Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Ozguroot canvassing again

Ozguroot (talk · contribs) has for a second time canvassed fifteen partisan users to a very charged discussion (Talk:Passport and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-04/Passport). The users contacted all have commented on one of the two pages previously, and all in opposition. None of the editors who had supported the compromise were contacted. It only takes a brief search for the names of editors canvassed on Talk:Passport to see how methodically they were picked for their views. Considering the fact that this discussion was previously only held between three users, this has the potential to completely undermine days' worth of discussion, perhaps even destroy the extremely precarious compromise reached. Ozguroot has previously canvassed two users to the discussion, in a foreign language, and was subsequently repeatedly pointed to WP:CANVASS (read from my "03:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)" edit to Talk:Passport) - there is simply no excuse, and I feel a warning is insufficient in light of the irreparable damage done to 160kb of discussion held on Talk:Passport over the last few weeks.

It has been raised on ANI before Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive593#Passport-related_edit_war) that Ozguroot may be a sock-puppet due to the similarity between his editing patterns and those of another sock-master, as well as his strange out-of-the-blue editing history. The possibility was never properly investigated.

Diffs: 16 Jan 09 canvassing:

1. Kerem Ozcan (translation: Google)
2. Kaygtr (translation: Google)

Today's canvassing:

1. Vmenkov
2. Jake Wartenberg
3. Valenciano
4. Rave92
5. Qwerta369
6. Tomi566
7. El Otro
8. Pryde 01
9. Gaston28
10. Philip200291
11. Tetromino
12. Bonus bon
13. Glenfarclas
14. Sky Harbor

And one in a foreign language, also from today:

1. Ajdamania2 (translation: Google)

One of the users above (Pryde 01) even launched a very scathing personal attack on the talk pages of me and another user and was subsequently given an only-warning by an administrator.

It pains me to report Ozguroot right after he had posted his very possibly first rational reply, and I would like to note that this is not an attempt to kill discussion, there is another very committed editor (Avala) with which my discussion on the subject matter continues, but I feel as though I've been wasting my effort only to be toppled by simple brute-force numeric supremacy. My Mediation Request has not yet been taken up by a mediator, and I am not sure what to do. Considering the fact every oppose has been notified, would it be prudent for me to canvass all the support votes, in an effort to return balance to the façade of discussion being held at Talk:Passport and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-04/Passport? Action against Ozguroot, as well as advice on how to proceed with the discussion, would be much appreciated. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

They are the editors of the articles in subject. User:Happenstance could actually do that, instead of me, to notify them and let them know about the change or his "decide", before making over 250 deletions. But he did NOT never tell anyone. They don't know what is happening. Additionally, i am afraid that "Ozguroot has for a second time canvassed fifteen partisan users."' is totally a lie. When was the first time? I don't remember. I just asked for the opinions of two editors. - If you call this "canvassing FIFTEEN partisan users". Also please have a look at United_States_passport, Ukrainian_passport, its not only about a single editor, none of the articles editors accept your own "decide/consensus". But you ignore their opinions, you insist, insist, insist and delete, delete, delete. They were keeping undoing your changes as well. Is this a consensus, is this a solution? Let's be [serious]. As we see, you deleted the sections of over 250 Wikipedia articles, and you did NOT want NOBODY to get notified before doing so. That's not normal, in my humble opinion. Your reason was: (rm visa-free bloc per consensus on Talk:Passport). But there was NOT such a consensus at all. See Talk:Passport, too many OPPOSE editors there. Which consensus? Shortly, I just asked for their opinions on the matter. It pains me to hear "Ozguroot may be a sock-puppet" only because i asked for the editors opinions, so they could help on that matter, - as we were never reaching a consensus- . Why not to discuss all together, instead of an edit war? Regards. --Ozguroot (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK here is my view - Happenstance, Ozguroot did what you were supposed to do. This is not canvassing, but notifying regular editors, something that you failed to do and caused all the mess on the Passport talk page. He also did it in neutral manner, something that you also probably wouldn't be able to do.--Avala (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I object to be being called a "partisan user," as Happenstance calls me above. My handful of edits on this issue do not display one iota of partisanship, and I take this remark as uncivil and a failure to assume good faith. My attempt to smooth it over with Happenstance was not successful; his response was, it's not pejorative, I'm just saying that you're devoted or biased toward one side. That's not at all true, in any sense, and I feel it's appropriate to make my objection here.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So, rather than notifying me you still had problems with my clarification, you chose to come here without even dropping a line on my talk. And then you say I violated WP:AGF. I have explained my definition of partisan, and I have stated that it was not intended to be pejorative. We clearly have differing definitions of the term. Mine comes straight from the WP:CANVASS policy. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The total apathy and lack of administrator response to what is a repeated and rather serious violation of a significant behavioural guideline is quite worrying, and could very easily completely undermine weeks' worth of discussion. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've only just hopped onto ANI to read this. Now I can't say whether these are partisan editors, and in fact I don't think that's helpful, but I would have thought that a better way forward would be to file an article RFC. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought a Mediation Request would be great, I did not anticipate every opposition-voter to mysteriously materialise and the Request to be summarily ignored by all and sundry. If you review Talk:Passport, you'll see what I had to put up with during this debate, and to not receive one iota of community support against editors who are clearly, repeatedly, and proudly breaking the rules to make their point is extremely disheartening. As the lone editor clinging to policy and precedent, and as the only one making any sort of effort to discuss, I challenge anyone who has read the entirety of the debate at Talk:Passport to tell me Avala and Ozguroot acted appropriately, and that I didn't. So, what am I after at this point? In brief, Ozguroot needs a warning block for canvassing a second time after repeated warnings and explanations of the canvassing policy; and the debate needs a mediator. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A warning block for canvassing? Read the answers again then. Additionally, following your logic, you should also get such a warning because you did exactly the same thing. Even worse. I just wrote them "share your opinion with us". Letting the editors know about a possible future change is not forbidden in Wikipedia, is it? I don't think so. Especially when the editors are in edit wars, when they always undoing your completely persistent section-deletions, and when you don't find any solution/consensus. I really don't understand why you are so angry because i wrote messages to the editors explaining the situation and asked for their opinions. I did not write as "partisan" as your text, though. See what did you write?;

