require a community consensus or probably an RfC can make it clear for him that the community is fed up with his incivility. That was Eleland's case. Now, what about an admin adding very questionable edits (unsourced edits to a BLP which could lead to legal cases) which himself should be defending the project against? I could have blocked both of them and be fine but I thought leaving other views (yours included) be heard would be better. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Fayssal, it's appreciated. FWIW, I think an indef is easily done, and amounts to permanent community sanction unless/until someone lifts it. He's been blocked for two weeks, now, I gather, which is far, far less than it should be, but I'm not going to make a fuss. As for the admin in question, he's said he was wrong to make the edits he did -- Eleland has, AFAIK, remained defiant, even slipping in a reference to the Final solution above -- is that an editing environment we should tolerate? IronDuke 16:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As other admins have already said, both editors have been dealt with - no further admin action is required. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only have other admins said it, I said it myself, in the very thread you replied to. IronDuke 17:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I do think libel/defamation (coming from an administrator) is a lot more of a serious matter than "uncivil" language used by an editor. Just saying. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC).

You are right about that, Falastine fee Qalby, but in this discussion, no diff showing libel (or another WP:BLP violation) by an administrator has so far been provided, and Wehwalt seems now to agree with Eleland that the objectionable content, whatever it is, should be removed. However, plenty of diffs have been provided showing serious violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL on the part of Eleland, who has already received blocks for such misconduct. Accordingly, I'm blocking Eleland for two weeks, doubling the duration of his most recent block. I won't object to any other sanctions against other editors that other admins believe are necessary here.  Sandstein  11:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a situation where both sides are in the wrong. Eleland absolutely should not have been uncivil. I can understand his frustration, but verbal abuse isn't an effective way to resolve issues. A short block would not be inappropriate.

Wehwalt is also in the wrong; his edits to Adam Shapiro are canonical violations of WP:BLP. He has repeatedly restored material that violates BLP, specifically by adding material sourced to a personal website, adding unsourced potentially defamatory material, and using the article as a coatrack for quotations that cast the subject in a bad light. This has happened repeatedly over a period of more than two years (diffs: [133], [134], [135], [136].) WP:BLP very clearly prohibits such conduct.

While this is within the topic area covered by WP:ARBPIA, there's no need to invoke that arbitration case - it's a straightforward matter of BLP enforcement. I've taken the following steps:

• Removed the material sourced to a self-published website [137].
• Notified Wehwalt about the BLP violations and cautioned him about repeating them [138]. If he continues to violate BLP, a block would be appropriate.
• Added a notification to the BLP noticeboard requesting that other editors assess the article to help identify and resolve outstanding concerns [139].

Hopefully this will help to resolve this unfortunate situation. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How amusing. Chris, I can't help but wonder if the non-invocation of WP:ARBPIA is influenced by the fact that if it were invoked, it would be obvious that you could not be taking any action against any editor, including "cautioning" someone, because you are an "involved arbitrator administrator". Indeed, your involvement as an administrator in any capacity at all when it comes to this subject area, even so far as commenting on this board, creates at least an appearance of impropriety. 6SJ7 (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Wow, well that was a little bit of a Freudian typo, wasn't it? I am well aware that Chris is an admin, not an arbitrator, and that is what I meant. It does not change anything that I have said (other than that one word). 6SJ7 (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

When a situation can be corrected using Wikipedia policies, it should be. Arbcom general and discretionary sanctions are extensions of our basic policies that lower the threshold at which an administrative action can be taken. The ARBPIA sanctions are not required in this case, because the editors involved have breeched ordinary, everyday Wikipedia standards. Chris, incidentally, is not a member of the Arbitration Committee. Risker (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As Risker says - and I might add that being incivil in a thread about incivility is not a good idea. 6SJ7, I'd suggest you tone it down. Wikipedia is not a battleground and this discussion should have highlighted to you the outcome of editors attempting to treat it as one. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There was, if you really stretched it, the barest whisper of incivility in 6SJ7's post above - but that would really be stretching things. Yet, your mentioning it is ironic, considering that you lessened Eleland's previous indef block for appallingly bad behavior. I would disagree 6SJ7 that you are disallowed from mentioning possible BLP vios to someone, but -- as I know you realize -- you wouldn't be able to take any admin action here. IronDuke 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you're quite incorrect. Any administrator is empowered at any time to take admin action on BLP issues. No permission slip is required - certainly not from you or 6SJ7. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am entirely correct. You came very, very close to getting into hot water for using admin powers (among other things) in an area where you have a storng POV (I-P issues). You would be ill-advised to try that on the Shapiro article, even should I give a permission slip to do so. IronDuke 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think your imagination is playing tricks on you again, and an editor with your record should be careful about making implied threats. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My "record?" Surely you jest. I am a user in good standing and have never been blocked (except accidentally once) -- unlike you, who have not only been blocked multiple times, but received multiple warnings, one of them quite stern, from sitting and/or ex arbitrators. Also, there was an RfC in which a large number of editors strongly criticized your behavior. Don't see how you get me threatening you, BTW... though I note with wry amusement you reply to me, then try to seal of the discussion. Again: no admin actions in the I-P area. You know this. IronDuke 18:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Eleland made a complaint about Wehwalt at WP:AE, and after some discussion I have responded with this analysis and decline. The summary is, it is in my opinion that no Arbitration Enforcement sanctions are appropriate at this time, and any edits of Wehwaht's that are objectionable can be dealt with by normal wiki means. Another administrator, may at their discretion, take action.--Tznkai (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The assessments and actions by ChrisO and Tznkai are sensible. It doesn't seem that additional admin intervention is needed at this point.  Sandstein  16:27, 25 January 2009 (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.

