Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive550

Repeated personal attacks and intimidation by User:Allstarecho

Both of you stay away from each other. This is just stupid, and totally unnecessary. J.delanoygabsadds 02:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. I believe that User:Allstarecho is using unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations of "stalking", "hounding", and "harrassment" to discourage me from participation in discussions. I am tired of the accusations and would like some admin action to put a stop to them. Per WP:NPA, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are "never acceptable". On 17 June, in response to a suggestion at ANI by User:Benjiboi that my support of another editor who had an issue with Allstarecho amounted to "hounding", I stated clearly that I was not "hounding" Allstarecho. Benjiboi graciously withdrew his suggestion, but Allstarecho insinuated that I was wikistalking him and did not respond to my request for clarification. I further explained that my interest in Allstarecho's contributions arose from his recent block for the introduction of copyright violations. I hoped the matter was settled. On 19 June, in another ANI thread, Allstarecho accused me of "hounding" here and here. I asked Allstarecho to stop making accusations and invited him to follow up in an appropriate forum if he had genuine concerns about my behaviour. The same ANI thread also includes the perplexingly mysterious but clearly threatening comment "Disengage from me before my accusation escalates to a worse accusation". On 28 June, Allstarecho again accused me of "wiki-stalking" here for participating in an MfD discussion. I reiterated that I was not wikistalking him and again asked him to stop making accusations and take it to an appropriate forum. Today he removed comments of mine from a Village Pump with the edit summary "rmv that which has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion; feel free to post it somewhere appropriate, and thanks for the additional stalking/hounding/harassment". Please do not respond to this thread with platitudes such as "just disengage from each other". Allstarecho has been involved in a large number of issues just in the past month - block for copyright violations; questionable unblocking for same; egregious ownership and COI issues at Equality Mississippi; insertion of a joke image into an article; similar unsubstantiated stalking allegations against User:Damiens.rf; and creation, re-creation, and re-re-creation of redirects from article space into his userspace. Forgive my bluntness, but there is no shortage of legitimate complaints based on Allstarecho's actions. I have already been run off Equality Mississippi and have ignored other issues that I would not otherwise have hesitated to tackle. Although some of my comments did not help the situation, I do not think I am the problem here. Please address these repeated personal attacks. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Just the fact that you even posted this, speaks volumes as to your hounding/harassment. All one has to do, for evidence, is look at your contribs and see where you've been and they will find it's usually right behind me. That's stalking. Disengage indeed. Your comment I removed today from Village Pump, was indeed just that.. it had nothing whatsoever, not a single letter, space or equation, to do with that thread. It was nothing more than provocation. And that's all I'm going to say on this thread. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 21:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I knew that bringing this here was an invitation for people to scrutinize my recent contributions. If someone feels that I have been wikistalking you, I'm sure they will say so. I'm here because I'm tired of the accusations and personal attacks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC) The comment(s) that Allstarecho removed as stalking/harassment. McJeff (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Already linked in the fifth paragraph, above. I'm not trying to hide anything. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I don't know how useful this information will be to the reviewing admins but a look at the block pages of both editors shows that while Delicious Carbuncle has never been blocked, Allstarecho it seems has a very busy block page--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Looks to me like Allstarecho has a legitimate grievance here. Was this necessary? And do cheeky edit summaries like these [1] [2] serve any purpose? I don't know if I'd call it hounding but it does appear that Delirious carbuncle is baiting Allstarecho. Regrettably, hotheads are easily taken in by routines like this one, and they usually pay for it with a long blocklog while their antagonists get away with it completely. McJeff (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I asked Allstarecho, more than once, to pursue his accusations if he felt that I actually was hounding him. He has not done that. WP:NPA is very clear that his repeated unsubstantiated accusations are personal attacks. His response here was to again accuse me of the very same thing. Whether or not you feel that I am hounding Allstarecho or somehow manipulating him into getting himself blocked, at this point the issue is with his personal attacks against me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC) And to answer your first question, while it may appear that I was unnecessarily provoking Allstarecho, at that time I was also doing whatever I could to draw admin attention to an article which was in the midst of a nasty edit war and an attempt to vilify a particular editor who appeared to me to be overly bold but well-intentioned. The article's issues remain unsolved, but that editor has been scared off (as have I) by the episode. Here is the archived discussion from Allstarecho's talk page that I was linking to, if you're interested in reading it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC) McJeff, please look at the links given by Delicious Carbuncle. Allstarecho has clearly been disruptive a lot lately and there should be severe consequences for these actions as well as the intimidation and personal attacks and other disruptive actions. Delicious Carbuncle did the right thing by reporting this here. Allstarecho's actions lately are unacceptable and very, very inappropiate. In fact, this is some of the silliest behavior I have ever seen on Wikipedia.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 05:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I know it may seem to some that I'm just doing this to create drama or antagonize Allstarecho, but I'm really not. Despite my repeated denials, I have no way of defending myself against the accusations if Allstarecho chooses not to make a formal complaint. Allstarecho's accusations have been seen by editors who have no knowledge of the events which precipitated his attacks and now unfairly associate me with hounding. And making unsubstantiated accusations is a personal attack, as very clearly defined in WP:NPA. Ignore the rest of the issues and look at it as repeated personal attacks if that makes it easier, just please do something about this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Having looked at all the links above (yes, I really did - that's half an hour of my life I won't get back) my inclination would be to suggest that both editors refrain from interacting with each other. We can formalise this if you want, but it clearly is the common-sense reaction to such editing. Black Kite 22:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I shouldn't have to be the one telling you this, but I will nevertheless. There's clearly no immediate problem that needs to be dealt with, so this is not the appropriate venue for your complaints. If you feel that a case can be made against Allstarecho then prepare one and take it to WP:RFC. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC) This isn't the place for me to report repeated personal attacks? The most recent actually occurring in Allstarecho's reply to my starting this thread? The one that prompted me to start the thread was just hours before? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC) No, seriously - you need to start an RFC/U on this. It is very unlikely that, given the timeframes above, any admin will take action on this immediately. Black Kite 22:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Hmmm. A personal attack in an ANI thread usually results in an automatic block, but in this case I'm being told that this isn't even the right forum? Do you at least acknowledge that WP:NPA very clearly states that unsubstantiated allegations of hounding are personal attacks? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Please stop block-shopping. Those who have commented here have made it very clear to you: no administrative action is going to be taken at this time. Your next step would appear to be an RFC about ASE's behavior, if you find it so untenable. Or you could just stop going places on-Wiki where you know he frequents. Unitanode 22:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure what "block-shopping" means. Would I like Allstarecho blocked for his personal attacks? Yes, but I'd prefer that he stop making accusations against me. Do you at least acknowledge that WP:NPA very clearly states that unsubstantiated allegations of hounding are personal attacks? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC) It does say that, but from what I've seen above, there is substantiation for ASE's claims that you're hounding him. Now I'm asking you to please take this to RFC or let it go. Unitanode 22:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I appreciate your opinion, although I note that your account is barely 3 months old, but permit me to quote WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki". Note especially the last two sentences. I have encouraged Allstarecho to make a formal complaint. He has not. You acknowledge his personal attack in this thread, yet it is not being acted upon. Why is this particular thread so different from any of the others here? (And please explain what you mean by "block-shopping". Thanks) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Okay, I just spent a solid twenty minutes reviewing all these diffs and some of the situations, and I have to say, I wish I had that twenty minutes back. Any further comment on the situation, from me, would most certainly end up in a block for myself. As I have gone on record as having an extraordinarily low opinion of Allstarecho's editing, I won't issue any blocks - but if I were a completely uninvolved admin, I'd issue a final warning against disruption - to both editors. This bullshit needs to stop on all fronts - Allstarecho's accusations, DC's baiting, and DC's persistent whining on this page. Tan | 39 23:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC) That would work for me - who'd like to do that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC) If I were an admin, Allstarecho would already be gone.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Wait a minute here, I agreed to a solution proposed by Tantalus39 even though it wasn't what I was looking for. NeutralHomer (who isn't at all neutral in this instance) solicited J.delanoy on his talk page to close by misrepresenting my position. I didn't bring this here so that it could be blown off without Allstarecho being so much as warned to stop making personal attacks. I get that this is annoying, but there's been almost no discussion of the agreed upon personal attacks. Why close this without taking the proposed solution which Tan39 would have done himself if he felt less involved? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Tan39 wanted you both warned (which I did) and you both to leave each other alone (which I said in my warning). So...I am confused at what you want. Tan39 said it, I said it, J. said it in the resolved message and then closed it because it has been said three times. What do you want here? Someone else to say it? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC) If that's what you are after, please consider it said. This is silly, just please stay away from each other. -t'shaelchat 03:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle wants Allstarecho to receive an explicit NPA warning for making accusations presented without evidence. I may be more receptive to this concern, having recently had cause to review that particular NPA item. From the comments above referencing mitigating factors and mutual antagonism, it appears that DC will not have his druthers. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC) I would strongly recommend that Delicious carbuncle refrain from the pointless, antagonistic little digs at other users (i.e. NeutralHomer, who isn't neutral at all in this instance) in the future, as they themselves are as much a violation of WP:CIV as the accusations of hounding that he so resents. McJeff (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC) To me this seems like a damned witch hunt that will only end when Delicious carbuncle gets a correctly worded statement from someone to someone (and one Delicious carbuncle knows what that is) and he doesn't intend to let it die as he said in this edit summary. ASE seems to be leaving Delicious carbuncle alone, I am at a loss as to what more he could want. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Where to start? (a) I'm at a loss to see how my statement NeutralHomer, who isn't neutral at all in this instance is uncivil in any way, even if it were untrue. Let me repeat it. NeutralHomer, who isn't neutral at all in this instance, was blocked for some very extreme and uncivil comments on Talk:Equality Mississippi to User:Damiens.rf. While I disagreed with Damiens.rf's aggressive actions, I believed that they were motivated by a desire to follow WP rules and guidelines which were, and are, being ignored on that article. NeutralHomer may also feel that I am responsible for his block due to this report to ANI. (b) As Flatscan suggests, I am looking for a resolution that, at the very least, involves a clear warning to Allstarecho. I understand that I am not blameless in this episode, and I am perfectly willing accept a similar warning. Tan39 suggested this hours ago and I agreed to it. Allstarecho is still welcome to file an RfC on his hounding allegations if he desires. (c) The edit summary that NeutralHomer cites was intended to generate some admin involvement, since the only comments at that point were the supportive comment from The Legendary Sky Attacker and the provocative one from McJeff, neither of whom are admins. It seemed to work. (d) I came here looking to resolve an issue, why does anyone think I'd be satisfied with anything less? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC) "Resolved" does not mean "resolved to your satisfaction," DC. This is becoming tedious and disruptive, as you keep insisting you get it your way and refusing to stop when everyone tells you it's not going to happen. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC) I haven't "insisted" on anything - I brought an issue here for resolution and resolution is what I want. I'm aware that I may not get it. Replying to comments (such as yours) can hardly be considered disruptive. I find this tedious, too. Perhaps if people stopped telling me what a whiner I am, this would get archived. I accepted the proposed resolution, and yet no one seems willing to enact it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC) What does my last block have anything to do with this? I am going to extend the archive template to the bottom of those section. This is over. You are now just trying to pick an arguement and are being disruptive. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC) I've moved the archive template back, only because I think it will be less confusing. I am not trying to pick a fight, I'm trying to end one. I explained how your block is relevant - because my report prompted it. It wasn't intended as any kind of an attack, simply an illustration of why I don't consider you to be a neutral party. You, Allstarecho, and, I believe, Benjiboy were involved in a dispute with Damiens.rf on Talk:Equality Mississippi. I supported Damiens.rf's position. Since that time you act as if we have some kind of conflict. Just for the record, I have no issue with you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC) OK, good, no conflict. So, what is it that you want that you can let this post die it's slow archivable death? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:08, 3 July 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.

AfD notice being removed at Laura Lee

An SPA, Brody Steel (talk · contribs), is repeatedly removing the AfD notice at Laura Lee (adult model) without explanation. He's blanked warnings on his talk page (which is allowed), and also accused the nominator of "molesting" the article [3]. I'm not making any comments on whether or not the article would survive AfD, only on the unexplained deletion of the notice. There seem to be several SPAs in the contribs list of this article, some assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24h for the 3RR violation. –xeno^talk 20:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The real question is why would anybody want to delete an article about a sexy woman like that :P Loosmark (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Without illustrations, it's hard to tell. In any case, Laura has not been nearly as successful as her sister, Aura. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand her great-aunt Sara did cheesecake, too. PhGustaf (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You bet. And nobody didn't like her. In fact, I would guess there's an article on Sara Lee. I'm so confident that article exists, I'm saving without previewing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick block needed -- Sockpuppet impersonating admin

Resolved

 – Indef blocked by Tanthalas39. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The "new" account User:Ricky28618 is a sockpuppet account, created to harass administrator User:Ricky81682 . More fallout, it looks like, from the longrunning Catalyst/buzznet/Jessicka disputes. The sock is starting frivious AFDs [4], attackng the legit editor, [5] trying to inflame old disputes [6], and generally being a disruptive little rodent Special:Contributions/Ricky28618. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Block review - uninvolved admin request