And here is the "Canvassing" from User talk:Happenstance:

1. Hans_Adler
2. TreasuryTag
3. Spartaz
4. Funandtrvl
5. Blue-Haired_Lawyer
6. ArmadniGeneral

They all are the users who have expressed a positive viewpoint, from your "side". Also, do you always call the users "a suspected sockpuppet" who don't agree with you here? Discuss, but fairly, please. Your problem is not to solve the matter, your problem is, obviously, a good ban to me, that's all what you need, you try every single possible thing for that, lies, cheatings, false, fake and incorrect claims, ONLY because i did not agree your unfair section deletions on more than 250 articles, i did not agree that just like the rest other 15 editors.

Also see:

1. "Partisan message"

--Ozguroot (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

See my talk for the background to that. And look at the dates of those messages. Upon being urged to by RashersTierney, I dropped notes on the talks of the uncontacted remainder of those who voted in the discussion, which in light of Ozguroot's previous canvassing happened to all represent a certain side. RashersTirney said, on my talk: "To redress the balance of the very obvious canvassing based on the perceived bias of editors, I think that all who have so far expressed any view on resolving the 'visa-free blocks' should be made aware of the continuing 'debate'" and I happen to agree. I asked whether this is appropriate here, in my first post, and received no reply, I assumed it was OK. I am amazed Ozguroot, of all people is attempting to spin this as a negative. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Abusive IP Addresses

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Soft blocking AOL.

Personal attacks and disruption on Talk:Sarah Palin

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Scribner has retired from the project following the discussion below and the imposition of a narrow topic ban. jæs (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

---

We need an uninvolved admin at Talk:Sarah Palin, where Scribner (talk · contribs) has descended (again) into personal attacks and tendentious editing. Disregarding his total failure to assume good faith (towards any editor whose views differ from his own), he has made his current target SB_Johnny (talk · contribs) who was identified by the community as an uninvolved admin assigned to deal with disputes on the article. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive504#Sarah Palin probation proposal.) Since Johnny is the target of Scribner's abuse, he might be accused of a CoI if he blocks Scribner, so I am asking for another uninvolved editor to take a look and decide if action needs to be taken. FWIW, I have a long history of conflict with Scribner on this specific article (and no others), so take this report with a grain of salt. Horologium (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He's pushed a lot, but not to the point of blockability quite, in my opinion. I have left a warning on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Horologium, you've got history with this article that's quite embarrassing. (Redacted personal attack.) But, as an administrator and editor you're the worst I've encountered. Scribner (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, on top of Johnny's failed enforcement of policy regarding personal attacks, there's been retaliation edits on the TN GOP article by Malke. So, in attempting one simple edit on the Palin page, I feel like I've suffer three separate retaliations. Wiki at its worst. Scribner (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Palin alleged to have violated the law? Keep in mind she doesn't own those books, the publisher does. If she wanted to distribute them to contributors, she probably had to buy them (possibly at wholesale rate). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted an absolutely unnecessary personal attack from the preceding comment. jæs (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That comment looked like a paraphrasing of what Auntie Em said to Miss Gulch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Auntie Em said: "For twenty-three years I've been dying to tell you what I thought of you! And now... Well, being a Christian woman, I can't say it!" If Mrs. Em were an editor, I'd advise her of the same: attacking another editor is not the way to address your concerns. If Mrs. Em took a nastier route, and was also an editor with a history of poisoning the well, as it were, I'd redact her comment. In either case, I'd suggest Mrs. Em avoid directly interacting with Mrs. Gulch if she couldn't keep her opinion of Mrs. Gulch to herself. jæs (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic that the Palin article is alleged to have been "scrubbed clean". Where have I heard that before? For the Obama article, that's where. Apparently, wikipedia is infested with both liberals and conservatives. Forsooth! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed! It's just preferable, in fact obligatory, that said liberals and conservatives focus on editing productively -- as opposed to disruptively -- and not attack each other. It's possible, I tell you! jæs (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Psst....Why are you guys talking in small letters? Doc Quintana (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

To conserve space. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested, I can provide diffs from another edit war he's conducting over at Tennessee Republican Party. I used the talk page to discuss concerns and put POV and Criticism tags. He removed them. He argued. I got a 3rd Opinion. The 3rd Opinion editor found the article had a racist slant. I put the tags back. He removed them. Another editor put them back just now. He removed them again. If he doesn't get his way he puts tags up. If he doesn't like what you say, he takes them down. Diffs upon request. It is impossible to reason with this fellow.Malke2010 07:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for disruption for 24 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope that, after this ends, he doesn't do that again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD)He just removed a declined unblock request, and I have just reverted him. I also warned him that such attempts would be met with a loss of the ability to edit the talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And he just removed it again. I of course reverted him. Can an admin possibly warn him?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done so. I referred him to WP:BLANKING which states that declined unblock requests cannot be removed for the duration of the block, and warned him that removing it again will cause him to lose the ability to edit his own talk page until he is unblocked. -- Atama頭 17:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sanction time?