Comments on this closure

I have some comments on this closure, but I decided to put them on the nearest talk page, Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that should be closed and the discussion is perfectly fine here. You could also actually try to discuss it at his user page if you want before going to the board too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Excessive block

Resolved

 – Admins have told each other to drop it. Time to leave the matter on the floor. -- llywrch (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think a two week block for telling someone to "fuck off" from their talk page is excessive. That it happened to an editor who was trying to blow the whistle on blatant BLP violations makes it all the more unacceptable. No wonder we have so many good faith users abandoning this project.

As has been pointed out by others in regards to WP:CIV on numerous occasions, context is everything. Eleland posted a history of BLP violations by Wehwalt at AE, a number of them involving the same scuttlebutt Wehwalt recently chose to reinsert in the article. At what point is WP:AGF exhausted? It seems pretty clear to me why Eleland, who has identified this pattern of Wehwalt's, lost patience. I'm not trying to excuse his incivility but which is more reprehensible, an uncivil word or a series of blatant BLP violations? If anyone should have been blocked here, it was Wehwalt. Either that or both of them should have been blocked. But to give one a two week block for incivility while the other - an admin who should know better - gets off with a warning for repeated BLP violations is pretty rough justice if you ask me. Gatoclass (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The block is far from excessive. Eleland has a horrifyingly bad history, and it is to the project's detriment that it's been tolerated as long as it has. As for Wehwalt, the difference there would be a) He is a member in good standing, and Eleland isn't and, more importantly b) He has indicated a sincere willingness to reconsider his edits, and take criticism onboard. Eleland has done no such thing, and shows no signs of doing so. IronDuke 00:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's see. We have one editor with a long history of poor behavior, and a seeming unwillingness or inability to change (Eleland). We have another editor, who does not have a long history of poor behavior, but is genuinely willing to change his approach after questionable edits were brought to his attention (Wehwalt). Yep, the result of the above discussion seems quite correct. - auburnpilot talk 01:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Gatoclass, there were not just one, but four posts that Wehwalt cited that contain the kind of language in question -- and this from someone who has been blocked three times before. Eleland's last block was indefinite until it was shortened through a process that was highly questionable. Now he gets two weeks? Two years might be more appropriate. Two months would still be a gift. Two weeks is nothing, in this case. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad language may be distasteful to some, but it is hardly incivility. There is only one direct example of incivility cited by Wehwalt above, and that is the "fuck off" message on E.'s talk page - but people are generally given more licence on their own talk page than in the rest of the project in any case.

My concern is that punishing a user who has been clearly trying to uphold BLP, albeit in a less than ideal manner, is sending entirely the wrong message. We should be supporting those who are trying to uphold policy. Certainly Eleland deserved a warning, and perhaps a short block given his previous history, but two weeks in such a case is far too long in my opinion - especially when the repeat BLP violator is walking away with nothing more than a warning. Gatoclass (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Telling another editor to "fuck off" is uncivil. End of story. For a user with a long history of incivility, a 2 week block is little more than a slap on the wrist. As 6SJ7 wrote, 2 months would hardly been excessive in this case. NoCal100 (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Eleland decided to enter this into the Adam Shapiro permanent history: ibid - WOWOWOWOWOWO!!! somebody ought to be blocked for that. Someone was. This is my message: take BLP seriously, but work with other editors until it is absolutely impossible.--02:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, why don't we take a closer look at that.

Here is what Wehwalt inserted into the article (with a misleading edit summary of "rv vandalism") which E. reverted:

According to the Michigan Daily, in 2004 at an ISM rally in Dearborn, Shapiro called for the State of Israel to be "razed to the ground, the Jews expelled, and the seeds of a new stronger Palestine to be planted." Shapiro denies the remark.