Being bold and archiving thread. Original issue is now moot and the acrimony is now feeding on itself. Recommend all involved to disengage and move on. Abecedare (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. William M. Connolley has blocked A.K.Nole for 24 hours for trolling. I think this is a bad block, and AKN has requested an unblock. However, as I am involved (see, e.g., my talk page), I am requesting an uninvolved editor to examine this. LadyofShalott 00:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC) FWIW, I took a look at the situation which seems to be an editing disagreement between two users over technical descriptions in the article Butcher group. That article is beyond my comprehension, I'm afraid, so it's difficult to tell who has the better of the argument. However, it is somewhat disturbing that someone who seems to be willing to help out on such a technical subject is blocked for making apparently innocuous comments on talk pages, suggesting improvements or questioning the presentation in the article. Talk page comments are given much wider latitude for content and even nit-picking or even ignorance before it would be considered trolling, and for the mathematically-challenged the comments that seemed to earn the block didn't deserve that. However, I am not answering the unblock request, because in the context of this technical area the comments that look innocuous could be the equivalent of adding "But doesn't Newton's second law need to be repealed" to the ABBA talk page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC) If LadyofShalott or someone else who understands the underlying content debate could elaborate on it that would be useful. Like Carlos I don't know enough on the subject to understand what is going on, and anyway since I have recently (and in the past) taken a negative view of admin actions by WMC I'm probably not the person to undo one of his blocks. But this block does look very questionable on the face, if only for the fact that the explanation is so vague ("trolling") that I can't tell why exactly the editor was blocked. WMC asked A.K. Nole to "ponder the reasons for this" block, but I personally have no idea what those reasons are, since Nole simply seems to be in a content dispute with another editor (perhaps adding some questionable material as well, but apparently not since the warning). It appears that Nole was blocked for continuing to discuss an issue on their own talk page, though I could have missed something else. At the very least this is a problem because admins need to have an understanding of the rationale for a given block when considering an unblock. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I'm also having trouble understanding the reason for this block. After reading over Talk:Butcher group, I was actually much more disturbed by Mathsci's behavior and comments than A.K. Nole's. --auburnpilot talk 00:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Just to give everyone some more reading material until WMC shows up: I'm pretty sure this is related to the whole ChildofMidnight/MathSci tempest of a few days ago. I think CoM was doing something similar, on the same page, and was blocked. Just providing a little context, I just remember seeing the CoM thread, but I didn't read it, and I have absolutely no opinion on the underlying blocks of either CoM or AKN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I came across the Butcher group article on new page patrol, one of many Articles I worked on that evening, and made a very reasonable copy-edit [7]. This was met with rude and hostile attacks on my talk page including accusations that I was stalking Mathsci. I tried to disengage and worked elsewhere, but Mathsci made an ANI report, where his behavior was criticized by many editors, and William Connelly inexplicably blocked me unilaterally without any shred of consensus. Most editors and admins noted that Mathsci's behavior was uncivil and unacceptable. The talk page of that article is clear about Mathsci's attitude and hostility to other editors working on "his" article. Connelly appears to support and encourage this rude, obnoxious and childish behavior and has made levying these inappropriate and bullying blocks a pattern. Together they are quite a team against anyone who dares edit an article against Mathsci's wishes. Mathsci also made this rude and uncalled for attack on my talk page [8] today after I politely suggested on A.K. Nole's talk page that the block should be reviewed [9]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC) CoM, might I respectfully suggest that you might not be the best person to comment on this/it might not be in your best interests to comment on this, lest it appear that you have some sort of vendetta going on? → ROUX ₪ 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Considering ChildofMidnight has been mentioned below as possibly related to the situation, I'd say it's not only appropriate for COM to comment but expected. --auburnpilot talk 01:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC) As Bigtimepeace said below, I was meaning the comment more for CoM's sake; he has enough opinion stacked against him that it would make sense for him to not give people the chance to manufacture more. → ROUX ₪ 02:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I would second what Roux said to some degree (just for CoM's sake), though in fairness (and here echoing AuburnPilot) Mathsci's comment to CoM was grossly uncivil. As such I have warned Matschi for that remark. Regardless of anything else going on here, saying "It seems that you are trying your hardest to be the most visible mathematical/theoretical physics troll on wikipedia" in response to a user talk page note simply suggesting that a block be reviewed is most definitely not on. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Ok, here's my take on the situation. Despite working in mathematics I don't really understand the contents of the article. I think that's relevant: I do at least know enough to tell that it's on advanced research mathematics, seems to be important to some areas of mathematics that are different than the ones I work on, and with more effort than I care to spend right now I think I could understand it. One of the people who has helped edit the article is a Fields medalist, so I am confident that it's of some importance and that someone who does understand it has taken it in hand. Anyway, A.K.Nole has been active on the talk page, asking very naive questions at a rate that could easily be annoying to the other people there who are trying to get some editing done. I can see two possible explanations: (1) they (I'm using the singular they because it's just too tedious to keep writing "he or she") are earnest and trying to understand the new article, have not yet been scared away by all the complicated math, do not realize how much they're in over their head, and are asking naive questions in the hope that getting the more expert editors there to answer them will cause the article to be rewritten in a less inaccessible way; or (2) they understand that there is little hope of getting the article to be truly accessible to a general audience and are just asking questions to be annoying. Per WP:AGF I'd lean towards the first explanation; Connolley seems to have taken the second instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC) (ec's...) Another article is involved: AKNole added some information from Butcher group to the stub, Minimal subtraction scheme, and Mathsci objected. I am unable to understand either why this would be appropriate or inappropriate, and declined to comment on the content dispute accordingly. At my suggestion, however, AKNole posted requests for help on the talk pages of the math and physics wikiprojects. Wm.M.C. deleted the whole conversation from the article talk page as trolling immediately after blocking Nole. LadyofShalott 01:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I cannot follow the mathematics here either, however a look at the general pattern suggests this primarily a content dispute, with some suggestions from Mathsci that AKN lacks some understanding of the mathematical principles at work. I can't see anything that looks like obvious trolling, nor anything that would obviously warrant a 24 hour block. AKN hasn't made a direct edit to any relevant page since 0649, instead posting to various talk pages. I'm finding this block highly dubious. Exxolon (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Part of the issue here, which was also apparently the case with the recent block of ChildofMidnight, is that Connolley seems to regularly make questionable blocks just before going offline for the evening. When the CoM block was questioned, Connolley twice removed a subsection title of a thread on ANI that included his name [10] [11], chastised the editor who started the subsection in a somewhat patronizing way, and then peaced out (no doubt to bed) for 6 1/2 hours whilst his block of CoM was discussed on ANI (and where it was met with significant objection). These problematic blocks, and just as much WMC's response (or lack thereof) to criticism about them, seem to come up with remarkable frequency. It would be nice if an administrator for whom he has some respect, and I'm guessing that is not me, could bring this issue up with WMC on his talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I will have to go back and thank my father for his random quizzes on obscure mathematical concepts! I'm by no means an expert, but I can at least understand the article and good god, most people would need a graduate degree to follow the lead. Anyways, I can't find any way in which I'd characterize AKN's comments as trolling - both her questions were on point and resulted in improvements; they show a general understanding of the subject which is more than we expect for most topics. Mathsci's objections there seems mostly to stem from the fact that he's being questioned at all and I believe in the second question, he completely misinterpreted the actual point in his hurry to be dismissive. How all this ended up in a block, I can't imagine - is there something here we're missing? Shell babelfish 01:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Well, you might be missing the relationship between Mathsci and WMC, birds of a feather. "Trolling" is one of the favorite block reasons for admins who have to make up a reason. I see no sign at all that AKN was seeking to inflame or outrage, which is what trolling would be, but, from another point of view, Mathsci was outraged and threatening AKN with being blocked, so doesn't that prove that AKN was doing something wrong? --Abd (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC) AKN's contributions here are absolutely trolling. AKN has only the most minimal understanding of this topic and no real interest in it, the only reason he got involved in this is to harass Mathsci following a disagreement at WP:FTN#A.K.Nole disputing fringe science involvement. It's a good block; we mustn't tolerate this sort of harassment. You should be aware that an early stage of the harassment was an attempt by AKN to imply that the user name "Mathsci" is a trademark infringement. He's just going after anything that he believes will annoy. Looie496 (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC) That's useful info, and this remark in particular does not speak well for AKN. I'm not sure it rises to a blockable level (maybe it does), and the issue of a lack of a specific block rationale on WMC's part remains. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC) And AKNole subsequently edited the Mathsci redirect to buttress his case.[12] Interesting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Hmm..so that sounds as if this was a culmination of AKN hounding Mathsci in various places - wasn't clear by the block notice or log, but if that's the case then the block is reasonable. Shell babelfish 03:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Per the links in his post, he does have a valid point though, doesn't he? MathSci is the name of a published database. LadyofShalott 02:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC) And "Lady of Shalott" is the name of a copyrighted song. Having the same name as a database doesn't violate WP:U unless it's being used for promotional or deceptive purposes, and no one has made that suggestion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC) To speak in broad terms, trolling is not a desirable block rationale. Others who wish to review a block find it much more useful to encounter specific reasons and diffs that led to the decision to block. Also, the term has a tendency to be inflammatory. As a general practice, stating one's reasons and evidence is more persuasive than a summary conclusion. Durova273 featured contributions 02:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Worrying tendency? This might not be directly relevant, but there could to be a pattern of WMC blocking editors for (mis)use of talk pages. Eyes needed to check the history of Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy and WMCs block of User:AncientObserver. Blocking users for editing talk pages, even if the discussion isn't really productive shouldn't be the norm - this has a very chilling effect. Exxolon (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC) No, we should have more blocking of people for misusing talk pages. I can name any number of articles where there is a constant parade of ranting and raving about the topic with no real focus on improving the article itself. We're too tolerant of that stuff, and the flow of drivel gets in the way of -- what is it we're supposed to be here for? -- oh yes, building a reference work. Please see WP:TALK, especially Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior that is unacceptable which explicitly states Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I'm inclined to agree with Boris on this topic. Discussion about content is one thing, and legitimate content discussions can (and do) become heated on occasion, But endless ranting about some obscure POV position goes on far too much. Examine Talk:Scientific_method for one such case. Manning (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Can we somehow make it clear that an edit such as this is probably the worst possible response to potential trolling? If the evaluation is accurate, the comment fails to make the situation better, and if it is inaccurate, it is extremely rude. I'm comfortable with blocking people for talk page abuse, if necessary, but saying "DNFTT" to someone is truly unproductive, juvenile behavior, which we should do our best to discourage. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I made 93 edits to Butcher group, a long article that was quite hard to write. A.K.Nole's running commentary on the talk page was not about discussing the content added in the main article and was easily identifiable as mathematically ill-informed, hence the abbreviated response. On the talk page, A.K.Nole referred to the lede of renormalization group, which also figures in the article, as incomprehensible. A.K.Nole's editing on WP has mostly been involved with adding tags. He has also edited Mathsci and suggested that my username is a copyright infringement. A more careful analysis might be that this was "truly unproductive, juvenile behavior, which we should do our best to discourage". Mathsci (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I don't disagree. I'm sure you were (and are) very frustrated with that editor. His behavior may be entirely unproductive and juvenile. However, I'm addressing a different point, which is how to react to a difficult editor without descending to their level. If someone is trolling, that doesn't somehow make it helpful to start calling him "troll". That's a great thing to type, and then not hit "save". Ultimately, if an editor is particularly troublesome, it becomes even more important to maintain a high standard regarding "comment on the edit, not the editor". Doing otherwise makes the situation messier and harder to resolve, and you end up taking part in long ANI threads. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in this case. Before you get to the point of calling someone a "troll", get more eyes on the situation, and back away a bit. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I discussed this off-wiki with a very experienced mathematics editor, because of A.K.Nole's persistence on the talk page over a number of days. He agreed that A.K.Nole's edits were highly problematic and it looked as if he was trying to WP:BAIT me, possibly to get me blocked. In other words he was gaming the system. One problem is that he wasn't actually discussing content, probably because, as he freely admitted, he didn't know what a group was. If you spend just a little time looking at his editing patterns, which started as a joint account The Wiki House (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), you will see that he was lurking on the talk page of the article. It is his editing behaviour that is problematic and it extremely difficult to know how to deal with somebody like that. It's quite a rare occurrence, thank goodness! Mathsci (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Yeah, it's nice to have some time left over for working on articles. It's weird for someone to focus on a specific (and not, I dare say, elementary) group, without knowing the ABC's of group theory. Occasionally though, a non-mathematician editor get a bee in their bonnet about some specific technical mathematics article, and insists that it be made clear and accessible to them, who know nothing of the language or the context. It's kind of bizarre, but I think it leads to some good edits. I'm not saying that's precisely what was happening here - just commenting generally. I think that, in a situation like the one under discussion, it might be helpful to bring up the situation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. As you know, there's a fairly stable population there of regulars who, at the very least, know about definitions. On Wikipedia, you really don't have to win arguments against other people. If two of us disagree, we can just stop arguing with each other and seek outside opinions. Even in a case that seems to be clear trolling or baiting, if new people arrive and call him out, that helps you. It helps you more, the more you've stayed away from accusations yourself, although the best kind of input from outsiders is focused on content, and not on people's motivations. More succinctly, we've got your back. Don't hesitate to call for outside eyes before the heat gets too high. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC) ^ Wisdom. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I'm not worried about WMC's blocks for trolling. Above Durova says that "trolling" isn't a desirable block reason--she is right, in a sense. The community, for a number of reasons, worries quite a lot about the block button being used to stop people from rousting up trouble absent a clear sign of malfeasance. I don't. I think that warnings and blocks can and should be used to stop people from misusing talk pages. Protonk (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC) If trolling actually occurs (and of course sometimes it does), then the best course of action is to document samples of problem behavior and state one's reasoning. Reasonable observers will also conclude that it's trolling and the t-word need never be said. Durova273 featured contributions 03:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC) It's not a dirty word. It's a facet of online discourse and we have two responses, DFTT (much prefered, obviously) and RBI (much less preferred). The assumption that folks are acting in good faith doesn't prevent discovery that they are in fact, acting in bad faith. Protonk (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC) I don't think the suggestion is that it's dirty, simply that it's unhelpful. It introduces a whole new dimension to the discourse that is best avoided, because it does not admit of clear proofs, and it distracts from the work of encyclopedia-building. I have yet to see a case where accusing an editor of trolling has improved any situation, in terms of resolving the dispute to the advantage of the project. If such successes occurred, then we would encourage the calling of "troll", but in practice, doing so mucks everything up. That's why it's a bad idea. You cite a choice between DFTT and RBI; and you're clearly right that DFTT is much preferable. The question is, what does "feeding a troll" look like? In my experience, calling them out as trolls feeds them. That still doesn't begin to address the issue of false positives, which are of course wonderful and fun. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Both good points. There happen to be a few words which, although not necessarily vulgar, tend to be hot button and mean different things to different people. If a word consistently lowers and inflames discourse, then it's better to use it sparingly. The underlying issues can be addressed much more productively in other ways. Durova273 featured contributions 14:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC) I agree with Exxolon. I don't feel that my blocking was justified. WMC and Dab were making disparaging insinuations about me in response to me agreeing with the suggestion of a sock (who I had no way of knowing was a sock). Dab's comment in particular had an especially flamebaiting nature to it. I did bite and a mini-flame war ensued which WMC deleted but for some reason left Dab's comment on the page. I complained about this and issued another response to him for which I was warned on my talk page. I asked what I had done wrong and simply rephrased my question and was then blocked. I don't feel that WMC is an objective Admin. He has been condescending to all the editors who want this particular page unlocked and has continually tolerated the disruptive behavior of Dab while people like myself get punished. I would like to request a more neutral Admin look over the page. AncientObserver (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Minimal subtraction scheme In fact the problem started with ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here [13], who claimed he was patrolling new articles. A.K.Nole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been attempting to edit the article Butcher group without any knowledge of either Hopf algebras or renormalization, the main topics of the article, which is at a graduate level in pure mathematics, theoretical physics and computer science. His mathematically off-key remarks, of which LadyofShalott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was perfectly aware because of messages left on her talk page, came to a head with these two absurd edits [14], [15], where A.K.Nole attempted to copy-paste material written by me in Butcher group into another article, where it made no sense. This was because A.K.Nole did not understand in any way the mathematics or theoretical physics so was unaware that by copy-pasting content like that of out of context, he was essentially vandalizing the other article. This is not a content dispute: it is about disruptive editing by a clueless editor. He appears to have no idea about theoretical physics and made no attempt to find sources (there is a classic book by Collins on renormalization). This is not a content dispute in any way. Other experienced editors have been editing the main article Butcher group usefully, while A.K.Nole has continued making mathematically uninformed comments on the talk page. I've never seen behaviour like that before on wikipedia and I have edited mainspace mathematics/mathematical physics articles quite a bit. LadyofShalott was perfectly aware of the edits to Minimal subtraction scheme when she needlessly started dramamongering here, without mentioning these edits. I have no idea why she has done this. Mathsci (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Why do a few uninformed comments on the talk page merit a block, can someone show the diffs that allow us to overcome any assumption of good faith. P.S. If someone invited me to comment on the talk page of that article, I'd mention that the article as written is inaccessable to all but the experts and that a synopsis that would allow us mere mortals (morons, perhaps) at least know basically what the subject of the article is would be a welcome addition. I hope that such a comment wouldn't get me blocked. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC) The block happened I suppose because of the two edits mentioned above, which were vandalism, repeated after a warning. P.S. I'm sure that the same criticism would apply to almost any other graduate-level mathematics WP article, e.g. Hopf algebra. Mathsci (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I think that comments above have made the situation clear enough. This is complex maths, and most people have wisely noticed that they don't understand it well enough to even tell whether AKN is contributing usefully or not. The few with enough knowledge have realised that he isn't. I noticed too, and warned him to stay away (which is why Why do a few uninformed comments on the talk page merit a block etc shows an insufficient reading of the situation). He chose to ignore that warning, so I blocked him. AKN should keep away from maths stuff he doesn't understand William M. Connolley (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I'm still not completely clear on the specific rationale for the block, which I think is the main issue. Regardless of how complex the subject matter, the reason for the block should be intelligible to most any other admin. "Trolling" does not cut it (ever really, but certainly in an ambiguous case like this); and in a situation where there are back and forth talk page comments between two editors, you should clearly explain why the one you blocked got blocked. The reason this matters is because we have had a lengthy ANI thread about it which perhaps could have been avoided had you provided a specific rationale with diffs and the like. You might chime in that this all could have been avoided if people would have trusted the blocking admin and not stuck their noses in tricky maths, but I would not buy that. If you're going to make a possibly controversial block before you go offline for the night, it would be helpful if, at the least, you could make sure that anyone who fields an unblock request (which are not uncommon, obviously) understands why you did what you did. Obviously that did not happen in this case, and I think that's just sloppy. Indeed I still don't know if AKN was blocked for editing somewhere he should not, for ignoring a warning of yours, for trying to wind up another editor, or some combination of those. I think the one inescapable conclusion is that, for whatever reason, the block ultimately created more disruption than doing nothing would have, and in that sense it failed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC) The editor mentioned by David Eppstein and I agreed that over a prolonged period A.K.Nole was commenting on material that he did not understand in a way that was not useful for the editing of the namespace article. Please can we leave it at that? Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC) In addition, and this I find somewhat upsetting, LadyofShalott (talk · contribs) received a WP email from me on June 26, disclosing my real life identity. With that information LadyofShalott could easily identify me as an established pure mathematician. This is not apparent in any of her contributions here. Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC) (inserting this out-of sequence) I did get an email with a name other than your username. I was unaware, though, that your status as a professional mathematician was in question. LadyofShalott 13:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Ahh right, I forget - being knowledgeable about the subject area is a get-out-of-jail free card. The question I want to ask - where is the trolling? It seems to be being used as a catch-all block reason to get someone annoying out of peoples hair, which isn't really acceptable. Ironholds (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Please look at the 2 diffs cited above. A.K.Node's cut-and-paste edits - out of context - are gobbledegook. Mathsci (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC) The first part of your argument stemmed from the idea that he doesn't understand the maths. If we work on that basis, why assume his edits there are an attempt to get a rise out of you and troll and not simply a bad good faith edit? Ironholds (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Isn't there a clue in the edit summary? [16] This insertion was unsourced vandalism. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Not really seeing it. I note that Nole edited without issues up until now, so assuming after 700 edits or so that he's magically turned into a troll requires something more than "he said I wrote nice stuff". Again, I'm not contesting the idea that his edits were inappropriate, just that the description of him as a "troll", both here and in the block log, are inappropriate. Ironholds (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Ahem, what you've just written is incorrect. Please look at the rest of the thread more carefully. Shell Kinney above said that he appears to be hounding me. WMC is the blocking administrator, not me. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC) WP's mathematical articles may well be the highest-quality articles (and the least often vandalised), simply because the subject matter is often so daunting that few non-experts will venture to edit them (as opposed to most other subjects, where there is no shortage of the uninformed who feel at liberty to jump in and edit.) I have no opinion on the block under discussion, I merely wish to note how "lucky" WP's mathematicians are (and yes, I am envious :-) ).--Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Try editing law articles, heh. I got an article to FA without any other content contributions minus c/e and no talkpage discussion. Ironholds (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I just got a DYK on a subject matter that was realllly outside of my Wikipedia interest (Canadian Military History) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Very few mathematics articles get to FA. I think Emmy Noether is one of the few, largely because of User:WillowW's amazing writing skills. Mathsci (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Outdent: wow, that's an impressive article. I assume (I'm not the best mathematician in the world) that the problem with getting higher mathematics articles up to a "good" or "featured" quality is twofold: one, you have to make them understandable to lay folk like myself and two, nobody understands the bloody things other than you so they won't get reviewed :P. Ironholds (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Exactly. Another example is group which has beautiful images. Mathsci (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I think my favorite is 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Wow. I may have fixed grammar or formatting, or added a comma here or there on Math and Science articles, but my additions will never get them to these places. Of course, the concepts in WP:EXPERT may sometimes apply :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Attempting to identify a contribution from an established editor as "vandalism".... (A) Will generate more static than it's worth. (B) Is unprovable. (C) Distracts from the important questions involved. (D) Leads to threads like this one. (E) Doesn't help anything. If an editor is making incredibly stupid edits to an article they don't understand, then they should be stopped. Calling their edits "vandalism" makes it harder to stop them, not easier. Let's remember that "comment on the edit, not the editor" puts you in a position of serious power. Take advantage of that opportunity, and save yourself many headaches. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC) The first edit of this account was May 2 with 389 namespace edits. There are no substantial content additions to articles, just a lot of tagging, etc. Mathsci (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC) As an uninvolved editor with some mathematical knowledge, I agree with the comments by David Eppstein [17] and MangoJuice [18]. The issue seems to be how much good faith to show before blocking someone. I can offer some advice on how to communicate more effectively in these situations, if A.K.Nole is interested. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I don't understand the supposed connection between blocking and "good faith". I've blocked a lot of accounts, and I was assuming good faith the whole time. People are blocked to prevent disruption, and whether the disruption was intentional or not has nothing to do with it. Good-faith edits that are disruptive... are disruptive. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I want to comment on Mathsci's posting at the beginning of this section, which I regret to state is seriously inaccurate. "attempting to edit the article Butcher group" - not correct. I made three concrete suggestions on the talk page. The only edit I made to the article itself was a trivial spelling correction. Mathsci actually accepted all three suggestions and added them to the article, although he doesn't care to admit that. Why would he do that if they were all "clueless"? "mathematically off-key remarks of which LadyofShalott was perfectly aware" - comments made at another article entirely of which Mathsci had complained to Lady's talk page in a series of posting complaining about me and again inaccurately. Comment: Mathsci was actually incorrect, in that the two models of a diagonal cubic surface are not equivalent over a field of characteristic three. "two absurd edits where Mathsci attempted to copy-paste material". The first was a selection of a couple of sentences, with the technical formulae copied for accuracy, and where I added interpretation such as the reference to principal part of a Laurent series. The second was a summary and not in any way a copy-paste job. I think this is enough to establish that Mathsci is giving an inaccurate account of this whole affair. I frankly think that he believes that my wording must be nonsense because it was I who added it and for no other reason. He is then backing up his belief with bluster, personal remarks, repetitiveness and accusations against any editors who do not entirely support his personal line. I have asked him to go to dispute resolution twice and he has rejected [19] my suggestions. A.K.Nole (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC) This related diff [20] of A.K.Nole confirms what almost all senior mathematical editors have said, notably Charles Matthews, David Eppstein and CBM: A.K.Nole has a very poor grasp of rather elementary mathematics. Here a simple elimination of one variable that most people can do mentally seems problematic. Mathsci (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Mathsci is giving arguments that, while a bit extreme, are common with editors who are expert in a topic. However, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and articles that are so specialized that they intrinsically can't be explained to a general audience quite possibly don't belong here, except as a stub or redirect, which would be true of any subject, not only in the sciences. My opinion is that if the topic isn't explained with sufficient clarity such that editors with reasonably common background can't understand it, the article writing is poor and needs work, or the subject is so abstruse that, truly, only experts can understand it, which then might mean that it's too narrow for article-level status on Wikipedia. I wouldn't give up on explaining the topic properly, however. I'll point out that for an article to be comprehensible to the ordinary reader, it should even more be comprehensible to an ordinary editor who spends some serious time with it trying to understand it and who then makes edits to make it more accessible; the likelihood of this editor making mistakes with the science or math is high, but mistakes can be corrected, and out of the interchange, the result can be a much better article. For an example, see recent edits to Oppenheimer-Phillips process, where a quite ignorant editor rather badly mangled the article, I tried to fix it, but I'm not a physicist -- though I have background which makes the field reasonably accessible to me -- and ScienceApologist, working with me, corrected my mistakes -- which mostly were not mistakes, but simply explanations he thought inadequate, he wanted to cross the t's and dot the i's. The result was that, apparently, the original editor now understood the topic better. The project won. Ownership of articles by experts is very dangerous to the quality of our content. Respect for experts is very important. Often, experts are blocked or banned for behavior like that of Mathsci, see the recent ban of User:NewYorkScholar. And where an article or editor is highly defended by an administrator, we can see ordinary editors blocked for attempting to make articles clearer or more comprehensive. --Abd (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC) The addition of those bits from Butcher group to the other article are out of place in the renormalisation calculation articles. It is an understatement to say that the edit lowered the quality of the article. I hesitate to ramble too much here (but have done so on my talk page in response to Exxolon's request), as I have only been briefly acquainted with most of the general sphere relating to Hopf algebras. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC) The block So I think I understand the situation well enough to comment on the block. AKN was making comments on the talk page in good faith, but with such a low level of understanding of the subject that it was irritating. From my reading of things, this goes beyond the point where AKN could reasonably believe he was close to an understanding and qualified to get involved in technical issues: he clearly falls far short, yet he persisted in making edits along those lines. (Even my own humble level of mathematics background makes me realize that someone who implies they don't know what a group is is way over their head in this article.) Where does this leave us? I do think that if this pattern continues it can be viewed as trolling: AKN has to realize that with topics this advanced his comments and edits are pretty unlikely to be of any use. He has been told so. And then he continues to edit in the same way, basically ignoring the warning. I'm not sure I would consider this trolling yet, since he may in good faith have thought the warning was limited in scope to Butcher group (as he says) but it's certainly heading in that direction. If you aren't being helpful and you're getting a negative response, and people tell you why you're getting a negative response, and you ignore that and keep doing the same thing, the only conclusion is that you are looking for the negative response. Or, possibly, AKN is trying to learn about these topics from the more expert editors. Either way it's inappropriate: Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, the project is to build articles, it's not a classroom. I think the block at this time is harsh, but it's a 24 hour block and it's within the bounds of reason. Mangojuicetalk 13:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Mango - thanks for giving such a lucid assessment. It is a core part of Wikipedia philosophy that "All editors are equal". This is true, but it does not mean that "all editors are equally good at all things". I agree that AKN is probably not being "maliciously disruptive", but it does appear that he/she to be "fighting above their weight class" and should probably walk away. With my own limited understanding of the topics, the disputes are not about "finer points of interpretation", but actually involve a fundamental misunderstanding of the core material. I'm hesitant to call this "trolling" per se but am quite happy to label it as "disruptive", albeit well-intentioned. While I firmly believe that certain mathematics articles (eg. Fermat's Last Theorem, and associated Wiles articles) require a "layman's component" due to their popular appeal beyond the mathematical community, the more advanced topics should be free of this requirement. Wikipedia is fortunate to have a significant number of erudite articles on highly advanced topics, and there is simply no way to make these accessible to an audience which lacks the requisite background. (From my minimal grasp of group theory, I know that the article on Group homomorphism is already as accessible as it is ever likely to be). The reason we have this collection of quality articles is due to the work of some highly trained editors. As administrators - especially administrators who are otherwise unable to contribute - it falls to us to ensure that such skilled people are allowed to be productive. In summary, the block was mildly harsher than how I personally would have handled it, but it a fully defensible action and there is no overwhelming case for over-ruling the admin's decision.Manning (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Did anyone notice that A.K.Nole is "Elonka" spelled backwards? This user's first edits were to Simutronics, the company Elonka works for. And, what's with the self-admitted account sharing on the userpage? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Wow. User:A.K.Nole says I was previously at User:The Wiki House, and following on to User:The Wiki House one sees We have started our Wikipedia projects. along with three usernames. The page history for User:The Wiki House is quite interesting. As my old boss used to say, "What the hell is going on here?" Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC) This has already been addressed - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/The_Wiki_House/Archive - short version - 3 people in same house decide to start editing Wikipedia and as they are on the same connection use the same account (hence the name). When it was pointed out this was against policy they all created individual accounts and for transparency have indicated this by linking back to their former shared account from their new individual accounts and have not used the shared one since. Nothing sinister here. Exxolon (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC) The bit that Nishkid64 identified – the (obvious-in-hindsight) choice of a deliberately trolling account name and first edit – hasn't been addressed. Kind of makes WMC's block look rather prescient, actually.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Actually, xyr first edit was to University of Gloucestershire, here. Uncle G (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Responding to Mango Juice's post above, I think that the case of Chuck Marean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is relevant here. (I think how his interpretation of the Bernard Madoff case is bizarre, novel & disruptive, is understandable to more people than questionable edits to a graduate-level mathematics article.) Neither editor are trolling, but neither are truly showing the needed skill to contribute positively to Wikipedia in their chosen areas. -- llywrch (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Bah, admins are supposed to help get the encyclopedia written, that includes blocking people who get in the middle of getting complicated articles written, like A.K.Nole was doing. If someone with no expertise in the matter is making wrong edits, ignoring warnings from experts in the matter that he is completely wrong, and, apparently, doing all of it to troll other user, then it's normal that an admin blocks. That being said, maybe WMC was too fast in the blocking and should have given a warning first to the editor, and block only if/when he kept insisting in the same behaviour. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Moved my comments to the bottom of the report.Livewireo (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Mathsci and William M. Connolley and Wiki-Meetups Mathsci (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email) William M. Connolley (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email) When some arbitration on a heated subject was submitted, an arbitrator who met one of involved parties via Wiki Meetup recused himself from the case for neutrality. That kind of integrity is also required to admins and practiced too. I was wondering why WMC who said dislikes ANI and barely comes here suddenly blocked CoM and A.K.Nole in too much favor for Mathsci. People pointed out Mathsci's incivility, but his blocks are "one-sided". The answer to the puzzle turns out to be too simple. They've met "twice" this year via Wikipedia Meetup. An image of them together can be found too on the pages. They seems to be also involved in some ArbCom case (cold fusion or fringe theory etc) according to Mathsci's user page. Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 2 February 28, 2009 Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 3 April 28, 2009 WMC should've not get involved in blocking Mathsci's opponents given the offline interaction. I think this that could be construed as COI and warrant ArbCom on William M. Connolley's questionable administrative actions in a row.--Caspian blue 15:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Um, I'm not sure what your point is here. Regardless of the two having an offline interaction or not, this case should be assessed on the evidence of what transpired on-wiki and nothing else. Thus far it has been reviewed by several uninvolved admins who have assessed WMC's actions as possibly a bit harsh, but still acceptable. I also didn't see any evidence of a personal agenda between Mathsci and AKN that would warrant the use of the term "Mathsci's enemies". There is no discernable COI issue either as a result of them meeting IRL. Based on your COI reasoning, all Wiki-conferences would result in the wholesale disempowering of all of the admins who attend. Manning (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Well, if you are saying that the mentioned arbitrator for comparison is exceptionally ethical among admins, I do not think so. Arbitrators recuse themselves even if they are slightly involved in commenting on cases or contacting with involved editors in the past. The blocking reason is lame to many editors, so I will leave other administrator to interpret this finding.--15:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC) (ec)That's a nice conspiracy theory you've cooked up there...tinfoil and all...but simply being acquainted with someone via a Wikimeetup is no cause for a conflict of interest. I'd wonder about a chilling effect this could have on future meets, will they have to second-guess who they're talking to or if they should even go at all? An/I has seen silly proposals in the past, but this is a new height. Tarc (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Tarc, how typical. Read my first sentence again. Ir is rather obvious that you have a grudge for my warning to your inappropriate behavior to CoM. I want you to retract your absurd accusation, and disengage from the matter. --Caspian blue 15:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC) You have no position of authority to issue warnings, so we will classify what you're referring to as "advice". And as I do not put much stock in the source, given your own closeness to CoM, your "advice" was rejected out of hand. Are we clear on that issue? Good. As for this, I will weigh in as I see fit. While there may be issues with how Connolley is handling blocks, this idea of meeting a person IRL is grounds to demand a recusal is just patently absurd. That someone in the past did so is being a bit over-reactive IMO, and does not obligate others to follow such a decision. Tarc (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Tarc, if you wish to continue "your conspiracy theory" to make yourself "mature", I just will let you indulge in cooking up that. Good luck with that.--Caspian blue 16:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Suggesting that an admin might favor a particular editor is hardly a "conspiracy theory." However, I'm also leery of jumping to conclusions based on off-wiki activities. I'll be at the conference in New York next month. Will this mean that if I meet an arbitrator there, that arbitrator would have to recuse? I hope not! I'd better hurry and file that RfAr! But maybe it doesn't matter. Patience, Caspian blue. It will all come out in the wash. --Abd (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Of course admins favor certain editors...that goes on here a lot more than people think. I'm not objecting to the concept, I'm objecting to the "evidence" that being at the same Wikimeet is proof of such. I'm curious as to how Caspian even got onto that trail. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I must agree that just having met at meet-ups is not evidence of wrongdoing on anyone's part. sorry, forgot to sign before -LadyofShalott 16:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC) To LadyofShalott. WMC's favors for Mathsic are obvious in the case. The one lame block by WMC that sides Mathsic's stance is just a thing that I can ignore, but the second consecutive block by WMC for the lame reason is questionable. --Caspian blue 16:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Abd, you're right, it is just a matter of time.--Caspian blue 16:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC) (unindent) Yes I have twice been to Cambridge wiki meetups. I usually am here in Aix-en-Provence where I sometimes edit WP on the corner of rue d'Italie and rue Roux Alpheran next to the Musée Granet. When Bruno Ely, the conservateur of the Musée goes past, he often gives me an ironic smile of recognition, because he is fully aware that I have plagiarised his French text for Chateau of Vauvenargues. WMC arrived late to the first meeting and I left early because I was booked to play organ music in Christ's College chapel. Somebody who'd been at Trinity Hall, Cambridge kindly bought me a caffe latte. The second time at lunchtime I arrived late because of the late running of the number 4 Citibus in Cambridge and WMC had to leave early. I bought Charles Matthews a tomato juice: he had eaten an interesting and delicious looking salad. I couldn't stay long, because I had to be back to see a student at 2pm. All present were mathematicians, including one graduate student who had an office 2 doors away from mine between 2006 and 2008. The main discussion was between Charles and me, because at different times we'd been in the same department and the same college: the BLP of Alexander Todd was the main thing discussed, because both of us had been told in person what he thought of mathematicians. Lord Todd did not mince his words. At none of these meetings have I chatted at any length with WMC. Where will conspiracy theory end I wonder? Yawn. Mathsci (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Nobody asked your whereabouts and your trivial description on your meeting (yawning). You have created "unbelievable stories" that people has harassed you when they copy-edit to improve articles in good faith, but nobody believe so except WMC. I'm just curious as to why you're behaving like that. In my eye, you're pushing yourself close to a block. In terms of WMC's definition on trolling, I wonder why you're not blocked yet by WMC for your inappropriate behaviors that other admins gave you warnings. I asked WMC, but he did not answer it at all.--Caspian blue 16:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I think merely knowing each other off wiki does not require that level of response. It's one thing on ArbCom where there's a high workload and plenty of other arbitrators to handle any given case. It's another thing in a case like this. WMC should just be cautious that he doesn't end up blocking people merely to make Mathsci's life easier, and should ask for input from other admins where appropriate. Mangojuicetalk 16:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I was asked to comment. The article is highly technical, current research mathematics. There has been some quibbling on the Talk page. I was reminded of a comment from Frank Adams about how "anyone who knows enough to ask that question knows enough to answer it". User:A.K.Nole does seem to be being unnecessarily provocative about matters of exposition. Not as provocative as the first remark on the page. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks Charles. It was kind of you to comment. Mathsci (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Expertise Much of the discussion of my contributions is based on notion that I have no expertise in mathematics. The logic appears to run in the circle "he is not an expert so his statements must be nonsense" and "his statements are nonsense so he can't be an expert". I should prefer to be judged purely on the content of my contributions but that appears to have become impossible in the present climate, in which my lack of expertise appears to be taken for granted following an astonishing campaign of reiteration and misquotation. Charles Matthews presents the interesting variation that I'm so non-expert that I must actually be an expert. Astonishingly no-one has yet taken the elementary step of simply asking me what my qualifications are! I have a first-class degree in a mathematical subject from an established British university. That is all I propose to say on that matter. The quality of my suggested specific contributions to Butcher group can be judged from the simple fact that they were all accepted and incorporated in the article by Mathsci (and I challenge him to deny that here). In detail: 1. That the definition of the Butcher group itself (as it stood at that time) was incomplete [21]. Mathsci accepted this and added the missing material [22], acknowledging my assistance ("your question was useful") [23]. 2. That the opening sentence was misleading as it identified the group with the associated formalism [24]. Mathsci argued quite strongly that this was absurd, then made the suggested change ("slight rewording of lede") [25]. 3. That the phrase minimal subtraction scheme should be wikilinked to the article of the same name if that was indeed appropriate [26]. Mathsci again angrily rejected this as absurd and then made the suggested link [27] Mathsci has worked assiduously to promote the notion that I must be an ignoramus. His descriptions (almost always presented without diffs) are seriously misleading. I made the comment "To those of us who barely know what a group is, the initial sentence as it stands is confusing" [28] which "us" clearly refers to the whole community of non-experts in the context of a discussion on how to make the opening sentence both mathematically correct and intelligible to the non-experts. Mathsci has chosen to quote, or rather, misquote that as "as he freely admitted, he didn't know what a group was." [29] This misquotation is hard to understand as anything but a deliberate distortion. I referred to the introductory paragraph of renormalisation group as "somewhat incomprehensible" [30], again in the context of discussion of opening sentences for non-experts. I think that is an accurate assessment of it if it is intended to to be an introduction for the non-expert. Mathsci again drops the context and presents it as if it were an admission of personal incompetence [31]. This is again misleading. A.K.Nole (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Well this should be relatively simple to resolve: are you, or are you not, a qualified mathematical expert? Some--many even--articles on Wikipedia may quite easily be completely written by non-experts. Pure math, physics, chemistry? Not so much. They require extensive formal training in order to even understand the concepts involved, let alone explain them. So do you or do you not have such expertise? → ROUX ₪ 22:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC) On the basis of his edits and those as a member of User:The Wiki House, A.K.Nole seems to have attended the University of Gloucestershire in Cheltenham established in 2001. It has no undergraduate degree in mathematics. Editing using a Cheltenham IP, he made this edit [32], implying that he did not in fact himself know the definition of a group. In England this is standard first year material in university undergraduate courses in mathematics. Is there some way A.K.Nole can confirm his statement about having an undergraduate degree in mathematics from an established univeristy with an arbitrator or an administrator? My own qualifications are known to Charles Matthews, so are not in doubt. As far as I am aware I don't make errors editing mathematics articles (apart possibly from niggling constants and signs). His cut-and-paste edit [33] to Minimal subtraction scheme has a homomorphism with undefined domain, a rather serious and unhelpful error. Any reasonably bright mathematics undergraduate would have seen there was a problem. What is most puzzling with A.K.Nole is that, apart from the edits on AfDs started by me or articles started by me or articles which share my username, he has made no substantial content edits to wikipedia. Most of his edits are quick fly-by tagging. Usually people edit about what they know about. Mathsci (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Re A.K.Nole: I believe that what David Eppstein, Charles Matthews, and I have each said is that your comments on Talk:Butcher group reflect so poorly that it makes one wonder if you might be writing in an intentionally naive way. There are certainly more productive ways to communicate, and they are not hard to acquire. There are many non-experts who edit math articles, so I do not think this is simply a matter of credentials. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC) This edit [34] by ChildofMidnight is also highly problematic. Mathsci (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC) I would let it go, and try to put this incident in the past. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC) One remaining, and possibly troubling, issue is the whole A.K. Nole = User:Elonka backwards thing. AKN addressed that here, I think quite inadequately. Either the username's resemblance to another user name is entirely coincidental, or it is not. If the latter, I think some explanation is in order. Elonka seems to be on a break right now, but she might also be able to shed some light on the matter, so I'll likely post a note on her talk page if questions remain about this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC) I want to comment here to thank Mathsci for the excellent work, and to ask that admins do what they can to allow editors like Mathsci to continue without the totally unwarranted and misguided attention that I see on the talk page of Butcher group. I have never encountered the editors mentioned here (I noticed this at WT:WikiProject_Mathematics#Help), but I have sufficient mathematical background to form the opinion that Mathsci needs to be protected from misguided onlookers. It's tricky because we're all equal and we assume good faith, and the article content is so technical that it's hard to tell the difference between a good and a bad edit. However, I understand some of the concepts mentioned in the lead and my opinion is that it is not possible (or desirable) to make articles like this more accessible to general readers, and the repeated back-and-forth on the talk page is misguided. I think Mathsci gave replies that were more than reasonable at first; it was only when the barrage persisted that Mathsci started to show some understandable irritation. The issue of AKN's expertise and motivation are no longer relevant; it is the behavior that is the problem – please stop. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC) About the anagram thing. I am not User:Elonka, I have no connection with her. My username is not intended to cause her or anyone else any kind of difficulty or embarassment. If there are any problems please let me know and I will gladly change it. A.K.Nole (talk[) 06:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Nobody has suggested that you are User:Elonka, because she is based in St Louis, Missouri, not Cheltenham, is an admin and knows how to edit properly. You haven't explained how you came to edit Simutronics nor why your username is Elonka backwards. You have made no comment as to whether your university is the University of Gloucestershire, as your Cheltenhame IP and this edit[35] seem to confirm. I am sorry that you did not like the BLP of Dame Janet Trotter that I wrote and the fact that my local MP was Sir Neville Trotter when I lived on Tyneside. The sooner you learn how to add substantial sourced content to wikipedia articles the better. Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC) (this and previous comment out of sequence to the one below) Mathsci it might be better for you leave off commenting on this for now. I'm pursuing the Elonka issue with AKN on their talk page so no worries there. Whether or not that editor is affiliated with the University of Gloucestershire is quite immaterial, and they certainly have a right to not have their personal details revealed here. You really need to let that aspect of this go. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Ahem, that would be the case if this user had not first claimed to have a first class degree in a mathematical subject from an established UK university. This is not reflected in their on-wiki editing skills as administrators from WikiProject Mathematics have confirmed. Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC) That categorically does not matter. You're going after specific aspects of an editor's real life identity and should absolutely not be doing that, even if it proves your point about his or mathematical bona fides, or lack thereof. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Mathsci. I assume that you accept the assessment of my edits and your misquotations, since you choose to quibble only about the wording "I am told". Do you really believe that my self-deprecating usage (and yes, that was me on the IP of course) constitutes justification for your statement "as he freely admitted, he didn't know what a group was"? I think not. I said that I have a mathematical degree from one British university and of course it is not the University of Gloucestershire since as you point out that university does not offer any such degrees. If you do not believe me then that's too bad. I am not going to discuss my CV or my current affiliation or my place of work or residence, or any other personal information, here and I regard it as a serious form of harassment that you should continue to badger me to do so. A.K.Nole (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Your mathematical edits have been identified by other senior mathematcal editors as very poor/naive. I cannot disagree. I teach some of the brightest students in the country in Part III in Cambridge. Each time you try to write about mathematics you make howling errors (e.g. describing a projective surface as a "three-hold"). You'll have to confirm the statement about the degree/university with an arbitrator or an administrator. Please also read Essjay controversy. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC) OK, I don't think Mathsci has been handling this in the best way in human terms, but neither do I think you have been handling this in the best way in technical terms. I picked up on your comment at Talk:Clebsch surface, as either ill-considered or faux naif - I guess it is the former, since a mathematics graduate ought to be able to see those equations as equivalent at a glance. The insertion of an example into a quantum field theory page by copy-and-paste without proper referencing and contextualisation is just annoying to everyone concerned. Homomorphisms being unital is a typical convention assumed in ring theory, usually just to avoid tedious explanations. The username thing concerns me. But let's all just move on now. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC) I've spent a bit of time looking at AKN's edits, and there is some weird stuff going on in terms of connections to User:Elonka (I certainly don't think they're the same person). I was going to post some info here but decide to save it off-wiki instead in order let AKN reply to some queries of mine on that editor's talk page (there could be legitimate explanations, but it looks rather odd). I'll wait and see but we might need to explore this issue further, though it's tangential to the Mathsci/WMC/A.K. Nole issue. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Deliberate harassment by User:Mathsci Mathsci asserts that I live in a certain town in the UK [36] after I had specifically stated that "I am not going to discuss my CV or my current affiliation or my place of work or residence, or any other personal information, here and I regard it as a serious form of harassment that you should continue to badger me to do so." [37] That is deliberate and conscious WP:OUTING ("Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves.") Fortunately we are already in the right place for me to ask for suitable action. Perhaps Mathsci needs some time off to read Wikipedia:Harassment. I call on an uninvolved admin to consider how to respond to this deliberate flouting of Wikipedia policy. A.K.Nole (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC) I would suggest simply ignoring him, and both of you moving on to other things. This thread on ANI has dragged on long enough, and neither his continued involvement nor yours is likely to improve anything. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC) My advice to AKN is similar. However, if harassment continues, that's another story. However, I have seen Mathsci harass at least one other editor, so there is a cause for concern here. Because it would be duplicating a pending RfAr, I'm not going to present evidence of that here, but this report might be useful to gather information along that line, since it has been opened, and, given all that was discussed above, it's possible that Mathsci might be formally warned. AKN, I recommend you leave it alone. Beyond this, I plan to. --Abd (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC) A.K., hi. The advice CBM and Abd are giving you here is good. This is a situation that you will be far happier walking away from than attempting to obtain some kind of satisfaction. Don't go down the road where I've seen so many good editors come to grief: Wikipedia is not a system of justice, and those who attempt to obtain justice here end up disappointed on multiple levels. Accusations of "deliberate flouting of Wikipedia policy" precede great sadness for the accuser. Seriously, for your own sanity, just walk away. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC) ↑ what he said ↑ — Ched :  ?  18:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Walking away could be a good way for you, A.K.Nole. However, it is understandable that A.K.Nole is very angry with Mathsci's repeated inappropriate attempts to smear A.K.Nole's image. (OUTing is a serious violation that warrants "immediate blocks" if he really did) Since Mathsci has been officially warned several times by admins for his incivility and other inappropriate behaviors (like harassment as Abd pointed out) to not only you but also the other editor, if he continues the same problematic behavior again, then make a new ANI report, and see the consequence. He could not evade from sanctions forever. Or you can seek a justice with RFC/U or RFAR against Mathsci if you must feel obliged to file so, but that takes a lot of time and energy. Currently many editors/admins are watching on Mathsci and WMC's behavior for a while, so let's others handle it. --Caspian blue 18:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC) I find this entire matter unsettling. User:Mathsci's behavior has been nothing but uncivil, firing off warnings of blocks right off the bat instead of trying to civily work things out. Here, from CoM's talk page[38], and from AKNoles talk page [39], [40],[41], and AKNole attempted a dispute resolution, which was blanked and summaried as "rv edit by disruptive troll." [42]. Being an expert on a very technical subject is not carte blanche to act so uncivily to other editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livewireo (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC) I think I understand your concern, Livewireo. Mathsci has certainly been uncivil, and we don't want to coddle or enable that kind of behavior. I make a distinction, however, between addressing Mathsci's behavior, and A.K.Nole trying to obtain redress for wrongs against him. The former might be worth doing, but that should be separated from the latter. It's not that there's anything wrong with trying to obtain some kind of justice, it's just that Wikipedia is very bad at that. As Elton John sings, "it's like trying to drink whiskey from a bottle of wine." That's nothing against whiskey or wine, you just won't get that there. You won't find justice here. I can say I'm sorry, if it helps. I'm sorry. If Mathsci's behavior is going to be addressed, it will have to be in the larger context of his contributions to the project. An RFC would be an entirely appropriate way to do that, assuming there are two or three people who feel like putting together evidence of trying other DR measures, etc., etc. If the RFC is simply an extension of this single issue though, it won't go well. I may be wrong - this whole approach I'm taking may be wrong - but it's what I believe I've observed. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC) "If Mathsci's behavior is going to be addressed, it will have to be in the larger context of his contributions to the project" - that part of your post is wrong at least. Unless you count the fact that arbcom generally do take the time to thank usefull contributors for their sterling article efforts, as they hand down a block or ban for repeated and unchanging behavioural issues. So, I urge anyone who does value Mathsci's contributions, to start doing more to change his behaviour when they recognise it as problematic. In my view of this thread and the last, looking at his various actions, the feedback from multiple observers is not being taken on board. MickMacNee (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I wasn't necessarily saying that his problematic behavior has to be weighed against his positive contributions, although those also exist. I can see how you would quite naturally read it that way, but I was actually just thinking that it can't be addressed as a single episode. In the vast majority of cases where an established editor is under scrutiny, one act of incivility, even one act of extreme incivility, even one short spate of extreme incivility, will not be enough to merit more than perhaps a short block to stop a storm in progress. However, a pattern of incivility is an issue that the community can address with our full range of remedies, and that's when something like an RFC becomes appropriate. RFC/U's should not be for isolated incidents, though. Your pointing out that this editor seems not to take criticism on board is a good example of the context I'm saying we need. It has to be about Mathsci's editing patterns, and not about this one time when he blew up at A. K. Nole and ChildofMidnight. We seem to be largely in agreement, modulo my failure to express myself with complete clarity. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Ahem, CoM was blocked for his edit to the talk page. Please look at how the two namespace articles were edited and then compare them with the talk pages before making statements like this. Presumably, given your mathematical background, you know the difficulty of material such as Hopf algebras or renormalization. A.K.Nole's edits have been full of mathematical errors, which other editors have spotted. You seem to be stigmatizing me for being an expert and spotting these errors. I have no idea why. Mathsci (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC) GTBacchus seems to be suggesting that there are problems with my namepsace edits. Please could he say here what these problems are? Have I made too many edits? Are the articles too technical? I made 600 edits to Differential geometry of surfaces. Was that too many? Mathsci (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC) User:92.233.48.153 92.233.48.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This edit from Cheltenham [43] is clearly A.K.Nole. We have seen senior mathematics editors indicating that most that of the material being discussed is beyond the expertise of most wikipedia editors. Senior mathematics administrators have already commented and deemed A.K.Nole's mathematical edits poor. GTBacchus does not fall in this category and his edits his edits are disruptive and ill-informed. Wikipedia does not exist on WP:AN/I. It exists in namespace. There A.K.Nole's edits amount to fly-by tagging whereas I produce articles which are meticulously researched in the arts and sciences. I will reveal exactly who I am if people continue harassing me in this way. In the past two weeks I have created new articles on art (Picasso at Chateau of Vauvenargues), mathematical physics (Butcher group) and music (Handel organ concertos Op.4). I also created a BLP (Janet Trotter). Senior mathematics admins told me to stay away from this page. Yet other editors with no knowledge of graduate mathematics are making absurd statements here. This is a sad reflection on how wikpedia values experts. In view of the diff above, I am actually saying A.K.Nole is a liar. The other edits by this IP clearly identify the editor as A.K.Nole. His continued disruption here might warrant another block, possibly indefinite. Mathsci (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Generally I'm supportive of your view, and agree that on complex articles experts are essential, and modification by non-experts can be damaging. However, the above seems pointless and disruptive to me - it seems irrelevant where A K Nole lives, and trying to figure it out looks a lot like outing to me. On top of that, it is also largely irrelevant as to whether or not A K Nole has expertise in the subject - all that matters, and I accept that this has been demonstrated, was that the editor's contributions to the article were disruptive and problematic. Whether that person has a degree or not, or where they live, is not a concern. I can understand your frustration, but I don't feel that this path is the best one to take, and I'm worried that it will only extend the problems. - Bilby (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC) You seem to be ignoring the statements of senior administrators in WikiProject Mathematics, who disagree with you. That seems ill-judged. CBM, Charles Matthews and David Eppstein have commented. Please read what they have written. How am I outing somebody by identifying their IP? Please tone down your language. I am afraid it's 4.30 in the morning in France. Bonne nuit Mathsci (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC) My apologies if the tone was a tad harsh - I didn't mean to be, but it does seem to read that way. That aside, I'm not questioning CBM, Charles Matthews and David Eppstein - their points are fine and valid. But I still find them largely irrelevant. The issue comes down to "Was A K Noll disruptive", not where the editor lives or whether or not the editor has a degree in mathematics. And personally, I accept that the A K Noll was being disruptive on the articles, based on what I've seen of their edits and discussion here. Thus I have no problem with WMC's block. My concern with outing is the "This edit from Cheltenham" in combination with earlier comments. - Bilby (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Just for information, CBM kindly but firmly "warned" him to walk away and stop doing this but Mathsci dared to ignore it and then returned to creat another allegations such as "A.K.Nole liar". And Charles Mathews certainly did not approve of Mathsci's poor behavior.--Caspian blue 02:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC) (ec) @Bilby. You are misreading/misquoting their remarks. They have indicated that the edits to the talk were not helpful to the editing of the article, which was highly technical, interdisciplinary and complex. They also suggested that he was either incompetent or faux naif. On the degree thing: (a) it's A.K.Nole that is making the claims about mathematics-related degrees (b) how can anybody edit advanced science articles, possibly graduate level, without training? This editor is making howling errors that indicate very little knowledge of even quite elemntary mathematics. I have no idea why a person like that, with no other science edits, is suddenly out-of-the-blue editing mathematics articles. Shell Kinney and other admins have already said above that he's just hounding me. Why are you now suggesting otherwise? @ Caspian blue: if the nasty bit in this thread aimed at blocking a long term established content editor did not exist, then CBM's advice on my talk page was fine. I'm sure he didn't anticipate contributions like yours, which seem entirely disruptive and possibly could lead to a block. Are you not in fact trying to WP:BAIT me by writing immoderately? BTW the contributions of the IP speak for themselves. There's very little I can do about that. Mathsci (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Clearly I'm not helping, so I'll step back. But to explain: I agree A K Noll was problematic. I also agree that the block was fine, and that edits made by people who don't fully understand the material can be damaging. So I'm not disagreeing with you or them. All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter where A K Noll lives, or went to university, or whether or not they have a postgrad, undergrad, or, indeed, no degree. The edits were disruptive, as a number of people have argued, and continuing to make disruptive edits warrants a block. (Indeed, if those edits were made by someone who understands the maths, then it would be more, not less, troubling). Disruption is a sufficient condition - lack of knowledge may at best explain the disruption, but doesn't change the outcome. So I don't see what is to be gained by pursing the matter further, given that it seems the intent is to show lack of expertise on A K Noll's part. But then, I'm also generally at a loss as to what you're trying to achieve by pursing this, and maybe you have a reason which I don't see. - Bilby (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC) (ec) I completely agree with you on all your points. The best is that we all get back to editing. Mathsci (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Mathsci, who can compare your inappropriate behaviors and "extreme incivility" and "baiting" motivated by bad faith with others in the whole fiasco? You still can not content the two blocks that you caused by whining and harassing the two editors. The blocks are "coincidentally related to the same admin, William M. Connolley who met you via offline twice. Block against "consensus", block against "justification" in a row. That's why many people claim "Requests for comments against your user conduct" or WMC and "Filing an ArbCom case against you and WMC" could be a right solution for this dispute. However, I don't think you do not learn anything from your disruptive behavior. Still you're still seeking another block against A.K.Nole in the tread by making personal attacks like "liar" and outing. As I said, I will watch when your luck come to end. You think you're okay for making nasty accusations and personal attacks and then requesting for blocks against editors who suffer your such behaviors just because you're an expert? That is preposterous and should be stopped by a rightful saction.--Caspian blue 03:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC) The "...who met you via offline twice" allegation you made earlier was dismissed by all as being pretty ludicrous. Continue this beef if you will, but stop making yourself look ridiculous by bringing up that extremely silly and debunked accusation. Tarc (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Tarc, the only reason you've bothered yourself appearing here is not to make yourself "mature" I guess. I'm bemused at your "failed attempt" with your cooked-up "conspiracy theory". Alas, that fun entertainment was totally "dismissed" by all and unlike mine was not since some admins said WMC should've been careful when blocking and seeking "input first". Tarc, thank you for letting me know more of you. :p--Caspian blue 04:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I don't agree with Caspian blue's analysis and still have no idea why either of these editors chose such an abstruse, advanced and technically difficult article to edit. Quite unlike anything they've edited before. Mathsci (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC) You don't still get it. People have advised/warned you "let it go", but you are not letting the matter go. What good would you get from being here.--Caspian blue 04:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC) You could probably ask that question of yourself. As could I, of course. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Maybe, so do you. (I've told you many times not to do that, haven't I?) :)--Caspian blue 04:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Request for block of Mathsci Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Support, per I am actually saying A.K.Nole is a liar and his edits are disruptive and ill-informed[44] from just the above new thread that Mathsci added regardless of warnings. Enough of this. Why do we have to put up with this guy's disruption parade - repeated sockpuppetry accusation without evidences, OUTing, trolling, harassing, soaxboxing, forum shopping - even though he has many chances to get out of sanctions compared to what he has done so for. A block would be to prevent Mathsci's further disruptions instead of "generosity" that he has bee enough received by the community. Being an expert does not excuse his repeated poor behavior. He has been heard "warning/advice" to drop[45][46] and walk away from his accusations against A.K.Nole (talk · contribs)[47][48], but he does not take the suggestion at heart all all given the removal from his talk page.[49] According to his insistence, only experts are allowed to edit Math articles, then why he has been editing classical music and other articles that he has no relation in work, but need "experts' in-depth knowledge"? --Caspian blue 01:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Sockpuppetry allegations???? Where did you get that absurd idea from????? Stop inventing things, Caspian blue!!!! With a Fields medallist backing me in the mathemtical edits, you don't have a snowball's chance in hell. Please stop being so disruptive. Your behaviour is shameful. Mathsci (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Did I miss the time Fields medallists were given special decision-making powers on Wikipedia? Algebraist 02:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Is there more than one? Mathsci (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Mathsci, since you're making another personal attack in the thread, you do not realise that your behaviors here are totally unacceptable to the community. It does not matter even if you're a king. In Wikipedia, you're an editor that has to abide by the rules just like everyone else do. That is you who has heard "stop being disruptive" repeatedly from the serial ANI threads regarding you. So let's see how things go to the end. --Caspian blue 02:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Why not leave Mathsci alone and let him edit math articles in peace? This thread keeps the conflict with A.K.Nole alive causing more anger, provoking more angry responses by Mathsci. Count Iblis (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Count Iblis, would you read the right above thread? The problem is Mathsic does not let A.K.Nole alone and the community but has caused disruptions over and over by adding provocative and insulting messages.--Caspian blue 02:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC) (ec) There are no diffs for your statements about sockpuppetry. This is extremely disruptive behaviour, Caspian blue. I have no idea what you're up to. Mathsci (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Mathsci, you're insinuating sockpuppetry as mentioning the IP, A.K.Nole's affiliation and location info, and comparing Elonka and Essjay controversy. Moreover, the allegations that need for a "rightful block" against you are NOT my opinion, but a collection of others' including admins, two victims by your "horrendous behaviors", and other established editors in neutral position. Since you're pushing yourself with disruption, I will watch how far you're going to do.--Caspian blue 02:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Uh, come again? He just forgot to log in like this. You do seem to be WP:BAITing me at the moment. Please stop these endless conspiracy theories and get back to editing the encyclopedia. 82.66.163.12 (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 82.66.163.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who are you, Mathsci? If so, since you seem to be editing same articles like Phèdre[50] or French/Classical music related articles, I have to worry about any possible danger that you would cause for the future given your disruptive behaviors and ownership over articles that you've edited. I just hate "injustice" in the Wikipedia, that's all. :)--Caspian blue 04:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Would someone please give this horse a decent burial? This seems to have generated into some sort of pissing match between Mathsci and Caspian Blue, and is going nowhere good. Anyone uninvolved feel like closing up this 98K (!) snoozefest? → ROUX ₪ 04:20, 3 July 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.