Uninvolved admin here ... I just looked at his block log. Good grief, it's genormous. Could it be time for a topic ban of some kind? Looks like it to me. Blueboy96 17:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not condoning this user's recent actions, esp the edit warring to remove the unblock decline, but that block log is not exactly what I'd call enormous. There's only 3 blocks that were not overturned well before the duration was up, and those were about 3 years ago. Tarc (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's because it looks like this has been an ongoing problem ever since he arrived here--the first block was back in 2006. Tells me this is a problem that should have been nipped in the bud a lot sooner than now. Blueboy96 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, Scribner had only 32 edits between April 24, 2007, and February 11, 2009, which explains the big gap in his block log. There is no evidence that he has learned from his previous blocks. He has been unblocked because he promised not to do the same behavior on the article in question (different article in each case), but that hasn't stopped him from repeating the same modus operandi on different articles. Also notice that all his recent activity has focused on three hot-button political issues (Sarah Palin, Tennessee Republican Party, and Tea Party movement, in which he is very clearly displaying a pattern of POV pushing behavior. Horologium (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing out that it wasn't as lengthy as I expected it to be, put down the pitchforks. It does appear that his talk page will have to be locked soon though, due to the repeated removals of the block decline notice. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD)Looking through the block log of this user, I see that they have primarily been blocked for edit warring/personal attacks, and as of the block before last, that time had been extended until a week, then lifted on the promise he wouldn't do it again. Seeing as how he has obviously done it again, what is the next step up? 24 hours is too short for a repeat offender.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm requesting an indefinite ban for Scribner from US politics-related article. I was watching over the Sarah Palin article a couple months back, and Scriber was definitely one of the major problems at the article then. Looks like things have not changed much since then, and it has been even longer of a problem than I have thought. Thoughts? NW (Talk) 20:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't !vote below (due to my involvement), but I think that's a good idea. Horologium (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Indef topic ban

Per what NW said above, and to centralize discussion and for ease of editing,

• Support - Per what NW has outlined above and this user's block log. Broken promises is all they have to give. Maybe this will prevent further disruption from them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse If this user hasn't learned to cool it down in four years on its own, sadly we're gonna have to force him to do so. Blueboy96 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The amount of time an editor uses up in dealing with Scribner on these pages is lost from building the project. Scribner does not respond to working within process. Only one thing he said on the Tenn Republican Party talk page showed any ray of light of understanding when he said he could see my point about an edit. He also said he didn't support my point, but he could understand it. He said all this about ten minutes before he got blocked. The Sarah Palin episode caused so much disruption. He came over to the Tea Party Movement article and slapped tags on it because he disagreed with a comment on the talk page. It feels like a boulder has dropped on an editor's head when he appears on a page. But in the last 24-48 hours he seems to have been especially disruptive. I don't know what is at the root of this. But for now, a topic ban might help him regain some perspective. He's right about the Tenn Republican Party being racists, and it's Tenn, throw a rock you'll hit a klansman. And Sarah Palin isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this is an encyclopedia, and not a forum for disruption, or a soapbox, or a soap opera.Malke2010 06:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, what? That post was full of wrong. Issues fixed Throwaway85 (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ban from what topic? If you're going to propose a topic ban, you should state what topic the user is banned from. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

NW wrote, "I'm requesting an indefinite ban for Scribner from US politics-related article.". You can see this right above this section. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That is as may be, but it should be specifically indicated at the point where you make the proposal. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is. I quite clearly state, "as NW said above..."— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I haven't visited Tenn Republican Party or Tea Party movement but the core issue at Sarah Palin is a content dispute (gosh!) between Scribner and several other editors with opposing POVs. It's ruthless and nobody plays nice. I can't be arsed to go through the diffs, but observing developments at SP talk leaves a strong impression that pressure is subtly but regularly applied towards sanitizing the article (plus ca change. . .), and one or two in Scribner's opposition appear to have ownership issues, all of which Scribner resists. The proposed catch-all topic ban serves the interests of SP's WP protectors at the expense of the article itself. Scribner seems clued-up on SP and may have much to offer, but is not afraid to speak his/her mind rather bluntly, is outnumbered by opposing editors, and reacts too strongly for his/her own good to the goading and bullying etc. that SP talk offers would-be contributors who are not members of the Palin club. (Although arguably no stranger to personal attacks him/herself, Scribner has also been on the receiving end of abuse and apparent attempts to run him/her off the article. Few if any hands remain spotlessly clean at SP.) Given that Scribner's problems at SP appear to be largely procedural, solutions that are more constructive and less draconian might be worth considering here. E.g. WP:Mentorship. I'd like to hear what Scribner has to say about that. Writegeist (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Involuntary mentorship has a track record of prolonging conflicts and burning out mentors. If this editor has already sought out a mentor proactively that might be another matter? The difference has something to do with "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink." The people who succeed through mentorship tend to be the ones who recognize the need for it and seek it out without being compelled. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 01:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support an indefinite topic ban. He is evidently growing increasingly unable to work within the guidelines set here, at an article on probation no less. The increasing attacks against anyone who disagrees with him combine with a long history of disruptive editing and a nearly complete inability -- within this topic area -- to work towards consensus. (I've seen one instance in which he was part of a process that resulted in consensus, but it was fraught with disruptive tactics on his part, and he's now taken to using that event as a line of attack against an administrator and editor involved in that process. Hardly heartening.) After a period of time (perhaps a few weeks or months), if he is willing to agree to take the personal attacks and disruptive tactics off the table, then I'd support lifting the topic ban. jæs (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Scribner is back at it on the Sarah Palin page. He's not using the talk page. He's adding to the lead and putting up a POV tag. No consensus, no discussion. If you want to know what Scribner has to say on an indef topic ban, I believe he's spoken.Malke2010 23:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to mention I don't think any editor is trying to run him off articles. Editors just want him to work within the process which means working for consensus. Right now he seems to think he doesn't need to do that.Malke2010 00:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose . Some of the points Scribner made hold merit. A few of the editors on the page have been rather uncivil and I think that coupled with the fact that other editors disagreed with him resulted in frustration and shouting back. I don't think it yet merits admin intervention.Chhe (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE If you feel my edits to the Palin article were an attempt to damage the integrity of Wikiapedia as an encyclopedia, I should be banned from the Palin article. There's been no malice on my part, other than to add two simple facts. Don't blame me for standing my ground and defending policy. Look at the vast amount of effort it took to include the simple fact that Palin did not complete her first term as governor. Horologium fought the edit the hardest, claiming it POV. The wholesale POV in the article speaks for itself. Scribner (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple hours ago, I banned Scribner from Sarah Palin-related articles, talk pages, and community discussions[1]. I still think that this discussion should continue to see if the community wishes to expand the scope of the ban. NW (Talk) 04:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Writegeist it's "he" by the way and Chhe, thanks very much for your input. Malke, you appear to have a problem with exaggerating and honestly lying, for lack of a better term, in the case of your claims with the TN GOP article and the Tea Party movement article. I think you suffer from WP:OWN issues with regard to conservative issues. Wikipedia becomes less an encyclopedia by shutting down vigorous debate. One thing I noticed when I returned to Wikipedia is that the best editors I had the pleasure of working with had left. It's obvious why the effort continues to degrade. Scribner (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• A topic ban from 'US politics-related topics' looks, in this case, to be effectively a site ban since Scribner doesn't edit anything else. So inline with NW's above point - is there evidence of this volunteer using the site in a non-tendentious manner outside the Sarah Palin and US Politics topic areas? Because if there is not we should be discussing a ban rather than a topic ban. The reason I point this out is so that we don't end up moving a problem and having to go through this all over again.
  That said I do endorse the topic ban from US politics articles, but with the above caveat--Cailil ^talk 17:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is proof of me "using the site in a non-tendentious manner" in economics and other BLP's. But, there won't be evidence of me kowtowing to administrators who are either in error of policy or biased in judgment, or both. I've placed my account in indefinite retirement. Scribner (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Continued incivility after a request to stop