In effect, Wehwalt added an unsourced claim that an LP made a call for ethnic cleansing. BLP violations scarcely get any more egregious than that. Wehwalt then continued by adding more negative material from a blogsite.[140]

My question is, what possible excuse can there be for an administrator to be adding such negative material to an article in gross violation of BLP? Why is this not an actionable offense, while Eleland's finger flip earns him two weeks in the sin bin? I would suggest that adding an unsourced claim accusing someone of advocating ethnic cleansing would if anything be closer to a desysoppable offence than a blocking one - all the more so when one considers the problems we have with Is-Pal pages, and the general sanctions applying to them. So it seems to me that some users have dismissed Eleland's complaints very lightly, while taking the easy option by slapping a substantial block on E. for profanity. This does not strike me as a rational or evenhanded response. Gatoclass (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You've asked that 3 times now, and have been answered three times. To recap - there is a difference between an editor who has a block-log as long as your arm, including blocks for incivility, who appears unrepentant, and an editor in good standing with a clean block log who has acknowledged that his edits may have been inappropriate, and has not repeated them. I suggest it's time for you to move along and stop beating this dead horse. NoCal100 (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And I would suggest we recognize that incivility is nothing in comparison to exposing Wikipedia to defamation suits. I would also suggest that we hold administrators to a higher standard than people with bad records, not a lower one. Administrators who intentionally break the rules they're charged to enforce need to be banned for life; no exceptions, no excuses. Spotfixer (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, admins are not "charged to enforce [the rules]". We are not police officers and we are not hall monitors. We are here to ensure the interests of the project are upheld. While that might be what you meant, I thought some clarification might be in order. Tan | 39 04:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Disciplining administrators as administrators is reserved for Arbitration. And short of that, what do you want, a public pillory? Hows this: "Wehwalt, as an admin in good standing I'm formally telling you that you screwed up. Don't do it again." The goal of a complaint should be to change behavior, not to punish someone. Likewise, whatever failures Wehalt has or does not have, it doesn't excuse Eleland's behavior. Those raising BLP concerns have equal duty to explain their objections on BLP articles as they do elsewhere on wiki.--Tznkai (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Incivility no doubt damages the collegiate atmosphere here, but so do breaches of policy like blatant and repeated BLP violations, because they encourage cynicism and make it increasingly difficult to extend the assumption of good faith. Such edits are, in effect, provocations to incivility, and that should be taken into account when judging uncivil exchanges. One "f-bomb" in response to Wehwalt's BLP violations and attempted rationalizations, on the user's own talk page, does not seem so outrageous as to warrant a two-week block in this context, while the other user merely gets off with a warning. Gatoclass (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He's not an admin in good standing; he's an admin who violated BLP, and yet he is somehow not only still an admin, but not even blocked. This sort of double standard sets a very bad example, making Wikipedia look corrupt. The solution is for Wehwalt to voluntarily step down and hand in his sysop bit. Spotfixer (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Calls for desysopping are utterly ridiculous and serve no purpose other than stirring up unnecessary drama. What does any of this have to do with being an admin? Nothing. There is no threat of admin abuse, there is no indication that there will be BLP issues in the future, yet here we sit with people calling for his head. Ridiculous. - auburnpilot talk 07:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What's utterly ridiculous is confusing justice with drama. He's getting away with violating BLP because he's an admin and gets to be held to a lower standard. No wonder "30 Rock" makes fun of Wikipedia; we're a joke. Spotfixer (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Justice? You seem to be very confused about the purpose of blocks and the meaning of being an admin. We don't block people or remove their sysop flag in the name of "justice"; we do it because of abuse or disruption. There is no indication, or even suggestion, of admin abuse. And frankly, who the hell cares if 30 Rock makes fun of Wikipedia? - auburnpilot talk 07:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If a block is unjust, then how does it do Wikipedia any good? When you figure that out, let me know. Spotfixer (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A guy drops the f-bomb on his own talk page and gets 2 weeks "vacation", and an "ADMIN" adds defamatory, libelious, and potentially legally actionable material to a BLP and gets a "don't do that again"? Even tho the F-bomber has a history for uncivility, shouldn't an admin know better than to do what he did? I mean, come on, in the real world I cuss like a sailor, but I don't call the local politician a genocidal maniac, especially in PRINT. If anything, they both should've been blocked, not just the f-bomber, and a revocation of admin privilages should be considered, whether or not he says "I'm sorry and I won't do it again". He's an admin for chrissakes! Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive. If somebody credibly promises to stop whatever the problem is (as Wehwalt did here), they are not issued. Eleland, on the other side, has not yet indicated that he understands the imperative to observe WP:CIV and WP:NPA at all times. Removal of administrative privileges is outside the scope of sanctions that admins may issue on their own; it would require at least an WP:RFC followed by a WP:RFAR, but that would be completely unhelpful at this stage. Based on the diffs I have reviewed so far (see also the discussion with Misarxist at my talk), it appears that Wehwalt has repeatedly reverted the article Adam Shapiro to a version that ascribes controversial statements to that WP:BLP, while not sourcing these statements tightly enough (e.g. "according to the Foo Newspaper, Shapiro said ..."). These are violations of WP:BLP, but these violations are not such that they warrant desysopping, especially given that they seem now to have been resolved satisfactorily. Desysopping is generally reserved for misuse of the admin tools, not for bad judgment with respect to content.  Sandstein  07:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone repeatedly makes such "bad judgements", is it likely that they are suitable for adminship? I would have to say no. However, I am not calling for Wehwalt to be desysopped, or even to be blocked. What I want to see is the block reduced for Eleland, because I think he was genuinely incensed by Wehwalt's edits and was trying to do the right thing. Dropping an f-bomb on one's own user page in reaction to a self-serving lecture from a BLP violator does not seem such an outrageous offence to me. I do hope you will reconsider and reduce the block Sandstein, or that if you will not, that some other admins may be prepared to consider doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are for all editors, even admins. Letting an admin off the hook means holding them to a lower standard rather than a higher one. Removal of administrative privileges is only right and fair, since this is a person who violates the rules they are expected to hold others to. There is no benefit at this point, except that a bad apple is removed and other apples are motivated not to be bad. It's the latter than matter most. Spotfixer (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Put the pitchfork down. Nobody will be blocking Wehwalt, and nobody will be desysopping him either. A block would serve no purpose whatsoever and there has been no admin abuse. - auburnpilot talk 07:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A block would serve a very important purpose: it would show that we hold admins to the same standards as other editors rather than giving them a free pass to violate rules and fake an apology when they get caught. Desysopping him would put all admins on notice that they are not above the rules they are supposed to enforce. It would send a message that would not be ignored. The end result would be that Wikipedia corruption would be lowered. Spotfixer (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt certainly doesn't have a "free pass". I notified/warned him on his talk page about repeating the BLP violations, and I said in the thread above that a block would be appropriate if he repeats them. I am a little disappointed that he has chosen to delete my notification rather than replying to it [141], but the acid test is what he chooses to do on the article in question. Admins are subject to the same rules and penalties as everyone else, and BLP issues certainly aren't an exception to that. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Making judgements without a close awareness of context is always dangerous. Several good I/P editors have been repeatedly suspended because they have short fuses for clear and persistent violations of core wiki policies. There seems to be a pattern of making their contributions difficult to the point that the known impatience with tomfoolery will reach a tipping point. These are tricks of gamesmanship. Eleland and a few others are sick and tired of it and wear the penalties, even though they are excessive. Not a word of severe correction is ever raised against the antagonists. The pattern is to approve of Cornwall, implicitly, and side with him against Kent, who is loyal to a cause.