Help with SPA

1durphul (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring on Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to insert some rather innocuous but perhaps pointy trivial information about one of the group's tax numbers and trademarking information. The group itself is largely disliked by some conservative Catholic groups for obvious reasons; and rather beloved by LGBT communities likely for similar reasons. In all the sources I've every seen while trying to add references to the article nothing really talks about them being involved in financial scandal or even known for much regarding financing except they help raise funds for charities and do so quite often. This editor however is edit-warring and arguing as well as accusing myself and an anon editor of COI which I refuse to get baited into. However since I am likely the main editor there and involved in this I see little good of me warning them about 3rr, nor do I think they would take anythinng from me as anythning but in bad faith. I spelled out my reasons for the removal in the edit summaries as well as on the talkpage when they started there. If someone would be kind enough to look at this situation I will step away as I really don't need the drama. They've made less than a dozen edits altogether, all on ths same article so I feel SPA tag is accurate. I've left a note on their talkpage that this thread is in process. And yes they've again inserted the same information again. -- Banjeboi 02:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

edit warring? You removed something from the article, I undid your edit for good reason. The information belongs in the article. SPI is a trademarked name by a 501(c)(3) in San Francisco. Your original removal was because it was in table form, and not in prose. It's numbers banjeboi, and numbers are best in table form. If you don't like the information in the table, that's too bad, it is accurate, in the right article, and is information others (aside from you) might find useful. 1durphul (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a two-day old account can properly be called an SPA -- most people don't cover a very wide range that soon. However, an account whose very first action is to revert an edit that occurred three months earlier, and then edit-wars about it, perhaps raises other questions. The tone of the previous response does too. Looie496 (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I just never created an account before two days ago. I've been using and editing articles for years. Regardless of the length of time I've had an account, this is a discussion about whether or not something belongs in the article. Banjeboi removed something 3 months ago that had been in the article for over a year. This article isn't exactly a hot read so I'm sure few noticed the change. The length of time between his removal, and my undoing should have no bearing on this discussion either. This is a discussion on whether or not the information should be included in the article. 1durphul (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe calm down and figure out if IRS filing forms are acceptable sources... that seems like what the actual dispute is here. I'd lean towards no, as we tend to want secondary sources for information, not unpublished primary sources. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Chiliad22. As I understand it you're saying the preference would be for an article on what the tax forms say rather than the actual tax forms? These forms must be signed under penalty of perjury by the organization. It is as close as one can get to to a primary source of truth. I'm not sure I understand the rational of wanting a layer of obfuscation between the pure source and the article though. 1durphul (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Because no one knows who you are, or who I am, or whether any of us has the necessary expertise to offer an authoritative interpretation of those primary documents. Please read the policies on reliable sources and original research. Primary documents are permitted in a limited way when they are used to flesh out non-controversial details about a topic. When you say these documents are a "primary source of truth" you are asking us to rely on your interpretation of them. Can you be sure that there are no branches or affiliates anywhere else in the US that are incorporated with the same or similar name? (In fact, there appear to be five.) Can you be sure that those particular form 990s are the sum total of all the Sisters of Indulgence, or only the SF branch? Can you be sure that the relationship between US and foreign affiliates is exactly as you described? Frankly, you can't. And even if you think you can, we can't be sure that you can because you (like most of us) are an anonymous nobody. You might have been someone different yesterday, and might be someone different tomorrow. On the other hand, if a reporter for a reliable source-type newspaper, wire service, TV station, etc. writes a story about the sisters, Wikipedia policy allows us to cite the story as a reliable source, because we presume that there is some process to check facts and correct wrong facts either before or after the report. Plus, it gives us a source to point to and say, "The SF Chronicle says so" rather than "Some anonymous guy on July 1 2009 said it was so." That's why Wikipedia requires secondary sources, and carefully proscribes the use of primary sources. Read the policies. Thatcher 04:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification Thatcher. May I assume that Banjeboi received the same admonishment for his violation of the 3RR that I received?1durphul (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He made 3 reverts, not 5. But he would be subject to the same blocks if it gets that far. Thatcher 10:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Originally added [51][52][53] on April 22, 2008, by 63.206.125.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), presumably to prove a point of some kind (most likely this: [54]) about this particular branch, since it's only USA and that organization appears to have many branches. SPI means something different on wikipedia, of course. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is some kind of soapboxing going on here. Thatcher 10:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Another editor, who's been watching the article since 2006, tried to put it back. Either coincidence or fishy, I'm not sure at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they were reverting an unexplained deletion. In any case the edit-warring and personal jabs have subsided; problematic content has been removed; the salient content issues have been stated from univolved parties and I think it's been heard. Hopefully this is resolved. Thank you all for your time and assistance! -- Banjeboi 03:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Codecrimson

Codecrimson (talk · contribs) is a vandalism-only account who continues to vandalize after a final warning, I've listed them at WP:AIV, but in the meantime, there's a death threat on their User page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User indef-blocked, user page deleted. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 02:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

John Baird (Canadian politician) BLP issue

Several days ago, there was a discussion about whether to include dubiously-sourced allegations of homosexuality in John Baird (Canadian politician). That discussion is now archived here. In that discussion, there was clear consensus i. not to include the allegations, and ii. to archive the discussion on its conclusion. Nfitz (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly de-archiving the conversation against consensus in an effort to continue pushing the view (which he's the only one to hold) that the allegations should be included. I would appreciate the eyes of an uninvolved admin or two in case a block becomes necessary. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisted. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• User:SteveSmith is grossly misrepresenting the situation. He has been selectively archiving the discussion, without including all the comments; at first I thought this was in error, but after I pointed it out, he didn't acknowledge or apologise. In addition I have absolutely no idea why only a portion of the discussion is being archived. I'm quite disturbed taht there seems to be an attempt to hide the discussion. User:SteveSmith is also misrepresenting the dubiousness of the sources reporting sexual preference. There have been two major publications thave have made reference to his sexual preference. Surely an open discussion about these sources should not be hidden any more than the discussion of whether he is a vegetarian or not! Nfitz (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Bwuh? "After I pointed it out, he didn't acknowledge or apologise"? Would that be this non-apology/non-acknowledgement, in which I said "And you're correct, I did inadvertantly exclude a small comment of yours ("Sorry to restore this ... but someone objected to me adding the comment in the archive, so I've had to restore the discussion. Though archiving a discussion that's still active isn't right. Particularly when discussions that have been here for years are untouched."). I apologize for that and I'm not sure how I managed it."? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

???? You wrote that after I posted here! Nfitz (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh - actually, you're right (one minute after, to be precise). More apologies - I was comparing the time of my post in my timezone (which placed it on June 30) with the UTC time of yours. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not (and as a gay man I distinctly do not like it), revelation of a non-heteronormative sexual orientation in a public person (or indeed private figure; see gaybashing) can be detrimental to their public image and/or career. Ergo we must only include such statements when they can be reliably sourced. The two publications you mention are 1) NOW, a free Toronto weekly newspaper that is, I'll be charitable, not exactly known for their balanced nature (it is significantly leftist in the Canadian sense) or the depth and insight of their investigative reporting, 2) Frank, which is a satire/gossip/scandal magazine. Not exactly the pinnacle of reliable and responsible journalism, either of them. as a Torontonian I read NOW weekly (though I must have glossed over this article; I stick mainly to Savage Love, restaurant reviews, movies, etc, as NOW's political coverage often leaves much to be desired), and I would certainly not use them (or indeed Eye) as a reliable source for much more than confirming concert dates. So there's that for the sources.

As for the issue itself, with potential BLP violations we must hold to an even more rigorous level of sourcing than for any other facts, due to the very real consequences to the subjects in question. Archiving the discussion seems to be an excellent way to move on and get this information out of the eyes of the general public unless and until--this is the important part--it can be reliably sourced to the horse's mouth. → ROUX ₪ 03:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My primary objection is that the discussion is being archived while it is still active; often within minutes of the last contribution. As such the archiving was done to stop the discussion. There's a difference between archiving a completed discussion, and using it as a tool to stop the discussion. Nfitz (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In the case of a potentially libellous accusation with no serious sourcing, archiving the discussion is proper. The fact that you are the only one still attempting to continue the debate shows consensus that the addition is not proper, and re-opening the discussion repeatedly is disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He's done it again, saying that the discussion wasn't completed (ignoring that he's the only one with any interest in continuing it). As an involved admin, I'd recommend a block. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• A block? What for? I was merely following the instructions on the archive page, and continuing the discussion on the talk page; responding to the previous person who commented on my earlier post, and correcting errors he made. I had tried earlier to comment on the Archive page, so as not to return the discussion to the Talk page, but Steve Smith blanked that; forcing the idiocy of having to restore the discussion everytime one needs to respond to something. Steve Smith has violated WP:NPA by commenting on the contributor rather than the contribution. I'm not aware of having violated any Wikipedia policy. If any user is to be blocked it is Steve Smith; not that I am advocating that - but I find the suggestion that I should be blocked for simply following policy as quite distasteful - and possibly even an example of WP:ADMINISTRATORABUSE. I have no intention of dearchiving the discussion again - however I find the concept of censoring (Steve Smith's words BTW) an ongoing discussion highly distasteful. Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if Nifitz has decided to stop de-archiving against consensus, I'd say we're done here. Marking resolved. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed the tag marking this resolved. Steve Smith has violated WP:NPA, refused to apologise, admitted to censorship, and now, while it's quite clear that the situation hasn't been resolved, has marke this as resolved. Archiving an active discussion is wrong. Threatening users who are only following Wikipedia policy is wrong. Censorship is wrong. Nfitz (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for...here's my "admission of censorship", from User talk:Nfitz#Baird: "So if by "censorship" you mean "moving information that could be construed as violating a subject's policy to a less visible location", then you're damned right we engage in censorship, and I don't think we owe anybody any apologies for it." If anybody other than Nfitz has issues they'd like me to address, please drop me a line on my talk page, and I'll be happy to address them. Otherwise, I'm going to stop following this. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is this alleged personal attack? Next, you don't seem to understand censorship, so you should probably start here and refamiliarise yourself with what it actually means. He is the user following Wikipedia policy, viz. the policy on biographies of living persons which in essence says "don't talk smack about living people unless you can back it up." That means not stating things that can be detrimental or defamatory (as, alas, revelations of sexual orientation can be), unless backed up by reliable sources (which neither Frank nor NOW are), and specifically in the case of sexual orientation, the reliable source pretty much needs to be a quote straight from the horse's mouth. What part of the living persons policy is unclear to you? → ROUX ₪ 01:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

One more question: is there in fact anyone other than you trying to keep the discussion open? → ROUX ₪ 01:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• On my talk page ... he wrote that "your groundless accusations of anti-gay bigotry have grown tiresome", despite that fact I'd only made a single comment about anti-gay bigotry on the project. He tried to make it out that I had a pattern of making accusations about anti-gay bigotry at Wikipedia, when I'd a) never mentioned it before, and b) not actually made an observation, just expressed concern that what had happened had an appearance of this. He's trying to paint a picture that just isn't supported by the facts; the same as his posts here, where he's making out I'm the only person who has continued the debate; I only reopened the discussion yesterday in resposne to the comments by someone else; so clearly I'm not the only one still discussing. I have now idea how the simple discussion of the validity of certain sources can be detrimental or defamatory ... the mere suggest of that implies that there is something wrong with being gay. It's hard to imagine in this day and age that people are working so hard to even hide such a discussion! I'd think that his vegetanarism would be a far more controversial subject, as that is a choice, rather than simply biology ... yet there is no move to censor that debate. But let's be clear ... we are not discussing the contents of the page; merely the discussion behind the scenes on the talk page, which was merely the discussion of the validity of certain sources. The homosexuality of this minister is no secret, and there is no doubt he is out of the closet ... the Internet is rife with reports of his activities ... he simply hasn't ever addressed the issue publicly ... and why should he anymore than he discussed the brand of toilet paper he uses. But that of course isn't the topic for here ... I just have no comprehension why we are trying to hide that the discussion of the validity of certain sources ever took place. That being said though ... my suggest at the time was simply archiving everything, rather than selectively archiving only this discussion. The other concern though, is that the discussion was archived while it was still active - in the 24-hours before it was first archived no less than 6 different poster contributed to the discussion; surely archiving at that point was premature. The irony of course, is that had the discussion been left alone, it would have died by now, and archiving wouldn't be controversial. Nfitz (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This has already been explained to you, but I will try again. BLP is one of the few policies required by the WMF. It applies to every single page under the purview of the Foundation. While it is slightly less stringent on talkpages--to allow for discussion--it is no less valid there than it is anywhere else. The sources you want to use are simply not reliable in this case; one is a satire and gossip magazine, the other is a left-leaning free weekly hardly known for the consistent depth of its investigative reporting. More importantly than that, however, due to the often negative perception of homosexuality (more on that in a sec) we must be careful to only state it when a) we have heard it from the subject him- or herself, and/or b) when it is actually common knowledge and not known to those who have an interest or are otherwise insiders in Canadian politics.

As a gay man the negative perception of homosexuality, and indeed the hypocrisy of certain elected officials in their public denunciation of non-heteronormative sexual orientations or gender roles while privately engaging in same, and attempts to enshrine discrimination into law are both hideous and disgusting. While I may personally feel that all such politicians should be loudly and vigorously outed, the simple fact is this: many members of the public at large feel that non-heteronormative sexual orientations are disgusting and/or immoral and/or a sin. Do I wish it were otherwise? Absofuckinglutely. As such, public revelations of homosexuality in public figures can torpedo their careers; see Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, amongst others. Now, while I may think that such people deserve the scrutiny--sunshine is after all the best disinfectant--we must, per the policy on biographies of living persons, take care to not publish what could be construed as defamatory information on the seventh-most-read website in the world. That you would even state--and I am attempting to believe it was tongue in cheek--that public perception of one's eating habits is even close to that of one's sexuality is enraging. Unless you can show me the massive discrimination faced daily around the world by people who don't eat meat? I thought not.

So. For all the reasons listed above, we must tread carefully when it comes to the sexuality of living people. That includes talkpages, particularly when the sources you wish to use for such have been quite roundly debunked. I'm not sure where you live, but I make it a point of picking up NOW every Thursday, usually on my way home from class. While it is a fine example of its type, it is not by any stretch a reliable source on matters as delicate as that of sexuality of public people, unless said people are quoted themselves as stating their sexual orientation. There was no need for further discussion at the talkpage, the sources are not usable first and foremost because there is no statement from the subject, and that you continue to attempt keeping the discussion open seems to indicate that you are either uninterested in hearing what is being said, or you are attempting to make a point of some sort. Whether or not 'everybody knows' that the subject in question prefers the company of his own sex is immaterial; I for one didn't, and as a gay man with some interest in politics this does tend to be the sort of subject that comes up rather frequently, and I think it is reasonable to assume that many other people don't know this alleged fact. My reading of the archive in question indicates that you are the only non-SPA/non-IP-with-few-to-no-other-edits pursuing this.

The bottom line is this: we must be conservative--in the dictionary sense, not the political--when it comes to biographies of living people. That includes discussion about said biographies. As for the personal attack... one accusation of anti-gay bigotry is tiresome when it is unfounded. So he said plural. Not a big deal, welcome to what happens when you make baseless 'observations.' You may wish to look up the phrase 'concern trolling' for an explanation of why this is a problem and your actions could be perceived as such.

I am not an admin, but I would advise you in the strongest possible terms to do the following:

1. Read and internalise the entirety of WP:BLP. This will also involve a summary for yourself of what the policy is trying to achieve.
2. When working on biographies of living people in the future, remember what WP:BLP is trying to achieve, and govern yourself accordingly. This includes talkpages, your userspace--any URL that includes 'wikimedia.org' as the TLD.
3. Remember that your personal feelings are supremely irrelevant here; reliable sources and verifiability, not truth are what matters on Wikipedia.
4. Disengage from this discussion immediately.

I suggest you do the above, because if you don't, I have a strong suspicion that an uninvolved admin will look at your continued pushing of a point here and not give you a choice about point #4. For what it's worth, I do understand where you are coming from. See my point about sunshine above. But again, that doesn't matter. In an ideal world, Wikipedia would be written by factchecking robots. It's not, but we essentially have to pretend that we are those robots. Triply so in the case of information that can be perceived as defamatory to living people. Does anything remain unclear to you? → ROUX ₪ 07:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

His cyber-thuggery clouds his judgement

Resolved

 – Blocked ip as likely block evasion by User:Fhue--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:NRen2k5's continued incivility at controversial sites' talk pages like PETA, Homeopathy, Sea Shepherd, 9/11 Truth Movement and others, should be unwelcome in the wikicommunity.

But he's been around awhile and knows how to exploit WP's machinations to his advantage. It is precisely because of entrenched thuggery like his that WP loses alot of good editors.

in the big picture, WP is a little pond and he is one toxic user who wants to be a big fish here in the worst way. the weird thing is, he has fleeting moments of reasonableness and constructive contributions. its just too bad that, when he encounters disagreement, his petty bickering trumps his good side. 12.36.128.89 (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence? Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 00:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is blocked user Fhue (talk · contribs). I've left his talk page enabled so he can try to convince someone I'm wrong, if he wants.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I love the title of this section. Sounds like a book, movie or song title. I'm just sayin'. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a line from the play Shakespeare would have written about Wikipedia, if he'd known about it. Manning (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What would be a good Shake-spearean synonym for "Plaxico"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As in the (would-be) football player? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 03:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Or the (had-been) football player. Oh, how the mighty have fallen... a man who once walked with Giants, reduced to a bad joke by his own folly. To sleep... perchance to dream... "if only..." Like, if only he had had the safety on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare? It sounds like Star Wars, if anything. Algebraist 02:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Alas, poor Yoda..." Keep in mind that Shake-speare did write sci-fi. One of his best efforts was Forbidden Planet. "Pidgeons in the grass, alas..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Hmmmm...never in pants put gun when loaded and unlocked it is". Yoda (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Giano's post at Jimbo's talk page

Resolved. nothing to do here that Jimbo can't do himself Ched

I know Giano (talk · contribs) gets a pass when it comes to personal attacks, but isn't this beyond the pale? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm on record as wishing that Giano would go away, but that seems relatively tame by his standards, and I don't think even a non-untouchable would likely be blocked for that. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 02:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

by untouchable do you mean someone who is invincible or one of the rock bottom caste? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, then, how about Giano's edits that Jimbo removed, that Giano is pouting about? - [55]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I find myself scratching my head to remember whether or not it's ok to re-title a section header to try and cool things down? - I've done so anyways.. and in other news, I plan on having a small sugar with my next cup of tea as a bit of a pick-me-up... anyone fancy a biscuit? Privatemusings (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How on earth is that helpful to say you wish someone would go away (especially one of our better article writers)? That's just asking to light the fire again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the renaming. Note that I have not participated in the discussion, nor do I remember having ever interacted with Giano before notifying him of this discussion. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually Giano is one of most frequent users of Jimbo's Talk page one of most frequent users of Jimbo's Talk page and almost every time has used it for creating confrontation and drama .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

hey that's a nifty page! - Squeak and WAS are still edging out the enthusiastic posts of Gwen, Everyking, and Giano (who should be looking over his shoulder, 'cos Durova and LessHeard are right on his tail!) It's good to see Tony Sidaway at a round 100 (off the pace, but in with a shout if he can get the bit between his teeth) - personally, I think I can take Raul654 quite easily, and have some big names in my sights before too long - look out Slimvirgin and Jechochman! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That count is out of date, since Giano now edits as GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs). Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

and it doesn't take into account my sockpuppets, of course! Dammit! - What we need is a bot which can tally up an accurate count, and publish the results (maybe with some attractive graphs, league tables etc.) here on wiki. In fact, it might work pretty well as a sort of pre-selection process for some committee or other, no? either ways, it's heaps fun to see who's who in the 'posting at jimbo's page' stakes :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

←No offense to anyone here intended, but I think Jimbo can handle the situation. Nothing actionable here; Tagging as resolved. — Ched :  ?  07:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Attacks won't be tolerated, but that isn't terribly out of line. Prodego ^talk 07:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, it was not, in the meantime would someone be so kind as to give Who then was a gentleman? a barnstar from me. Thank you. Giano (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

File:AntiObama.jpg

Is File:AntiObama.jpg and associated userboxes considered acceptable? Seems dodgy to me. Where should I have reported this? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IFD (now WP:FFD) probably? WP:MFD for the userbox(es), obviously. –xeno^talk 14:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly a borderline G10? – ukexpat (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The answer to the original poster's question depends on the answer to this one: "What encyclopedic purpose does that illustration serve?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Image deleted for licensing issues (F3/F9). Black Kite 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What, exactly, was the licensing issue? The image was a scaled down version of File:Barack Obama.jpg, a public domain image, with an X over it. There may be valid reasons to delete the image, but G10 and F3/F9 are not them. --auburnpilot talk 19:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We should not have polemical content on user pages anyways. What is more the image is clearly anti-someone and the title of the image seems to agree with this theory. It exists solely to disparage its subject, G10. That is why 2 admins have deleted it as a G10 so far. Chillum 01:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A little background info - that image was created and uploaded by me for use in the following userbox: User:McJeff/Userboxes/NObama. It was speedy deleted almost precisely a year ago by admin User:Anetode for being used in a divisive userbox. I complained that it was being targeted when many anti-Bush userboxes were not, Anetode deleted some of those, then admin User:Orangemike, who had a userbox with some variation of "Bush is a war criminal", restored them. Unless I'm mistaken, there was never any formal discussion on whether the image was appropriate. The claim that it was deleted three times, I am pretty sure, is inaccurate.

I don't put that kind of stuff on my userpage anymore, but unlike my other "potentially divisive" political userboxes, this one was in use by several other editors, so I did not CSD-U1 it like I did the others. McJeff (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted 4 times in total:

• 18:57, 30 June 2009 Black Kite deleted "File:AntiObama.jpg" ‎ (F3: File with improper license: Derivate work from an image which the creator is clearly not the copyright holder (F9); even if a free image - unlikely - still fails F3)
• 15:36, 30 June 2009 Orangemike restored "File:AntiObama.jpg" ‎ (11 revisions and 2 files restored: opposition to a subject is not the same as "disparage or threaten its subject")
• 15:28, 30 June 2009 Chillum deleted "File:AntiObama.jpg" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G10, page that serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject or someone else. using TW)
• 16:41, 23 June 2008 Orangemike restored "File:AntiObama.jpg" ‎ (10 revisions and 2 files restored: deleted without justification; not a G10 "attack")
• 10:05, 21 June 2008 Anetode deleted "File:AntiObama.jpg" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD G10), was a attack page intented to disparage its subject. using TW)
• 17:31, 15 June 2008 East718 deleted "File:AntiObama.jpg" ‎ (CSD I4: Image lacking sources or licensing information for more than seven days)

➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 10:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I haven't seen anti-Bush content on userpages being pounced on nearly as quickly or tenaciously... – Luna Santin (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, possibly systemic bias, or possibly just the fact that Obama is generally more popular, who knows? Just take each case on its own merits, and try to be fair. -- Atama^chat 22:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If there's a picture of Bush with a crudely-drawn "X" over its face also, then it should be deleted also, as it cannot serve any encyclopedic purpose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There used to be a picture of Bush with a circle slashy thing stamped on it, but I don't see it anymore.

There's quite a few images of flags and symbols with a slash through them, though. McJeff (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Crossed Flag of Turkey.svg, for example. –xeno^talk 20:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought that userboxes containing political opinion pieces (especially 'inflammatory' ones) were prohibited now anyway? Per Wikipedia:UBX#Content_restrictions. I dunno, it's not something I've ever really paid much attention to. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I had an MFD open on the userbox, but I withdrew it. Though perhaps I was too hasty. –xeno^talk 13:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be another item that serves no encyclopedic purpose and should go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks and stalking

Resolved

 – Both editors, Dapi89 and Kurfürst, blocked for 1 week for causing disruption. AdjustShift (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dapi89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kurfürst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Dapi89 is stalking my person and adds personal attacks on the talk pages on various articles I contribute to. This has been going on for a long time now and I have tried to be as much patient with him as possible, but my patience came to an end now. Nothing seems to deter him from continuing this sort of 'communication' of accusations and constant use of derogatory terms, even though this editor has been blocked for similiar incivility against my person, with no improvement in his behaviour, as his attacks instantly continued after his block expired.

He has been ever since warned on several talk pages by me and other editors, but it does not stop. See also warnings by other editors on his personal talk page: Be careful [56]

His latest example of gross incivility: See diffs [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]

Personal attacks in other articles - these diffs prove this editor systematically stalks me and seeks confrontation regardless of the subject: [62] [63]

[64] [65] [66]

[67] [68] [69]

[70] [71]

The editor is also highly confrontational and assumes bad faith automatically in his edits. See the edit history of this article.

I have left the editor a notice on his User talk:Dapi89. Kurfürst (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is total nonsense. If anything it is the other way around. This editor has consistently turned up on numerous pages I have created to cause trouble. On the Battle of Belgium page he contributed nothing, except to turn up and try to get it deleted. He is in the process of trying to disrupt the Defense of the Reich page which I have put much effort into.

His crowing doesn't stop there, he has falsely accussed me on many occassions from falsifying citations - it has been pointed out by others that this was false, and that only he engages in this type of pratice. On the Battle of Britain page recently, he lost a consensus argument on the outcome, and is now seeking revenge. His block log and his edit history reveal he has been the sources of some dozen edit wars over the past month.

His complaint is a vicious attempt to get one over on someone he sees as a rival. I'm not wasting anymore time responding to this. Dapi89 (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, he's made 8-9 complaints about as many editors in the last eight weeks. Dapi89 (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think these two editors need some kind of "bang their heads together" intervention. I've lost track of the number of times one of them has started a noticeboard thread about the other. Bothe of them need to realise that you should not try to resolve a content dispute by getting the other editors banned. At best this is unproductive, and at worst it's gaming the system. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the only one. Check the Strategic bombing in World War II article. Another host of editors have made the same complaints. I only raise the issue when it merits it. Kurfurst does it against everyone he comes into conflict with - which is most. I have only complained twice - although given this guy's behaviour thats quite modest. Dapi89 (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Both editors blocked one week for disruptive editing. Not quite the "bang their heads together" intervention Sheff wanted, but the best I could do - and appropriate, after review of the circumstances. Tan | 39 16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Both editors were causing disruption; WP is not a place to fight to each other. AdjustShift (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO taking a look at the block logs shares some light on which of them is the real troublemaker. Loosmark (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, when editors cause disruption, we block them. In this case, both editors were causing disruption. WP is a collaborative project; this is not a place to fight with each other. AdjustShift (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's very important to be collaborative. My concern is that judging by Kurfürst's block log he seems to have a long history of disruptive behavior and I'm not sure this block will manage to "wake him up". I read on some talk page that there is something like mentorship on wikipedia. Maybe he needs that to "grow" as a wikipedian. Loosmark (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I too have had some long unpleasent battles with Kurfürst and I have to admit that there are times when I have allowed myself to bite back. This one editor has constantly attacked a large amount of well written, properly referenced work because it does not suit his predetermined position; as a consequence some articles have been downgraded or deteriorated in quality. He has also ignored the guidelines to suit himself, in spite of insisting that other editors "follow the rules". Eg; [72] [73] - it is no wonder that Dapi89 has lost tolerence although I don't think he has handled himself well either. Overall Kurfürst's behaviour makes it an unpleasent prospect to work in Wikipedia - spending hours having to defend myself over one small detail is getting beyond a joke. Personally I look forward to a week without Kurfürst's "editing". Minorhistorian (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Dapi89 unblocked for time served

From reviewing the history of this dispute, I believe Dapi89 got himself over-involved with an extremely tenacious and difficult editor. Their frustration in dealing with Kurfürst apparently got the better of them; I'm sure this is something that most of us can appreciate (if not condone). With over 12000 edits and nearly three years on the site, Dapi89 has an otherwise excellent record of valuable contributions, and has acknowledged their mistake and assured me on their talkpage that WP:DR will be their first port of call should a similar situation arise in the future. I think it's important to distinguish between good editors who have an off day, and those who are not assets to Wikipedia, so I've unblocked Dapi89. Procedural note: this wasn't discussed with Tanthalas39, the blocking admin, as they've posted a note that they've gone on holiday. EyeSerene^talk 18:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Multiple usernames making the same edit

There is something going on with articles related to Interstate Highways. By appearances, someone is creating username after username, and making the same trivial edits to articles, possibly to establish sleeper accounts. For the record, the edits made so far are well-intentioned. In fact whomever is doing this appears well-versed in WP:USRD guidelines.

Examples:

• Special:Contributions/PaulJukebox
• Special:Contributions/18wheelmonster
• Special:Contributions/FollowMeJJJJ
• Special:Contributions/Quminator

I'm not sure what to do here, just keep eyes open, or is this grounds for checkuser and/or block and/or logging case at suspected sockpuppets (although I don't know whose the master) Dave (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Others are Fortakenme, TrialDrawn22, I99Morph. If this is a clueless n00b who just wants to use 1 account, I give permission for one to {{unblock}}; however I suspect this person is up to no good - do you really need to use 7 accounts in 1 hour? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

FolowMeJJJJ doesn't exactly fit the same profile, but close, so this one may be not involved. Another possible one is RangeSeven77Dave (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't put my finger on it, but this is tickling something in the back of my head. Maybe.. 8-9 months ago? I don't know. But I seem to recall there being some issue with multiple accounts and/or sockery at interstate articles. I could be wrong; perhaps someone has a better memory than I. → ROUX ₪ 05:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be referring to User:AL2TB who was blocked for sockpuppetry several months ago and is back under the name User:Mgillfr. I knew about this when posting the above, but don't see any evidence linking them so decided to WP:AGF.Dave (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Freewayguy and User:I-210 may also be what you're refering to. I forgot about those.Dave (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the one. Well, two. The latter two you posted. No idea if they're related, just something that popped into what I laughingly refer to as my brain. → ROUX ₪ 07:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed

• FollowMeJJJJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LoperKamm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• UnionKnowl9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RangeSeven77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TrialDrawn22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I95Popper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Quminator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LimitOn40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PaulJukebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 18wheelmonster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fortakenme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I99Morph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HenceImHere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• OneTwoPunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ElbowPuncher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

<sigh> Thatcher 14:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Y Blocked any that Rschen hadn't already gotten to. Thanks, –xeno^talk 14:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone.Dave (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:IrateManBear - compromised account?

Since July 1st, this editor has been vandalizing articles and just recently created the page Neo-Hitler, a redirect to Barrack Obama. This is the kind of thing I would normally just take to AIV except that the editor has a handful of constructive edits before that date. The editor's talk page appears to be a copy of User talk:Padillah. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 08:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Scratch that. On July 1st, the editor copy-pasted Padillah's talk page on to his own for... some reason. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 09:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Compromised or not, he's disruptive and needs to be blocked. The constructive edits may simply have been an attempt to get around autoconfirmation. Ironholds (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That did occur to me, though I decided to leave a warning instead (with notification of the Barack Obama article probation). I have no problem if someone else wants to block though, and would do so myself on the next disruptive edit. EyeSerene^talk 11:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, alright, lets all calm down. So is this what administrators do when there's someone out there that makes a wrong decision/or a different decision? You just block them, probably indefinitely. That's messed up. New editors like me have no freakin' clue what's going on here, and I guess some things that I did do right are of not enough merit on their own to assume some good faith. The incidents of "political" or "wiki-political" incorrectness (heck if a newbie knows what that means right off the bat), are acted upon with a swift ban hammer. And heaven forbid one may have to suck up to the banning elite to get their "privileges" to help back. You probably have no idea what I just said because I sound stupid, I can't sound smart like all of you, I'm sincerely sorry IrateManBear (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Use of phrases like "banhammer" and "assume good faith"indicates you aren't a new user. Plaxicoed? I believe so. creating a redirect to Obama titled Neo-Hitler is not something we can ever, ever really assume good faith for. Please explain how one can create that redirect with the best of intentions? this might be AGF, this might be AGF, albeit a crackpotted and fringe AGF, but the neo-hitler link and your attempted justification really isn't. Ironholds (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Errr, if your account was blocked in this situation, it was for your protection (if you are indeed the account owner). SOP for possibly compromised accounts is to block and wait for proof that the person is the owner - nothing menacing about that. It's like putting a lock on your credit card if it's used in both Stuttgart and Nassau within 2 minutes of each other. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed as same user,

• IrateManBear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EverybodyLovesPie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RanchHandSteve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HorseshoeGray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TrapperTom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JeremiahSamuels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Thatcher 13:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Thatcher. One of the above accounts had already been indeffed for vandalism, and I've sent the others the same way. AGF is one thing, but this to me is clear evidence that this editor isn't here to contribute productively. Wikipedia isn't their playground. EyeSerene^talk 14:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, EverybodyLovesPie has been around since 2007. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Stalking by 66.167.103.158, - 24.1.229.181 - and now impersonated by User:Noobiatech

Resolved

It seems my talk page has been targeted by 66.167.103.158 (talk · contribs) and 24.1.229.181 (talk · contribs). This all started after I reverted vandalism by 24.1.229.181 and issued this level 4 - only warning (the actual revert seems to have been deleted). Anyway, the issue I bring here is impersonation by Noobiatech (talk · contribs) who copied the entirety of my user page and talk pages to his/hers. I am not sure whether this user is a sockpuppet, and I am not bothered by that anyway; however, this impersonation - I believe - amounts to harassment. I am seeking help to remove my userpage' navigation tabs from this user's page.  Nuβiατεch ^Talk/_contrib 11:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the contents of the user and talkpages. Someone else will need to deal with the obviously-required block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have also visited the talkpages of the 2 IP addresses, and undone their modifications to both your warning AND the very polite welcome template you left. These kiddies aren't here to build an encyclopedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Noobiatech account hardblocked, and thanks BWilkins. Given one of their first edits was to Nubiatech's page, it's an open-and-shut case. Nubiatech, if you find the talk-page harassment a pain drop me a note (or call in at WP:RFPP); semi-protection is available. EyeSerene^talk 11:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Both IPs also blocked for a while for harassment. EyeSerene^talk 11:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bwilkins, and thank you EyeSerene; that was swift!  Nuβiατεch ^Talk/_contrib 12:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. EyeSerene^talk 17:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hacked Account?

See this. And for more proof here you go. 1 2 3 4 5

Look at the pics, and try proving me wrong. User:Jolly Janner is Hagger/Grawp 71.167.86.4 (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Jolly Janner is not the real Grawp. There are at least 2 vandals in the UK who are Grawp copycats (really, how sad is that). I'm not sure what your screenshots are supposed to be proving. If you want to follow up on this, please email me. Thatcher 14:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Emails are located in the sent folder, BTW. Appears to be a bad attempt at a setup. Someone might wanna' keep an eye on User:II MusLiM HyBRiD II, however, just to be sure it hasn't been compromised. lifebaka++ 14:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Fhbeastt (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol? uhh this isnt a setup, but you can think what you want. @ Thatcher, this is 71.167.86.4 . @ Thatcher just made an account, since ip's cant email users, and i cant email you either since this isnt auto confirmed i guess. any other way of contact thatcher? Fhbeastt (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Thewalrus69 (talk · contribs)

Thewalrus69's first edit on Wikipedia was this creation of an article on June 28 with an edit summary stating "First time ever making anything on wikipedia". Since then, he has been on a very aggressive campaign to protect this article by any method he can think of which includes removing a WP:PROD tag while leaving an edit summary which doesn't sound like something a brand new user might say. He has received a few warnings and notices on his talk page about incivility and personal attacks for edits like these:

• [74] - edit summary stating "Trust me, i'm Canadian. I know more than you polocks."
• [75] - stating "I think that Zadora13 should go edit the polish wikipedia, and leave the English to the people who are blessed enough to know how to use it properly" and "FLOORBALL IS FOR polocks who can't score!"
• [76] - stating "BUTT OUT JAO!!! JAO STOP EDITING!! WE DON'T WANT YOUR HELP!! PLEASE GO EDIT SOMETHING ELSE"
• [77] - edit summary stating "ADD SOMETHING or STAY OFF. This means you JAO."

I then left a carefully worded note in a most civil manner about his incivility and attacks. His response to that was to revert my edit on the article he created while leaving an edit summary that says "I'll remove it every time. Big Bird, go away. No one wants you here. BUTT OUT". He has since proceeded to go through my contributions and has seemingly randomly reverted some of my edits on completely unrelated articles ([78], [79]). I have no intention of battling it out with this person nor reverting any of his edits but I would like a fresh set of eyes on this situation to determine whether it merits further action.

Thank you! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problem. I'm feeling generous today, so I left a clear final warning on the user's talk page instead of blocking, but I'll keep an eye on future contributions and cheerfully block if he doesn't cut it out. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for AfD. If Thewalrus69 (whose name might be considered inappropriate anyway) removes that, they can be blocked for vandalism. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User created new article containing substantial portions of protected article

Several days ago I was asked to intervene in a dispute at the article Glass transition (see the Wikiquette alert here and also a report I left on the Admin Noticeboard here.) The gist of it is that editors, including Logger9, were revert warring over 2 versions of the article, which I blocked for 7 days, along with one of the more egregious reverters.

It has just come to my attention that an article started by User:Logger9 after the protection of the Glass transition article, Plastic deformation in solids, which has been nominated for deletion, seems to be a substantial copy of his preferred version of the Glass transition article (see here for comparison) as reported here.