User:Parrot of Doom has been generally uncivil today and failed or even mocked requests to improve his behaviour, He started off edit warring over an unfree picture in the nick griffen article with User_talk:J_Milburn after three reverts his actions culminated in this edit with the edit summary in capitals of "CLEAR THE FUCK OFF" , I left him a polite civility note, to which he replied, "thanks but I'm not interested in civility warnings" he then again was uncivil on a public talkpage, saying on the talkpage of Griffin , "What the fuck is it with people today". I informed him again that he was being uncivil and requested him to stop, he replied that "Clearly you didn't bother reading my response to your civility warning. Get it into your head - I will use whatever language I feel is appropriate." and with the edit summary of " civility bollocks" followed up with the edit summary of "indent reply about civility bollocks" , Users should not have to suffer this level of insulting commentary, the editor in question appears to believe that he can speak derogatory to other users, this is upsetting to some editors and should not be ignored. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, you've managed to create silly wikidrama at 3 pages now. Starved of attention today are we? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not constructive. Please refactor or someone else will do so for you. → ROUX ₪ 16:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This editor is obviously out for wikidrama and constructive or not it should be pointed out, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that there is an alternate side to his little story above. His idea of incivility is when someone else uses language that he doesn't approve of. Then to go running to ANI to 'report' it is, in my opinion, a perfect example of creating a wikidrama. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Foul language isn't acceptable, particularly if another editor requested it to be stopped. Parrot needs to cool it, less administrators give him an un-voluntary break. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Foul" language is not against policy, neither is it, in itself, uncivil. A request is, by definition, an invitation for a refusal. PoD, while I agree should chill a bit, has every right to use whatever language he chooses to convey whatever it is he is attempting to convey. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but that's a total misuse of the edit summary. Getting into a revert war that devolves into "fuck off" or even "go away" comments is not acceptable on any level. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What you (GoodDay) call "foul language" may not be what Parrot of Doom would call "foul language, or indeed what I would call "foul language". It was certainly robust language, but that's not quite the same thing where I come from. The only incivility here is too many editors attempting to impose their prissy notions of civility on others, with threats and bullying if necessary. Time it stopped. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The irony of Roux, one of the rudest and most abusive of editors on this site, turning up to criticise another editor for incivility is mind-boggling. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones Malleus. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And yet you're blind to your own incvility and abuse. Irony enough for everyone, it seems. So, how about you try this for a change, Malleus? Stop being a fucking dick. I know, I know, it's pretty much impossible for you. But you sit there and continually browbeat others while screaming at the top of your lungs for people to be nice to you. It would also behoove you to note that I didn't criticise anyone for incivility--I pointed out that his comment was unconstructive. But then, detail was never exactly your strong suit, now was it? Certainly not when piddly little things like 'facts' would get in the way of you getting your digs in. Grow the fuck up and start acting like an adult. Jesus. → ROUX ₪ 17:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is your only warning, Malleus and Roux; disengage from each other. This isn't about you, and every civility thread on ANI is not a reason for you to continue your feud. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Warn away, but you cannot suppress the truth that Roux is just as guilty of what he's complaining about with this edit summary. Why not address that issue instead of throwing your weight around? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, you have now acknowledged the warning, continue with the behaviour and you'll get a block. That goes with Roux as well. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? Malleus shows up out of nowhere to attack me, and I'm being warned? Blame the victim, nice. Plus ca change.. → ROUX ₪ 17:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware, and I'm telling you to be the better man here and leave it at that. Don't contribute to the problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And let him--again--simply spout whatever crap he wants? Here's the thing that you lot don't seem to understand.. you keep telling him to stop, you keep doing nothing about it, and therefore you keep enabling and encouraging him to be ever-more-abusive to everyone on this site. → ROUX ₪ 17:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like some imbalance here. malleus stops and gets blocked. Roux continues but doesn't get blocked. Looks like that's an unbalanced answer to the problem. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to point out, if PoD had respected the request to cool it, at the public talkpage, he wouldn't have been reported. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) And why exactly should the request have been granted? "Do as I ask or I'll report you"? To me that rather smacks of bullying and threats. How about PoD's right to use whatever language he deems appropriate for getting his point across? This is a rather typical ploy of the 'civility police' mentality around here. Threats and wikidrama. Now that sounds far more uncivil than the release of an F-bomb. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Think about it this way, Fred. Do you think others are more or less likely to take PoD seriously and engage with him in a calm manner if he's throwing around profanity? If PoD cannot express his displeasure or disagreement with an action without resorting to "an F-bomb", it's a lack of vocabulary or imagination on his part, and it only causes discussion to decay. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