Cornwall:You beastly knave, know you no reverence? (for wiki etiquette)

Kent: Yes, sir; but anger hath a privilege.(Lear,2.2)

Kent is right. Unfortunately, wiki sides with Cornwall (who is the equivalent of an administrator), for anger has no privilege, and rightly so. Yet the abuse of privilege engenders anger. To jump mechanically at etiquette's p's and q's, while ignoring persistently provocative bad editing is one reason so many bad articles stagnate. It is particularly poor to allow what serious admins in here have noted to be persistent bad editing by Wehwalt to go unpunished. Not even an hour's suspension to balance Eleland's customary 2 weeks. Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that a common pattern is for an admin to unfairly block an editor or otherwise antagonize them until their complaints becomes emphatic enough to be used an an excuse for further bans on the basis of "incivility". The idea is to provoke a reaction by mistreating a person, then mistreating them some more for not being perfectly tactful in the face of the initial mistreatment. Essentially, it's like beating someone until they yell, then beating them some more because they yelled.

When this happened to me, I didn't realize at first that it was par for the course around here and one of the many ways that partisan editors push unwanted contributors out the door. It was only when I researched the matter on Wikipedia Review that I realized my novel observations were just old hat.

As I see it, what's happening here is just another example. We have an admin who violates BLP in a big way, knowing that admins never get punished. We have an editor who complains loudly and gets blocked for not whispering. The admin is slapped on the wrist with a warning they immediately delete, chuckling merrily over their victory, while the editor accumulates a track record of blocks that will, ironically, be used as a justification for further blocks of extended length.

So let's not kid ourselves. This is just Wikipedia corruption in its most basic form. If Wikipedia were not corrupt, the admin here would have lost their sysop bit and even been blocked from further editing. That this has not occurred is overwhelming proof that the fix is in. Want more proof? Watch what happens to my comments. Spotfixer (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

To any interested, please read this version of Spotfixer's talk page. He is not here because he's looking for 'justice', he's here because apparently he thinks that any mistake made by an admin is admin abuse, and he refuses to be told otherwise.

Spotfixer, no one here but you thinks that wikipedia is corrupt, and you only think it because of a single bad block. All I really have to say is, get over it, and quit disrupting conversations in order to push your POV.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

By all means, look into the three bad blocks I've received so far. Keep looking until you find the protests on the blocking admins' pages, the arguments here on ARI, and the blowback. Spotfixer (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

All I see is a single bad block and an editor who won't let it go. As I said, get over it, everyone makes mistakes, but a single mistake is not enough to call for someone's desysop, and further, you trolled on their talk page, mocking them for the mistake, and that is not acceptable behavior here, trolling is not tolerated, so again, get over a single bad block, and contribute somewhere else, because your behavior in this thread has done nothing but disrupt. All you're here is to get an admin desysoped for a mistake, I'm pretty sure there are other things you can do besides calling for something so ridiculous concerning this matter.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is ridiculous. What are blocks for? They are not meant to be punitive. They are meant to prevent damage to the encyclopedia.