There appear to be several issues with Logger9's editing style, including an apparent feeling of ownership over articles. What's the appropriate action in this case? Exploding Boy (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize no one wants to get involved in this because it's a big old mess, but... little help? Exploding Boy (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The AfD makes it a bit tricky, but I would be in favour of a block for disruption and a speedy deletion although the rub there is I am not sure under what category, but there should be grounds for deleting an article in these circumstances, where an editor unhappy that it wasn't their version that was protected creates a new article with their preferred version. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that there is at least some support for keeping that new article. On the other hand, creating a new article that comprises large portions of one's own preferred version of an article protected due to an edit war one was involved in does seem fairly POINTy, despite arguments that other users encouraged expanding the topic. Logger9 does have some supporters, however, so some more input would really be helpful here... Exploding Boy (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see here for the decisions I've made regarding this situation. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

All of which means this was a content dispute -- and the AfD was ill-suited as a cure. Collect (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a content dispute, but it was at a different article. The Plastic deformation in solids was a POV fork, and thus it was ill-suited as a cure. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User edit warring to maintain a falsified record of a discussion

Can an uninvolved admin please rule on this situation. From my point of view, Bosonic Dressing is edit warring to maintain a falsified record of a discussion, in violation of WP:TALK#Own comments.

[80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88]

I am getting very frustrated with it. Hesperian 03:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should let it die: because you obviously missed my edit summary, where I clearly 'requalified' my prior assertion of support for the move.[89] Is this prohibited? The train of communication is insubstantially changed as a result, and the commentator is definitely not cast in any different light. The inserted comment (IMO) is arguably a personal attack, since it calls into question the contributor and said argument, implies an absence of good faith, and paints the editor as someone who is falsely 'falsifying' the discussion thread. I have made no such accusation of the commentator, and I'm surprised an administrator is acting as such. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw the edit summary. Falsification of the record of a discussion is falsification of the record of a discussion, irrespective of edit summary. Hesperian 03:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard to "violate" a behavioral guideline. While what Bosonic dressing is doing is annoying and a bit misrepresentative, I'd let it go. If you have a big problem with it, make your own statement after his explaining how you think the changed wording affects the conversation. Tan | 39 03:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did. Bosonic Dressing keeps removing it.

It's all in the diffs above, but for those who can't be bothered, it goes like this:

• Bosonic Dressing comments.
• I reply.
• Discussion continues
• 12 hours later, Bosonic Dress goes back and alters the original comment, without changing the timestamp or providing any other indication that the comment has been revised

False. What about 'requalify support and comment', per edit summary, do you not understand? This is the point. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The page contains text that is timestamped 02:58, 2 July 2009, but which was actually revised and appended to 12 hours later, well after the original comment was replied to in good faith. Therefore the page is a falsified record of the discussion. Bosonic Dressing is edit warring to preserve that falsified record. The edit summary is irrelevant. Hesperian 03:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And your implication of lack of good faith with the amendment is bollocks. I simply downgraded my support for the move (with additional commentary), and you then completely removed that for whatever reasons, and then fail to 'let it go' as pointed out above? I am withdrawing from this 'discussion'. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I undo, with edit summary "Sorry, but its grossly improper to alter comments after they has been replied to, esp. under the original timestamp. It falsifies the record of the discussion and alters the context of repliies."
• Bosonic Dressing restores with edit summary "I alone will exert control over my commentary; capiche"
• Since my undo was reverted, I instead add a small-font annotation that says "The above comment has been modified well after discussion had moved on, without any explicit acknowledgement of modification, without even a fresh timestamp. This thread is therefore now a falsified record of the discussion."
• Bosonic Dressing deletes it, calling it "novel bluster";
• I restore it with edit summary quoting Bosonic Dressing's "I alone will exert control over my commentary; capiche"
• Bosonic Dressing deletes it again, calling it a "blusterous personal attack";
• I restore it again with edit summary "it is not a personal attack, and you have no right to remove my posts whilst insisting that I have no right to remove yours"
• Bosonic Dressing deletes it for a third time, calling it a "blusterous accusation/personal attack", and asserting "this will continue to be deleted."

The end result is a falsification of the discussion thread, with Bosonic Dressing edit warring to prevent the falsification from being removed or annotated in any way.

Hesperian

• My apologies for not looking close enough. Re-add any comment you see fit - don't "attach" it to his, make it separate. If Bosonic removes it again, I will block him for disruption. Tan | 39 03:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. I have no comment regarding this. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved party who is not delving very deep into this, I think that using words like "capiche" implies some sort of threat and that's a bit much. Your comments strike me as unnecessarily hostile - "The above comment has been modified well after discussion had moved on, without any explicit acknowledgement of modification, without even a fresh timestamp. This thread is therefore now a falsified record of the discussion" could be much more easily and less abrasively worded as "This comment has been modified after subsequent discussion". Phrases such as "without even" and "falsified record" are somewhat heavy handed; all I'm saying is this could have been approached more levelheadedly. That's it, that's all I have to say about the matter. Some guy (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

One reaps what one sows. How do you think someone should react after an administrator nullifies a change to your opinion, accuses you of falsifying this or that, and then persists in repeating those assertions? Edit warring involves more than one party. My changes were insubstantial, and this administrator arguably approached this from an adversarial perspective to begin with; in the very least, the administrator lacks diplomatic balm. I have dropped the matter and I apologise to you if things appear to have escalated unnecessarily, but I have no regrets about challenging editors (including administrators) for lacking behaviour. This has sucked up far too much of my time. Bosonic dressing (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Readers should draw their own conclusions about what reveals an adversarial perspective, this or this. Hesperian 07:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian, what would be inadequate about prefixing your own reply to Bosonic dressing with a diff or link to a permanent version, to show what you were responding to? I know it's frustrating to deal with what may seem like stubborn opposition, but there is often a way to finesse it. Don't bite! Don't accuse, just place your own comment in context. If that is removed, then we'd have a more serious situation. But I doubt that it will happen. --Abd (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Persistent copyright infringements

I have not blocked TouLouse (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), but wanted to bring up the matter of copyright concerns here. This contributor has received many notifications of our copyright policies for text and images and was previously blocked on 19 March 2008 for persistent image infringement after warning. Today I found article Mihăileşti explosion listed at WP:CP. This user created this article on May 9 2009 with several paragraphs copied from a previously source (see [90]). After the 2008 block, this contributor responded by saying "I'm so sorry, I promise, I will not encrouch the Wikipedia Law. Please unblock me!" Warnings on the page suggest that there have been a number of other images and text problems with copyright since. I'd like thoughts on how best to handle this to protect the project from further infringement. I'm not sure that continued editing unsupervised is a safe option without some good reason to believe that infringement will not continue. I think it would also probably be beneficial to evaluate other contributions here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make vandalism on Wikipedia. My copy-write problems on Mihăileşti explosion it's old...since May 2009, i haven't that mater of problems. Please verify much better my edits. Thanks! TouLouse (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It may date to May of 2009, but that is less than two months ago and you have been aware of our copyright policies since more than a year before that, as it was over a year before that when you were blocked. I think this merits some concern. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Distracting interlude, sectioned out

Resolved

 – Thread hijacking sectioned out; sock blocked; above remains open. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like our friend has decided to put on another sock. BarneyFifeApprentice (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you happen to have any evidence of that by any chance?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 17:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He's an obvious sock of the previously-indef'd User:AppreticeOfBarneyFife, and I've turned him in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And just like that - Poof! - He's gone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I see now that I've got to dig into Wikihistory and learn about some still persistant sockpuppeters.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This one was fairly easy, since he's in the section just above. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Coming back with pretty much exactly the same username is a courtesy many sockmasters deny us; but this was a helpful exception! ~ mazca ^talk 17:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is starting to happen to me alot.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And then blaming me as the sockpuppet?? (I know this is marked resolved but I just got on). - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Somebody's obviously goading you. Unless you have some means to identify who the sockmaster is, I'd ignore it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Three users editing and creating innapropiate pages exactly alike

User talk:Gossip--girls-xoxo, User talk:Mnbvcxz9000 and User talk:89.100.109.174 have been placing fake movies from Disney, (i.e. Chelsey Dainels of the Diamond) on alot of articles. Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 17:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't put my finger on it, but these edits look very familiar...I think there is a long time vandal with a similar MO. Rgoodermote  17:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but they have stopped for a while, probaly due to one of them being blocked for 72 hours. History implies that they will probaly be back.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's MascotGuy or something like that. –xeno^talk 17:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That guy's getting on my nerves. I seem to run into him every two to three months or so. And I know that he's gotten on PMDrives's nerves.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 17:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/MascotGuy especially if it's editing something called Atomic Betty. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not MascotGuy. MascotGuy doesn't edit sections, he edits the entire article. However, there is always a chance of him changing his MO. Rgoodermote  18:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's sounding more like a user who tricked me. All the edits are related too if not about Disney Channel shows.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Which one of us wants to file a checkuser request? Not it. Rgoodermote  18:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Two of them have been blocked indef.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So they have, however I do think this does require a follow up checkuser to make sure that no other socks are lurking. I'd file a report, but I gotta go and don't have the time. Rgoodermote  18:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, User:Mnbvcxz9000 has not, I've gone ahead and placed the Suspected sock template on all of those, now some one just needs to report them, I can't I have to go now. Rgoodermote  18:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

'Tis. –xeno^talk 18:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the master sock here is User:Bambifan101. AniMate^draw 19:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. I always get the Disney fans mixed up. The LTA reports could use some re-writes for clarity. –xeno^talk 19:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Continued & persistent vandalism by IP User 90.219.189.50

Resolved

 – Blocked for 31 hours by Jarry1250 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Despite 2 "final" warnings this afternoon this user has continued to make low level, repeated vandalistic changes to a number of pages. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:90.219.189.50. Can the promised block be implemented speedily please? leaky_caldron (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reported him to AIV.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editor Wikifan12345 possible sockpuppet for banned accounts

Wikifan12345 is a disruptive and tendentious editor who exclusively edits Israel/Palestine articles from a pro-Israel perspective. Full disclosure: I've had problems with him/her in Israeli Settlement but I've also noticed him causing problems in 1948 Palestinian exodus and Mohamed ElBaradei, the latter in which he has continually refused to accept a consensus against including a section about Israel. He pushed the issue to mediation and then refused to accept the outcome after the mediator told him to accept the consensus.

I noticed on his userpage ([91]) that he has listed 3 accounts under the heading R.I.P. (meaning rest in peace, one would assume). The 3 accounts are pro-Israel accounts (Malcolm Schosha, Tundrabuggy, Jayjg) that have been admonished for violating Wikipedia rules.

Tundrabuggy was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeting after they evaded detection for 10 months during a 1 year ban on their original account (Dajudem) that resulted from CAMERA fiasco.

Malcolm Schosha was blocked indefinitely after a number of virulent personal attacks against pro-Palestinian editors.

The fact that this user has created a memorial for a number of blocked users shows that he is not going to accept community standards, and that he regards Wikipedia purely as a battlefield rather than an encyclopedia.

This also raises the question of whether Wikifan12345 is a sockpuppet of one of these banned accounts or is a CAMERA meatpuppet. Halfacanyon (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks suspiciously like a tit-for-tat of WP:Wikiquette_alerts#Halfacanyon_accusing_me_of_POV-pushing.2C_lying.2C_etc... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Halfacanyon, where has Jayjg been admonished for violating Wikipedia rules as stated above? --Tom (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here and here. There are also earlier arbitration cases, but those are the most recent. Halfacanyon (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if that is the same as violating rules, but got your drift, thanks, --Tom (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 is evidently not in the same time zone as any of the other three editors. It's usually a good idea to check such things before making public accusations. Hans Adler 15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also believe Wikifan12345 is in some way connected to CAMERA and User:Tundrabuggy/User:Dajudem. The CAMERA accounts were uncovered in April 2008 in part thanks to work by ChrisO. On May 28, the person behind Dajudem, one of the CAMERA accounts, started editing as Tundrabuggy. She made a beeline for an article ChrisO was working on, Muhammad al-Durrah, and proceeded to cause trouble for him there. Ten days later, on June 7, Wikifan12345 was created, and similarly headed for articles ChrisO was active on, Muhammad al-Durrah and Pallywood.

Both accounts are extremely pro-Israel; both use poor sources, including blogs and partisan websites; and both make a habit of reverting anything they don't like. I've not looked carefully through the accounts yet, and wouldn't have posted this unless it was being mentioned already, but given that it is, the suspicion is worth adding here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Slim, that's very a inflammatory accusation and as an admin I expect you to back up your claims. If you think I'm some propaganda appendage of CAMERA, prove it. I've been involved in many subjects on wikipedia and a majority of my edits have been restricted to talk and collaboration discussions. Slim has been following me around to various articles, almost to the point of stalking. I suggest you file an ANI because I am truly tired of you inserting defaming language into discussions unabated. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following you around, though if I had, it'd be perfectly justified, given your tendency to use random websites as sources in contentious history articles, where only academic historians can be used safely. In fact, I rather think it's you who may have been following me; your throwing yourself into the Nicholas Beale debate to oppose me (see the deleted talk page) was somewhat surprising. Regardless, I'm not going to argue with you. I've said what I think. I could be wrong, of course. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Random websites? Hardly. If you are referring to the Palestinian exodus, I provided 3 certified-academics. I do not have a history of relying on blogs or bogus sites to support information. I had a genuine interest in Nicholas Beale and has absolutely nothing to do with you. If you are going to dig through my edits 1 year ago, misconstrue conflicts with User:ChrisO (who is no longer an admin), imply I am a sock of Tundra/Dajudem and was party to the Wikipedia/CAMERA conspiracy, and then say you are "not going to argue" is nothing short of bizarre. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of you using an essay by a lecturer in social work posted on an Australian-Jewish website for some highly contentious material about the Palestinian exodus; and you edit warred to keep it in. When I asked you who the source was, you didn't at first know. There are plenty more examples like that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As I explained in the talk, Mendes is a published author having written several books on Israel, is a lecture at a major University in Australia, and is a member of notable Jewish magazines. You claimed he was neither of those things, and repeatedly asked "Who is he?" in talk. And no, I did not edit war to keep it in. You however were very adamant in ensuring the only sources in the lead were by Palestinian "historians", Nur-eldeen Masalha and Constantine Zureiq. Whatever, this still has nothing to do with me belonging to a CAMERA conspiracy. Care to elaborate? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Halfacanyon appears to be  Unrelated to Tundrbuffy/Dajudem on a purely technical level. Thatcher 10:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It was Wikifan12345 who was accused of possibly being Tundrabuggy/Dajudem. Wikifan said he had previous similar problems with Jersay and Pattywack, so Halfacanyon was possibly a sock of one of those. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• To go back to Mangojuice's comment, I think that warning and restricting such accounts under the discretionary sanctions is a reasonable alternative approach. On the other hand, I haven't seen this solution scale very well; given the extremely limited number of admins active in these areas, and the din of the constant partisan chorus who attend any such discussion, agenda-driven SPA's and alternate accounts proliferate faster than they can be handled. My reading of recent ArbCom decisions was that these areas are afflicted with widespread problematic editing behavior, and that people who come here to improve the encyclopedia as a general reference work shouldn't have to deal with dozens of agenda-driven socks and SPA's, nor should it take a year-long process to deal with an editor who is clearly agenda-driven and abusive from the start (c.f. User:Tundrabuggy). I wouldn't stand in the way of an unblock if another admin feels strongly, though I think that setting some ground rules would be useful at a minimum.

  Regarding Thatcher's note: as BWilkins points out, the link in question was between Wikifan12345 and Dajudem. I don't have sufficient information to assess the circumstantial strength of such a link, and I'm going to pass the baton to some other admin to look into it. I will say that the balance between encyclopedic content and agenda-driven advocacy in Special:Contributions/Wikifan12345 is hardly encouraging, but that alone doesn't inspire me to do anything at this juncture. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Israel/Palestinian articles are a breeding ground for activists. Virtually everyone belongs to one agenda or another, but that in itself is not against the rules. I personally find User:SlimVirgin's Palestinian advocacy at the expense of other voices to be extremely disturbing, and to accuse me of being part of the CAMERA wikipedia/propaganda fiasco is beyond uncivil, it's simply wrong. My contributions are varied and no I am not agenda driven - I keep in mind all wikipedia policy and yes disputes revolving content and biased language have occurred but my "agenda" is certainly no less threatening then say....User:Nableezy who is practically the polar-opposite of myself. : ) Anyways, this isn't my ANI, I'm not on trial. If you think I'm part of some conspiracy feel free to investigate. I would prefer people stop insuating I'm a propaganda machine and not follow through on their accusations. I was blocked twice just for calling a fellow editor antisemitic several months ago. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't play that game with me, Wikifan. No one familiar with my overall edits since 2004 could accuse me of Palestinian advocacy. What I see in your editing is a complete disregard of NPOV, V, and NOR—in fact, I doubt you've even glanced at them—and an attempt to make the Palestinian narrative disappear, rather than balancing it. I oppose that kind of editing wherever I see it, no matter which "side" it's coming from. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Play what game? My experience in editing with you has been rocky, you continually put roadblocks ahead of discussion and demand unnecessary rationales for suggestions beyond your agenda (typically pro-Palestinian). I'm totally okay with that because half of wikipedia operates on some similar level but it unacceptable and quite hypocritically for you to accuse me of being a SPA or propaganda machine when you don't even know me. From what I understand I'm not the only one who feels this way. If you actually knew my history you'd understand an overwhelming majority of my edits have been in talk and a fraction of article contributions are major expansions that would resemble an attempt to "make the Palestinian narrative disappear" as you so righteously put it. But thanks for the assessment, at least I know where you are coming from. :DWikifan12345 (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the "roadblocks" I'm currently throwing up is requesting a source from you for a paragraph you wrote about Palestinians being offered compensation by the Israeli government in 1949. You have named two sources, one of them a polemicist and not someone who can be used for anything contentious, and one of them an Israeli academic, Avraham Sela, a good source. I've asked you two or three times what Sela says exactly and for a page number, but you don't seem to know, even though you cited him. See here. This is very typical of my experience with you. You haven't read anything, you have no access to sources and don't care to try to gain any, and you surf the Web randomly snatching from here and there anything you think favors Israel, without having read or understood it. It's pure advocacy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pure advocacy? You've been roadblocking from the very beginning. I was VERY explicit and cordial with my sources. You denied outright the notability and reliability of Mitchell G. Bard and Avraham Sela. You claimed they weren't "historians" or "specialists." Then you posted some rule about academics. I demonstrated very simply that both people are published authors, lecturers, specialists, and Avraham is a professor. Then you started scrutinizing the sources, saying they are unreliable. I called you on that, you dropped it and started hassling me about the page numbers. I directed you to the original source at History of the Arab-Israeli conflict which you also ignored. You asked for the page numbers, I gave them to you. Finally GHCool unnecessarily listed the exact page numbers. You continually made up new reasons to battle every time I proved you wrong. Then you imply I'm part of a CAMERA conspiracy, might be socks of tundra, and now engage in advocacy. You are the problem, not me. You zealously own the exodus article and make every effort to ensure Palestinian sources while stonewalling anything that you disagree with. Dragging out disputes over easily-verifiable sources for pages and pages with impunity. Just because I have an Israel flag on my userpage does not mean I'm some Zionist zealot. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of dealing with references beyond activists/blog-like memorial sites. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Before anybody accuses me of anything, I am not a sockpuppet of Wikifan12345. I own the book Sela edited and saw that there was a dispute between Wikifan12345 and SlimVirgin and decided to add the quote and page number. --GHcool (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would just like to say that one of the troubling aspects of this debate is the accusations being flung by User:SlimVirgin, who I find to be an angry, agenda-driven, unconstructive and uncooperative editor. I do assume, however, that, like many of us, she is merely a person who has strong feelings about the Middle East. I do not accuse her of being a PLO operative, although there is as much evidence for it as there is that Wikifan works for CAMERA.Historicist (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

re Historicist: please be more specific. Everyone "would just like to say" something. Being general/personal/unclear this way is not helping any. -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Halfacanyon

For someone whose account has been active for one month, this looks like another tit-for-tat... seicer | talk | contribs 15:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone reaaaaaalllly learned Wikipedia quickly! ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If Halfacanyon walks like a duck, then quacks like a duck... duck-billed platypus? IronDuke 16:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

But unlike Wikifan I'm not maintaining a memorial of sockpuppet accounts that have been banned on my user page. Now _that_ is quacking like a duck Halfacanyon (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, of course. IronDuke 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

His addition of this smartarsed edit and immediate removal is ... well ... interesting (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What's "smartarsed" about saying I have nothing to hide? I removed it because I thought he may have been asking Wikifan due to the indenting. If he isn't then I stand by my comments. Halfacanyon (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I will respond to this in a couple of hours. I am busy at the moment. this is too funny. : ) cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Remarks by Seicer, BWilkins and IronDuke above are unclear, unhelpful and distracting. Please find a useful WP:-policy yourself. A user promoting CAMERA-banned user on the user-page cannot claim a pro-wikipedia-attitude. -DePiep (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I could give less than a flying fuck about "CAMERA", Israel, or the original topic at hand. I'm curious as to why, an account that is only one month of age, is so well versed in our policies and prior incidents that his editing scope has been very narrowly defined to include only a handful of articles and an obsession over one particular editor. So, please take your POV ranting elsewhere because I have no claim, nor have I edited, in the realms that you noted above. seicer | talk | contribs 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DePiep, if you have nothing to add, you needn't feel you need to comment here. Seicer, a CU check might be useful to see which other account(s) Halfacanyon has, but the account itself is a disruptive, "bad hand" account, and should probably be blocked in any case. Your thoughts? IronDuke 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict see Wf12345 after this:)

re seicer: CAMERA was the topic. You changed the topic/sectiontitle (disruption). Then, writing "less than a flying fuck" is not civil. IronDuke: "nothing to add"?: if I cannot follow the talk here through deviation etc., I am perfectly entitled to ask for clearness etc. I was not commenting, I was asking for clarity. Please do your private fightings elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA was mentioned briefly (and quite unconvincingly) by the probable sock Halfacanyon; that you continue to raise that issue could be construed as you meatpuppeting for an abusive sock -- possibly himself a banned editor. I'm sure you don't want to be seen as doing that. And your request for clarity was, ironically, not particularly clear. If there's something about you didn't understand about what I wrote, I am happy to clarify. IronDuke 20:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re IronDuke(out-of-chron!): briefly or whatever quality: it was in the original report, then seicer changes the topic/sectiontitle, and then he/she writes "I'm not interested" (in other words). I don't raise it, I return to it from seicers deviation. And I wrote yours remarks 'are unclear, unhelpful and distracting'. If not clear, you could have asked for an explanation. I assume you were well aware that the topic was moving. Finally, could you clarify your remark "I'm sure you don't want to be seen as doing that", because unspecified it could be read as threatening. Now we can go back to the subject: Wikifan12345 -DePiep (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Seicer is an editor in good standing, Halfacanyon is an obvious disruptive sockpuppet. Whatever Seicer wants to do is, I'm sure, far closer to the interests of the project than Halfacanyon. Some of your remarks seem garbled, so I'm not quite sure how to respond to them. I think my remarks about the dangers of your being seen to meatpuppet for a disruptive editors are quite clear (and not at all threatening); indeed, an increasing number of (uninvolved) users seem to be of the opinion that you have things very, very wrong here. There's no shame in being wrong, only in continuing to be wrong when the truth becomes clear. I would back away from this, if I were you (NB: Not a threat, just good advice). IronDuke 21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(non-sync) Why do you pick up his phone? -DePiep (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Try again. I've been around here for over three years, as an administrator and as an editor, and anyone with a bit of experience can easily detect a meatpuppet and/or a disruptive sockpuppet. Since you apparently have issues comprehending what I am writing, let me make it clear: I have no issue with any of the articles mentioned, and have never edited any of the articles mentioned nor have any inclination to do so because it's something I could care less about. Therefore, my "flying fuck" comment is directed towards that, not any one individual, therefore it is not an uncivil remark. Unless you are truly offended by the word fuck. seicer | talk | contribs 20:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re again seicer (a-chron). Three years or zero: I react to what I read, whatever your resume. - On first exchanges. If you can recognise or detect a puppet that well, you could have written that more clearly and less fuming. It really was getting into a tit-for-tat-for-tit, unreadable for a fresh reader like me. I need to point out that you first inserted a new sectiontitle, and then went off-original-topic. - Then reacting to me. Next, if you are not into a detail of the topic, you could have skipped that in your reaction (you could have left out your whole first sentence, at no cost and all gain). Finally, since you mention adminship, I find your line of talk and the change of topic, eh, disturbing in Wikipedia-sense. (You're the first admin I meet that writes "I'm not interested in your topic"). And after writing to me "your POV ranting" leaves for you the sweet invitation assuming my good faith. -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent): Ok, I'm back. Are we going to close this? User:Halfacanyon has been very hostile from the moment I started editing Israeli settlements. He reverted every single one of my edits claiming I deleted sourced material and removed references. I tried to explain to him I simply removed duplicate references and told him to re-direct identical references in the future. He is also following me around in other articles I'm editing, such as 1948 Palestinian exodus . As far as sock-puppetry is concerned, I don't know what to say. I consider it a compliment for someone to accuse me of being an alias of User:Jayjg. I posted a brief wikietiquette alert following Half's mean accusations that I am a POV-pusher. I suggested Half and I go through dispute resolution to avoid edit warring but he has yet to respond. I posted a lengthy explanation for my edits at the settlement talk but that has gone no where. I would greatly an uninvolved and experienced admin/user weigh in on the discussion. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(This understandably to be read as a re to the previous section #Disruptive editor Wikifan12345 possible sockpuppet for banned accounts. Due to the disruptive edit by seicer, inserting a new sectiontitle out-of-chron, out-of-place, it might read illogic). -DePiep (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all the same section. DePiep, I see you are concerned about my "memorial" of editors Malcolm, Tundra, and Jayjg. I thoroughly enjoyed collaborating with those users and whatever flaws they might have does not change my opinion of them. Plenty of pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian editors share respect for retired users, I am certainly not the first to do this. Everyone who edits the Israel/Palestinian articles harbor some kind of bias, but that is irrelevant. I provided a comparison of my edits and Half edits in the talk, I suggest you look at it. If you believe my rewrite screams Zionist propaganda let me know. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to W12345, he's definitely not Jayjg. There is nothing wrong with worshipping banned editors, and since WP promotes AGF, then an accusation of guilt by association is certainly 'bad faith on Halfacanyon's part. This whole disruption/sockpuppet double accusation is quite absurd when the real basis for this useless discussion is that Halfacanyon does not like a w12345s pro-Israel editing. --Shuki (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DiPiep, please stop trying to obfuscate things here. "I don't give a flying fuck about CAMERA" is actually quite important here - the articles or topics themselves are not the issue, so your posts seem to be the ones becoming disruptive. A "new" editor, who was the subject of a Wikiquette filing later filed a tit-for-tat ANI filing, accusing someone of being a sockpuppet, and it appears to be solely for the intent to discredit them. Anyone can easily tell that Wikifan is not any of his "heroes" as listed on his page. I fully expect that Halfacanyon is some with whom Wikifan has had past incidents, and this is their way of getting back. If anyone is a sock (or even meat), it's Halfacanyon. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re (a-chron) thank you for clarifying. Please accept my initial question: the posts by you three editors (now top of this subsection) were unclear for a fresh reader like me, indirectly and insider-only-like. Read like there is something invisible. I want to be able to understand Wikipedia, so I ask. (Question left: why not created a fully new section?). -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DePiep, not to be insulting, but WP:ANI may not be a good place for you to understand Wikipedia - it's a location where problems are brought in front of admins, so it's very full of insider-related discussion. It's not typically meant for "normal" editors. Indeed, by watching, you can learn a lot, but make sure not to comment unless you understand the process when complaints are lodged. However, let me answer the question: a complaint was lodged by User:Halfacanyon about User:Wikifan12345...turns out that Halfacanyon was apparently the real problem, so you make a subsection and continue the discussion. We often call this situation the "Plaxico effect", as Halfacanyon effectively shot himself in the foot here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think this is a great place to (learn to) understand Wikipedia. It's not about the place (ANI). Remember I only named three editors here that were unclear etc to me (Seicer, BWilkins and IronDuke). Others, even in this section, were not adressed by me. This re "don't interfere, go away" I got is definitely not Wikipedia-like, whatever policy or guideline you may know. Don't ask me to backoff for not understanding. -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this might be out of line but I have a turbulent history with User:Jersay who was banned for sock-puppetry at List of terrorist incidents, 2009. As far as I know, his most recent sock is User:Pattywack. However, Half's posting style appears to be a lot more intelligent than Jersay's but I figured this was worth a mention anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's an old tit for tat thing (I love WP for actually relating to this behaviour). I'm now leaning towards Halfa being related to Special:Contributions/Ewawer. If so, very good separation of personalities, but some crossovers. Ewawer is a sex-lover, from Australia, Jewish and/or has an affinity for Christian issues with some pro-Arab edits. The Ewawer personality also has inconsistent edit interests. Halfa has also edited Christian pages, yet not entirely anti-Israel, maybe somewhat leftist anti-Zionist. --Shuki (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

← OK, this has probably degenerated far enough. Halfacanyon (talk · contribs) is obviously not a new user, and I think that the general trend and consensus has been to tighten up a bit on the flood of agenda-driven socks on Israel/Palestine articles. Accordingly, I've blocked Halfacanyon indefinitely. I can't say with certainty which account is behind Halfacanyon, but whomever it is, they need to go back to using their main account to edit this controversial and sock-ridden area (assuming their main account has not already been sanctioned). I think a checkuser would be worthwhile to look for sleeper accounts, though probably of limited utility without a clear idea who the main account belongs to. Insofar as Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) is concerned, nothing presented here as evidence here indicates any issue requiring urgent administrative action against him. MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing Halfacanyon's unblock request, I feel that this sort of vague wave accusation of sockpuppetry is a poor way to go, but there is enough cause for suspicion that I think we need more disclosure from the user. That said, I've issued a strong warning about the general sanctions on Arab-Israel conflict articles. I would prefer to handle the situation that way. Mangojuice^talk 04:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Should someone be blocked for socking if there's been no sockpuppet investigation? Going on this "if it walks like a duck..." rationale, we should have blocked Wikifan12345 sometime last summer, when he popped straight into the I-P tangle about a week after the CAMERA case closed. Account created on 15:54 7 June, first I-P edit is to Muhammad al-Durrah, 16:07 7 June? And the next day he's already into DRVs and Allegations of Israeli apartheid ? Tarc (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It happens daily, for instance, with persistent sock abusers. There is no need to go to SPI, which is cumbersome, bureaucratic and slow if one can easily entertain the fact that if it smells like a sock, looks like a sock, and walks like a sock, then it most likely is a sock. seicer | talk | contribs 13:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, you were one of the main editors I was disputing with at Allegations last year. Very hostile from what I recall. If you guys think I'm sock, do a checkuser or whatever. Next time an editor accuses me of belonging to a CAMERA conspiracy I will seriously considering filing a harassment report. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't harassment to note a new user who is "instantly" aware of and involved in the behind-the-scenes. DRVs, AfDs, classifications of articles. No one can make you disclose who you were before "Wikifan12345", I suppose, unless the prior incarnation is banned. Tarc (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying I was someone before Wikifan? If so, I encourage you to file a sock puppet report and follow through with your accusations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hair raising exploits

Resolved

 – It's on ice.

Seems like one of the most prolific editors to this page, has made it into the news again here. Sooner or later the real life antics of this contributor are going to end up embarrassing the encyclopedia. I believe administrator intervention is imperative AppreticeOfBarneyFife (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• None of them are mine, I swear on a stack of Britannicas! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Eh, I just went ahead and blocked the user. I assume someone with a grudge against you. This can be archived now, if you like. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Ironically, in light of the Pioneercourthouse sockmaster, many of those Portland rabbits are going to end up homeless. Except for the ones in that lady's freezer, who are standing firm. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
      • See here for the follow-up article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
        • YIPE! Definitely too much information. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
          • If you don't like that, you'll definitely not like a long-ago Article Rescue of mine: Jugged Hare. Uncle G (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Eek. Reading that could turn me into a vegetarian. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Ummm…shouldn't this thread be called "hare raising exploits"? DKqwerty (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Maybe, but keep in mind the original poster couldn't spell "apprentice", either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Mbialastoki

Editor suggested legal action. Quote with name removed "Rxxx Fxxx, a 15 year old in Topeka, KS, continues to maliciously post deletion tags. Legal action against parents may be necessary." [[92]] Editor has been repeatedly removing afd notice from article Elctrikchair and has made the preceding comment when making one such removal. Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That is definitley a legal threat. Admins, please do something about this.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef ... and I'm asking for oversight on the offending edit. Granted, it was only an edit summary, but since this is a minor we can't be too careful. Blueboy96 20:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Is oversight the place to go for removing the minor's alledged name from the edit history? Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

From WP:OVER#Policy: "Removal of non-public personal information, such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public." Blueboy96 20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Short answer is "yes" - identities of minors may in some cases be removed from history even if it's the minors themselves who posted it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:69.226.103.13 has a legitimate, and tricky, problem

Resolved

 – User has indicated they will no longer be editing, this is all now moot. Discussions about renaming the abuse filter belong at the Village Pump or WP:AF

→ ROUX ₪ 18:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been conversing on my talk page with this user, and am gaining a richer understanding of his problem, which isn't really about filters at all, so much as a number of programs that have made life rather difficult for him. May I direct your attention to the discussion on my talk page labelled 'Tagging?' To sum up: Back in February, User:Anybot created an enormous number of factually inaccurate articles about algae, based on an inaccurate source. By 'an enormous number,' I mean over 6000. Yikes. This is the discussion that WikiProject Plants had about it.] Many of the incorrect articles were simply deleted en masse in a single AfD discussion, but about 900 of them still exist, and are still inaccurate. User:69.226.103.13 has been trying to work his way through that list manually, cutting the inaccurate articles down to one-sentence stubs, but User:ClueBot has been reverting the corrections and warning User:69.226.103.13 to stop blanking articles, since doing so is an act of vandalism. Those edits which have gone through have been tagged by the abuse filter as possibly problematic. From the IP's point of view, he was trying to fix one bot's mistakes, and two more bots are preventing him from doing so, as a result of which (though I wouldn't like to put words in his mouth), he currently has a very negative attitude toward Wikipedia's bots. Does anyone have some suggestions as to how this problem can be solved? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Note about FisherQueen's summary. These 900 are not all wrong, they were not deleted for various reasons. Most of the various reasons were legitimate. Unfortunately a few of the first ones in the list are really bad articles. I was just trying to go through the list quickly from the top down, when my edits started being rejected, being tagged, making it hard to do quick work on a large number of articles. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why weren't the 900 remaining articles deleted? (I'm assuming there's a reason, I'm just curious).

Could a bot (no, not a joke!) be coded to fix/stubbify the remaining 900?

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Question # 1: I do not know the answer to this question. Question #2: that was my first thought as well, but since my complete knowledge of algae is "green, slimy," and my complete knowledge of bots is, "they work on magic," I don't think I'm qualified to have an opinion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem would largely be solved if they would create an account. AFAIK, ClueBot has a threshold beyond which it doesn't revert/warn users. No such threshold for IPs. → ROUX ₪ 20:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

FisherQueen, would the IP be prepared to create an account to work on these 900? They could perhaps reference this thread from the userpage, to inform the less benign members of the community that they are a long-term editor on a serious mission.

Alternatively, I have no experience with bots but in real-life I'm a magician, so I could ingratiate myself with the bot-developer community and see if they/me/us could come up with some magic solution.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

They don't need bot edited, most are redirects, most of the remainder are okay, a few are nightmares. They require human checking, one by one. Some need deleted. Kurt Shaped Box has politely agreed to delete articles I request be deleted, so deletion is not an issue.

I'm making a political statement by editing only with IPs. I've been doing it for years. The two times I've registered an account I also tried to edit the most egregious errors, of the type one wishes is never found on wikipedia. It did not go well.

--69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone with administrative privileges who is reading this could delete Heteronema and Arthrospira to put them out of their misery. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Got 'em. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most of the articles on my latest list are redirects. Some may be going to the right place, some may not - and either need retargetting or deleting outright. Unfortunately, the only way I can think of to do this is for an expert (which I am not!) to go through them manually and either fix the problems or indicate what needs to go... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

They don't require full scale expert. Before I started editing and decided I would clear the list, I checked a large number of articles. Any of these editors: User:WillowW, User:EncycloPetey, User:Hesperian, User:Eugene van der Pijll, User:Lavateraguy, User:Rkitko, User:Josh Grosse (inactive)]], User:Werothegreat (inactive), User:TheAlphaWolf, User:KP Botany, User:Onco p53, User:Osborne, User:Esculapio, User:Arcadian, User:Daniel Vaulot, would be able to clear this list, probably faster than I could. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The important point to remember is that we still have articles that list bacteria as eukaryotes. This spells: no science here. The list needs checked immediately, imo, that's why I was willing to do it, but, since I am being impeded, someone else will need to do it. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)I have nothing to do with the abuse filters or the anti-vandal bots - but (and this is aimed at anyone reading) would it be possible to make 69.226.'s edits exempt from scrutiny in future? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't own this IP. See the first edit from it before you consider this.