An F-bomb is not an example of lack of vocabulary. In fact many times it is the perfect word to get across certain feelings. In my veiw this makes it the perfect use of vocabulary. It is not my decision on what allows PoD to be taken seriously, primarily because I don't believe that the use of epithets devalues what a person is saying. Your mileage obviously varies. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The following article may be of some interest:

• Wales, Jimmy (December 29, 2009). "Keep a Civil Cybertongue: Rude and abusive online behavior should not be met with silence". The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A right to use foul language? there's no such thing as rights here. At Wikipedia, we have privillages. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

By those rules there is no right to the expectation that someone is going to respect one's own view of the world and what languages we expect others to use. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

One's own views on civility becomes irrelevant, when one is blocked for incivility. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. There is not one person on Wikipedia that can define exactly what incivility actually is, yet strangely lots of people think they know and use their own interpretation to go ahead and block someone based purely on subjective opinion. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would expect to be blocked if I spoke to editors in the same way, especially if I had been politely requested to be more civil, my request was mocked, and the behavior repeated, good faith editors are repelled by this level of incivility and should not have to be addressed in this manner. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your expectations have no greater sway than PoD's right to use language he deems appropriate. Also your interpretation of "uncivil" holds no greater sway than his. Who are you to decide what is or isn't uncivil? Good faith editors are also repelled by the immature, run to mummy approach that is frequently used by the final arbiters of what should be civil and what shouldn't be. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has a right on Wikipedia, we've privillages. IMHO, if one's want to spourt off on his/her pesonal page? fine. But, not on public pages, when requested not to. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

David, you should leave block notices on their pages. I know they're aware, but in the interest of the probable unblock requests... Tan | 39 17:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I left them in other tabs and forgot to save. Appended, thanks for the reminder. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Here you go on about lack of rights again. That lack of right also applies to peoples' expectancy of what they can request and their right to have that request complied with. It is after all a request and not an instruction. The bedrock of WP is that it isn't censored. You cannot have a non-censored encyclopaedia whilst simultaneously censoring its editors behind the scenes. But back to the point, the use of off-colour language is not in and of itself uncivil. Off2riorob has no right or "privilege" to decide that it is all on his own. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all up to the community, in the end (as we're a collaborative project). GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"The bedrock of WP is that it's uncensored"? Strong statement; it's a facet of the project but I'd hardly call it the bedrock. Tan | 39 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, do we not -censure- people from making threats? legal, physical etc etc (which hasn't been the case here). GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

in any case, it's the articles that are not censored DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the boilerplate answer, but please re-read exactly what I said. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The implied threat was "swear in front of me and I'll tell teacher". I have no idea what Off2riorob expected to get from this report other than a dose of wikidrama. This he seems to have got in spades. two people blocked (none of them being PoD). This has all the hallmarks of a troll, or at the very least a WP equivalent of dropping a stink bomb before shutting the door. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly higher up the ladder (or deeper in the foundation as it were) that, say for example, errr truth. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My advice to Off2 would've been 'ignore' Parrot 'until' he agreed to muzzle the foul language. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO it is not OK to talk to other editors in this manner at all, if you do lose your cool, OK, we are adults, in that case you calm down and apologize, you do not assert that you will say whatever you feel is appropriate and repeat the comment.As DDG says, it is the articles that are uncensored, not the talk pages and the edit summaries. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As your internet acronym succinctly puts it, it is your opinion which has no greater precedence than PoDs. Where he and I come from it is perfectly acceptable to talk that way. Who are you to say that it isn't? If you don't like it, then simply ignore it. Running to mummy ANI will merely increase the signal-to-noise ratio and will cause far more disruption than any f-bomb ever could. Personally I think you were in the wrong for over-dramatising it. So far I've heard no complaint that your ears are bleeding or you were in some way harmed or mentally disturbed by anything PoD said to you? As you yourself stated, you are an adult. Adults don't go running to mummy. They just ignore what they don't like, or at least the ones round here do. This isn't a restaurant serving tough, under-done steak. That is the place to complain to the chef. In this instance you aren't going to get you way, or get a replacement steak. he can't unsay it, he isn't likely to come over to your view any time soon. So what is it you think you've achieved today, other than wasting a lot of people's valuable time with this discussion? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps it is ok on wikipedia to speak to editors in this way, if that is so please point that out to me. Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There are several issues here, and in each case PoD, is on the right side. Firstly, take the description in the first paragraph where the disputed image is described as nonfree- this is a mere interpretation of a borderline case- a POV. Secondly, the article is about an individual with a particularly nasty track record, it is politically naive to believe you can sit on the fence- PoD is correct to verify a fact with a reference in this case a visual one. Thirdly, the heinous crime here is to suggest that Off2riorob intervention I left him a polite civility note,,was civil- no, it was gross provocation- delivered with Blairite sanctity. To which PoD politely replied:"thanks but I'm not interested in civility warnings" Fourthly, there is the issue of language register. Most of the time it is vaguely amusing that, words that 'kids on the street of Collyhurst and Ancoats use as punctuation marks, cause offence in other parts of the globe. On the Gamesley Estate, a lad bumped into me and said Ah f--k mate, I dinna see ya.- and that translate into I am sorry friend, I didn't see you. In parts of South London, saying Woof in the wrong context is grossly offensive- (It suggests the recipients mother is a dog). It is sad when editors take this seriously and get precious about others using a register they personally don't subscribe too. Finally, is the issue of timewasting. We have FAs to write- and being diverted from that central task, and dragging editors away from the name space is totally counter productive.--ClemRutter (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Shall we consider this civility report closed? GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, let it carry on, its fucking hilarious. Parrot of Doom 19:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this illustrates why some react badly. There is no reason that I can see for parrot to say (well write) a word that some find offensive. As it is writen (and not spoken in the heat of argument) it is clarly premeditated (and as such presumably serves a function, I will not presume to assume what that might be).Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Point of view I guess. Some people presume that when the word "fuck" is used, its designed to offend. I find that laughable, they almost have my pity. Parrot of Doom 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The report should be closed, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Before it's closed, I would like to add something. Last night, I tried but gave up after numerous edit conflicts. Ok, while I would never support a block against an editor who lets rip with the odd f or c word in a moment of anger or sheer frustration (an admonitory tut-tut is sufficient, IMO), I feel that unrestrained usage of profanity should never become the norm here as it would create an ugly atmosphere of hostility, and talk pages would become battlegrounds for tit-for-tat profanity wars. Not exactly the scholarly image an encyclopedia strives for. The liberal use of profanity would also give free rein to those editors who wish to indimidate others through a contrived hard man, bad-ass Sgt. Bob Barnes stance as well as those who are just having a bad hair day and rebut a polite request with a snarling f..k off. This is not prissiness ot latent puritanism on my part, but rather practical advice to those of us here who do not wish to see Wikipedia turn into a popular hangout joint for bored kids who would use it merely to post their favourite swear words.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bravo Fred, i've never seen anyone successfully troll AN/I before. As for the rest of you. Lets stay on topic here. Choice of words and what each person considers to be offensive is more or less irrelevant. It's an issue of civility. Nefariousski (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hijacked account