What is more damaging? Repeatedly including libellous material in an article on a living person for months despite the objections of other editors? Or responding to this kind editing that violated policy by writing the word "fuck" in exasperation on the talk page of the editor in question? As Wehwalt only got a warning, Eleland's block should be lifted. Blocking whistleblowers while letting crooks off the hook is indefensible. Tiamut^talk 14:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You ask 'What are blocks for?", but I think you know the answer - since you gave it, as advice, to Eleland on his Talk page. Reread your post there - you admit you were a serial edit warrior, but after being blocked for 3RR four times, you finally understood that such behavior is unacceptable, and have apparently been reformed. The hope is that this block, which is Eleland's third one for incivility, will finally get the message across, as the 4th block for edit warring did in your case. Conversely, if we were to lift the block, the message we'd be sending to him , and to other uncivil editors, would be "incivility is no big deal, just keep on doing what you're doing." NoCal100 (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

For those interested in addressing the issue I raised: "What is more damaging? Repeatedly including libellous material in an article on a living person for months despite the objections of other editors? Or responding to this kind editing that violated policy by writing the word "fuck" in exasperation on the talk page of the editor in question? As Wehwalt only got a warning, Eleland's block should be lifted. Blocking whistleblowers while letting crooks off the hook is indefensible." Tiamut^talk 15:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a question of which is more damaging. Eleland has been warned repeatedly, including repeated blocks, about incivility. From reading what I am reading here, this is Wehwalt's first "official warning" regarding BLP (although one might argue it doesn't count, since it was issued by an admin who has no business giving out warnings in this subject area, but let's leave that aside for now.) So which is more damaging is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Eleland is much farther along in the "sanctioning process" and therefore a more serious sanction is necessary. It also seems to me that he shows no signs of "getting it" regardless of whether he is blocked for 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months or 2 years, but so far no admin has seen fit to extend the block. As for your comment about "exasperation", a lot of people get exasperated, including me. What incentive is there for people to control their exasperation when they see someone who makes no effort to control it, get only short blocks, time after time? 6SJ7 (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, I suggest you tone it down and avoid attacking other editors. Besides, you're asking the wrong question. When looking at whether or not to place a block, you should be asking whether it will be preventative or punitive. Eleland has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with policy and work with editors in a civil manner. Block=preventive. Wehwalt was made aware that there was a problem with edits he was making, and he has not repeated that problem. Block=punitive. This isn't a "person A didn't get blocked, so person B shouldn't have either" situation. - auburnpilot talk 16:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Admins do not deal in punishment and do not dispense justice. We are simply charged to use our tools to stop damage or disruption to the encyclopedia, and that's what I'll continue to do. If A and B both cause disruption, but A credibly promises to stop and B does not, then I will block only B, even if the disruption caused by A was more severe. In this case, I promise you this: If Wehwalt, at any time in the future, reverts content in Adam Shapiro so as to restore material that unambiguously violates WP:BLP, drop me a note and I'll not hesitate to issue a block or another appropriate sanction.  Sandstein  16:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As a quick note, we're not qualified to dispense justice and neither (generally speaking) are our detractors. Leave that to judges, priests and philosopher-kings.--Tznkai (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, I appreciate your pledge, but I do want to point something out. Wehwalt has been reinserting this material for months now (I believe almost a year). Until Eleland said "fuck", no one paid attention to this. In fact, when Eleland raised this issue at WP:AE (before saying "fuck"), Tzanki did nothing to address the issue of Wehwalt's BLP violations. It seems "fuck" is a way to get people's attention around here, while BLP violations are not. So really, can you honestly say that this situation was dealt with correctly through and through? Can you see how admin intervention that took Eleland's complaints seriously earlier on might have prevented us from getting to point where Eleland felt he had to say "fuck" and then you felt that you had to block him? Tiamut^talk 16:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Misarxist below) Could earlier admin intervention have prevented Eleland from making a fool out of himself? I don't know. I wasn't seized of the matter earlier. I prefer to deal with issues as they are, not as they might have been. I only know that, for reasons only known to himself, Eleland chose to go on a verbal rampage instead of requesting appropriate intervention in an appropriate manner, and bears the consequences.

But if you read our dispute resolution policy, you'll note that it does not provide for administrator intervention at any stage. Instead, it says: "The Administrators' Noticeboard is not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors." Which means: Admins are not your mommy, and they are not Wikipedia's dei ex machina. We're just editors with a few more tools. In disputes that are more complicated than those involving obvious disruption, don't expect us to solve them. Do it yourself. WP:DR tells you how.