But, no, thanks. I want to edit as an IP. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

So, I take it that you don't believe that Elmo is evil? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Scary, yes, evil, no. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Have you tried to contact the operator of ClueBot? It should be possible to write an exception to whatever rules it uses. Thatcher 23:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Kinda had my fill of the bots' folks and their private club. Cluebot's not really a problem bot, as far as I can tell. The block messages appear to be generated by my getting the tags, also, as I deleted more text before (see my abuse filter log to see my prior incidents of abuse all properly logged).

But thanks for offering a positive suggestion in a thoughtful manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, here's my suggestion of a heuristic: If an editor, IP or registered, edits text from an article created by a bot that has recently had 4077 of its articles deleted for being worse than garbage, don't tag the editor who is helping to correct the remaining garbage. This is codable.

Here's another suggestion: don't make things permanent if they're in the testing stage as the tags are. Editors are offended by having their edits tagged as vandalism-unlike the code, editors are human beings. From an outsider's point of view, software development on wikipedia is amateur hour. Software in the development stage should not create permanent and inaccurate logs associated with user accounts. With your tagging me an abusive vandal it'd be crazy to register and have a vandalism filter associated with my name.

Here's another one: when an editor doesn't blank the page, don't tag it as blanking.

Here's another one: don't whine about another editor's whining. This changes the focus and length (to longer) of all conversations on wikipedia to drain time from writing an encyclopedia. I wonder this has never been noticed before.

Here's another one: find someone to check the remaining 889 articles. My abuse log is so long after trying to edit 3 articles you may wind up blocking all of NoCal from my editing attempts alone. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• The abuse log is not actionable by itself, and many "abuse filters" detect things other than abuse. No admin should ever act on the abuse log without checking the edits themselves. Thatcher 00:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not an abuse log, because the edits are not abusive. It should not be called an abusive log. The title should reflect what it is. Why would someone bother to name something so inaccurately in the first place? It's either an abuse log or it's not. If it's not, don't call it one, don't attach it to editors names, and don't be surprised when it interferes with creating an accurate and reliable encyclopedia because writers don't like being told they're being abusive vandals when they're not.

The obvious solution is just that: call things what they are. It's not obvious that every time someone doesn't like the inaccurate and inappropriate name of something, pause from editing and correcting bad articles, and find a way to correct it.

If it's not an abuse filter, and it's not a log of tripping the abuse filter, stop calling it that. If it's not a log of an editor tripping the abuse filter, don't attach it to the editor's logs.

Anyone at all concerned about the bad articles that rewrite 2 billion years of evolution and how many more still sit on wikipedia? --69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

These behind-the-scenes, "passive" reversions are called abuse filters because that's their intention. When written correctly, they work very well. When written incorrectly or too broadly, obviously they can cause problems. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that's the intention, no matter how much obfuscation is attempted by those denying the intent here and at the "report a false positive" board. Thank you.

Professional and experts care that their hard work is labeled vandalism. Vandals may not care, some other wikipedia editors mayn't care. But I'm not a full-time wikipedia editor. I just correct the science in articles when I have the chance, and I'm not an abusive vandal and should not be labeled one.

It spoils the ability to find a solution that shows the community wants a good, reliable, well-written, and accurate encyclopedia when you tell researchers that wikipedia labeling them as vandals means nothing. If it means nothing: don't do it.

Thanks for being honest, Baseball Bugs. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Another factor is that vandalism frequently comes from IP addresses (I would say more IP address entries are vandalism than are not), so if the bot is reacting to IP address removal of text, it's understandable. Also, if you're remaining as an IP to stay anonymous, you're actually more vulnerable to exposure than if you had a user ID. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not staking claim to anonymity. IPs removing text that doesn't belong is appropriate. Calling it vandalism isn't. The script is labeling edits abuse and vandalism when they're not and created a log called an abuse filter log that's a lie. If I were editing under a registered name this would be a permanent log attached to my account calling me an abusive vandal-a great reason not to register!

I shouldn't have to explain why a researcher would not want to be tagged an abusive vandal when they're not one. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC) this edit has been labeled and logged as possible vandalism

I'd very much like we don't link the abuse filter log in the contributions. If you register, you'll be exempted from most abuse filters after four days and 10 edits. The abuse filter is still new, we're working on improvements. Sorry for the inconvenience.. Cenarium (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's insulting. It's bad for wikipedia. Registration would make it a permanent part of my account. It's preventing the correction of potentially 889 bad articles that continue, as we talk, to spread the word: "wikipedia doesn't do science." The abuse filter will continue through 500 edits, not 10 edits, if I try to remove lists of species that don't belong, and remove links that aren't sources.

You've made it impossible to correct some of the worst articles on wikipedia. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This last edit of mine has been labeled vandalism by the abuse filter log. The abuse filter is written by wikipedians who don't know that IPs can't do page moves. It's in low level testing stages and written by wikipedians who don't know wikipedia policy and it's creating inaccurate permanent logs. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The edit matched because of the #ED section and the abuse filter sweeping too large. That shouldn't happen again. It's not used only for page moves though. Cenarium (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't edit that section. It tagged my edit (16:17) as abusive vandalism.

The page moves comment is that the abuse page filter contains information about preventing IPs from moving pages to title "somethingpoops". I was pointing out the abuse filter writers don't seem to know much about wikipedia, and should not be creating permanent abuse accusation logs, given they don't know much about wikipedia. Their making abuse filters to tag IPs doing things not allowed to IPs indicates they don't. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer, I keep reading something, then posting a comment about it elsewhere forgetting to link.

I don't know why it's so hard to make wikipedia understand that articles listing bacteria as eukaryotes are bad and removing the text from them to clean up 2 billion years of evolution isn't bad, unless you're a vandal and enjoy seeing wikipedia in such ill repute. I think cleaning up bad science spreading through cyberspace the longer it's left on wikipedia is more important than most conversations on this page; but I'm not allowed to do that because a filter in its testing stages has throttled my ability to correct something worse than pseudoscience: non existent science. Even if I registered it would just create a junk account that would also be throttled as a user with less than 500 edits. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There are still 889 articles, some number of which are bad, many created by a bot that should never have run. I'm labeled an abusive vandal and throttled from editing them, but they still must be checked and edited for major errors like calling bacteria eukaryotes and made-up algae names that have been copied by wiki mirrors. They're still bad articles being returned at the top of search engines results and making wikipedia look scientifically incompetent. Throttling proper edits and calling researchers abusive vandals shouldn't be part of writing an encyclopedia. Accuracy and reliability and correcting mistakes ASAP should be. Maybe the next person who wants to tell me to register could edit 10 of them to clear the list instead. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember, no one actually called you an abusive vandal? Wikipedia is a community of people who care about things; articles only get fixed when someone cares enough to do it. You know I like you, but you've been offered two solutions- create an account to do this work, or ask the manager of User:ClueBot to temporarily exempt either your ip or these articles from being affected by that bot. You've refused to do either of those things, because you want to make a point. That's fine- but you can make your point, or you can do the work that you think needs to be done. I'd be glad to clear 10 of them myself, but I don't know how because I lack the knowledge in this area. You keep saying that "Wikipedia" is doing things, or should do things, but "Wikipedia" isn't anything but us- a bunch of people. You are Wikipedia. So am I. That's all there is to Wikipedia. I feel badly for it, but I don't think I'll intercede for you any longer if you're going to continue insulting the people who are trying to help. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not cluebot, it's the throttle in the tagging script that is preventing the editing of the articles. An account won't work because the same filter will block me until I'm registered and have 500 edits. There are 889 articles. Everyone has made it clear the filter is about catching vandal, particularly vandal IPs. Why is it stopping me then? It's treating me as a vandal. That's calling me a vandal. The tag, also, are associated with vandalism edits. You say I'm insulting people but you haven't pointed out the insult. The real insult is a list that may contain articles anybot never should have made that have spent 4 months being copied by wiki mirrors into cyberspace and show up in search engines. --

I think you're misreading the filter. You will be ignored by it very swiftly if you create an account. Or maybe someone could exempt your IP address in the interim. –xeno^talk 18:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rename Abuse Log

I think the IP raises valid issues about the name and functioning of the abuse filter. A couple of suggestions to consider:

• Should we rename Abuse log to Bot tag log or Filter bot log (or whatever) ? The current name (without any qualifier like possible, probable) is both inappropriate and factually incorrect
• Should the log entries be set to expire after some time (say two weeks) ? After all, they are just meant to highlight possibly problematic edits for review and if an edit hasn't we reviewed in a couple of weeks it's unlikely to get/need attention later. We always have a permanent record of the edit diffs themselves, in case we need to review a user's edits later.

Comments ? Abecedare (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion belongs at WT:AF. Perhaps "Edit filter". –xeno^talk 17:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Wikispace Filter" ... "Wikitime Filter" ... "WikiSpaceTime Filter" (and we can use the old sayings about "...eddies in the WikiSpaceTime continuum" :) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He is, is he? → ROUX ₪ 17:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be polite and accurate, if the abuse filter tag was working correctly:[93] from my log.

The reason a writer above posted this comment, "The edit matched because of the #ED section and the abuse filter sweeping too large. That shouldn't happen again. It's not used only for page moves though. Cenarium (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)" is that the abuse filter log is wrong. It associated the wrong edit with my edit of this board. It says I removed this line, "::: ED is Encyclopedia Dramatica 72.89.192.102 (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)" when I didn't edit that section at all. It's inaccurate, it's insulting, and it has programming errors, in addition to being in testing phases, and it's a permanent record. What's wrong with that picture? Everything. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"It's a permanent record." Is it one that anyone cares about? Will it truly cause you to be seen as less by anyone? Is there an actual disadvantage to having this "permanent record"? Don't we all realize we're still working out the bugs? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's besmirching his good name. Oh wait... that's an IP address. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not besmirching my good name, this is just a floating DSL account IP. But I wouldn't have a registered account and attach this to my name. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If you refuse to ignore the entries (as I ignore mine) in your filter log as many people have advised you to do time, and time again, perhaps you could register the username User:69x226x103x13 while completing this (very commendable) task. –xeno^talk 17:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I did, but it turns out the abuse filter will block the same edits because I don't have over 500 edits. I read the tag hueristics. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To put it more bluntly, nobody gives a tinker's damn what is in the log, unless you're actually doing something wrong. Programming being what it is, it's impossible to account for every possible eventuality. So the filter picks up on lots of stuff that may not need any action. If no action is needed, none is taken.. which I note is in fact the case here. ClueBot does make mistakes, and there is no prejudice to reverting the mistakes it makes. As FisherQueen said above, you can choose to make your point or you can find a solution. The two choices are mutually incompatible, and havnig been given these choices it would behoove you to pick one and stop complaining about two massively useful tools that will not be changed to suit one editor who feels like standing on a soapbox with his/her actions. → ROUX ₪ 18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC) After ec: 500 edits takes a trivial amount of time to amass, given how many articles you're working on. → ROUX ₪ 18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So I should not worry about wikipedia missing evolution by 2 billion years while I amass 500 edits? I don't think an article calling a bacterium a eukaryote should remain on wikipedia for 1 hour much less the time it takes me to gain 500 edits. It's frustrating spending a month trying to tell people how bad these articles are. They are worse than articles that say "Zena is poop" because everyone knows it's a sixth grader doing it. What if you know nothing about bacteria and you innocently come to wikipedia for information? Not for a research paper, you've sunk yourself there, but just because you saw something in the news? How long will 500 article edits take me, most take me a couple of hours. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, 500 edits has nothing to do with anything. At the moment, you are wasting valuable time that could be spend accumulating the several days required to become autoconfirmed. Also, I don't see that the edit filter has disallowed any of your edits, it simply warned you. Hit save again, and be on your way. –xeno^talk 18:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

xeno, this IP clearly realizes by now how the Abuse Filter is generated and can/should not take it as an insult. However, I still think that we may be driving away good editors who see their good (not only good faith) edits logged as Abuse. And what's the upside (besides inertia) of calling it the Abuse Filter log and keeping a permanent log ? Vandals surely don't care what we call their edits, only good faith editors are likely to sensitive about their reputation. Abecedare (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point, the vandals don't care. Researchers do care about being called abusive vandals. It's their reputation that gets them jobs and keeps their reputation. It's a mistake to be cavalier about how others handle this, when there's no gain for wikipedia in calling it an abuse log if it's not one. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, nobody is calling you an abusive vandal, and you seem to be the one (1) person on Earth who's taking it that way. Why not look around here in Rome, note that the Romans are ignoring the heck out of these logs, and... do what the aphorism says. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how calling yourself User:abcedfg1234567 could have any bearing whatsoever on your professional reputation. Again: you have repeatedly been given multiple solutions to the concern you are experiencing. I suggest you take them on board and either do something or stop complaining. There's that old saying: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. At this time, you are not part of the former. → ROUX ₪ 18:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

@69.x.x.x, The 500 is a byte size, if I am reading it correctly. It's just autoconfirmed that it looks for. @Abecedare, I agree, but make the thread at WT:AF. –xeno^talk 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I was intending to raise this too. I only noticed for the first time a few days ago that I have an "abuse" log for linking to

YouTube, and for creating articles related to Michael Jackson, which triggered a suspicion of vandalism. It would be good if the name of the log could be changed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a request for a change in the log's name here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

By all means, call it something else. Call it something that people will find easy to ignore. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

69.x.x.x's concerns arb break

No, it says I have to have over 500 edits to do some of the edits eneeded to correct the log. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me where you see that? Both filters 132 and 3 simply look for autoconfirmed to exempt the user. The only reference to 500 is part of a size range (seen below). –xeno^talk 18:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

!("autoconfirmed" in user_groups) & article_namespace == 0 & 
new_size < 50 & old_size > 500 & !(user_name in article_recent_contributors) 
& !("#redirect" in lcase(added_lines))

Maybe it is cluebot, then. I'm looking for it. I copied and pasted it from the warning note blocking me from removing the algae category, the bad taxobox information, and the list of unverified species, and the reference from which information was not pulled. It's a big banner that appears when I try to delete these bits of garbage. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of these filters are "warn only". Just hit save again and you should be good to go. –xeno^talk 18:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

They say that, but they don't work like that, if you hit save again they won't post. --69.226.103.13 (talk)

Really? Because there's nothing in your log that says you've been disallowed from any edits. Can you try and do one right now (see the warning, hit save again) and I can take a look? –xeno^talk 18:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What is abusive vandalism

Writers are ignoring what wikipedia says that abuse is, "Wikipedia:Abuse reports is a centralized forum for the reporting and investigation of abuse complaints, related to IP Address-specific vandalism, to be reported to service providers. Please be aware that this is not an official contact system put in place by the Wikimedia Foundation, but a volunteer-run process to counter vandalism that has the community's blessings."

Please, stop saying I'm the only one calling it abusive vandalism. Other writers are calling it vandalism, saying it's about stopping IP vandalism, and the definition of abuse on wikipedia is IP vandalism. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No.. that page is for reporting systematic abuse by IPs in order to deal with it as the ISP level. Dealing with named-account vandalism is somewhat easier. Again: you have been provided with solutions for your problem. To be perfectly blunt: take one or stop complaining. Reading this would also be a good idea. → ROUX ₪ 18:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec - reply to 69.226.103.13) I see what you're saying, but is there an actual editor anywhere who has actually judged you or taken some kind of action based on this supposed reputation? Is there any actual harm, or only a potential based on someone's possible future reading of your log? I mean, all kinds of things may be written down, but the ones that people tend to ignore... you may ignore. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The actual harm, the only reason I even saw it, is because it stopped me from editing the articles. I could have done the entire list by now, removed every bad article, edited every saved article, confirmed 100% of the redirects! All 889 articles! Every one of them would now be a certified usable article of some sort on wikipedia, no garbage, no wrong taxonomies, no bad references. The entire list. That's harm. And, now I am not calm. So I'm done. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering, if our kind algae-expert IP isn't going to fix these because of the AF slowing him down, and us not finding an acceptable solutions, then maybe we should just give the new Special:Nuke button a proper test run? –xeno^talk 18:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Abuse reports is not related to WP:Abuse filter. Please, take the advice you've been given, or stop wasting administrative time on this. –xeno^talk 18:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In other words, shut up and get to work? I'm going to pass. What's really tendentious is caring about 4077 pieces of garbage on wikipedia in the first place. I'll stop editing them, so I won't complain about them anymore. Suddenly I don't care if wikipedia looks scientifically incompetent when I see how hard it works to stay looking like that. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just not sure what more you want from us. There's not presently a way to strike false positives. Perhaps file a bugzilla: or make a thread at WT:ABFIL. if you'd like to see that functionality added. We've initiated a thread to rename the filter, per your concerns. We've given you advice on how to 1) avoid or 2) bypass the filter. Is there anything else? –xeno^talk 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Once you tell someone to shut up and stop complaining about 900 scientific articles that are potentially worse than pseudoscience, there's not much else to say is there? --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't tell you to "shut up" but I'm not sure what more we can do here. (Other than checking out that issue you mentioned above, that the filter wasn't letting the edit go through even after pressing save a second time - I'd like to look into that) –xeno^talk 18:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It was User:Roux who injected a shut up, a way to continue things in a useless direction. Yesterday I tried various things with the assumption the problem may be my system, not code. It continued to block me. However, I had a problem with my e-mail today, so, with more time, I uninstalled both browsers and reloaded new versions, and I'm not having the problem again. The e-mail problem was not related to the browsers, turns out, but maybe the glitch blocking me was.

Still, there are 1000s of anybot redirects to work on, and, no, I don't want to register and edit for 4 days to get autoconfirmed, and I've done all I'm willing to edit with having to make 2 edits every time to get past the filter. Thanks for trying to help. I think wikipedia could be a lot more careful with bots and programs in their testing stages. In the flesh world, tested apps are not made part of the permanent record for good reason. I've found more articles created by anybot that were corrected by IPs, by the way. IPs contribute a lot of hard work to wikipedia.

I think this bot created a serious problem for wikipedia and administrators and other writers should be concerned this might happen again and be more wary of allowing untested and unproven apps to make permanent changes on wikipedia. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, we definitely appreciate you pointing it out. As for the edit filter... well, yes I guess it needs some work. I've asked someone to help me write an exemption into the filters that are giving you trouble, and also a way to somehow "autoconfirm" IPs who wish to remain IPs. –xeno^talk 02:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up after Anybot

Editing the articles

today, not in 4 days

I've posted instructions on the list that can help people here clean up most of the list by removing non-problem article, identifying articles that need deleted, and marking articles that need checked by a phycologist or botanist. User:Kurt Shaped Box/Anybot edits This should clean up most of the list leaving little that requires specialist knowledge. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts on this. –xeno^talk 19:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Can administrators delete the 1449 algae articles created by anybot in its user space without an afd? So much time has been spent cleaning this mess up. Some created when it was supposedly run by a hacker rather than the bot owner? Some were early tests, not just rogue bot. [94] Some articles have been edited by users (me, another IP, and registered user(s)),[95] without realizing they were in user space in my case. There's no compelling reason to keep in light of the many problems created by anybot in its thousands of deleted articles. None that I see. Maybe other writers disagree, but it seems if the bots article space articles had to be deleted, the user space articles should be, too. It might make it easier to search the bot's contributions for other editors who find anybot articles that still exist and want to correct mistakes. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a mass MFD would be helpful (to make sure none of the wikiprojects are interested in harvesting the data - or is it all useless?) unless the user's operator says we can nuke these pages. –xeno^talk 21:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The data from anybot should not be harvested. That's why its 4077 article creations had to be deleted totally. The bot did not zero variables and strings, so there are pages where a genus of one division is listed in a family of another division in an order of a third division. This is like saying a human is a diatom is a slug, worse in some cases. It created articles about flowering plants, fungi, and people and labeled them diatoms. Really, its contributions have been discussed and the conclusion was: delete 4077 articles.

(after edit conflict)I don't really see an issue with deleting them (the bot has been deflagged and AFAIK, most of them are duplicates of the stuff already deleted at AfD) - but it's not as high a priority as fixing/checking all the stuff still present in article space. I don't think that Anybot's userspace is currently being indexed by Google, so it's not as if this stuff is particularly visible... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's true the stuff is not in user space, but it makes it easier to see what's left of the mess anybot created because the deleted articles are removed from its contributions list. My thinking is that if a phycology editor or better-will IP than I comes along and sees anybot stuff it may access the contributions list and be willing to fix it, if it's not filled with all of this useless stuff.

The bot owner's input is not necessary as the bot's authorization was revoked for creating this mess. See this. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... –xeno^talk 01:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I know no one is interested, but... I just found anybot claims to have writ/ten some of wikipedia's really good algae pages, written and maintained by good editors. Probably most of its article talk page edits should be deleted if possible. An encyclopedia has good reason to question the quality of an article written by anybot, but also a bot written article is generally less useful than a human written article. Its talk page tags should be removed. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hence the term "botany". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Mass rollback could accomplish this, most haven't been edited after Anybot. –xeno^talk 21:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone do this? [96] Some of the pages are talk pages to redirects, would rollback simply delete the page then? That would be useful. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How does I mass rollback? I don't think that I've done one of those before... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll start hacking away at it manually. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd just stepped away to watch some TV or I'd have done some myself. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Some of those were major algae articles, well-written and created by phycology and botany editors. Marking them as written by a bad bot was not good for article readers, and not nice for the human researchers. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

See User:Voice of All/Useful#Admin rollback/deletion tools and backlog bar (Requires Addtab) for the mass rollback script. –xeno^talk 01:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, what to do with the Talk pages created by Anybot and the ones tagged by Anybot and since edited by humans... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a list of the talk pages *created* by the bot. Most of these probably need to be deleted (unless there's been significant discussion on any of them since). Does anyone know a method of exporting and rendering all those as wikilinks in the form of Talk:Blah for easier processing? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone should run a db report to determine which are still have just the single Anybot edit to give a proper list for deletion... but if you want to manually run through it, see [97]. –xeno^talk 01:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done - semi-manually. Many thanks for the list, many thanks to Popups and Twinkle... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybot-created articles missed by the AfD

• Schulziella
• Archaeofavosina
• Diaphanoeca
• Chauvinia

Just found these when I was trying to figure out if Special:Nuke did talk pages too. Any objections to me deleting them now? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead; these are safely within the scope of the AfD. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Already  Done by MBisanz. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Ardissonea, Pithiscus, Sphaerodictyon. Deleted by myself. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I see a reason these weren't caught, or some of them on the list. I think these were some of the articles created by Martin using the bot before he got permission to run the bot. I don't know. I've run out of patience with Martin's programming. --69.226.103.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC).

There are also, articles not in any of the lists where Martin (User:Smith609) copied bad or unverified data the bot somehow came up with. I think Lobata (alga) is a specific epithet, but it should be deleted, unless it can be checked, the source it is tied to isn't.

Even if I did clean up the almost 900 articles on the one list, and after the deletion of 4077 articles, this still leaves thousands of redirects and pieces of garbage thrown all over wikipedia by various means of interaction with the bot. I think at this point there needs to be a well-advertised central location to deal with all of anybot's remaining contributions. Also, Martin, the bot operator, should look at his own contributions for algae articles he created using the bot before it was authorized and from the bot's contributions after authorization. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please tell me that he wasn't previously using the same messed-up script to generate algae articles using his own account... *bangs head on desk* --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course he was. The program he ran unapproved is the one that was eventually approved. On the positive side both were a little better than the new one he created and ran unapproved while the bot was supposedly blocked so the community could solve the mess it had created. (That unapproved one I had volunteered to debug the algorithm for but instead he ran it without debugging and while another user, maybe you, was waiting for him to do a test run it could be vetted.) --69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Matt Sanchez

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected by Tanthalas39. Horologium (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

An article under Arbcom probation. Lots of IP activity stating about a week or so ago.

I didn't bring this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations because I'm just not quite sure who the "master" would be but it's obvious there's a someone here using multiple IPs. To be honest, much of the content being left is similar to what User:Bluemarine (Matt Sanchez himself) has said himself in the past on that very talk page. This article is under Arbcom probation. I've removed attacks (calling other editors "homosexual militants", something Sanchez has said in the past) and personal "morals" commentary ([98] [99]) by the IPs, only to have them reverted by another IP who then trolled my talk page. I again removed the content in question, only to be reverted again. If these IPs are Matt himself, he's violating his still-in-effect community ban. Would an admin step in here and head off this before it degrades into the mess we had a year ago? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have listed the talk page at WP:RFPP. I am too involved to do it myself. Horologium (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a talk page will be protected. I would be surprised.. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There are too many unrelated IP addresses for WP:RBI to work, and the signal-to-noise ratio from IP contributions is almost nil. Horologium (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:209.22.220.148 seems to be discussing the article, while User:70.49.4.47 isn't being so constructive. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is this? I know that's your talkpage Allstarecho, but that is really not acceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A humorous way for dealing with trolls and a tribute to Billy Mays all in one edit? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Revert and ignore, fine, but removing a post with an edit summary like that is never a good idea. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 75.74.75.30 (talk · contribs) and 70.49.4.47 (talk · contribs) are the same person, I have no doubt. 75.74.75.30 is in Florida as is 76.108.231.71 (talk · contribs) and 70.49.4.47 is in Canada. So much for that.. unless they are using proxies. 82.206.141.42 (talk · contribs) is in Pennsylvania may be as well. 62.68.66.157 (talk · contribs) is in Greece. *blinks* - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole slew of unrelated IP addresses is why I suggested semi-protection. Only one of the IPs is actually discussing the article, and it's not particularly constructive. 209.22 is pushing to remove most of the information about Sanchez's past, with the implication that it's not really relevant to Sanchez's current life. That may be true, but it's intrinsic to his notability; without that, he would not meet the bar of WP:N. Horologium (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection seems like a fine idea. This is going nowhere useful. Durova²⁷³ 21:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

2 and a half hours later at WP:RFPP, it still hasnt' been addressed. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

...and it's the only open request, other than the vandalism-only IP editor who wants Pokemon unprotected. Horologium (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And 6 hours later, it's still open at WP:RFPP. No admins here willing to do anything? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 01:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I will wait another hour, and then I'll semi-protect the damn page myself, process be damned. The request has been sitting there for six hours now, and the same IP address has edit-warred with three different editors now. Horologium (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy cashing my Wikimedia paycheck. Protected one month. Tan | 39 01:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

To summarize, if you are an anonymous IP you are treated like sh** by registered eidtor her. If IP post strongly worded and opinionated comments or personal attacks on talk pages their edits are edited and changed, if a registered user attacks an ip than that is perfectly acceptable behaviour. Even my attempt to remove a personal attack by allstarecho was reverted, leaving the impression that only attacks by registered users are allowed here. 70.49.4.47 (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I also strongly object to the tactic employed here to just accuse me and obviously unrelated ip addresses as being one and the same person. Before making these accussation allstarecho should have at least checked where they come from. But I guess then, allstarecho is a registered user and I am only an ip, so there is no need to be careful with accussations and warnings on my talk page. 70.49.4.47 (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on your situation as I'm just passing through and really have little idea what this is all about, but as a general comment, and having edited as an IP myself earlier in the year while I was on a wikibreak and just wanting to quietly work on articles, I do agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. Unfortunately I don't think that's going to change and the best way to address it, IMHO, is to create an account so that other editors get to know you and you can build up a reputation and some credibility. Editing as an IP on this project really sucks and i don't really know why anyone would want to put up with being treated like that for any sustained period of time. Sarah 12:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a biography of a living person that has been the subject of an arbitration case and multiple bans, blocks, etc. The article itself remains under arbitration-imposed sanction. If the IP editor is having a rough time it probably has less to do with not having an account, and more to do with having stumbled into one of the site's hotspots. Am not saying it's right that things are this way, but after a couple of years people's nerves do get frayed. That's human nature and it's much less bad now than it used to be. Durova²⁷³ 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Matt Sanchez article has been fret with drama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.59.82.18 (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll just note that this IP geolocates to Kabul, Afghanistan.. which happens to be the last known location of Matt Sanchez, aka User:Bluemarine. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 05:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:MgCupcake inserted disguised link to page hosting malware

Resolved

 – Mgcupcake was actually told of the problem before HW posted here. By HW. Enough of the argy-bargy, back to your corners, have a cup of tea or something.

→ ROUX ₪ 03:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Page ownership issue at socionics

Already under discussion above: see #Threats and lack of civility by User:Tcaudilllg in AfD discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article on socionics (typology) and a glut of related pages currently are nominated for deletion; based on current consensus, it looks like all of the existing socionics pages will be merged into one. User:Rmcnew and User:Tcaudilllg have both been imposing their own views on the page. User:Rmcnew in a recent edit war kept on posting a section claiming that socionics is derived from and linked to alchemy, astrology, sutras, chakras, and other forms of mysticism, while producing very tenuous evidence to this end, and attacking other editors questioning his evidence on the associated talk page and accusing them of bad faith (see here and here for a small sample. User:Tcaudilllg has been very active in the recent deletion discussionand in patrolling the page recently, yet seems as well to think that wikipedia is his personal soapbox, is constantly accusing other editors of bad faith and what he feels is a conservative ideology [102] [103] [104]. Also of note is that Tcaudilllg has been banned from wikisocion, a wiki devoted to socionics, due to his constant harassment of the admin there [105]. I'm not sure what the most appropriate action would be this situation, but I doubt that the page can actually be improved with their constant presence. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Tcaudillg's issues and that AfD are already being discussed above. Teh Crafty One (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC) i did not see that. thank you. perhaps this notice should still stay here to discuss rmcnew's involvement with the page. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC) It would be better to keep this saga in one place, methinks. Teh Crafty One (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC) all right; i'll repost the above information pertaining to rmcnew on the other discussion. can an admin please close this discussion, thanks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

semi-threat made on my talk page

Resolved

 – user blocked for a week. --Xavexgoem (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ryoung122 has just posted a harassment/threat on my talk page. It's the first thing I saw this morning and I have no idea why. Please have him stop as it's kinda scary right out of the blue. I responded in no way to this guy. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's kind of weird.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week; I encourage him to use a request for unblock to get this matter sorted. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this out in record time! In looking back through my history, in fairness, I do see that we had an argument a year ago on a tennis article. After I read his note on my talk page and posted here I then went through my usual updates on pages and noticed this same guy had made lots of reverts to ongoing pages many of us have worked on for months. So to be fair while his post to my talk page was scary to me right out of the blue, to him it was probably not right out of the blue (however the wording was still a bit unsettling). Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Those pages appears to be List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions and List of Grand Slam Women's Singles champions for people wanting to check out the issue. --aktsu ^(t / c) 18:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said this is the first time I've seen this name in quite awhile. I got to the tennis pages after his bad post on my page. While I have now reverted his changes I did not respond to his post on my talk page (and I won't). Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this block was jumping the gun. Fyunck(click) has in the past played the "this is unbelievable to me. I'm minding my own business when XXX writes an extremely inflammatory statement on my talk page right out of the blue" game, and may be telling the truth now but isn't entitled to an assumption of good faith. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, but the comment made was unacceptable. This has less to do with the requester as the commenter. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually please don't take it on faith, look around my contributions and see if I was interacting with this guy. I certainly don't recall anything recent. All I really wanted was for someone to check this guy out to make sure of his intentions and to stop any more of these posts to my page. If it's a gentle nudge, fine. I wasn't angry and I wouldn't want him blocked if his intentions were good but misguided. It was a bit scary though upon seeing that message first and foremost this morning and I thought it better for administrators to deal with it fairly then for me to do anything at all that would come back to bite me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Things like this damage neutral point of view by driving off other editors leaving only the abusive and thick skinned. If this user acts in this manner again the block should be longer or of undetermined length. Chillum 14:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

repeated addition of merge tag without explanation

User:Badagnani keeps adding a merge tag to Celebrity death hoax suggesting it be merged with the neologism Pseudocide. I do not see the connection and have asked the user on three separate occasions to explain the reasoning. Each time the user has reinstated the merge tag but provided no explanation (see here for an example). I have communicated with the user repeatedly but gotten no response - see Talk:Pseudocide#Merge_tag_from_Celebrity_Death_Hoax. I have also recently left a message on the user's talk page as well.

User:Badagnani is an experienced Wikipedian so I am quite confused by the behaviour. We have now BOTH breached the WP:3RR rule so I am self-barring myself from further action. (Feel free to admonish me with a 3RR warning if you want, as I am clearly guilty). Anyone got any ideas as to what to do next? Manning (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand 3RR (re: Celebrity death hoax) ¦ Reisio (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest: start an RfC on the merge or other dispute resolution. DGG (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is already an RFC in progress and I invited User:Badagnani to participate a few days ago - see Talk:Pseudocide#Merge_tag_from_Celebrity_Death_Hoax. I got no response, s/he simply reinstated the merge tag. As far as I can see no reason has ever been given for applying the merge tag, and there is no apparent content relationship between the topics as far as I can see. Manning (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That user did the opposite thing in Steven Dale Green. He removed a merge tag placed there after the AfD on the topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani and his block log may shed some light on Badagnani (talk · contribs · logs · block log)'s behavior. --Ronz (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah - thank you Ronz. So this is nothing new then... Manning (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the procedure in situations like this? Can a closed RFC be reopened? I was in on the RFC, and it does seem the problematic editing has restarted. It ain't on to unilaterally decide not to accept an AFD result, and I warned Badagnani way back about the hysterical edit summaries. I think most of us would take "highly threatening message" to be at the level of, say, "I'm coming to your house to shoot your dog and then you". It's overblown and inflammatory to use it to describe a standard (and justified) 3RR warning. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Monica Crowley

There is a bit of a tussle going on at Talk:Monica Crowley involving User:Jacobite30, User:Liberal00Q1 and User:CanuckMike. It would be nice to have some eyes on this dispute, which is beginning to get a bit personal. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger dispute re:3RR

After this discussion, Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) found there to be consensus for a merge of WP:3RR and WP:EW. Today, Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) undid the change, citing no consensus [106]. Based on his decision to revert my revert of his revert, and the comment he left on my talk page [107], it's clear that he doesn't consider the initial close legitimate. So I'm coming here to get some more outside opinions about what we should do about this so we don't get a large-scale edit war. We need some clear thoughts primarily about whether the close is legit. I also seriously question the unilateral action being taken here, but that is probably a less important issue than solving the dispute. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned this drastic change to the formatting of these well-established policies, organised at a low traffic talk page and implemented with no consensus. If the change gathers a more legitimate basis of support I'll have no problems with the alteration. The group of editors who expressed support for this change on the talk page are very powerful, and I don't envisage it being resisted if they insist on the change by edit-warring and political games ... I'm certainly not going to put my neck on the line for it if this does happen. I in any case have better things to do just now than go rounds [like this thread] with the number of people I'd probably have to in order to successfully resist this on my own. If they do insist on it, I urge others who oppose this to participate actively in the process.