When a useful editor's edits turn into blatant vandalism, I tend to suspect the account has been hijacked. Such is the case here. However, I don't recall the procedure (or know where to look) for handling this type of problem. To prevent further abuse of our articles - and of the editor's account, I've gone ahead and indef-blocked the account. However, I invite anyone with experience in this type of problem to correct or supplement my actions - and to post a note on my talk page pointing out the correct process. Thanks. Rklawton (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Look farther up the page - there was a similar case recently, for a user named DC or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Bugs - been awhile. Thanks for the heads up. Looks like I've taken all the right steps. I don't think check user is necessary since the edits are significantly out of character and not on any previously edited article. Hopefully we hear back from him via e-mail. 'till then, we're protected. Rklawton (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, this:[2] I guess you figured that out. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There should probably be a help or guideline for admins as to the best way to handle compromised accounts, but I think that the procedure is generally that we indef-block until receiving an email from the address that originally registered the account. That's what happened with the DC incident that Bugs was talking about. I'm not sure who has access to email info for an account; crats? ArbCom? Oversight? And it would have to be the email account used prior to when the account was compromised, because the new "owner" of the account could change the associated email address to their own. -- Atama頭 18:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, no usergroup has access to users' email-addresses. That's what the committed identity system is for. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 18:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

DC had conveniently listed their email address on their edit notice when they were still in control. Not sure if we will be so fortunate this time. –xeno^talk 18:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I sent them an email through the email user function requesting an explanation. I'll post any response I get here. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Still no response. Hijack seems likely. Will advise. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mass change to formatting style

For the past 24 hours I have been constantly finding myself readding quotation marks to the formatting of ref names on University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because Racepacket (talk · contribs) appears to have an off-site copy of the article text that he has removed all of these from. He has told me that he prefers to not use them because they are not entirely necessary unless the name parameter uses spaces, punctuation, or non-ASCII characters.

I do not think that this requires removing every single instance as he has done in the following diffs which include misleading edit summaries: [3], [4], [5], [6].

I have brought this up to Racepacket on his talk page as seen here where I also ask him to stop removing the carriage return between the infobox and the lead paragraph ([7], [8], [9], [10]): User talk:Racepacket#Carriage return. He does not seem to care, or he has not been answering me at all because he keeps making these edits long after I began the discussion on his talk page.

Racepacket has begun accusing me of stalling improvements to the page because he has it set in his mind that there is an all important deadline (he assumes there is one because of a pending GA review), and has accused me of doing harm to the page because of a single mistake (where he corrects a + to an = and then says I harmed the page because I undid the edit because it was one where he removed all the quotation marks) and that I am keeping him up by asking him to add two more keystrokes when he adds content.

I know he is improving the page. I know it is good that he wants it to be considered a good article and probably eventually a featured article. I just do not think it is appropriate that he reformats the entire article just because he does not want to add two instances of " whenever he adds a reference.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In the time that I was writing this, he did it again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Counterview: As indicated in a prior ANI, User:Ryulong is doing everything possible to see that the article University of Miami fails its GA review. We have a limited period of time to respond to the review while it is on hold. In response to the review, I split off University of Miami School of Business Administration, and three times Ryulong merged it back. After repeated requests, he finally left the article in place and started an AfD, where the vote is going toward keeping the article. Second, the review asked that we expand the Research section, and User:Ryulong has been actively moving (to other articles) or deleting content which I have added to that section. (See, Talk:University of Miami#Research) Third, the review asked that we find sources independent of UM to meet WP:V They suggest that at least half of the sources be to something not on the UM website. User:Ryulong has been finding excuses to move the non-UM sources to other articles and where several sources can support a remaining sentence, he insists on using the one from the UM website. What prompted his current complaint is that I do not use unnecessary quote marks around the name parameter value in <ref> tags. He goes backs and adds them. He has also changed the = symbol to the + symbol in cite templates which cause values to not be displayed. Because I don't have time to go through each citation repeatedly to check for such nonsense, I have asked him to stop. He then harrasses me with endless discussion over the quote mark issue which has absolutely nothing to do with how the article will be displayed on the page. He goes so far as to reformat my responses to him on my own talk page, causing more interruptions to my work.