So, was this dealt with correctly through and through? No, probably not. What situation ever is? But none of the users concerned are now causing obvious disruption. And in an administrator's limited role that I occupy in this dispute, that's just about all I can try to achieve. The rest is up to you.  Sandstein  18:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On the same point, doubt we're going to get any sanction fr Wehwalt, but the 2 week block of Eleland might need reconsideration: Sandstein (as he stated at 1st, & this is amplified by my conversation with him on his talk where he had to have the BLP breach explicitly pointed out to him) hadn't looked further than Wehwalt's side of the story. Given the circumstances E's reaction while not excusable is understandable, and does not seem justify following policy to the letter and simply doubling the length of E's last block. Could a previously uninvolved admin please take a look at whether the block should be reduced? Misarxist 17:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would ask that a previously uninvolved admin also please take a look at whether the block should be increased. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to put down the stick and back away from the horse. The block length is within admin discretion and the only people who are complaining about it are partisans on both sides of the I-P issue. Another admin has already called you out for disruptive forum shopping - let it go and find something else to do, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That can't possibly be true since I don't even know what the I-P issue is in the first place. I just dislike corruption. Spotfixer (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Two points: 1) Wehwalt has done exactly the right thing here -- acknowledged his mistake and moved on. Others should as well. 2) I propose that Eleland's block be neither lengthened nor shortened. Rather, have it be indefinite, with an option to come back any time after two weeks if and only if he promises to stop his extraordinarily antagonistic, NPA-violating edits. This should have happened the last time he was indef blocked, and yet that was reduced -- twice -- with no promise at all from Eleland that he would reform his ways. Small wonder that he did not -- and I doubt he will if he is allowed back again without some sign of contrition. IronDuke 00:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And I propose that we block Wehwalk indefinitely for their actions, and unblock Eleland with with a sincere apology for the unwarranted abuse. Wehwalk can come back if they promise not to violate BLP or make excuses for their violations, but they obviously can't ever be an admin again. Spotfixer (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer, I highly suggest you take ChrisO's advice and move on, or you'll likely find that an admin is going to force you to move on. You've made your opinion clear above, and you've made it clear on Wehwalt's talk page.[142] Drop it. - auburnpilot talk 01:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Wehwalk, I'm not violating any rules, so no admin has any possible basis upon which to threaten me. Your comment borders on harassment and incivility. But back on the topic of Wehwalk, true to form, he immediately deleted my request that he step down. He doesn't even pretend that he's willing to be held accountable for his actions, which is why he needs to be blocked permanently. Spotfixer (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, judging by your behavior, I believe you're the one that needs to be blocked to prevent disruption. I've dealt with your kind before. A single bad block, or a block they don't agree with, and any admin they come into contact hence forth, they do not trust. If they find an admin who made a mistake, they immediately call for a desysop, even though the circumstances regarding the situation don't even come close to warrenting it. Leave this thread, Spotfixer, and go somewhere else, because the only thing your comments will get you, is a block. You've been warned against behavior like this in the past, and you were also blocked for behavior like this. If you continue on this road, you'll surely land yourself in another one.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please let's not start threatening one another just for expressing an opinion. If you think Spotfixer has nothing worthwhile to say, I suggest you ignore him. It takes two to tango after all. Gatoclass (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironduke, you and 6SJ7 are political opponents of Eleland and you've clashed with him previously on Israel-Palestine articles. This constant agitation to get him blocked for longer is beginning to look like a concerted attempt to get rid of someone whose POV you dislike. It's inappropriate and borders on a disruptive abuse of AN/I. The matter has been dealt with - I suggest you accept that and move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I notice that you did not criticize Gatoclass or Tiamut (who, one might say, are your "political allies", as is Eleland) for saying the block should be shortened. You only attack those who believe the block should be lengthened, or made indefinite. So who is being disruptive? It isn't me or IronDuke. I'm not the one making the implied threats, you are. I'm usually ready to drop something after one or two comments, and I am no longer discussing Eleland's situation. What I am discussing now is your attempt to stifle discussion on this board to suit your own political ends. If you were being evenhanded, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but you aren't. You don't get to decide what I can say. 6SJ7 (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not on anyone's "side" here - I don't agree with the calls to reduce the block, and I don't agree with your calls to increase it. I'll remind you that I've previously blocked Eleland, so I certainly do not consider him a "political ally". I have no "political ends" in calling for an end to this discussion. You are simply wasting everyone's time by campaigning on it when the matter has already been resolved, and your continued accusations of bad faith are simply tiresome. You are making a fool of yourself by persisting with this. Now move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, where to begin? First, if you read my post carefullly (or at all) you will see that I am largely in agrrement with you as to the length of the block. Two weeks is fine, if and only if Eleland promises to cease all of his grotesque personal attacks. Why is it that you will not call for any kind of contrition/promise to mend his ways from Eleland? Perhaps the reason becomes clearer when we examine your "block" of him. Are you referring to your reduction of a previous Eleland block, after he was rightly indeffed for comparing a Jewish editor to a Nazi? Because that's the only block I see here. Chris, that you are one of the most partisan editors in the I-P conflict would be hard to argue with. Eleland is your ally, in a very robust sense of that word, and you defend him at Wikipedia's cost. IronDuke 15:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the original compliant but reading this thread basically backs up what they said. Spotfixer adds their voice to Gatoclass's complaint and is insistent. So what happens. Instead of opening some kind of inquiry they take a threatening tone. Like (voice of god)"how dare you mere mortals call us on our actions lest we smite thee from on high"(/voice of god. If what has been written here is at all accurate, multiple ignored BLP violations got someone fbombed on their talk page that could be worth a block. As I recall a admin once blocked someone who fbombed me but reversed it after they were reminded that the person should get some kind of warning before a block. The reviewing admins also cited a essay WP:FUCK. After the person was unblocked they promptly told the admit "go f-Bomb yourself this is my talk page". he he he So what is the standard? Can we communicate honestly on our talk pages or not? --Hfarmer (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you read through this thread line by line, because if you did, you might note Spotfixer is calling for an indefinite block, and a desysop, of the admin who made the mistake, even though there was no admin abuse, and an indef block is not warranted.