PS, Heimstern, comments like this this seem to be seeking confrontation rather than resolution. All will be well if participation is broadly-based, and if participants judge the topical issues honestly and participate honestly. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that remark was overly annoyed. Refactored. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Deacon strongly opposes this merge, and saying he "can't see consensus" is a bit disingenuous. If the Merge were an RfA candidate, they might be given the bit, as by my rough count, that discussion has a support rate of 74% (20 supports, 7 opposes, and a few random comments that I didn't put in either column). If Tiptoety is counted, that makes 21-7, or 78% - I'd say that's a consensus. Tan | 39 03:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not something you can check from a score-card. It's when reasonable parties agree that something should happen ... an occurrence absent from the discussion. It's a mood, not a number . Now I respect that consensus in the normal English language sense is an unreasonable ask in certain cases, and head counting is unavoidable when faced with a decision that has to be made. But there was no urgency, unlike that in a RfA, to make a decision one way or the other. When there is no such consensus in these cases, you leave it. Don't see any wriggle room on this point. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Deacon of Pndapetzim, I would have been happy to talk to you about this had you come to my talk page first. My actions are always open to review, and I am always willing to discuss my contributions. That said, I am a bit baffled by the fact that you do not see consensus here. While I did not play the numbers game, I did read over every comment made and found that there were only a few strong opposes I also noted that most were open to the change but, not sure they liked the idea. On the other hand, I saw little doubt in the eyes of the supporters who as a group were strongly in support of such a change. Also, I am not sure what is wrong with the discussion taking place on the talk page. Is that not how it should work? Opening a RFC seems a bit bureaucratic for something I see as not very controversial. Anyways, I will not be reinstating my edit but do hope that a common ground can be found. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Editors who have participated in a debate don't get then get to determine the consensus (or lack) of the debate.
2. If you disagree with the closure of a discussion, your first port-of-call is the closing editor's user talk page.
3. Believing you are right is not a justification for edit-warring. CIreland (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec x4) I have nothing but respect for you, Deacon, so take my comments as conversational. I'm not about to jump into this. However, I did roll my eyes a bit, as I predicted the age-old "consensus isn't a score" reply... yes, it'd be nice if we had unanimous or near-unanimous conviction for every action we took here on Wikipedia. However, if this truly is how we define consensus, nothing would get done. But you said all that yourself! Ah, the trickeries of process. You're right; it wasn't urgent - but it probably wasn't that horrible either way. Discussion can move on no matter what state its in; the only thing is the onus moves to the opposition to motivate and try to get it changed back - which seems appropriate, given the 78% support rate the merge was enjoying. I'll be interested to follow this. Tan | 39 03:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Tip, I'm afraid that, despite being here nearly 5 years, I've not found it to be our custom that we authorise or deauthorise the content of policy pages by close templates. No-one has the power to do such, so there's no scope for such "decision"-making. Regarding edit-warring Cireland, we follow WP:BRD. That means that when a bold edit is made, it can be reverted; when a bold edit is reverted, it is discussed, not re-reverted. It is the latter that breaks the system down. I didn't do the latter. So I'm firmly on BRD grounds here I think. Conveniently selecting who will be labelled edit-warring on another basis is opening the term up to the kind of flexible ambiguity that rhetorical gaming and power-politics flourish upon, which in point of fact was one of the main reasons I objected to the proposal. ;) @Tan, I went to some effort to ensure my consensus definition point was more substantial than the cliched version. :) Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The "D" in BRD comes at the end of the chain. When an edit is preceded by discussion it is no longer "Bold" and simple reversion is not acceptable, especially when the discussion was fairly well attended by experienced editors. What you ought to do is revert yourself and start again where you should started in the first place: Tiptoety's user talk page. CIreland (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on CIreland, gimme a bit of respect please and stop with the politics. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what you mean by that. If you mean to imply that I'm criticising you in order to get the dispute resolved according to my own preference, I would point out that I actually dislike the idea of merging of the two pages. However, I also dislike the methods you have been willing to use to contest the merger. CIreland (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If that were true it would put you in a stronger position to criticize. However, your explanation for indignation is incoherent, and your contributions of the talk page for the renaming the noticeboard indicate the contrary to what you've just asserted. So I dunno what else I'm supposed to think. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't contribute to the original discussion simply because I didn't know it was taking place. I can see further discussion will be fruitless since I am now the third editor in this debate whose good faith you have questioned when they have criticized your approach. If you choose to pursue dispute resolution instead and open an RFC (or other further discussion) on the merger, drop a note on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is generally a fairly unresolved problem at Wikipedia. How do we close controversial discussions? Part of why I get stuck in that nightmare called ARBMAC2 is that there was no way to end the long discussions about FYROM, Macedonia, Republic of and the like: if it was called one way, the other side said no and kept reverting anyway. No major edit wars of that sort have happened here, thankfully, but the problem still exists. How can we decide if there's consensus or not? Wikipedia has never had a way to solve this question. Part of the reason the current discussions about Macedonia are going better than any previous ones is that these are refereed discussions in which there are those who can police them and ultimately make calls on consensus. That's the kind of mechanism that works. Here, we have nothing of the sort. What do we do? This comment goes far beyond this dispute, incidentally, and is something I've been mulling for many a week concerning other things. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the "discussion" proceeded too much like a straw-poll and the principal proponents made little attempt to interact with the principal objections. Any "discussion" that justified this name would have done this. This isn't a sensitive political issue, there's no reason to expect insurmountable partisanship. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer hit it on the nose here. With that in mind (purely for my own curiosity), Deacon of Pndapetzim, how would you have liked the discussion to have been "closed" resolved? And how should we/I have determined consensus the outcome? Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

By the by, from memory and from a quick skim of the discussion at WT:3RR (including the RFC discussion, which AFAIR was widely advertised), the arguments of opposers, beyond a slippery-slope "3RR might disappear more easily if it doesn't have it's own page" (debatable, and I responded to that), seemed pretty vague WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Probably opposers will disagree, but without re-opening the entire discussion here, a mention of the major points of contention might help decide whether another RFC is justified. Disembrangler (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's completely unacceptable to make major changes in policy documents based on unannounced discussions on their talk pages, which very few people follow. The number of opinions at the RFC was less than any RFA I've seen, only 19 by my count. The system for managing policy documents is woefully understructured. Looie496 (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's how it works. In my innocent days as just an article editor the only encounter I had with policy was when someone quoted it at me, and when I discovered most of it is written and changed by a small group of people mostly all friends with each other on IRC I was rather shocked and slightly outraged. Now I'm cynical and weary of it. From soon after that discussion happened there was only going to be one outcome. No-one even bothered to argue the proposal's merit; most of it was just discussing how such an obviously great suggestion should come about. Then one of the proponents "closed" the "discussion", and when it was reversed they cried indignation at how some partisan opponent of the proposal reversed the decision against the conventiently styled "consensus". No-one now will reverse it because the only people who care are those fully tuned to the process, and most of those are experienced enough to recognise that a high number of the proponents are "big players" in the game and oughtn't be annoyed in any effort bound to fail. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

My attitude currently is that Wikipedia's policy articles are like any other articles: descriptive rather than prescriptive. They are attempts at describing the state of consensus, and sometimes they get it wrong. Editors who think that you can change policy merely be editing a policy article are simply wrong: without real community consensus, the only thing that does is create confusion. I would favor a system where the policy articles are managed by a committee elected for the purpose, and charged with maintaining stable policies that accurately reflect the opinion of the whole community. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

All kinds of attacks

Someone should protect User talk:CENSEI so he can stop with the homophobic and personal attacks in his unblock requests. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Done ... and G3'd for good measure. Blueboy96 19:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He had recent unblock requests? I thought he had last edited on April 7th. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He had some up earlier today, but his talk-page has now been deleted. ~ mazca ^talk 21:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He came out of dormancy after 3 months when his sockfarm was uncovered? I guess I missed it. Well, at least he's gone. But I still wonder if there's any connection between him and the Axmann8 impostors. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Odd timing for him to show up at the same time as User:BarneyFifeApprentice who accused me of being a sock a couple of threads up, no? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Verrry interesting. I think the SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TDC is still open. Maybe today's two Barney Fife's, along with the one just below, could be added to the list? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I just added the names to it. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 22:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

G3'd!, That is just terrific! How are all the coconspiritors supposed to leave each other hidden messages on User talk:CENSEI now? There was no backup plan. Now we will have all sorts of socks wandering around aimlessly with no way to organize. Blueboy, you need to think things through before you make rash decisions. This is unbelievable. KcoSweNdnarB (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody want to do the honors of blocking this ... t-word? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to start calling black people "n-words" and see how cool that is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard Prior to Chevy Chase: "Dead honky!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? As far as I know even black folks can be twats. This world is a melting pot of twattery. --WebHamster 23:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. But did WTWAG mean twat or troll? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Given all the math discussion lately, when he said "t-word", I just assumed he meant this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

According to a discussion on the Village Pump, we're not supposed to use the word "troll" any more. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe don't call them anything - just block them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Who then was a gentleman?, which Village Pump is that? If you mean the discussion on AN, then your description here shows that you misunderstand it. Furthermore, acting as if saying "t-word" is somehow different from saying "troll" insults all of our intelligence, including your own. If you think you can de-escalate and resolve disputes more effectively and quickly by saying "troll" a lot, then you are duty-bound to say it, and to show us all how it works. This is gonna be evidence-based, though, not theoretical. Show us how to use labels to effect good dispute resolution. Then we will all follow you. Until then, I'm going to do what I've seen work. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I don't know where it is, and I don't really care. My purpose was to make fun of the ridiculous idea that somehow we should coddle vandals. Just as ridiculous as this discussion. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Coddling vandals is ridiculous. Good thing nobody is suggesting that. You're making fun of a straw man. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Or a straw troll. I've pretty well come around to your philosophy. Don't call them anything up front. Just turn them in to WP:AIV. Then when they get indef'd for their unconstructive and/or disruptive behavior, is when I call them something: GONE. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference? --WebHamster 23:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Still not blocked despite their name and their harrassment of other users? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not even 30 minutes after I asked it to be done on IRC. And now the user is hitting user talk pages with null edits. He's been blocked now. FWIW, say his name backwards. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 22:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Once he hit mine, I turned him in at AIV, and either because of that or coincidentally, he's blocked. I see you added the 3 new ones to the SPI page along with Axmann8. I also added the Axmann8 impostors, as it's possible (though not necessarily probable) that CENSEI was the source of that stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Sarah Palin's resignation as Governor in order to run for President is what got the CENSEI sockfarm charged up today? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If so, that's a sad commentary on where one's priorities lie. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it would be par for the course. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

They closed the SPI without bothering to look into the other user ID's that we raised. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

They've re-opened the case, isolating the more recent ones. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Predatory behavior

Please see recent openly predatory actions taken here and here and advise. Thank you for your time and consideration. -- logger9 (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: users will need to begin their reading with this entry, above, to gain a more complete understanding. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You should describe the problem in more detail with a general summary and who is involved, and with links to edit diffs showing specific edits - it makes understanding the situation easier. My two cents. Some guy (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Logger9, I'm not sure what "predatory actions" you're referring to, and without more direction we won't be able to assist you. However, if you're referring to the actions taken by Exploding Boy referenced in the discussion linked to above, it would not appear that anything Exploding Boy did anything inappropriate. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am referring more specifically to the actions of Wiki User:Paula Pilcher, who is relentlessly bad-mouthing all of my previous work, deleting images and entire sections at random, (referring to them as "dumped" "pets"), continuously harassing me, openly refusing to accept any of my editing suggestions, and attempting to tear all of my previous work to shreds -- bit by bit. -- logger9 (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that user claims to have just retired. What do you want to do?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Throw a party ? -- logger9 (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And she's not the only one who has a problem with some of your edits, just the most vocal. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said yesterday Logger9, the user you are talking about has claimed retirement on their userpage and hasn't edited since. It may be safe to assume that they are gone. There is nothing more to do here.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Article ownership and personal attacks by User Koalorka

Resolved

 – Koalorka blocked 1 week for WP:NPA Toddst1 (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a revised repost of a previous discussion due to various problems which kept any uninvolved administrators from commenting or approaching the issue (see [108] )

I have had some serious difficulty with Koalorka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who has been exhibiting textbook article ownership on several firearms articles including MP5 and SG 550. In his attempts to own the article and discourage me from editing he has exhibited extremely hostile behavior and unacceptable personal attacks in an attempt to prevent me from editing the articles (including suggesting I leave Wikipedia). I am in discussion with some other users about amending the firearms article structure guidelines to satisfy his demands for consensus, so the main issue at this point is his personal attacks.

Personal attack diffs:

• [109]
• [110]
• [111]
• [112]
• [113] (edit summary)

Warnings (and his denials that personal attacks occured):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koalorka&diff=299787685&oldid=299317824
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koalorka&diff=prev&oldid=299815646

Some guy (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Those most certainly are personal attacks, and display a very unwelcome attitude and an obvious attempt to drive another editor away from editing the articles in question with repeated insults. This editor has been blocked twice before for harrassment and/or personal attacks and should be well aware by now of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Since the last 44 hr block was evidently not long enough for the editor to digest the relevant policy I propose a longer block to cool down and read up again, with a strong warning to not return to this behavior yet again. Mfield (Oi!) 05:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Koalorka of this report. Mfield (Oi!) 05:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks. And thanks for notifying him, I did before but I forgot to do it again >_< . Some guy (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mfield and would suggest a block of about a week.  Sandstein  06:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1 has done and I support this. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please leave a more specifically tailored message at his talk page clearly explaining to him the concepts of personal attack and ownership? I don't think providing links to those policies is effective and he does not listen to me at all. If an administrator or uninvolved party clearly explained those policies maybe he would listen. EDIT: Additionally, Koalorka was working hand-in hand with Nukes4Tots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to own certain articles. Nukes continues to revert my edits as well, but due to our current discussion on firearms structure I didn't file anything regarding his previous edit warring and ownership-related reversion of my edits, but from just looking his recent contribs they are all reverts with textbook ownership edit summaries. Could someone please either advise whether another ANI is appropriate or speak to him directly regarding this issue? He does not listen to me much. Some guy (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Threats and lack of civility by User:Tcaudilllg in AfD discussion

I think this situation goes beyond what can be handled at WP:Wikiquette alerts. The editor has very strong opinions in the WP:Articles for deletion/Socionics discussion, which is fine (I support strong opinions), but he is pushing the limits of being civil. Most troubling to me are his threats to go "rogue" if the AfD doesn't go his way and his overly hostile responses. Some of the more interesting diffs: [114] [115] [116] [117] [118]

He has also made some questionable posts elsewhere:

The Fringe Theories noticeboard regarding the topic: [119]

His user talk page about the topic: [120] [121]

Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue hardly seems worth pursuing to me, seeing as how the retention of the article in question is likely and would make the matter moot. Mangoe (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So because the article isn't getting deleted, we should allow him to rant and threaten without so much as a warning? Interesting view. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The user is engaging in blatant incivility, harassment, making threats, and clear personal attacks, regardless of the user "getting his way". I think a block is justified here if he flat-out refuses to communicate civilly and collegially with others. MuZemike 02:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to reason with Tcaudillg on his talkpage as well as on the deletion discussion page, but he didn't seem to get the idea of civility for civility's sake. I don't know if a block would improve things much. He seems to have abandoned the discussion. Teh Crafty One (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes Crafty, you exhibited a lot of patience. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, but I think my good will may have been misplaced. He's decided that it's time to "analyse" Mangoe. I cannot see this ending well for him. Teh Crafty One (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My analysis, by the technique explained in the socionics article ("semantic analysis"), was meant to persuade Mangoe of the truth of socionics by first-hand example. The western socionics community, which was alert to the AfD, has generally perceived of him negatively (see his talk page), and I must agree. His statement that no sources were provided to him before is a deception: several links replete with scholarly information and secondary sources were provided to him at his request. That his initiative to begin the debate in spite of these sources was not administratively criticized shook my faith in Wikipedia as a fair judge of notability. I was concerned for the social implications of the article's successful deletion; I doubted whether or not Wikipedia remained "a force for good". I intended to pursue a campaign of criticism against it if the AfD was affirmative; those were my "threats". The remarks I made, although negative, were fair and honest assessments of character, and were meant not as criticism, but as legitimate advice. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Your threat is to restore thew articles if a "false consensus" is reached. You are under the mistaken impression that consensus means that everyone agrees. Also, your mass postings to people you feel are sympathetic is WP:CANVASSing. And I don't know how threating to put other people "on your ass" is assessing the character of someone else. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS says canvassing is discouraged, but it is not overtly forbidden. Unlike you, I have other responsibilities than to sit and argue at Wikipedia all day. Goodbye.

Well I can't actually put anyone "on your ass" unless they agree to it. And if they do, then that's their choice. Obviously if enough people feel threatened enough to attack you, then they may have a legitimate grievance. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the finer details of my philosophy, then there are forums for that. Else, goodbye. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've exhibited no desire to discuss your philosophy. I am here discussing your conduct as it relates to WP policies. WP:CANVASS reflects community consensus, in other words, what the community finds acceptable. You did something the community does not find acceptable. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

personally, i would point out the fact that tcaud has done a great deal of work patrolling the socionics page and has worked in good faith to help provide sources for the page. however, i feel that his personal attacks have been rather over the top and that he is also taking on a degree of control over the page so that if it is merged (which seems presently to be the most likely was the outcome of the current debate) it will be difficult to actually make necessary changes to the page. also worth noting is that tcaudilllg has been banned from the wikisocion, a wiki on socionics, for similar behavior (see [122]). Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to second the fact that Tcaud isn't acting in bad faith, but also point out that he exhibits a general lack of cooperation. I think he believes that socionics is indeed a notable thing which deserves to be on Wikipedia, at all costs, even if it means bringing in WP:IAR (see [123]). As is often true with editors (myself included, on occasion), the only thing he's doing wrong is a degree of stubbornness. When confronted with Wiki policy or logical arguments by several users, he'll cite a policy overriding the policy threatening to go against him (see previous example), make unverified, opinionated assertions (see [124]), or just change the subject (see [125] for a particularly pseudoscientific example). I think this is a consequence of his expressing a very strong point of view. Even though WP:NPOV applies specifically to content, I think it can be extended to mean that one should remain neutral in discussions as well, which Tcaud might not have been doing completely. So it's really not bad faith; he believes he's doing a good thing, ignoring all rules. The problem starts when people take that guideline to the extreme, which is what's happening here; anything argumenting against his goals is, in fact, ignored by him. This is further supported by his threats to 'go rogue' if the AfD doesn't go his way, as shown in [126]. So, in conclusion, he's not acting in bad faith, but his stubbornness and refusal to pay attention to others contributes to an overall lack of cooperation. That apart from the incivility, which has already been mentioned. --Slartibartfast1992 04:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rmcnew might also be implicated in incivility and canvassing on the same topic; in a recent edit war kept on posting a section claiming that socionics is derived from and linked to alchemy, astrology, sutras, chakras, and other forms of mysticism, while producing very tenuous evidence to this end, and attacking other editors questioning his evidence on the associated talk page and accusing them of bad faith (see here and here for a small sample. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am not really able to account for why Mangoe thought socionics isn't notable, nor for why Rmcnew would rather see no articles on the subject than an article with which he disagrees- -- but I consider a good deal of Tcaudilllg's responses as an overly frantic and unnecessary attempt to defend and expound something to which he is clearly very committed. If in fact socionics had been only borderline notable, such excess might even have harmed the chances of keeping the article. (I think Black kite's no-consensus closure was misread the discussion--there very much was consensus of all neutral parties to keep the article--but in this case it was a harmless error. If there should be a 2nd AfD in a while--a course i would not advise--I urge him to just make one calm argument and rely on the rest of us. I am not sure he will convince anyone about the actual value of the theory, and in any case Wikipedia is not the place to try. It is only partially correct that "Wikipedia is the ideal means of introducing people to socionics" - Wikipedia is a suitable means of informing people about it, not convincing them of it., much less of convincing them about the merits of any one of the different schools. DGG (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

for what it's worth, i agree; i think that there was a general consensus to keep the main article. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your advise is duly considered. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor brushfire at WT:RFA

Resolved

 – Apparently nobody cares. Enjoy your fireworks, and if you're not in the US, just enjoy your evening. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it will come as a shock to many to learn that there's yet another argument flaring up at WT:RFA. Can someone uninvolved calm things down before it gets out of hand? – iridescent 17:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine then block me, I said my piece, and I want to tell Ottava the truth.Mitch/HC32 17:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, if you keep saying things like that, someone might just do so... comments like that can be seen as trolling, and aren't helping your case. You might want to just step back from things. If you feel you've made your point, there's no need to keep trying to pound it in. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody object to marking this as resolved? Ottava's struck his comment at WT:RFA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone object to me setting virtual fire to the parts of the server that are responsible for WT:RFA? Other than the developers.--Tznkai (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, as long as you grill something over it, in commemoration of any holidays that might be ongoing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, thats a good point. I'm in the United States. Its time to spend money on things from China and set them on fire while having food marinaded in beer. (Read: I'm heading off line, and if you have an excuse to light fireworks and grill, so should you) --Tznkai (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that's my kind of 4th of July party! I'm going to start a fire right now. Where's my whiskey at...? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And what celebration would this be?(</sarcasm> although it took me till 2PM to realise) I think there are about 3 parties in the whole of the UK, somehow I don't think I'm invited to any of them.... - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 21:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing?

I recently opened an arbitration request on the DreamHost article. One of the named parties seems to look at this as an opportunity to take me down, and is going to unrelated editors looking for help making his case. Is this canvassing, or just a normal part of an Arbitration case?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That is definitely inappropriate, as is his gloating over how he is going to take you down. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Domer48 Has a legitimate complaint against you and your actions and I think that it is well appropriate that he and ANYONE ELSE that has a complaint regarding you take their case to the Arbitration.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be appropriate for Sarekofvulcan to block me before I have the chance to give a full account to the arbitration regarding his actions?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That sure looks like canvasing to me. If you want to notify people of an event do it in a neutral fashion please 194. Chillum 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read WP:CANVASS. Specifically this section. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, so tempting, but I haven't gone completely WP:ROUGE yet. In any case, my apologies for not notifying you of this thread: I'm more used to responding here than starting threads.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have anyone else to notify regarding this so for the time being consider this cut.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section on 194x's talk page that Sarek linked above, as well as a portion of his statement at RFAR (acting as clerk). I've left a very heavy warning on his talk page; 194x, remain civil or you will be blocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I thought we weren't supposed to call the poor, delusional dears who disagree with us as to the purpose of the encyclopedia, trolls. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Complaint about an administrator's actions

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.

---

The utility has run its course. There's nothing that requires immediate administrator action. There are proper mechanisms in place if someone feels this needs addressed further, but overall let's all move on. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

For having had the temerity to report a 3RR violation ([127]), I was issued (in effect if not form) a topic block on Clarence Thomas ([128]). And, for having dared question the propriety and dimensions of that punishment, and not accepting the question being brushed under the carpet, was told to "go fuck [my]self" ([129]). Whether I am the WP:DICK or he is, I think intervention by uninvolved admin(s) is urgently needed. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

All admins should be open to criticism regarding their actions and are never justified in telling people to fuck themselves for doing so. Very poor form, but of course I'd like to hear both sides, but according to his talk page he has no plans on responding as he has happier things to do. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

My explanation is already at Simon Todd's talk page, which he linked above; nothing more needs to be said. If you need clarification, I wasn't telling him to fuck himself for "criticizing me", I was telling him to fuck himself mischaracterizing my response as an attempt to "brush things under the carpet" when I was very explicit in saying that I responded at his talk page because I wanted to answer his question without continuing the drama of the AN argument. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

So are you still in the view that is was not bad form to tell him to fuck himself (regardless of the reason)? Were there not better words to choose from? English is quite an extensive language and there was no reason based on what I've seen for gross incivility, particularly as an admin. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am familiar with the civility policy. I could have used any words I wanted; the message still would have been the same no matter how I packaged it; I'm not one to try to game the system by hiding vitriol behind pretty words. If the only point of this thread is to scold me for using a bad word (the thread can't be about the "de facto topic ban", because I have already told Simon numerous times that he doesn't need to worry about being blocked by me), then consider me scolded, but I don't see any other purpose to this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yea it's likely you've heard of the policy. I don't really see why you need to continue your incivility with me. Regardless of what happens here, I do believe the user would be rightfully justified in pursuing this through the proper channels. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You have done no such thing; the closest you have come is saying that you "can leave a statement here agreeing not to use my tools at all in any issues involving the Clarence Thomas article." Stating that you can do something is far from doing it, and it will be told comfort when I am later blocked to be told "hey, I never said I wouldn't, only that I could say I wouldn't."

And even if you had, that would not be sufficient, because another admin could act on your warning, regardless of whether you would have. (Whether they do so independently or at your behest is immaterial.) You seem to be new here (less than a year, according to your user page), so you may not realize this: sometimes actions you take at wikipedia take on a life of their own. Whether you intend to drop the sword or not, you still put it there, and you shouldn't take it personally when the person under it expresses discomfort and wants out.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Rjanag did say that: [130]. See my response below about your probability of getting blocked later. Rjanag has the trust of the community, no matter how long his stay here. His suggestion was phrased as a suggestion; I'm still puzzled why you think it's a threat. Shubinator (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it operates as one. And while I will retract the point that he never said that, I don't think it's reasonable to blame me for not having seen something he said at his own talk page. Do you habitually watch the talk pages of any user with whom you have an exchange? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Shubinator (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That's astonishing. Well, kudos. I don't, I don't think many people do, and I certainly don't think it's incumbent on any user to do so. That's why talk page discussions ordinarily take the form of replying to someone who talked to you on their talk page. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And now the situation has been compounded by a good-faith but ill-taken decision by user:Shubinator to close and archive the discussion at WP:AN. Although user:Rjanag insists that there is no de facto topic ban, he has suspended a sword of damocles over my head and now insists on his right to walk away while I look nervously aloft.

This situation is untenable, quite aside from its impropriety as a response to my report of a 3RR violation. user:Rjanag has threatened me with a block should I make certain changes, for an uncertain period, unless an amorphous criterion is met. That is, whether s/he recognizes or intended it as such, a de facto topic ban.

I need to know whether, to what extent, and under what circumstances I can edit Clarence Thomas without being blocked, and for how long these restrictions are imposed. None of these critical points are clear right now, and it is astonishingly unfair that this punishment is being imposed at all, let alone in such gross disproportion to the supposed "crime."

I am sure that user:Rjanag had the best of intentions at the outset, but things have gone awry. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can both adamantly insist that violators of the 3RR rule be blocked no matter what and at the same time not understand that after reverting 3 times you face the risk of block if you revert again.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Simon Dodd, there is no topic ban. Rjanag has said as much. He won't block you now, even if you deserve it, because there's a conflict of interest.

In general, it is a good idea to discuss controversial edits at the talk page. Shubinator (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is entirely nonresponsive. Whether Rjanag will block me isn't the issue: he isn't the only admin with the power to block users. And as to discussing controversial edits on the talk page, that is precisely the point: at what point has sufficient consensus emerged (or has it already) that I can edit without an admin blocking me per Rjanag's warning? Simply saying "discuss it" isn't good enough. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No one will block you per Rjanag's suggestion (not a warning). They may block you for edit warring, incivility, etc., which any user can be. In a mathematical sense, what Rjanag said does not increase your probability of being blocked. Shubinator (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to hold you to that. In reliance on what you're saying here, I have added back in the material at issue. I trust that this will not lead to any admin action, in light of the repeated exhortations by you and others that there will not be.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted what I said. See my response at 23:21. Shubinator (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying you "need to know how you can edit the article without being blocked". I don't know how many times I need to answer this question for you, but here goes (again): [131][132][133]

And, if it's still not clear enough: I am not going to block you. Does it make sense yet? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Instead of taking a suggestion to not engage in editwarring to heart Simon Todd came to ANi to complain about how the other editor should be banned. He repeatedly posted highly aggressive exhortations Rjanag of "justice" instead of considering that another editor might have blocked both editors with no mercy (although the blocking policy clearly doesn't allow punitive blocks). When Rjanag finally got exasperated by his futile insistence and crossed the civility line he was taken to task for that too. Being and admin seems to be the worlds most ungrateful job - you're fucked if you do and fucked if you don't. Even when you try to resolve a situation by the minimal amount of admin tool usage you get swept up in nasty disruption like this. I am glad I am not an admin here. And I think Simon Dodd should be ashamed of his conduct here - he should have taken it like a man and just refrianed from editwarring in the future. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing the many (over 5) threads created by Simon Dodd run to their end, I support Maunus's summary. Leave the horse. Shubinator (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A more pristine example of blaming the victim has rarely been seen in these pages. What you fail to recognize, Maunus, is that I didn't break any rules. That's where your theory that Rjanag acted leniently compared to some other hypothetical admin falls apart. I reported a violation of the rules and was punished for doing so. Astonishingly enough, yes, I then came to AN to question the propriety of doing nothing about the editor who broke the rules and punishing the one who hadn't. user:ThuranX got it precisely right at AN: the reviewing "admin dropped the ball here. 5 [reverts] in 24 hours and the other editor stops, reports the issue, and gets blown off? Proof that those following policy are weaker than those who do not, and those who do not can get favored treatment by some admins." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You DID break a rule. Edit warring is also editwarring when only reverting thrice - read WP:Edit war if you are unclear on this issue. And furthermore you were not punished you were poitely told not to editwar in the future.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

How were you punished? Shubinator (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how I can make it any clearer than I already have. The admin's actions operated as a de facto topic ban by creating a situation in which I couldn't edit the article without risking transgressing an amorphous limitation s/he had imposed. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

of course you could edit the article you just couldn't keep edit warring by reverting the same edit as you had already done three times. You really should read up on the policies on blocking and edit warring.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Simon Dodd, is this the edit you're talking about re the "topic ban"? Rjanag said my understanding of the talk page now is that there is consensus for including the information, but not necessarily for how it should be included (full quote, or brief mention along the lines of "Goldstein said he likes Thomas' style", or what), so it's best to refrain from re-adding it until it's been decided how best to include it. This is fully within policy. We always encourage editors to discuss content differences. Shubinator (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude, seriously - just use my first name. Repeatedly using my full name when there's no one else posting here called "Simon" takes on the condescending air of a mother addressing her wayward child ("Jeffrey Richard Jones, come here at once"). On the point at issue, see [134].- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read the thread before closing it. I don't see any threat. I am accustomed to using usernames; since yours is "Simon Dodd", I use "Simon Dodd" by habit. Shubinator (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did. You can maintain that it wasn't a threat, but that is certainly how I perceived it, I think (obviously) that's at least a fair reading of it, and so it was entirely appropriate that I seek clarification about the rules, ad hoc and plenary. I find the treatment of my efforts to do so and to play within the rules incredibly offensive, although I am grateful to those editors who took the time to look at the issue, understand it, and offer support. We now see Maunus insinuating that I should be banned for disruptive behavior - that's incredible when all I have done is to report a 3R violation, be threatened for it, and then sought to clarify the propriety and implications of that threat. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the surrounding issues, but I have told this admin that such abusive commentary is inappropriate and that it makes all admins look bad. Chillum 22:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Point of clarification to Simon Dodd, in response to this edit: I said your probability of being blocked would not increase. I used mathematical terms precisely to avoid saying you would not get blocked for an edit. Shubinator (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me. After all this, after all the "what are you worrying about anyway" schtick, you're pulling a bait and switch? Jesus Christ! - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am slowly chaning my mind on your original complaint though. maybe admins really are to lenient - I certainly would have blocked you for disruption a while ago.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

De facto topic ban? Demanding promises that one will not be blocked? Asserting that one side needs to be blocked yet claim you have been mistreated for not being able to revert? There are two sides to every edit war. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Surely an editor such as User:Rjanag who tells other editors to "go fuck themselves" should be blocked - no further questions asked. There is no way that is jusfitifable under any circumstances, and violates Wikipedia policies. Nfitz (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Spoken like a true person who hasn't read the discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I read the discussion; and all that aside, NOTHING can ever justify such uncivil words. Your comments must still conform to WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Failing to do so, showing no remorse, and continuing to justify your actions, clearly deserves a block. Nfitz (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• He got pissed off, why can't someone just simply get pissed off and use the word "fuck"?--Giants27 (c|s) 02:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And again - there is nothing in the wikipedia blocking policy that justifies punitive blocks. The only reason to block Rjanag for this offense would be if we were afraid he would repeat it during the next days. I have no such fear.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't share your optimism. It seems pretty clear from the discussion that he thinks he was fully in the right to do it and owes no one an apology. Why wouldn't he do it again? The kneejerk response by admins to jump to the defense of other admins is a bit thick in this thread. If it had been an ordinary user reported to the civility noticeboard he very likely would have been blocked or at least subjected to "involuntary mediation". ⟳ausa کui ^× 02:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Let the record show that I am not an admin and have never had any personal dealing with Rjanag.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Let the record further show that after seeing the kind of shit an admin has to go through for not blocking someone, I also have no desire of ever becoming an admin. I'd hate to experience what might happen if actualy using the admin tools.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)@ causa sui:Um, read the discussion above. This wasn't a "kneejerk response by admins to jump to the defense of other admins"...these people had been watching a user forum-shop all day and be disruptive by stubbornly refusing to let go of a "battle" in which he wasn't happy with the outcome (I didn't block the guy he wanted me to block). He was pretty much asking for the lukewarm response he got in this thread. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read the discussion. Your apparent conviction that you didn't cross the line leaves me worried that you will do it again. You seem to think it was absolutely appropriate, where the reverse is true. It was absolutely inappropriate. There is no reason to conduct yourself that way toward anyone ever. If I got some sense that you acknowledged that, it would be easier to let this go. ⟳ausa کui ^× 03:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I am also not an administrator, and neither is Giants27. (Backslash Forwardslash is.) Shubinator (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Causa sui: I'm not excusing his actions, I never tried to say it was justified. I was commenting on Simon, whose behaviour in this thread I find hypocritical. I have known Rjanag before this thread however, and demanding some sort of punishment for becoming agitated is unlikely to calm anyone down. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If there was no fear ... sure. But the lack of remorse or apology suggests otherwise. And while blocks shouldn't be used for punitive purposes, they can be used for deterrant ... or for Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.. The use of that kind of language is such a clear violation of WP:CIV, I really don't see another option; it's not like they just started to get a bit short. Nfitz (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of speculating why don't you rid yourself of your fear by asking him?·Maunus·ƛ· 02:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it, they should be blocked whether their is fear or not. That would deter future incivility; the lack of remorse or apology are key here. Nfitz (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Our blocking policy specifically prohibits blocks where there is no concern of future disruption. If you wish to change the policy, this forum is not the place to do it; Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is the correct place. Shubinator (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned about future disruption. If the user in question had turned around and apologised and/or regretted their action, I wouldn't be concerned. But they've done nothing but justify it. In my mind, that only means that there is a good chance that they may repeat the action. Normally when one does something completely uncivil one apologises; the lack of an apology here is absolutely shocking. Nfitz (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) (Maunus asked me to comment here) This is what I see as one of the problems with how the civility policy is enforced. It's all about the words people use, and not whether they are actually being civil. I guess that's just natural in a noticeboard like this, where everything is hectic and people don't necessarily have the time to read the whole background of every dispute...it's easy to notice bad words sticking out here and there, and hard to notice equally uncivil comments that are couched in superficially friendly mannerisms. This thread is an example—no one here has asked Simon Dodd to apologize for lying about and misrepresenting my comments after I went out of my way trying to help him, but several people have asked me to apologize for, understandably, being upset over it. Is one of our actions scummier than the other because one used a swear word and one didn't? No—at best, we're both scumbags, but it's easier for you guys to gang up on one kind of scumbaggery than another. Now, the extensive discussion above here shows that numerous editors believe Simon Dodd was being disruptive and needed to step away from the dead horse, and as far as I can tell he has since done so. I have already said (both here, I think, and in an e-mail to Nja) that I will not apologize because I believe Simon Dodd had it coming. I don't see a need for any apologies, though, as all the real parties in this have moved on to bigger and better things. Neither Simon nor I has apologized to the other, but we have both now sent each other constructive messages about something unrelated to this dispute ([135][136]) and, while we're certainly not going to be inviting one another to our kids' birthday parties, I think that's evidence enough that we're both past this, or at least tired of it. There's no longer anything worth talking about or anything worth doing, and attempts to rekindle this already-dead argument look to me like nothing more than drama-mongering. This is a big noticeboard with plenty of other drama, I'm sure the ANI-watchers here can get their drama somewhere else. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

While it was inadvisable for Rjanag to use the word "fuck", that does not make him the most uncivil and uncooperative one in this dispute. If you look at this dispute and all you see is "oh noes an admin said fuck", you have missed the point. It is not civil or in any way productive to storm onto AN/I, hurling accusations and demanding immunity from blocking for any reason, as Simon Dodd is doing. rspεεr (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) While I agree with you, Rspeer, I would clarify: "as Simon Dodd was doing". He appears to have moved on, as we all ought to. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the other guy was a dick too. Maybe he was a bigger dick. What is this, a race to the bottom? ⟳ausa کui ^× 03:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Rspeer, it's not the use of the word "fuck", it's the context of "go fuck yourself". There's a significant difference. An admin shouldn't be out there telling others to carnally attack themselves. If an admin is at that point, it's time to get an uninvolved admin. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is what has happened. Rjanag made it very clear he would not be performing any administrative actions, and ironically, the comment that has caused this fuss was as a result of Rjanag not wanting to be involved. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's the reverse of what happened. Rather than recognizing that he was getting emotionally invested and seeking an impartial admin, he posted flames on this guy's talk page and nobody heard about it until the user posted about it here. It should have been the other way around on all counts. ⟳ausa کui ^× 07:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that blocking User:Rjanag is inappropriate. WP:BLOCK is explicit that "[b]locks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern." That policy is, in my view, deeply flawed. It ought to be changed. For now, however, it is policy.

What is more, there is little basis in policy for a block on these facts. WP:NPA confines blocks for its violation to "extreme cases" and WP:CIVIL to a "pattern of incivility"; by contrast, this incident appears to be a momentary lapse of reason. That fact also tends to limit the application of WP:BLOCK 's allowance of blocks to "[d]eter[] the continuation of disruptive behavior by making it more difficult to edit." All of these statments in policy contemplate an ongoing or extreme pattern, not a one-off blowing of one's stack.

I stand by raising the issue here, but I do not think a block is appropriate as a matter of discretion or available as a matter of policy.

As User:Rjanag 's comment immediately above makes clear, we are each backing away from the dead horse with greivances about the other's conduct, but I harbor no grudges (indeed, I have since been cheered by an exceptional display of wikicivility by User:Maunus), and WP:STICK is clear: once "a debate, discussion, or general exchange of views has come to a natural end through one party having 'won' ..., then no matter which side you were on, you should walk away." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No admin should ever say "F.U." to an editor unless he's being funny, which wasn't the case here. It's inexcusable; extreme incivility. It should be grounds for suspension, at the very least. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't blindly follow policy here. If someone is causing problems we block them. Policy is not prescriptive. That said, this would be nothing to block (or even sanction) anyone over if only Rjanag would admit some kind of fault. Since he won't, this remains deeply troubling. ⟳ausa کui ^× 07:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"We don't blindly follow policy here." So it's perfectly OK for an admin to say "F.U." to a user, yet there's an initiative right now to de-sysop an admin for refusing to use a standard signature, on the grounds that it "sets a bad example". What kind of example is set by being allowed to hurl obscenities at a user? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:31, 5 July 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.