Here is someone who has not made substantive additions to the article for months, wasting time in our efforts to address the review in a limited time period. An administrator's intervention is needed to stop User:Ryulong from wasting valuable time by doing everything possible to prevent the article from passing its GA review. Racepacket (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no such thing as a limited time period on Wikipedia. No comment otherwise. → ROUX ₪ 07:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And again, here you come accusing me of bad faith and bringing up things that are so minor and not intentional just to make me look bad. I am not seeking to prevent University of Miami from being promoted to good article status. I merged and then listed a page for WP:AFD that I did not think was notable for inclusion. I moved references that had nothing to do with the article to an article they were related to. I did not mean to change any = to any + in any edit; it was an unintentional change from an undo I performed on your edits regarding the reason I brought up this thread. All I have been doing to your talk page is change * to : because no one uses * in responses to people. If anything, your mass removal of the quotation marks is not recommended.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no such thing as a limited time period on Wikipedia. No comment otherwise. → ROUX ₪ 07:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

<ref name="fn"> versus <ref name=fn>. Lamest edit war ever. Hesperian 07:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware. I have asked him to not remove them, as well as a single line break, but based on an off-site copy he is keeping and the fact that he replaces the text of the article wholesale whenever he adds a new edit, I believe that this is an issue to be brought up here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

pls guys clam down on the talk page ...you will notice noone has answered..this can only mean people are looking deep into what is going on..so guys pls lets turn down the YELLING .. just give admin time to look things over ..both should not edit the article until we come up with a solution to your problem, since you guys cant solve it yourselves... Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Buzzzsherman you have no idea what you are talking about so if you would not mind, do not get involved with disputes if you do not know of a proper way to solve them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Buzz is completely correct. Back off and let people investigate. → ROUX ₪ 07:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I was confused because he copied over other people's comments in the process of adding his comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• (EC)I agree with Roux. How can I get back to looking for sources? It is 2:30 a.m. and this ANI is an incredible waste of everyone's time, as is the petty harrassment over the quote marks and whether I am allowed to format the comments which I leave on my own talk page with a bullet. Racepacket (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [This comment was added immediately after Roux's but ran into 4 different edit conflict] When I tried to add it where I first submitted it, [{User:Ryulong]] is trying to start another edit war over the order in which our comments appear below Roux's. diff

For the quotation marks there is this: Wikipedia:Footnotes#Caution on converting citation styles. I am not going to bother with the bullet marks or anything similar.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is WP:LAME. Nobody cares (or, at least, nobody should care) about minor coding details that make absolutely no difference in the formatted article. If it affects the GA review then something is seriously wrong with the GA process. Both of you, stop arguing, stop worrying about how each other's refs are coded, stop asking for admins to interced in your petty disputes, and get back to doing something constructive. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I know it is lame, but I have asked him to stop changing the coding style entirely but he just ignores me and has been accusing me of preventing the article from being promoted. Certainly the fact that the quotation marks are or are not there should not affect his ability to edit the page. He should not change them in every edit nor should he replace the text of the article wholesale with a version he has copied off of site because he does not want to use the quotation marks or a single line break at the lead of the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• User:Ryulong is misquoting Wikipedia:Footnotes#Caution on converting citation styles which address converting articles from {{ref}} to <ref>. The principle applies however as common sense, which Ryulong is ignoring. I am the one doing the research and adding the references, and User:Ryulong is the one who goes back and tries to confusing things by editing the footnotes which I create by adding quotes and even a + where I placed a =. This is a lot of work -- the GA Review has asked us to add a publisher parameter to each footnote and to find alternatives to the UM website references. If he does not want to help make the article meet WP:V standards, then he should stand back and let others get the required work done. Racepacket (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Should there be a difference? And would you stop bringing up that stupid + to = thing? It was not intentional as I have been telling you for the past 2 hours. And I am not trying to sabotage a Good Article Promotion. Stop accusing me of things.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that you have wasted the last two hours of my life with this quote mark nonsense and this ANI speaks mountains as to your intentions. It is now 3:11 a.m. and I have not been able to spend any substantial time since midnight finding new sources. Please stop this behavior. Racepacket (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of keeping you awake and intending to cause the GAR to fail. I've removed the fucking quotation marks at this point because it's obvious you are going to keep using your .txt copy of the page's text. I'm just tired of you thinking I'm your foe in this matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Interim resolution except for Daedalus969