All this has to do with Spotfixer's POV that wikipedia is corrupt, all because of a single bad block that he won't let go. He didn't let go of it when it ran out, and immediately trolled the blocking admin's user talk page, mocking him.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Had you read and understood you would realize that the underlying issue is not truly the length of the block. But the fact that an admin got away with persistent BLP violations, while a regular user says one untoward thing and gets a two week block. Gatoclass and spotfixer at the end of the day seek the same thing. Equal treatment for both admins and non admin users. If you actually paid any attention you would see that. You would also see how your dismissive tone above only serves to back up my original point. That's my $0.02. Take it or leave it. --Hfarmer (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the gaping discrepancy in treatment, persistent violations by an administrator of one rule, WP:BLP, and one exasperated 'fuck off'WP:CIVIL by the coolie in the trenches who had endeavoured to have that rule observed, the outcome is, no sanction for the former, who, after the incident, apologised, while Eleland's exasperation was punished. As is normal, the laws of cause and effect don't matter in arbitration. It would have made the 2 week suspension appear less unjust had Wehwelt apologized to Eleland, not to fellow administrators. The way things have played out, it does indeed look, as in other cases, that gaining administrative status gets one exemptions that do not apply to the hoi polloi. There is a considerable amount of editorial incivility that gets by without comment, because it involves tagteaming, persistent bad editing of poor material, and POV-pushing, while warily stepping around formal infractions. Administration never looks at this hinterland of contemptuous disregard for collegial editing, and many of those who are exasperated by the obvious abuse of the fundamental aims of the project, building an encyclopedia, are the ones singled out for punitive measures. Gaming the system is endemic, and it is not pleasant to observe that among administrators, when petty things like a casual expletive, eminently deserved, hit the fan, that a class stratification emerges, with penpushers in the bureaucracy showing leniency to one of their own, while rendering judgements that suggest the infraction of a manly incivility trumps everything else in wiki's blackbook, casting into the shadows attrition by persistent bad edits etc., which provoke these outbursts. Eleland knew what he was up for. But by the same token, so did Wehwelt, only he can apparently rest assured that the welts of woe will hit only one of the two protagonists, and not himself, the primary antagonist. That itself is an incentive to further gamesmanship. Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, since you apparently can't "let it go" either (which is fine with me, even though we disagree on the substance of the issue), it will be interesting to see if ChrisO attacks you and threatens you, as he has done to me and IronDuke in this thread. (Of course, if he did so now, in a belated pretense at even-handedness, it wouldn't really count anyway.) 6SJ7 (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)

Just to clarify, the underlying issue is not just that bad blocks like this one happen, but that those who complain about them get bullied and threatened and sometimes even blocked, as we can see in this discussion. This problem is a symptom of, among other things, the disparity between admins, who get away with gross violations of the rules and are answerable to no one, and regular editors, who face arbitrary and abusive blocking. It's particularly visible here, with an admin who ignores WP:BLP and harasses an opposing editor until he finds an excuse for a block, thereafter deleting all complaints without deigning to respond.

Last I checked, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a totalitarian regime, where one can expect that filing an appeal is likely to convert your already unjustified imprisonment into a life sentence. Disagreement is not a crime, and if we punish whistleblowers, we enable and endorse corruption and incompetence. Spotfixer (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Endorsing block: Eleland has shown over and over that he does not intend to observe civility and to refrain from personal attacks and mischaracterizations, unlike Wehwalt. For all of the hot air over the administrator abuse -- can you please cite some diffs where there was such administrator abuse? Where this particular administrator misused his tools given? Or is this a content issue, where no such administrative action occurred? Thought so.