ED question

Resolved

 – Questions answered. No issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not about Viagra. I'm just puzzled over this post and what the poster might be getting at: [137] Assuming it's actually the same guy, which is not necessarily obvious, is there any rule against an admin having a page at Encyclopedia Dramatica? Or is the poster trying to cause trouble? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any real problem with it, as long as they're sensible with what they say on ED. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's looked down upon as a serious lapse in judgement (given ED's, ah, predilection for splendid Wikipedian biographies), but there's no hard-or-fast rule about being registered there. However, if an admin uses said ED account to engage in harassment, the ArbCom would probably rain in desysops all around. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Have I done that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Offhand, I'm not seeing anything horrible on that page and of course we don't even know if it's the same guy, it could just be a mimic (as has been known to happen on wikipedia also). Unless someone sees anything here that's a problem, I think I would close this question that I raised. P.S. It wouldn't let me save this as a link, as the spam filter doesn't like it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any bad edits from that account. However as ED is a haven for banned trolls and such editing there should be discouraged. I remember I was over at the lyricwiki the other day and there was an ED troll trashing the place with vandalbots. Triplestop x3 01:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The admin who is represented as being the subject of that page has not posted since the question was raised on his page, so I'm probably being a "nanny" bringing this up, but I was just curious about it. It could well be a hoax perpetrated by someone who doesn't like the admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm the same GTBacchus at ED. (For those who are careful payers of attention, this is obvious.) That picture of me there, is really me. If anyone has a problem with that, they're welcome to approach me about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless there's any pressing admin attention required, I'm marking this thread resolved... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, that's fine by me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I was only curious. I happened to come across GTBacchus's userpage while exploring today. What point did you think I was trying to make, Baseball Bugs? Pzrmd (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I wondered if you were suggesting that an admin ought not be doing that. So I thought I would ask, since I know virtually nothing about that site. The answer turns out to be that it's not an issue as such, it just depends on whether an ED or WR user brings some kind of shame or notoriety upon wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was just wondering if it was an impostor. Pzrmd (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That's another thing I was wondering about until he confirmed it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Vegavairbob - ownership, consensus-stacking, disruption, etc.

Vegavairbob (talk · contribs) is quite passionate about the Chevrolet Vega automobile, and has contributed a great deal of high-quality material. However, he appears unwilling to participate according to community expectations:

• Persistent ownership of Chevrolet Vega — he simply shoves aside most every attempt by any other editor to contribute to the article, often without so much as an edit summary, as evident in these sequential diffs [138][139] and in the article's history, he boasts that he wrote Chevrolet Vega, he complained to an admin that another editor touched his work, and he has tried to dictate what other editors may and may not contribute to "his" article and "his" work. Attempts (viz here, here, here, here, and here) to engage Vegavairbob in constructive, courteous discussion about editing coöperatively rather than combatively have all failed; he disregards them, dismisses them summarily, spits, or says OK and then continues with the ownership behaviour.
• Vote-stacking in a proposed article move that isn't going the way he would like: Vegavairbob has evidently gone shopping for votes to swing the proposal his way- request, request, request and reply with nudge and wink, request, request, request, blatant request, blatant request, blatant request, request, response. This, accompanied by a fair amount of belligerence in the discussion itself ([140], [141], [142]), distorts and damages the consensus-building process.
• Persistently tendentious and disruptive pattern of making long series of many small edits. This effectively hampers (by dint of endless edit conflicts) other editors' ability to participate in discussion or contribute to articles. Examples are too numerous to provide diffs; pattern is clearly visible in his contrib history and in the history of Chevrolet Vega and other articles and discussions in which he participates. He has been asked politely to change this behaviour multiple times over a period of months by multiple editors — viz here, here, here, here, here, amongst others. These requests have gone wholly unheeded; once in awhile he says OK—and he thanked me with apparent sincerity for pointing him towards my quick guide to coöperating on Wikipedia— but he has shown no sign of changing this behaviour.

He seems to have the ear of one particular admin (search vegavairbob on Daniel J. Leivick's talk page) who appears to be trying to guide and mentor, though the difference between Vegavairbob's tone and approach when interacting with Leivick vs. interacting with others is troubling. I'm sort of at a loss here; we appear to have a willfully, doggedly disruptive, unduly belligerent article-owner here. I can certainly unwatch Chevrolet Vega if it will give some breathing space to help get this situation addressed, but I would not view that as a solution to the problem of an editor who exhibits no apparent interest or intent to coöperate in accord with Wikipedia community standards. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

When I had all of my good faith edits reverted in one fell swoop -- correcting numerous mis-spellings, grammatical errors, manual-of-style errors, a lack of referencing or verifiability, and so forth, I decline to let it evolve into a larger issue because Vegavairbob had taken the time to rant against my edits without actually constructively engaging others on the article. A classic case of ownership and persistent disruption. The article had issues of organization, plagiarism or excessive quote farming, MOS and so on that I tagged and then explained myself on the corresponding talk page. That did work, but it took a very long time to have anything resolved and I haven't touched it since because it seems as if the issues that I brought forth before have only continued to fester. seicer | talk | contribs 02:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Seicer - can you provide a diff for this event? Thanks - Manning (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• My original edits consisted of what I stated above: copyediting, removing excessive quoting, reformatted headers per MOS, but this was wholesale reverted with no explanation. I deferred to tagging the article for issues --
• Article tagging after I was wholesale reverted. I explained the rationale behind each of the taggings on the talk page. This was promptly reverted with the edit summary, "this article is a candidate for feature status."
• He went complaining away at an administrator's talk page: User talk:Daniel J. Leivick#Vega article 2, stating that I should do "something useful." I did apologize that I was being bold and did a sweeping change of a damaged article that would have never passed Feature Article, let along "B" status, to at least bring it up to some coherent standard.
• My notes can be found at Talk:Chevrolet Vega#Article issues. seicer | talk | contribs 03:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Comment - as of now, he has 9,671 edits. Of those, 5,200 are to the Chevrolet Vega article. Wow. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good gravy. Out of morbid curiosity, how many of those are reverts of other editors? → ROUX ₪ 02:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That I don't know, but I do know that there's a total of 6,059 total edits to the article from 196 different editors. As mentioned above, 5,200 of those are his. That's roughly 86%. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

More stats.

• Join date - 15 Feb 2009
• Avg edits/day - 71.2
• Edits to Chevrolet Vega - 5200
• Edits to Talk:Chevrolet Vega - 97

Here is a revert that seems intriguing - seems to be introducing a distinct POV tone. Notice how at line 24 "Chevrolet cancelled the Vega after the 1977 model run." becomes "Without emotion, Chevrolet trimmed the car from its lineup after the 1977 model run". There are numerous other curious additions such as the death report of an engineer being changed from "killed in a plane crash" to "tragically killed in a plane crash". Manning (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann...again

Hello- First of all none of his edits that will help the article obtain FL status were reverted. Second, I have contributed all the text and images. He has contributed some conversions, and minor grammer. The article was reviewed by Typ932 who I've been working with and have done everything he suggested. I DONT REVERT EDITS. I might tweak some, Why not. Nobody has contributed one referenced fact to the article. All that's ever done is as far as content goes is word substitution. I've got a 100 referenced facts in it. It's just that Scheinwerfermann is not easy to deal with and I have to spend a lot of time away from contributing when he gets involved on any level. I'm tired of the lecturing. I opened a title change for an article and he didn't like my comment so he wrote a whole page lecture on the article talk page. This guy is out of control. He is like an old watchdog waiting to lecture and police everyone. I can't stand it anymore. I have no problem working with others. check out my talk pages for the vega article and my talk page. As far as the the article title change for inline four i wasn't aware you couldn't contact others. I enjoy contributing content and images. my user page shows my contributions. quite a few since feb. This guy will scare away new contributors. Gentalman, Its been fun but maybe this is not for me. I've worked hard here as others would attest but this is not fun.Vegavairbob (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Vegavairbob - We are trying to assess this issue fairly and evenly. If you could provide WP:DIFFs to support the above statements so we can review, it would make this case easier. Your extensive quality work on Chevrolet Vega is noted. Manning (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've notified user:Daniel J. Leivick (mentioned above) of this discussion. I think he could be quite a help. My own dealings with Vegavairbob are limited to another automotive article where he inappropriately (IMHO) inserted a mention of the Chevrolet Vega into the text, added a pic of his own car, and slightly messed up the spacing between sections. He queried my fixes in a civil manner and accepted the explanations without argument. It may be that he gets somewhat carried away by his intense enthusiasm for, and focus on, all things Vega, to the detriment of his regard for things WP? Needs more time to get the hang of things? Writegeist (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Writegeist - Agreed. From what I have read thus far, it appears that Vegavairbob is simply extremely passionate about this subject, which is not itself objectionable. I have seen some actions by this editor which perhaps were "less courteous than the ideal" (chiefly in regard to revisions without appropriate edit summaries), but nothing I have seen (as yet) truly breaches WP:CIVIL.

The core of this AN/I (or at least the AN/I above this one) is the WP:OWN issue, of which there is some evidence to support, though I see no suggestion of malice. I do not feel that a heavy-handed response is warranted however. Maybe just some counselling and mentoring? Manning (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been working with Leivick and Typ932 for weeks to get this article ready for FL status and I have not reverted any edits from them. We are working together. Check the chevy vega talk page and my talk page and you will see that although I contributed all the text and images they have advised me how to get it ready for FL status and I was given the choice from Leivick to revert any of his edits I didn't like but I didn't. I always took his advice and Typ932's as well I didn't revert any of Scheinwerfermann edits that helped the article. Some of his edits didn't help article like trimming the captions (eliminating Chevrolet from the captions) stuff like that. But all his conversions, adding "the" before Vega. He advised me just saying Vega is a marketing ploy. I had a feeling as my vintage films prove this. I thought it just sounded better without the before. Leivick said he thought it wasn't proper but we were going to cover that further. He was going to nominate the article for FL any day. Anyway Scheinwerfermann explained and all the edits remain, all mentions of Vega are now ""the Vega"" or in some cases I left it Vega's...So he is wrong when he says I revert edits. Some of his word changes I didn't like and were changed back, but we're talking about a word not a paragraph or even a sentence.Vegavairbob (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Left a note at User talk:Daniel J. Leivick#Scheinwerfermann regarding potential forum shopping. Let's keep the discussion here. seicer | talk | contribs 12:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• And at User talk:Typ932#Scheinwerfermann. Starting off with "...This guy Scheinwerfermann is a nut..." probably doesn't help your case. seicer | talk | contribs 12:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution

• All editors are encouraged to Assume good faith with each other.
• All editors are encouraged to be civil with each other and to refrain from accusations of bad faith activity.
• Vegavairbob is encouraged to use edit summaries more consistently, and to participate more actively in consensual discussions in line with Wikipedia's policy on article ownership.

Comments or additions sought. Manning (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This proposal would do nothing to address Vegavairbob's ownership behaviour on Chevrolet Vega. All three points of your proposal have already been tried—especially the last one, quite extensively, and by multiple editors over a period of months. I'm not seeking a block, a ban, or anything of the like, but it seems to me something considerably more effective than "encouragement" is called for; the problematic behaviour has got to stop. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Having only done some reading of the back and forth going on this, it's clear to me that the main issue lies with Vegavairbob. He obviously has a ownership problem where he thinks any edit that he doesn't deem to be "corrective" gets reverted. If he doesn't like the wording, he changes it. No discussion other than to chastise the other editor for interfering with "his work". He often tells them to go and find some other article to edit as he has spent too much time writing and adding images to this one. This behavior has to stop. If he doesn't agree with a new editor's contributions, he needs to discuss it on the article's talk page, not immediately change it. If a consensus develops for one way or the other, then changes can be made. Also, on a less important note, Vegavairbob really needs to start using edit summaries and to make use of the preview button. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Update:

• Zero effort at AGF and additional remarks about what he "lets" other editors do to "his" article
• dismissal of valid suggestion for improvement of Chevrolet Vega; accompanying claim of having implemented it does not square with his actually having reverted exactly this improvement twice in the last few days [143] [144]
• Asking the other parent to end-run this AN/I with individual-talkpage messages verging on PA: [145] [146] [147]
• Continuation of bulldozer-style editing on Chevrolet Vega despite this AN/I; no apparent realisation that it might be a good idea to stop or pause while this issue is resolved.

—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry I haven't been around to address these issues in the past couple of days. The way I see it, there are two issues that need to be discussed. Ownership and string editing/not using preview. Frankly I don't think the attempts at canvassing or "asking the other parent" are anything close to bad faith. Vegavairbob was unaware of these rules was not attempting to unfairly manipulate the system, now that he is aware, I don't believe these will be issues. I also don't think that he has breached civility in any major way. I do however realize that the continued ownership issues are a problem, on the otherhand I think it would be beneficial to look at the situation from Vegavairbob's point of view. He has spent a tremendous amount of time expanding the content at Chevy Vega and turning it from a mess into what it is today, including uploading a multitude of images (and dealing with their copyright status). I don't find it that surprising that someone who more or less completely wrote an article might be possessive about it. I think what Vegavairbob needs to understand is the value of the collaborative editing process, while he might not agree with everyone of Scheinwerfermann's edits, he needs to understand that they where all made with good faith in an effort to make the article that Vegavairbob worked so hard on better, not worse. I think the issue is one of experience, I don't think Vegavairbob has much experience editing collaboratively on Wikipedia. For a long time he worked away more or less in seclusion, so I don't find his reaction to the shock of sudden collaborative editing that surprising. I think as he gains more experience in the particulars of editing here the issue will improve. As for the preview bottom issue, I can understand why this would annoy people, but in my opinion Vegavairbob's contributions far out weigh what is, from my perspective just a quirky editing style. Seriously, are we going to block a valued contributor for not making his edits in the manner we are accustomed to. We can ask him to change his style, but I don't see it as enough of an issue to warrant anything further action especially in light of his contributions. In conclusion, I am confident that the ownership issues can be resolved by all parties assuming good faith and trying to work together. I will happily discuss further suggestions with any of the involved parties. (sorry for the long message, but I wanted to put all my thoughts on the table at once) --Leivick (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I donno, DJL. Nobody's requesting a block, but Bob already has been asked, politely and repeatedly and by different editors, to read, understand, and heed WP:OWN. He has persistently and very overtly refused to do so. What makes you think asking again will bring a different result? Asking and encouraging (and begging, and pleading, and telling) haven't worked at all; there's been zero improvement. It's good that you've been encouraging him regarding the quality of the content he's providing, that's important and he really has put in a huge lot of good work on Chevrolet Vega, but I think it's clear that some close guidance and coaching is now called for, specific to behaving coöperatively and editing collaboratively. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's suggested a block, which would be unproductive and do little to actually solve anything. Bob does seem to be acting in good faith, whether he's assuming such on the part of certain others, I'm not sure. However, the collaborative process here seems to catch some people off-guard as I've seen more and more.

One thing that does need to come out of this is an understanding of the "preview" button. I just checked Bob's contributions, it shows two hours of near-constant editing on Talk:Straight-four engine, most recently being a half hour of small edits to complete a paragraph. I saw this a long time ago and never said anything, although it is extremely difficult to go through the page history when there are a hundred edits made in one time span, which no doubt makes for unnecessary edit conflicts. --Sable232 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify that I don't condone the alleged article ownership or the other issues raised, I'm just not prepared to say that it's intentionally disruptive. --Sable232 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I really hate having to repeat myself and it really takes away from something productive. I have been working with three editors the last three weeks getting the Chevrolet Vega article ready for an FL nomination. As stated, my talk page and Vega talk page show I have been working with these three editors. And a lot of discussion is in the other editors talk pages as well. Does that sound like I am not working with others on a common goal...to improve the article? There is no ownership behavior going on. I have made all the changes I have been asked to make including revising headings, quote farms, organization issues, neutral issues. Everything has been addressed, the article is now ready for a nomination and one editor wants to create someyhing that just doesn't exisit. The truth is the article is an effort of the three editors I mentioned and myself. I was just allowed to use my text because I basically wrote the whole thing, but the organization of the article I was instructed very carefully and did everthing I was told. I will practice better editing practices preparing the small edits and posting as one, and I have been labeling all edits. Also there has never been a complete revert of anyone's contribution. Sorry but here it comes. The reason for complaint is because the editor who submitted the complaint didn't hear want he wanted to hear in my article title change and he didn't like that a few of his "one word" edits to the Vega article were not kept in. All of his conversions and all of his corrections, of course were not changed. So who is showing ownership? I told him if he has a (text) contribution that actually adds to the article, bring it on. In four months not a bit of text came from anyone except some word substitution. But please understand, the article was a joint effort. I was instructed how it should be and how it should look. Quadell provided the copyright knowledge and thanks to him the article has many public domain images that even one I couldn't get in as a non-free image. He knew these pre 1978 images were PD, and he did a lot of hard work fending off editors who did not know of these copyrights and restored images for me that were deleted. Typ932 does edits and conversion additions in an on-going basis none ever changed or deleted, Seicer made a list a page long of needed work posted on the Vega talk page and I did all of it..in one day, including re-writing two sections within a week.. Daniel J Levick is a great adminastator who has helped me through the tweaks and changes needed for an FL rating and has worked with me for weeks getting the article ready, but the difference is he does things in a nice way, not like a boss or like he owns the site and that's why the article has benefited, because the work was not an edit war or any of this complaint stuff which was really not necessaryVegavairbob (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't get defensive. Obviously someone thinks there is (or was), otherwise this wouldn't be here. However, I have edited my prior post, hopefully that meets your satisfaction. --Sable232 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Vega, you're not getting it at all. You're holding the article hostage and get upset when someone else edits your article that's not to your liking and label it as being not being "corrective". This isn't how things work. You need to discuss other people's edits on the talk page FIRST before you revert them OR even change them to the way you like. That's how cooperative editing works. You don't drive people off and tell them to stop editing the article, because it's going to FA status (it's not even GA, yet, is it?). And, sorry, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of discussion on the talk page. Yes, there's some, but not to the extent that that you're claiming. As of yesterday, you have 90 edits to the talk page and 5,200 to the article. That's a bad ratio. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There haven't been any edits to revert, sorry, you have no case. I said it three times. The only text edits that have been added were one word substitutions and most if any of these did not help article and most were left in anyway. Read the rest of my comment above.Vegavairbob (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Vegavairbob, it looks to me as if you are missing the point. This AN/I was not placed to hassle or harrass you. It was placed because you are not behaving in a coöperative manner, despite numerous attempts by numerous editors to guide you politely towards a better understanding of the standards and expectations of this community. All editors have the right to edit all articles, including Vega, as long as their edits meet community standards. Placing yourself in a role as arbiter of who can and can't make particular kinds of contributions to "your" article, or of what edits are and aren't improvements, is just not okeh; we don't do that here. "Working with three admins" is not good enough, either. All articles are open to all editors, and routinely undoing most or all of others' edits — which is what you are doing, as has been amply demonstrated with diffs — is ownership. Yours is not the only valid perspective on what constitutes improvement of an article, nor does your obviously deep knowledge of the Chevrolet Vega give you carte blanche to control the Vega article here. That is what people are trying to get you to understand through talk page dialogue and pointers to WP:OWN. Can you please try to understand rather than continuing to deny and defend?

I am glad to see you say you will move away from making miniature edit after miniature edit after miniature edit in rapid succession, but you have said this several times before. What makes this time different, please? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I got the point. How could I not get it. It's going on all day. I explained everything in my comment above and I'm tired of explaining it over and over. If your not convinced I've been working with others trying to get it a decent rating, I can't help that. There have been hardly any (text) additions added other than mine so the ownership or hostage accusations are really overkill, don't you think. What the problem really is here I think is my percieved attitude, right? Well, after four months of work (I won't get into the details) I would like it to be and remain a quality article that gets the GA or FL rating and wouldn't it be nice to see a few more auto articles with those ratings, but I don't feel I own it or have exclusive rights to what its contents should be. It's just I'm basically the only editor on the site that has had any interest in it since I began working on it in February, and to make it good enough for a possible FL rating (with the help of the mentioned editors). I am working on and have contributed to many auto articles as well. I'm working on several (my user page) that I would also like to see recieve a GA rating. I understand the way things work here as far as the editing goes. I see a lot of complaining going on other talk pages about bits of text or contributions that get deleted from (other) articles. I wouldn't want my work deleted either. I had two sections deleted in their entirety from the Vega article without any notice or instruction beforehand. Afterwards I was told they had to be re-written. So I know what its like to have a large pieces of work suddenly vanish too. Again I did what I was told and re-wrote them to Seicer's approval without complaining (too much). His comments in the discussion here were a bit severe under the circumstances of the two deleted sections and the fact I did everyhing on his article issue list in a day but I did get an apology for the deletions without warning. Thank you Secier. Did I give you a star yet? Try to be nice and I'll pick one out. That'll be fun. I respect the knowledgeable people here. I've had to bite the bullet on images and text I wanted in and as was told were not proper or not neutral etc, etc. I haven't and wont change anything that helps the article. If it disrupts or hurts the article it shouldn't be left in or tweaked just like my words get tweaked. As long as you said please..lol, I'll say I promise not to do separate strings of edits. this was not done intentionally I just keep reading it over and find things to change or improve. Not more than one or two edits (per article) per day. How is that? Buy the way I thought Bold editing was the term..Bulldozing? Regards, Vegavairbob (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Vegavairbob (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think one or two edits is probably overkill especially when you are making major article expansions, more edits are probably needed. What editors are really concerned about is actually what you are doing right now (on this page), continually making minor changes to talk page posts. Once you write something like this, it gets read by someone almost immediately so changing it doesn't do much good. You should probably make an effort to cut back on the number of individual article edits especially in quick succession, but editing talk page posts over and over is (at least in my mind) more disruptive and less helpful. --Leivick (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know. I was only planning on a few comments but it got expanded. I thought I might cover it all.Vegavairbob (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Vegavairbob, please stop continually editing your comments. It makes it very difficult to reply, as well as making replies made before your edits seem nonsensical or strange or whatnot. As for the issues above... see the new section below. → ROUX ₪ 07:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-topicban suggestion for Vegavairbob

I'm not an admin, but I've looked through everything above (and boy howdy would I like those hours back) and the net result is this: your apparent attempts to own the article and be the sole gatekeeper of what is included and how is antithetical to how consensus works on Wikipedia, and how collaborative projects work in general. In addition, your laserbeam focus on a single article is, while commendable for its dedication, contributing to the apparent feelings of ownership you have over it. As pointed out above, this article represents over 50% of your total edits to Wikipedia, and you are responsible for approximately 86% of all edits to it. Given the sheer number of these edits, this is concerning when there are nearly two hundred other editors who have contributed. So I propose the following, in order to a) wean you off your apparent feelings of ownership, and b) start drawing you into contributing more significantly to other articles (which really is the same goal).

• User:Vegavairbob is topicbanned from editing the article Chevrolet Vega for 60 days starting from whenever (if, obviously) this is approved by consensus;
• During that time period, he may propose edits on the talkpage of the article, to be implemented by an uninvolved admin (volunteer needed) if the edits achieve consensus;
• For 60 days after the end of this period, Vegavairbob is held to a strict 0RR (excepting obvious and blatant pure vandalism) on the article, and must discuss changes at the talkpage and achieve consensus before implementing them;
• During this 120 days, Vegavairbob is required to find an uninvolved mentor (perhaps from here? If not, someone with the track record of a Durova or a Shell Kinney would be good, and preferably an admin) to assist him in taking an article completely unrelated to automobiles in general to GA status. In an ideal world, this would involve a wikiproject-based collaboration (pretty much all content-based wikiprojects have periodic "Hey everyone let's improve XYZ" drives, is what I mean).

Thoughts? → ROUX ₪ 07:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I have been working on other articles for several months (user page)your determination and ban is unfair. I am closing out my user page in 24 hours and will no longer contribute to this site, If you change the "verdict" you can e-mail me at Vegavairbob@gmail.com. I will no longer contribute (or view) the site. This is quite childish and I'm not going to tolerate it. I'm done here. Good luck trying to get the auto articles some decent ratings because they need a lot of work and now since you want to play dirty you wont have my help or any more of my time. Regards Vegavairbob (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. Please pay attention to what was actually written; I am proposing the solution above for the community to approve/amend/reject as they see fit. There is no 'verdict'. → ROUX ₪ 08:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is just a proposal and one that shouldn't get any traction either. Vegavairbob has done nothing to deserve a topic ban of any length. Asking to contribute to another topic is not needed, why shouldn't he contribute to automotive articles? --Leivick (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The opinion of others above would seem to disagree that he has done nothing to deserve a topicban. Asking him to contribute significantly to another article is in the interests of attempting to draw what for all intents and purposes is an SPA (with severe ownership issues) into productive contributions that won't lead into the inevitable block that I for one see coming if he does not reorient his behaviour. → ROUX ₪ 17:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Given his behavior in this thread, I would support a user-conduct RFC in which Vegavairbob is enjoined from editing any of his already-added comments. Which is to say: Vegavairbob, please stop it, it's annoying. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Leivick, this AN/I is obviously still quite open, and I'm not sure I see how your telling Vegavairbobto consider it closed really helps get the issues addressed so we can all move on. It looks more as if you're telling him to just ignore it until it goes away. Your position seems to be that his misbehaviour is okeh because he's added a great deal of good material to Chevrolet Vega. How do you figure that squares with community expectations of coöperative behaviour from all editors, and what is your intent, please? I respectfully remind you that the goal of admin mentoring is to help new editors learn to interact smoothly and coöperatively with the greater Wikipedia community, not to shield defiant editors from the consequences of persistent, willful misbehaviour. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I considered the matter closed last night, but apparently there is more to say. Vegavairbob is a new editor (when I say new I am referring to his experience editing collaboratively, as he worked without much input or help for a long time) and he is learning how to interact with the community. In the month that I have been working with him has actually improved dramatically. What I am seriously concerned about is chasing away a valuable and knowledgeable contributor simply because he did not immediately fall into line. I have high hopes that his behavior will change, the adjustment may not be instant, but I am confident that we will see improvement. Frankly I am working as hard as I can to help him integrate with the community and if you read the advice I have given him I think you will agree that if it were followed, the problems would evaporate. I think any sort of block or editing restrictions at this point would be punitive and guaranteed to cause him to quit. --Leivick (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I take a generally positive view of [[[User:Roux|ROUX]]]'s discussion points. All constructive input here is helpful, particularly from uninvolved editors. While not in favour of any bans for Vegavairbob (yet), I think mentorship is an excellent first remedial step. It seems entirely appropriate in the case of an editor who, although comparatively new to WP and understandably ignorant of many of the protocols, sometimes still disdains to follow them when he receives reasonable requests and helpful guidance - the way Vegavairbob has continued to cause problems by editing this talk page when asked not to is just one example - and whose amour propre apparently overrides any will to collaborate more properly with his fellow-editors.

It seems that after numerous patient attempts to help Vegavairbob become a considerate and collaborative editor, he still just doesn't get it. So it would be helpful to have him mentored by an uninvolved admin - one who will give firm guidance and not feed this user's apparent misconception that he is the injured, rather than injuring, party.

David Eppstein makes a good point but I think an RfC would be best reserved for implementation down the line if necessary.

I agree with Scheinwerfermann that the cited post to Vegavairbob's Talk appears unhelpful, illogical and somewhat counterproductive. Writegeist (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Scheinwerfermann Dan was concerned about me quitting as he stated here and only told me to take a two day break and relax. And frankly at this point I would only continue contributing with his continued help and guidance. I will tell you the main thing I'm guilty of is the multiple edits instead of one or two on an article per day (as I said here I would start doing) and Dan has suggested that, before and here too, and yes I was told buy several others, on talk pages mostly. Dan is the main one I have been working with lately, save the past week. I always ask his opinion if I'm not sure of something. He is a pleasure to work with . He deserves credit for having the patience to help me through some adjustments, and he is hopeful things will be OK provided I follow the rules more carefully. and I've made mistakes as we all know, but after some thought I have a new obligation if I continue.. to show my appreciation for Dan's help and the help of others I have mentioned. Scheinwerfermann has explained several times the correct way to edit and I was warned the last time. I can understand his frustration with me as he really tried to explain it carefully and offering detailed suggestions. I guess there is no excuse, I need to do more reading of the complete section or article before hitting that save button. I have been using preview but not checking enough before hitting save. After a major edit I have made several after that to correct or change something like a reference of spelling or re-wording....It needs to be done all together as one edit before hitting save. Now some things have been overlooked here. The other work I have done somehow got left out of the discussion here. I have been working on other articles.. The Vega article has only been tweaked the last few weeks for a nomination. Actually if you look at my user page there are six articles listed under working projects I've been working on for two months. Headings (learned fro Seicer last month), infoboxes, plenty of images, and more. I've spent hours per night, sometimes until 3AM contributing.(I live alone)so I have of plenty of available time at night, And I've enjoyed it. Downloading photos from my camara, scanning old photos, cleaning up and organizing poorly organized (wrong headings, incomplete infoboxes, etc.) articles, adding text and editing poorly written text. I only edit poorly written text. I don't mess with something that's well written because I'm sure it would upset the writer. I do contribute however and most of the time I find my addition or image has not been deleted. Point is I pretty much know what I'm doing and don't really want to upset anybody. I'm just a bit thick-headed sometimes, but I can be sharp and useful when I catch on to things. Thanks to all and I'm sorry it came to this. Happy 4thVegavairbob (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think banning Vegavairbob from editing Chevrolet Vega would be an unnecessarily punitive step to take at this time. Leivick is probably correct that doing so would chase off an editor who obviously has a great deal to contribute to the project. But positive measures obviously need to be taken to make the misbehaviour stop, and there appears no evidence at all of the dramatic improvement Leivick claims Vegavairbob has shown. He's still doing everything objected to in this AN/I, as of today, so where's the improvement?

The high hopes Leivick says he has for Vegavairbob's behaviour to improve going forward seem unlikely to come to fruition; I have equally-high hopes that someone will shove a great deal of cash into my mailbox sometime in the next half hour. I am perplexed and concerned by Leivick's singular defence of Vegavairbob; it does not seem appropriate for an admin to facilitate obvious, persistent, willful disdain for community standards and expectations. I am fairly confident in my understanding that the rules and customs here apply to everyone. What Wikipedia policy, please, exempts those editors who happen to have been befriended by an admin?

Vegavairbob still seems not to get it. The incessant long series of miniature edits are a problem, but they are not the primary problem. The primary problem is his ownership behaviour on and around Chevrolet Vega. This has been explained to him numerous times, and his persistent response has been flat denial, or an assertion that he's not owning the article, he's just reverting edits that don't help the article — poTAYto, poTAHto. This present comment from him stating intent to do better is nice, but he's stated this intent before without any discernible follow-through. It's easy to see why he speaks highly of Leivick, who has evidently done nothing significant toward improving Vegavairbob's skill at interacting within this community, beyond just asking him to please read WP:OWN.

I think what's called for is active, close mentorship and coaching from an uninvolved party, preferably an admin, starting as soon as practicable.—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please note I did not say VVB should be banned from the article. I have proposed restrictions on his editing to force him to cease the apparent ownership of the article yet still contribute to it. I have the strong feeling, based on the history here (I for one have seen no difference in his behaviour over time), that the next discussion about him will be a community ban discussion, and it's probably wisest to avoid that. → ROUX ₪ 01:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that clarification. That makes sense to me; some reasonable, thoughtful restrictions on Vegavairbob's editing—without preventing him working on the article—would probably put a rapid, educational, and non-punitive stop to his ownership behaviour. I fear you are probably correct that if we end this with nothing more than "all parties are encouraged to assume good faith" or "all parties are encouraged to read WP:OWN", we'll be back here before long, talking about more serious sanctions on Vegavairbob and a much greater likelihood of our losing him as a contributor. That would not be a happy or productive outcome for anyone, so let's act thoughtfully and deliberately now to prevent it. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggested to Vegavairbob that he not make any sort of revert on the Chevy Vega article and instead use the talk page to discuss the changes he disagrees with. I think that if he stuck to this, the problem would be solved. If we need to implement a zero revert restriction for something like a month I don't think that would be too big a deal. I'm sure that after using the talk page to discuss disputes he would gain the needed experience to edit in a positive collaborative manner. --Leivick (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, I don't think there's a whole lot more to be said. I was impressed by Vega's comments above (assuming he hasn't changed them since I last read them). He definitely does a lot of great work and it would be a shame to lose him as an editor. His approach and style isn't always the best, but he seems to have realized that and it looks like he's going to work on improving it. If that doesn't happen, then we can take another look. However, for now, I think we're kinda done here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, we are not "kinda done here." See [148]. Unfortunately that attitude is proof positive that Vegavairbob persists in his obstinate and self-justifying refusal to accept what's at issue; indeed continues with the attitude that even the action taken to resolve it should be of his choosing -- i.e. that WP should bend its knee to his royal decree. The longer this goes on without a firm response, the clearer the evidence that nothing will change without one. The cosy, softly-softly approach adopted by Leivick thus far has very obviously failed to penetrate. Your man simply shrugs it off. Innocence abroad? Maybe. But it's beginning to look awfully like artful dodging. Writegeist (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a novel approach might work in this case: let's invite VVB to comment on how he would deal with the situation if he ran across an editor who was displaying ownership of an article to the degree that he seems to. Maybe something between that and what I suggested could give us a workable solution to the problem. → ROUX ₪ 08:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Why was my comment deleted? This is nothing but an abuse of "power" on this site. I would like my comment returned to this discussion. I am being accused of ownership of an article for tweaking minor one word edits and you have the nerve to delete a paragraph statement of my feelings towards the progress of these discussions which are not positive and biased. This situation whatever the outcome will be addressed for the site's benefit. As stated, no restrictions, no chosen mentor and stop questioning my motives. I am being advised and coached by a capable and very helpful administator who wants a positive outcome here and for the site. Myself, after that attitudes and bias displayed here, I'm not even sure if I to want continue. I'll make my decision at the close of this discussion. I have done nothing to hurt the site, its contents, or this discussion. I have addressed my editing style and it has been suggested that I comment on talk page of the Vega article before making any edits. Fine, as long at other editors have to do the same. What's fair is fair gentalmen. You will not restrict me in any way in editing or contributing. I will be treated as any other editor. I will review and follow all rules as you have outlined me to review. And there is no ownership issue for the last time, but there seems to be an "ownership" issue for the contents of this discussion. I would like my deleted comment returned to the discussion.Vegavairbob (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have no idea what comment you are referring to; by all means reinsert it--and please show us the diff of where it was removed, so that whoever removed it can be properly chastised. And sorry, but you don't get to decide that nothing is done when everybody sees a problem with your editing--that is for the community to decide. Far less do you get to make a unilateral decision at the end of the discussion. Please re-read how consensus works on Wikipedia, because I think at the root of the problem is a lack of understanding. Other editors have not made 86% of the total edits to the article, nor have they indicated through their actions that they think they own the article, and so it would be silly to treat them the same as you. 'You will not restrict me in any way' completely misses the point about how Wikipedia works; you are in fact being treated the same as every editor: you are required to do what the community says. You may say there is no ownership issue, but do us all a favour and try looking at the situation from our perspective. How would you handle a situation where an editor will only allow through changes if he approves them? (And, interestingly, does not allow changes one day, then makes the exact same ones the next?) I fear that with your response above you have made it crystal clear that you have no interest in bowing to the will of the community and working in a collaborative manner. I hope that you will re-read what you have written, re-examine your behaviour, and change your attitude accordingly. → ROUX ₪ 14:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And for the last time, would you please STOP editing your comments multiple times after posting them. I know for a fact you have been asked this and you have claimed you will stop doing it. It makes it VERY difficult to respond. → ROUX ₪ 14:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also add that you have not in fact addressed the ownership issue other than to say there isn't one. Can you please explain why? And refute the multiple points made by multiple people showing that there very clearly is? Indeed, your mentor has stated there are ownership issues. → ROUX ₪ 14:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be blunt , but you guys are driving me nuts. A suggestion. Show and tell. Here how we play. Step 1- Go to Feb, 15, 2009 on Chevrolet Vega. Step 2 Go to July 1, 2009. Step 3. check progress or size or content of article from start of Wiki to Feb, 15, 2009. Step 4 Check progess and content change from Feb, 15, 2009 to July 1, 2009. I have added all of the content and images and infoboxes and all refereces, etc, etc. When is this going to stop. There have been no additions to this article in four month from anyone but me except conversions (Type932, and a major two section delete from Secier(which I re-wrote) and returned to article. I'm getting worn out from explaining this. There was no interest in the subject to have to try to claim ownership. I had no problem doing it myself because NOBODY CARED or had a contribution to make to it other than what I stated. Don't you get it? I keep reading Bob doesn't get it, Bob doesn't get it. No the panel in this discussion doesn't get it. Step 1 gentalmen if you don't mind. There will be a quiz.Vegavairbob (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I will make this crystal clear. Quadell was instrumental in the copright knowledge for so that half of the 42 images are mow legally allowed. He provided the knowledge and I provided the images and the work. Seicer provided the knowledge of the article organization and content. His list on the talk page with all issues was addressed by me in one day. Headings, quote farms, etc. The deleted sections were re-written in a week and re-inserted. The knowledge of his instruction I now use to edit other articles every day. See my user page. Dan has instructed me how to edit with others, and I think I'm a fair editor and I don't want to eliminate anyone's contribution or what they have written. I already said I do not edit well written referenced text. I would assume that should go for my well written text to. Just changing something to change it is not constructive. I hope you're getting the message that I can work with others and I do have a high standard as the article shows. I'm a perfectionist but I'm not selfish to others contributions to anything I have worked on or will work on.Vegavairbob (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I've learned much about formal words and tense and references and article organization from other editors some of which are in this dissussion. I hope everyone here understands that I want to work with others because I've learned from others. It's been a great learning experience I enjoy it more now than at first.Vegavairbob (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The deletion of my comment was made after your comment Roux 1:24 3, July.Vegavairbob (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I might be mistaken as I was up in the middle of the night reading this thing, very tired and I might not have hit save. I read it over several times. But might not have saved it. Sorry for the confusion and the misunderstanding on my part.Vegavairbob (talk)

To further clarify, the only change in someone's major edit was when Seiser completly changed the locations of the sections putting the section with the images of the cars at the end of the article and misplacing another. At that time there were no sub-headings used however. I took the info on his very complete issue list and on the vega talk page and did all new sub-sectiom headings, then put put the sections with the car models at the beginnin where they were and belong. Now that's showing ownership I guess. Doing everthing on the issue list but I should have kept the images at the end like a large gallery. Oh well. You guys are gonna think what what want regardless, I don't even know why I'm spending the time on this. The bias here has got to stop. But thanks for at least asking. Any other changes i made were word changes. If a word of mine can be changed there is no reason I can't do the same. It's not anything important to even be discussing. No additions were deleted by anyone here, adjusted, maybe, tweaked, maybe. Why not? My work gets tweaked, but I can't do any tweaking. It has to be one way or another? No, I don't think so. Compromise does not mean ownership, it means compromise. And that's what some editors have to learn maybe. I have no problem with compromise. Everybody is half happy instead of one party unhappy. This is on edits that can go either way. If one is corrected it should remain, not adjusted. Still think I have an ownership issue?

Maybe not now.Vegavairbob (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Just let it drop?

I had not realized the full extent of the mutual-admiration society formed by VVB and Leivick (e.g. the latter's Barnstar to VVB here [[149]] and VVB's reciprocation here [[150]].

Leivick's good-natured and well-meaning encouragement does not help curtail VVB's problematic behaviour, which is ongoing. E.g. his postings here yesterday and today:

"I only edit poorly written text. I don't mess with something that's well written because I'm sure it would upset the writer." (Does he seriously think nobody will review his edit history?)

". . . you have the nerve to delete a paragraph statement of my feelings towards the progress of these discussions which are not positive and biased. This situation whatever the outcome will be addressed for the site's benefit. As stated, no restrictions, no chosen mentor and stop questioning my motives. . . "

". . . You will not restrict me in any way in editing or contributing. . ."

". . . there seems to be an "ownership" issue for the contents of this discussion. . ."

". . . It was probably bait to get to this discussion. . ."

Absent any change in attitude or intervention by an uninvolved sysop, I don't see any point in continuing with this. VVB might as well be left to his fate, which I imagine will manifest itself fairly swiftly. I had hoped it might be otherwise. Writegeist (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my attitude. What I have done wrong I apologised for including the rapid edits. I will not apologise for any ownership issue. I have worked alone for four months on the article. When other parties got involved I did everthing i was instructed to do. On any edits that were done by these parties which were few, I did not revert anything, as stated some of it might have been adjusted (one word adjectives, etc,etc. or putting back a quote that was reworded. Most of other editors contributions were instructional to me on how to inprove the article and I did all of it. Gladley, and learned how to edit nand organize an article at the same time. What nobody here seems to understand is that it worked out perfectly. Yes that's right. I gained experience added image and text, learned how to edit, learned how to take instruction, learned how take a compromise approuch (got that one from Dan..he's the one here we can all learn from, because his intentions are best for the site and its editors not scare them away, because without them you have no articles. And finally, learned and am still learning how things work, like this discussion, which I have found biased, one way, and not open minded to my side of the story. But at least I was able to give my side... finally.Vegavairbob (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"There is nothing wrong with my attitude."

For all that Leivick may support your curious (to me, at least) assertion, I suspect there will be less than white-hot enthusiasm among the nonpartisan members of the community, including those present, for the attitude of a user who persistently commands the community to bow to his imperious will, makes promises to reform but does not keep them, studiously ignores the issues here, and also very obviously intends to continue in blithe disregard to WP:OWN, etc., etc. As I have now totally lost interest in your cause I'm stepping away from any further participation here. Good luck. Writegeist (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• /me sighs... Well, okay. I give up. Multiple people have tried to explain to you, VVB, what exactly is the problem with your editing, and you refuse to listen. I urge you as strongly as possible to read what article ownership is and dispassionately evaluate your behaviour in light of that. Beyond that, though, I must agree with what Writegeist said: you have no interest in listening to what you are being told or modifying your behaviour accordingly. I strongly suspect that the next time you are discussed on AN/I it will be in the context of a full topic- or community ban, and the only person who can prevent that is you. I do hope I'm wrong, but history would indicate otherwise. → ROUX ₪ 21:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Gentalmen, I have taken all instruction on how to improve articles and use what have learned daily. Regrettably, I did not follow instruction on the rapid edits, which I will not do and I again apologise for that. Thanks for listening.Vegavairbob (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Update: VVB posted this on my talk page, an apparently-polite but disingenuous enquiry as to whether I'm an administrator. When I answered that I'm not, he posted this to his admin-buddy Leivick, in apparent hope of having his way. Leivick, to his credit, replied in a manner more in line with appropriate mentorship, guidance, and coaching than he has in the past. Meanwhile, following this exchange [151] [152], Wdl1961 (talk · contribs) acted apparently in VVB's stead to revert Chevrolet Vega to a VVB version before my properly documented copyedit to fix problems of POV, grammar, syntax, caption format, and spelling. I have warned Wdl1961 that meatpuppetry is not tolerated; how many attempts at an end-run around community behavioural expectations are we going to allow here? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

*facepalm*. → ROUX ₪ 23:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely zero indication that Wdl1961 is acting on behalf of Vegavairbob or at his request. To my knowledge they have had no contact. Wdl1961 may be doing it just to antagonize Scheinwerfermann, but it doesn't reflect poorly on Vegavairbob. As far as I can tell Vegavairbob has disengaged from any form of edit warring and is planning on discussing changes to the Vega article on the talk page on Sunday. --Leivick (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

VB, I thought you had understood what you were doing wrong with a comment you made a few days ago acknowledging the issues that others have brought up about not only your editing, but your ownership of the article, but apparently, you haven't. I could post some of the comments that you've made to others on a few talk pages that show this, but it might be simpler with two questions:

1. Do you (or have you) been frustrated when other editors edit by rewording, expanding, rearranging, or removing content from the Chevrolet Vega article without inquiring either on the talk page or with you directly?

2. If there is any content in the article (whether added by you or someone else) which you later feel could be worded differently, expanded upon, rearranged, or removed altogether, do you always consult other editors? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal Threat from Cheaperbydozen (talk · contribs)

Resolved

I blocked the above user for being an advertising-only account, being as that they only make promotional edits to Kerchoonz and related companies/individuals and products of the company. I also deleted the articles per G11, and locked the main one (Kerchoonz) from recreation. I then received an email from the above user - a standard one, asking why they have been blocked, saying that "I do not understand how this could be interpreted as spam in any way.". They have also "kept a copy of the article to send directly to the wikipedia foundation to ask why my article would not be considered."

Rather than reply to their concerns immediately, I replied with "Your contributions are exclusively about Kerchoonz and related companies/individuals. Do you have any relation whatsoever to the the industry?", nothing else. I saw this as a curt but understandable response, given their edit history, and I would do the same with any other user in the same situation. I then received a reply, the important parts of which are below:

• "I don't have any contact with the industry"
• "I will submit my findings either directly to the wikipedia foundation and will also make contact with the kerchoonz website administrators to let them know what has happened"
• "I am a lawyer by trade"
• "I will make note that libelous content is subject to litigation however. "
• "I will ensure that this situation is rectified unless provided with a thorough explanation as to why my endeavours have been targeted exclusively in such a manner."

The rest of the email seems to infer that there is a cabal of 'Wikipedia members' out to 'vandalise' her edits. I know that the contact team - of which I am a member - will not respond to editorial issues. However, the shadow of litigation has been raised and I feel I should bring it to the attention of this board. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have just informed the user via email of: this discussion, the NLT policy, and that I am unsure as to where her libel allegations are directed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have just received another email: "I have now researched your history and take note of the collusion between your self and another user 'swatjester'. Trust that my research will be detailed and conclusive." I have notified Swatjester about this discussion. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the user is just mad that you deleted their spam. Triplestop x3 01:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I support the admninstrative actions taken by the above admin. Triplestop x3 00:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Unambiguous application of WP:LEGAL. Marking this resolved. ⟳ausa کui ^× 03:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Cml,ItC actions. It should be remembered that in every instance of a matter coming to court there will be two sets of lawyers, both of whom proclaim they are right - however one will be proven to be wrong. I shouldn't be too concerned about threats from a profession who can only get half of their cases right in any one instance... LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I guess my opinion isn't really needed here, since this is resolved, but I suspect the user in question was Indiana Gregg, or a proxy thereof. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I've received emails from Ms Gregg as well, after this user contacted her - and they're separate people as far as I'm aware. I've given Ms Gregg our contact us page, and told her that any more problems should be put through there. Cheaperbydozen is welcome to make an unblock request per the proper channels. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record: I was trying to assist this user, having assumed good faith to what was probably a credulous degree, and fully support Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry in the above-described actions. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Jack Merridew and User:Daedalus969

Unresolved

 – The utility of this seems to have run. I suggest you use the dispute resolution channels. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not resolved until this user stops wikihounding me and following me around/harassing me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

oh yes it is! Privatemusings (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)this is one the crowd can now join in on

Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Daedalus969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For awhile this user has been following me around. I don't exactly know when it started, it might have been around the DougsTech fiasco. Either way, I want it to stop. It may be very subtle, but he is doing so, and, as said before, I want it to stop. I could care less that I am followed around by other users, but I am not going to sit here and let Jack harass me. What spurred this thread is this diff specifically, in which Jack accuses me of baiting people for being a bird lover. Yes, I realize there are rules for civility and the like, but seriously, what the fuck? Am I going to have to take pictures of all my birds to prove I'm a bird lover? I shouldn't have to. Take this tidbit of incivility, as another instance when he accuses me of being purposely disruptive. Or you can take this example as well, more veiled incivility.

Closing AFD I started, this evidence is to prove he has been following me around, as is any other following diffs provided concerning AFDs. There might be more diffs as I find them, but I a sick of this user following me around to insult me and throw baseless accusations.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've cooled the temperature a bit in the section heading, and want to remind one and all that calling Daedalus a little shit is entirely inappropriate.... Privatemusings (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus is a rather central figure in the whole Giano/Bishonen/Civility issue of the last — what? — six-weeks? He should not be surprised that he is getting some attention and given the circumstances that much of it is negative. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I am not surprised about various amounts of attention I have been getting, however, this has been going on longer than the Giano incident, and it is in fact unrelated. It is clearly harassment/wikihounding and I want it to stop.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

well yeah... so Daedalus... please consider dropping a note in to an admin you trust if you'd like to take this further, it's much better than starting a noticeboard thread yourself, and Jack, don't be mean to anyone, and certainly don't call them a little shit, ok? I've marked this as 'resolved' because that means it's all over, right? Privatemusings (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Over for me ;) — and the other guy went to sleep a moment ago. I'm still trying to finish reading the Civility poll. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved or not, as someone who has given feedback to both Jack and Dae recently about ways to improve their on-wiki experience, I feel obligated to comment.

• I saw that picture of a hummingbird on Dae's page... what I thought when I saw it was "gee, that's a sweet picture, and Dae did a nice job of taking it, thanks for sharing!"... but then I'm a softie for hummingbirds. I never made a connection between the fact that the nest was on a hook and "baiting" until it was pointed out. I also never made a connection between that hummingbird and Giano's (dare I say it, rather annoying (to epileptics if not to anyone else) animated GIF of a) hummingbird on his page till it was pointed out. I prefer to assume good faith... people add decorations to their user pages all the time. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".
• Jack pointing out the connection on the civility poll thread seems valid enough to me, because it was in the context of perception of actions, which I myself had just been talking about. Civility is very much in the eye of the beholder sometimes, and this is an excellent example, once the connections are pointed out it DOES fit "baiting" (as well as fitting perfectly innocuous decorative-ness). However Jack perhaps could have phrased this observation a bit more constructively, I think. The way it was written left me with the impression that he was trying to get a rise out of Dae. Jack knows better, I know he does.
• Jack's earlier close of an AfD (back in May) seems entirely routine to me... a bit of housekeeping.
• Dae then coming here to complain about it seems quite a bit overreactive, although some might not fault it, there's a background of interaction that hasn't been completely cordial. Dae should realise that in the wake of an extremely high profile incident in which he played a major part, his actions are going to get a lot of extra scrutiny, and he should soften his words accordingly. I believe Dae really is trying to do this. (and I think if he heard that gentle guidance from more folk it might be helpful) But he's got some considerable way to go here yet.
• Privatemusings managed to slip "little shit" into the discourse, not just once but twice. Both times a quick reader could get the impression he was talking about one person when in fact he was talking about someone or something else. Not helpful. Still, factor that out, and the rest of PMs advice, especially as given here seems exceedingly sound (not a good venue, didn't go about it in the best possible way)

The upshot here in my view is that everyone ought to try to get along better. Jack, stop trying to get a rise out of Dae. Dae, continue to work on being more collegial, more mellow, and not overreacting to input... remember what I told you to say: "Thanks for the input, I will carefully consider it"... PM, stop being a shit disturber. You give good advice but you always have to try to be funny/provocative too. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like “Spumoni” either — but Giano and Bishonen do, and it is iconic re them. The full image description of File:HummingBirdHookNest.JPG is "A humming bird nest on my back porch, uploaded to show the obvious balancing act." ^oldid (my emphasis). For what it's worth. I my choosing to format Daedalus's user name in the colours and non-ASCII characters he uses in his sig could be seen as too much; I'll refactor that. My thought at the time was to code it with css instead of font-elements. I am largely avoiding Daedalus; he asked me off his talk page the other day and I'm off. The Giano/Bishonen/Civility issue I'll not avoid and he certainly had a role in that. Late here; gotta go. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Threats and Cavassing

Recently, after normally proposing an addition of an "article" (section) in the article Josip Broz Tito, User:Petricek posted the following text on Talk:Josip Broz Tito [153]:

“ Since several high profile institutions are alerted to this issue (Croatian Institute for History, Croatian Helsinki Watch, Croatian Television) deleting this article may have some serious and perhaps unwanted implications to all involved. ”

This is a barely disguised legal threat (WP:THREAT), and is easily perceived as one (WP:NPLT). At the very least, its a threat of public defamation. Note that the User states how those who remove his section (i.e. "article") are openly susceptible to "serious and unwanted" repercussions. The user clearly implies his contacts to the Croatian media (which he describes also in his post) will also bring consequences. He is trying to openly intimidate others from opposing his edit. Indirectly, this is also a threat to violate WP:HARRASS as the User implies media pressure, through his actions, will personally effect the opposing party. All this among calls for calm debate(!). The user is also canvassing (WP:CANVASS) to push his edit in the article [154] [155]. I'm here making an appeal for condemnation and sanctioning of such behavior, and a constant eye on the Josip Broz Tito article. User:Petricek is a serious User with a serious agenda, an agenda he apparently feels will be aided by this kind of POV-pushing. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me introduce you to the "Show Preview" button on that talkpage ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Um... what? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

LoL... Can I please get a response? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather see a response from Petricek before any action is taken regarding this. I'll agree that it doesn't look good, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a real stretch to call that a legal threat of any sort. It is, however, an intimidation factor and unacceptable. He/she should be strongly warned not to do that and then blocked if he keeps it up. DreamGuy (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:68.173.95.177 / User talk:Tngah edit wars on White American

I believe these are one and the same user; they have been repeatedly modifying the page like this (or equivalently, like this for the other account) ignoring all calls by me and a few others to stop doing that and discussing on the talk page first. Discussion on the talk page is indeed happening, but it doesn't seem to be constructive, and the article changes keep being made regardless. Note that among other things, these changes by the user keep removing a Cleanup template from the article (which I see the user has been warned about on their talk page, which incidentally seems to contain very similar warnings for other articles). --LjL (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article, and I'll keep an eye on it. More eyes are appreciated, but no further action is necessary yet. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Disturbing statement

Resolved

 – Reported, we've done all we can here.

This dif shows a "contribution" to the article History of England. What bothers me is that it's "pre-dated": in other words, it's as though the poster is suggesting that it's going to happen. Any other thoughts/any solutions? Radiopathy •talk• 16:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This should probably be brought to the attention of English police just in case. Any British editors around who know who to contact?  Sandstein  16:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the UK and will call the police now. It's not an imminent threat, but needs to be left to them. Rodhullandemu 17:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

They are looking at it and will get back to me. I will request oversight when they tell me they've seen it. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 18:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User:John.Edwards.1967

I'm a little fed up with this individual's edits on the Cluj-Napoca article, which, since 6 June 2008 (back when he was User:Edward.jones.1967) have consisted more or less of two actions:

• Moving out of the lead mention of that city's nationalist ex-mayor Gheorghe Funar and into the "Hungarian community" section, despite Funar's actions having applied to the city as a whole (and their having been rather important, and notable enough for a lead section), and leaving vague mention of "the recent past" in its wake (despite the inherent problems with using that word, which means different things to different people);
• Changing the label of Cluj-Napoca as being the capital of Transylvania, based on some spurious claim that this could be interpreted as implying Transylvania has legal status within Romania today. That's nonsense, because we explicitly label it an "historical province", and if one actually searches for "capitala Transilvaniei", one finds numerous mentions of the fact that, yes, the city is today considered Transylvania's capital, in an informal sense, with no one for a moment thinking this refers to an autonomous region.

Given this tendentious editing, given his latest statement ("My only purpose is to make sure biased people like you don't distort the truth" - despite the fact that I made significant contributions to the article), and given that he really doesn't do much here anyway, could he at least be topic-banned from Cluj-Napoca? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute; WP:RFC would be a more appropriate forum. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC tends to be a dead end, but more to the point, I think John.Edwards.1967's single-mindedness and tendentiousness (remember, he's been doing this for 13 months) would seem to warrant intervention at some point. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be nationalist POV-warring by John.Edwards.1967. I left a detailed message for him and I hope we will hear back from him that he is willing to follow Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

John.Edwards.1967: Let me assure Biruitorul that I'm not fed up with you, sir. Oh, no. What I'm fed up with is your bias. I’ve went over a lot of the articles where you post and I've noticed that you are extremely active in topics like: Transylvania, History of Transylvania, Hungarians in Romania, Székely, Hungary, Gheorghe Funar, Treaty of Trianon to name a few. Having said that, I've noticed that in your posts you always try to convey to the reader a Hungarian favorable point of view. For instance, at some point you were saying that one of the reasons Romania got Transylvania after the Treaty of Trianon is because the French sided with Romanians that were also Latin. That's nonsense. Transylvania became part of Romania because: The Austro-Hungarian empire ceded to exist, Romanians had been a majority in Transylvania for over 2000 years, all the ethnicities within the empire wanted to be independent, Romania fought a war with Hungary over Transylvania and won. Then again in your citations you use sources like http://www.bolyai.eu. This website is of a university that doesn't exist. It's has been put up by somebody who wishes a Bolyai University would exist. That somebody posts documents on the website that later are cited as OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. That's just outrageous!

Going back to Cluj-Napoca article I have to say the following: 1. "is" vs. "was" .It appears that you finally agree with me. I posted at some point that Cluj - Napoca is the informal capital of Transylvania. However you removed the word informal leaving the following wording: "Cluj is the capital of the historical province of Transylvania.” Your wording leaves the reader under the impression that Transylvania, a historical province, has a capital that is called Cluj. That is far from the truth. My wording expresses much better the reality: ”Cluj-Napoca was the capital of the.....” My impression is that by using the present tense you are trying to lead the reader into believing that Transylvania is an autonomous province, like Catalonia for instance, that has a capital. That is no the case. The phrase historical province doesn’t put the reader into the position of correctly understating the situation. A historical province can or cannot have a capital. Catalonia has one Cluj-Napoca used to have one.

2. You posted information into the Introduction section about one of former mayors of Cluj-Napoca describing him as a nationalist and a Hungarian hater. I was just wondering why, out of the many mayors that Cluj-Napca had, you’d only post info about him and only portraying him in a negative manner. Why wouldn’t you post info, say about the last mayor who is now a prime minister and whose impact on the city is much greater than that of Gheorghe Funar. And for God’s sake, why would you post the same info about Gheorghe Funar THREE times in the same article: once in Introduction, once in History of Cluj , and once in Hungarian minority of Cluj section ? The only thing I did was to move that info from the introduction section into the History or Hungarian minority section. I think that mentioning Gheorghe Funar two times in the same article is enough.

3. In regard to my choice of words I must say that I use standard American English as required by Wikipedia and as thought to me at University of Chicago. Also, I indicated to you many times that the words I use are in full compliance with Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Please see: http://www.merriam-webster.com/

There is a conspiracy against me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Although I am not familiar with all of the articles/users/content mentioned above, the Golan Heights article was recently subject of a recent RfC. When the RfC was closed, the choice of the 3rd-party closing Administrator was not accepted (see talk) by some editors, and therefore the debate continues. Many editors have found SD's edits and viewpoints to be very controversial, including previous versions of his userpage[156]. Unfortunately, controversial edits and content sometimes leads to vandalism and wiki-hounding by uncivil editors (who should probably find somewhere else to play). --Nsaum75 (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Another Comment:

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

I can bring forth many more.

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

(1)

(2)

Again, I can bring forth many more.

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

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

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

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

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

Article ownership and personal attacks by Nukes4Tots

Resolved

 – Nukes4Tots blocked for 1 week per WP:NPA. Mfield (Oi!) 06:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• [157]
• [158] (hostile edit summary)
• [159] (racist edit summary? i honestly don't know)
• [160]
• [161]

Personal attacks

• [162]
• [163]
• [164] Absolutely unacceptable.

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

• [165]
• [166]
• [167]

Finally, his own confirmation of his reversion-heavy editing: [168]

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

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

There is no circumstance under which we should tolerate messages such as [169] ("Go fuck yourself, dumbshit"). In view of the user's repeated previous blocks for personal attacks, no particular warning ought to be required, and I have blocked him for a week.  Sandstein  16:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"No circumstance"? Just look at the section farther up the page, where an admin said pretty much the same thing to an editor,[170] and no one seems to think it matters. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

CENSEI / Fife followup

Resolved

 – - as best as can be at present

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

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

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

user:Viriditas Wikihounding

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is not the place for this discussion. Please take it to dispute resolution. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The present dispute is a long one, and involves user:Viriditas and his/her continuing campaign against other users, in this case user:Wildhartlivie. This stems from a documented content dispute in the matter of Jonestown, which is now the subject of an RFC located here: [171]. Following the filing of the RFC in question, user:Viriditas began a campaign of wikihounding user:Wildhartlivie over to that editor's favored editing area, wp:actor, posting talk thread comments as can be seen here: [172], [173], and adding prods here: [174]. All of these articles display that user:Wildhartlivie had contributed to them in their edit histories, none of these had ever been the subject of user:Viriditas's edits prior to recent days, and user:Viriditas had previously iniated an unsuccessful sockpuppet investigation against user:Wildhartlivie here: [175]. Further, user:Viriditas's edit history shows he/she was not previously an editor on articles of this genre. The evidence of wikihounding is overwhelming, as is the obvious motive for doing so. I think it likely to be in the best interest of Wikipedia to split these parties up at this point, and let things cool off, but it appears user:Viriditas is spoiling for conflict. This is disruptive in my view, and harassing as well. I would therefore ask for a topic ban on user:Viriditas until further notice from editing articles that are part of the wp:actor wikiproject, or to edit any articles with recent edits by user:Wildhartlivie. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You are hardly a disinterested party here, and it is seriously starting to look as though the hounding is coming from you. Two AN/Is and an RFC/U in what, a week? → ROUX ₪ 08:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it now? I want the parties to disengage, just as you advised user:Viriditas on his/her talk page here: [176]. From your own comments on that talk page, you support the editor in question, so your own position as a "disinterested observer" is not well taken. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I do support any editor who is being harassed. Again: two (or more?) postings here in a week, and an RFC/U. It is both disturbing and educational that you fail to see that you are doing precisely what you accuse Viriditas of. → ROUX ₪ 19:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you should be supporting user:Wildhartlivie. Do you actually think these adits were happenstance? Do you actually argue they are merely a product of chance? Can you show me articles in the Hawaiian islands, for instance, where I or others have followed this editor and made changes, placed prods, and placed comments on talk pages? You can't. I can assure you that if the editor in question stops her present campaign of wp:wikihounding and learns some wp:civ, and finds other outlets for his or her editing skills, the complaints concerning his/her disruptive and uncivil conduct will also stop. As you advised (and I agree with) - user:Viriditas needs to disengage, cool off, and move on. However, as he or she has defied all advice from others, and further ignored the RFC, I really have no other avenue for dealing with the editor in question than what we have here. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

One has to wonder whether you deliberately ignored the point I was making, or merely didn't get it. I'll try again: you are accusing Viriditas of hounding. And yet you are responsible for and/or enormously involved in at least two AN/I posts in a week, as well as an improper RFC/U. → ROUX ₪ 20:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How does one respond to such a point? The ANI in question was started by user:Viriditas, as can plainly be seen here: [177], not be me as alleged. Are you asking why I would defend myself from such a claim made against me? How am I "responsible" for the ANI thread when it was started by user:Viriditas?Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have hoped you would respond with some sort of acknowledgement that you are doing exactly what you accuse Viriditas of. Alas. → ROUX ₪ 21:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you will be disappointed. No comparison. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That you fail to see it doesn't mean it's not there. Oh well, lead a horse to water... → ROUX ₪ 04:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a topic ban against a well respected and established editor and administrator because they called you out on your plagarism and hounding techniques? You still haven't filled out that very lengthy RFCU, nor properly submitted it, and it appears that you are hounding Viriditas with these frivolous complaints. seicer | talk | contribs 10:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a topic ban against an editor who is wp:wikihounding another editor after having failed in a sockpuppet investigation, and who has also threatened that other editor. As for the RFCU in question, I did not initiate or submit it initially. Didn't you know? And I see you tried to delete it here: [178], which proved unsuccessful.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The only hounding going on here is by you and Wildhartlivie. I've been editing film and actor-related articles since 2004, and not a single one of my recent edits had anything to do with Wildhartlivie or her edits. Contrary to your claim, you and Wildhartlivie have been following me from talk page to talk page and article to article. That is hounding. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this, as I wasn't notified of this new incident repot. For the record, I'm not an administrator, but I would like to put some distance between myself and Wildhartlivie. I have asked her to try to give me some breathing room[179] and I will also try to do the same for her. Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, this has to stop. Your comment here is absolutely the most skewed and misrepresented claim yet. You had not stepped foot on the Kevin Spacey page since 2008 when you reverted vandalism twice [180] [181], yet this is an article where I am the top contributing editor on the revision history tree with 57 edits, as of this moment, you had made seven total edits. You represented your involvement on that page as "I've also made less than 10 edits to the article, all of which consisted of reverting vandalism, except one, which was to include the image I uploaded (and is no longer used here)." Until yesterday, you had made no edits to Talk:Kevin Spacey since November 23, 2005, which was to revert vandalism, and prior to that, four edits on December 14, 2004 [182]. Yet, you pop in and plan to to conduct the GAR on that page and tell me to stay away from you!?! Come on, what's wrong with this picture?

I am extremely active on WP:ACTOR. I have many of the good articles from that page on my watchlist and most of the featured articles. When changes are made to the articles on my watchlist, I look at them. When someone with whom I had had virtually no contact prior to the past week suddenly pops up within a very few hours [183] of the closing of an WP:SPI he/she filed on me and posts on talk pages for articles where I have recently edited and where that editor has rarely, or never popped up before, it looks quite curious. You had never to date edited Reese Witherspoon and had not made an entry on the talk page of that article until Friday. You had not made an edit to Mickey Rourke until Saturday morning since February 2, 2008 [184], and before that, 5 edits on October 18, 2005 [185]. And yet all three of those articles I had edited inless than two weeks prior to the dispute, two of them in the same week [186] [187] [188] I tried to discuss the Spacey article with you neutrally until I questioned why you were willing to "suggest improvements" prior to submitting a GAR request but instead were ready to jump to a reassessment after I mentioned it was already on the Sweeps list. Then you suggested I find articles to edit where you "are not involved". I responded neutrally on Talk:Reese Witherspoon and actually dropped the discussion after making one post. I asked another editor, Garion96, to look at the tags on Mickey Rourke and told him my thinking rather than engage you, and explained why [189], you basically attacked me [190]. This is intolerable and unacceptable and it must stop. Yes, please give everyone some breathing room, and stop making unfounded claims. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers has assessed 30,494 articles, yet you are following every contribution I make and accusing me of wikihounding? Hello? I've had Kevin Spacey and Mickey Rourke on my watchlist since 2004 and I've made edits to the talk page two years before you even showed up on Wikipedia. I've also reverted vandalism to that page less than 10 times since then, many before you even started your account. Could you please stop following me around? There's literally tens of thousands of articles you can work on. Is there a reason you are showing up on the articles I've recently edited and following me around just hours after I've made suggestions for improvement? Please stop. You seem to think that I pay attention to your edits. I have no idea what articles you edit, nor do I care. Please try to keep your distance from me and I will do the same to you. Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Administrators, please note I did not file this report nor did I accuse the above editor of Wikihounding, I am merely responding to the post and noting that it appears that I am being told to back off pages I've edited and made actual contributions to besides reverting vandalism and for at least two of them, are higher quality articles on the main project on which I work. Please look at the diffs I posted above, my contribution history, my areas of interest, and the fact that I do not now, nor have I in the past, nor have I recently, popped in on any other of the wide category of articles and talk pages the above editor edits. Please note the relative dates, frequencies and recency of edits, the evidence regarding the histories of editing the articles and talk pages that were discussed in my post. I do not care to engage the above editor in this discussion or any other. If I had popped up on a Hawaii related article, the majority of politically related articles or Wikipedia policy/guidelines pages on which the editor works, I could see how possibly it could be construed that I was following her around. As it is, we are talking about 3 articles upon which I have shown I have edited much more recently and more frequently, as the diffs show, or at least have actually edited. It is not acceptable, however, for any editor to tell another to back off of articles and go find something else to edit because that editor happens to watch them and sometimes revert vandalism, or might suddenly want to work. This is silly and unreasonable and I'm certain there are prohibitions against such assertions of territory. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you are being asked, by me, to stop following my contributions to every page I edit. It's pretty simple. Am I following any of your edits or going to articles you have edited and responding to your comments? No. Please try to control yourself. There is no reason you have to respond to any talk page comment I make, nor is there any reason for you to respond to me at all. Also, you seem to be waging a campaign against me on multiple talk pages, so your edits are increasingly seen as hounding. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see good faith in User:Viriditas's comments here. On July 4, 2009 Viriditas was knowledgeable enough about User:Wildhartlivie's editing patterns, that he/she filed a sock puppet report against Wildhartlivie. Today Viriditas says "You seem to think that I pay attention to your edits. I have no idea what articles you edit, nor do I care." This makes no sense to me. An editor does not put another editor in front of potentially the entire Wikipedia community for scrutiny, without having a significant interest in their editing. It seems that Viriditas does pay attention, does have an idea and does care, despite the above statement. Rossrs (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that isn't even close to true. I noticed an account revert to Wildhartlivie's version on Jonestown when she was coming up against the 3RR. I looked into it further and discovered that the accounts were virtually alike. I raised the question with Wildhartlivie, and then Roux recommended that I file a SPI if I had concerns. I did so, and here we are. End of story. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

PROPOSAL FOR RESOLUTION: user:viriditas has proposed "breathing room" on the talk page of Kevin Spacey as evidenced above. If I can have an assurance of this fact, with an agreement not to edit articles that are part of wp:actor wikiproject for a period of ninety days to allow the parties to disengage and cool off, I will consider the matter resolved, and ask admin. to close this thread as such: I have placed below this proposal a place for the parties to agree or disagree with this proposal for resolution. Please state "agree" or "decline". Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie: I do agree. History will show that outside of the three recent articles mentioned above and the recent issues on Jonestown, an article I've edited on often, I've had virtually no contact with Viriditas. That would have likely continued to be the case had the Jonestown dispute not taken place. Looking at the articles where Viriditas usually edits, I'm not interested in those topics. I don't even have problems with her reverting vandalism on articles where I'm most active, but I do have when someone with whom the situation here has quickly become tenditious suddenly shows an interest in articles where I've recently edited or suddenly shows an interest in critiquing those articles or ones where the editor has never edited at all. A lot of people have these articles on their watchlist, a lot revert vandalism, but the preponderance of those do not show up where I generally work to critique articles where I've recently edited. I especially do with that person conducting a good article review on an article where I've, inadvertently and to my surprise, become the top contributor and where previously, little activity by the other editor outside of reverting vandalism has occurred in 4 or 5 years. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your statement that you have "had virtually no contact with Viriditas" is contradicted by the fact that you have been following me to multiple articles and responding to my comments as well as contacting multiple users about me and discussing my edits nonstop for several days now. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, please provide diffs or stop making accusations. → ROUX ₪ 09:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact is, none of my edits to film and actor-related articles have anything to do with Wildhartlivie, edits by Wildhartlivie, or any discussions involving Wildhartlivie. Even so, she can't stop interacting with me or discussing me: [191], [192], [193], [194] There isn't a single diff that shows any hounding of Wildhartlivie by myself or any "hounding" edits. Either the people using the word don't know what it means or they are using it incorrectly. All I'm asking is for Wildhartlivie to ignore me, and I will do the same to her. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. user:Viriditas, the ball is in your court on this one. I think it's fair, and accomplishes the goal of disengagement well while allowing both parties to edit in their normal areas in peace. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not agreeing to anything you propose Yachtsman1, nor do I even understand what you are proposing. Please stop harassing me. Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 6 July 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.

Honduran move warring

Resolved

 – move protected Mfield (Oi!) 22:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outing?

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

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

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

• I can't immediately see where user:Terrymacro linked to the second one of these sites, "feld.re-url.com", on Wikipedia: [196]. It's not linked to on his present user page, nor on any past versions of it, as far as I can see.
• The name of the conference centre is not present on either of the sites, as far as I can see, nor mentioned on any other Wikipedia page in relation to that editor, as far as I can see: [197].
• The information presented here by Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs) goes way beyond what the editor divulged on the one site they did link to on their user page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no outing because the subject has used his real name and linked to his biographies. The editor signed his real name on talk pages, etc, for over a year.[198][199]. He linked to his own websites, which included a description of his work history.[200][201] Those sites both included detailed biographies, one of which includes this sentence: "In the 1990's I was the finance manager for a 2,000 acre outdoor conference facility outside of Brisbane, Queensland, Australia."[202] Another one said, "For the rest of the 90’s I was the finance manager for an outdoor conference centre about an hours drive from the city of Brisbane."[203] The movement in question owns a conference facility which exactly matches that description. The person's earlier role as an officer of a new religious group is reported in movement publications.[204] The user has rebuffed the assertion that he has a conflict of interest regarding the organization in which he has held senior positions, or incidentally, that he did anything wrong by inserting links and material on his non-standard astrological views. However the COI issue is probably better addressed on WP:COIN.   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd add that the Prem Rawat topic has an unfortunate history of editors with disclosed and undisclosed conflicts of interest, and has had two RfARs. Advocacy on behalf or (or against) the movement has been a real problem on Wikipedia going back to at least 2004.[205] Considering that experience, and the recent case concerning Scientology, I think that COI is a legitimate concern.   Will Beback  talk  19:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started a (rudimentary) section at WP:COIN. [206] Perhaps you might like to add to it. JN466 20:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Violation of editing restriction by Rotational

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

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

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

He has violated his edit restriction at Alexander Francis Lydon by moving a right-facing image to the left under the ruse of removing an infobox,[207] and then subsequently reverting a revert of it.[208] Infobox or not, this is an unambiguous violation of "you must not revert another revert in order to change... the position of an image."

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

Hesperian 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hesperian 00:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

It doesn't require clairvoyance; it merely requires an passing familiarity with Rotational's long long history of edit warring on this issue, together with explicit statements such as this one, together with an unambiguous violation.[209] Hesperian 11:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Okay, I'll spell it out for you. Rotational has been edit warring on this issue for years; that's no exaggeration: here's an edit war over essentially the same issue, from back in March 2007.[210][211][212][213][214][215][216][217] He was finally placed on edit restriction a couple of months ago, and managed to refrain from breaking it for a little while. Now he is testing the waters, seeing how much he can get away with. If removing infoboxes proves an effective shield for him to return to edit warring on this issue, he will do so. I'm asking for an uninvolved admin to prevent that, by enforcing his editing restriction.

Hesperian 01:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:Tikkuy

Resolved

 – Both edit warriors blocked.  Sandstein  13:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Small anon block needed

Another problem has cropped up on the Mariah Carey articles. An anon in the 93.149.194.0/24 range has taken to removing "pop" from every spot where it occurs in a genre:[218][219][220]. Charmed36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting him. I requested that Charmed36 not simply revert, but supply references when he reinserted "pop", and he has partially complied [221]. I wish I could say 100% complied, but that doesn't seem to be the case. This has been going on long enough that it has become disruptive. I'll complain at Charmed36 again about not including sources when he reinserts, but it would be nice if someone could put up an anonymous editing block against 93.149.194.0/24 to try and put a stop to this.—Kww(talk) 12:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

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

Reliable sources like The New York Times[222], Washington Post[223], the Times in Britain,[224] The Associated Press[225], Reuters[226], and the Wall Street Journal[227] all call it a "coup".

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

The United Nations[228] and the Organization of American States[229] both call it a "coup".

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

Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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