We don't "deadmin" anyone for making a mistake while editing; we desysop based on gross misuse of administrator tools. As mentioned earlier, it usually starts with a Request for Comment, then it escalates. But I see no reason to even go to RFC (and other administrators agreed), and taking it to ... WP:RFAR would mean almost instant rejection. Now, can we please move on? seicer | talk | contribs 13:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, nobody has suggested that Wehwalt made any use of admin tools, let alone misusing them, and there is certainly no evidence of that in the diffs relating to the disputed article. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct, however, a few disgruntled and misguided editors are wanting his head for the sole reason that he made a mistake as an editor. I see no misuse of the administrator tools. seicer | talk | contribs 13:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't one of them. I named this section "excessive block" because I felt two weeks for an f-bomb in response to what might readily be interpreted as baiting from a BLP violater was manifestly excessive, even for someone with a couple of previous blocks for incivility. In making my case I drew attention to the behaviour of the other user, because I believe context should always be taken into account when considering a block. My intention has never been to get Wehwalt either blocked or desysopped, it has been to get Eleland either unblocked or to have his block shortened to a more reasonable time for a relatively minor offence like this - like say, 24 or 48 hours.

Also, handing out punitive blocks to users who are getting steamed over legitimate issues like BLP violations does not appear to me to be a very constructive approach. Indeed it seems like a great way to drive away good faith users in frustration. I mean, at the end of the day, what sort of community would you prefer to have - a community of users who are passionate about policy to a fault, or a community of civil POV pushers? I know which I'd prefer. But the system as it is currently set up tends to be loaded in favour of the latter, because breaches of WP:CIV are easy to identify. Maybe it would be a start if we began treating breaches of WP:BLP with the same level of intolerance? Gatoclass (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems Gatoclass , who as been endlessly agitating to get Eleland's block lifted or drastically reduced, can't let it go either. ChrisO, will you be warning him that he's going ti face sanctions himself if he doesn't drop it, or is that reserved for your political opponents? NoCal100 (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So IronDuke, 6SJ7, and now NoCal100, fresh from his triumph in getting rid of a very good content editor, Ashley kennedy3 by pure attrition of patience, and gearing himself up to wear out my own by his unacceptable behaviour at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni these last few days, are not satisfied with Eleland's scalp, but have teamed up to go for some administrative purging as well, with ChrisO and now Gatoclass in their sights, the latter only because he happened to suggest a sanction was rather too long for a 'pro-Palestinian' editor? What is this place becoming, a playground for witchhunting anyone in odour of Palestinian sympathies? Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have something helpful to say, I am truly open to hearing it. IronDuke 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call it "endlessly agitating". Actually the post above was begun as an attempt to correct Hfarmer's comment that Gatoclass and spotfixer at the end of the day seek the same thing. Equal treatment for both admins and non admin users, which I felt mischaracterized my position somewhat, but my net connection went down and by the time it came back again the discussion had moved on, so I thought I would just drop the comment originally intended in response to him at the end of the section instead. Gatoclass (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone archive this thread - its not producing anything productive. Gatoclass - you're not getting anything done here. For the record, eleland's behavior on that article started bad and got worse - the reason that civility is important is that if Eleland had started and maintained a civil tone, this (probably) would have been resolved with no problem whatsoever. Instead, we've wasted a lot of time and energy on it. If you or anyone else wants to further punish or otherwise pillory Wehwalt (or even genuinely resolve whatever problems there are) WP:DR is your first stop. If you want Eleand's block revisited - take it to ArbCom. If you have a problem with the number of admins who have told you to drop it, take it to DR and eventually to ArbCom. We're past done doing anything useful here.--Tznkai (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make misleading comments, referring to "a number of admins who have told you to drop it" is both untrue and disparaging, as is your insinuation that I "want to further punish or otherwise pillory Wehwalt", which is in direct contradiction to my actual statements. If you want to close this thread, you are welcome to, I made my appeal and was done with it long ago, it's other users who have chosen to continue the discussion, I only returned to correct what I saw as a mischaracterization of an earlier statement. Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And just for the record, "the number of admins who have told [me] to drop it" in the discussion above is zero. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Tznkai is an administrator, who has told you to drop it. Please do so. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility and sourcing

I'm referring an issue with Nikitn (talk · contribs) here for further review. He's been warned twice for conduct issues and has taken a rather hardline stance to the inclusion of what appear to me to be reliable sources. I don't believe this topic area is under arbocm sanctions (otherwise I'd restrict him to the talk page), and saving that I am thinking a 24 hour block would be in order. But before I act, I wanted to see what others thought and if anyone is an expert enough in the field to opine on the sourcing issue. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

While he's not being blatantly incivil, I do get the distinct impression he's toeing the line quite intentionally ("How cute...", etc.), and would appear to be becoming rather disruptive. I have no experience in this field, of course, so I have no idea if he has a valid point or not, but the way he's going about making said point is the point, if I haven't turned anyone's head in circles by this point. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides uncivil comments in edit summaries this user has also stalked me to my YouTube page and spammed it with comments like "a biased little shit". He has also vandalized my userpage while editing under IP. Comments like all Swedish historians are "idiots" doesn't give much room to a civil discussion either. Närking (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Among his edit summaries you will find examples like these: [143], [144], [145], [146] (note that he instead of a sourced figure inserted an unsourced), [147] (here he removed a picture from the article for no other reason than I had put it there). The list can go on and on... And note he only has edits like this, no other serious editing. Närking (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps these discretionary sanctions are applicable.Biophys (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)