I am please to announce that the only two users involved in this dispute myself and Ryulong have agreed to proceed without quote marks for now. Once that was established, I uploaded two more references (again without the quote marks) only to discover that after Ryulong and I have reached our agreement, User:Daedalus969 who has had no prior role in this matter has reverted the article to a state that used quote marks. He then reverted my change and added one of them back into the article with quote marks. He has also started a parallel proceeding at AN3 It is difficult to see how his edits were made in good faith. As best I can determine, they don't have a visible impact on the article (unless he accidentally picked up one of Ryulong's stray + symbols.) I have left messages on his talk page to no avail. Racepacket (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not agree to anything. I just know that you are going to constantly refer to your offline copy that you've removed all of the quotation marks from because you can't trust the online copy because of this +/= issue that you keep referring to. There are no such items in the text now. Just copy that and deal with the lack or existance of quotation marks. Maybe you shouldn't modify articles by using an oldid of an article's content and just add references to sections as you go through them like normal editors instead of making the formatting of the article your preferred version every single fucking time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I misunderstood you. I thought that we had agreed to proceed without quotes for now. By the way, I don't use any javascript editors, which is perhaps why I am locked out on these edit conficlts. However, I don't see how the invisible differences between the two files can constitute edit warring. And I don't see how Daedalus' action is consistent with WP:POINT - sure he managed to make invisible changes to the document and he certainly managed to confuse me and steal another hour and a half from my life. I have to be at work in 3 and a half hours, and we have many more footnotes to process. This entire invisible quote stunt is unforgiveable and will go down as one of the sillier episodes in Wikipedia lore. Racepacket (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, it doesn't matter whether there are quotation marks in references or not. It makes no difference whatsoever. Why do you guys even care? --Conti|✉ 11:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that the quotation marks don't affect the article at all. I was worried about more sneaking in changes of = to +, which prompted me to work from a trusted copy. Which prompted Daedalus to start an invisible, artificial self-proclaimed "edit war" regarding changes nobody including me could see or be aware of. This is a clear case of WP:OWNership and need for attention distracting us from the task of addressing the problems noted by the GA review. A series of experienced editors with no connection to the University of Miami have pointed out WP:BOOSTER and WP:V problems with UM articles, and people need to roll up their sleeves and address them. Racepacket (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, their tag teaming results in perhaps unintended, substantive changes. In diff Daedalus deletes two footnotes. In the next edit, he only adds just one back in. And then Ryulong comes along and deletes the ref name that was common to both footnotes. Daedalus does not explain why he deleted the second footnote. Racepacket (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification - the reason why I care is that each time Ryulong goes through and edits the article (perhaps just adding invisibile, optional quotation marks or perhaps changing a = to a +) I have to go through all of his changes to check his work and that is very time consuming when we are under a deadline. That is why I started using a copy of the article so that I could keep on going with the business of adding the requested footnotes. But I am willing to stop working from the second copy if Ryulong stops playing these distracting games. Racepacket (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you either stop using the second copy, or otherwise make sure you're not reverting any intermediate edits when you save your changes. It's a wiki. Other people will be editing the page besides you. Jafeluv (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have been careful, but there are so many "invisible" changes in Ryulong's edits that it is hard to spot his = to + change, or Daedalus969 dropping one of the two footnotes. Whatever changes they are trying (or not trying) to make is camoflaged by the sea of quotation marks. Take a look at these diffs:

Daedalus' diffs

• no visible effect
• removed 2 footnotes
• added back the just one footnote without the unnecessary/optional quote marks

Ryulong's diffs

• added back the invisible quote marks
• added back the invisible quote marks
• added back the invisible quote marks
• note the change from = to + in the template parameter Racepacket (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop bringing up the =/+ thing. It was not intentional other than the revert that I performed to the rest of the page to deal with your overwriting with the off-site copy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed interaction and topic ban pending outcome of mediation

Look, we've tried all this several times. You've both been told to not use ANI as a place to hash out your conflicts. You have both been told to seek mediation and dispute resolution. Neither of you has done so. You want admins to take control of the situation? I'm an admin, and I am proposing the following solution:

1. Racepacket and Ryulong are placed under a mutual interaction ban, with the sole exception that both are to participate in a mediation by filing a case at WP:MEDCOM or WP:MEDCAB to deal with these problems. Neither editor is to comment about the other, nor interact with the other, for the duration of the ban.
2. Both Racepacket and Ryulong are topic banned from editing the University of Miami article. Neither editor may make any further edits to that article at all. Furthermore, both are banned from seeking out articles the other has substantially edited for the purpose of antagonizing the other editor.
3. These restrictions are to be lifted upon satisfactory completion of mediation.

Seeking comments from other uninvolved editors and admins... Support? Opposition? --Jayron32 20:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This whole issue is ridiculous. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What? Topic banned from the article of my own alma mater? That is ridiculous. All that should come out of this is that Racepacket should not be using his offsite copy to overwrite everything on the UM article. I've kindly requested that he use the quotation marks and leave a single line break. All that has come out of this is that Racepacket has been constantly accusing me of trying to make the GA nomination fail. All that I have been telling him is that he should not be repeatedly sending this thing to GA review, and having taken it on his shoulders to force the article to become a good article. I am fine with the fact he is making the page better. I have just been asking him to add a few more key strokes when he writes, and adding them back once he's done overwriting the article without those keystrokes. There wouldn't be an edit war if he did not keep an offline copy that he overwrote everything with and there certainly wouldn't be a need to ban either of us from the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'd like to point out I tried a dispute resolution tactic. Nothing came of it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, the situation here is that this is a WP:LAME dispute, which has zero to do with content, and 100% to do with the personality conflict of the two combatants. The solution proposed is because admins aren't here to decide who is right. Frankly, the exact locus of this specific dispute, which is over the use of quotemarks in the ref name= tag is the most pointless edit war, maybe ever. It doesn't matter who is right, but given that you two have a several months long history, and neither side appears to want to back down, the only solution seems to be to end the problem by ending the problem. The U of M article will have someone else who is interested in it; I am unconcerned if the two of you no longer get to edit it. Indeed, given the absolute mess this dispute is causing, I am rather sure the article would be better off if it is not edited by either of you while you two are disputing. I recommend bilateral mediation, since an RFC is really about one user tattling on another, which is why it isn't helping solve the problem. When and if you two can figure out how to coexist and not generate these conflicts, THEN you can both go back to editing the article. But it is clear this conflict has nothing to do with this specific article, and everything to do with the conflict between the two of you. So, if the two of you can agree to mediation, work it out in MEDCAB or MEDCOM, and reach a mutually agreeable resolution to your conflicts, the article can be edited harmoniously. At this point, there is no reason to let the article continue to be edited by either of you, since neither of you is really trying to edit the article, you're both just trying to one-up the other. Lets solve the conflict FIRST, then we can get to the article LATER. That's my justification for proposing the above sanctions. It's no use claiming the "I'm more right so I shouldn't be sanctioned here" from either side; since as far as I can see neither side in the conflict can claim any moral high ground. So lets quit it with that, end the conflict, and worry about the article later. Mkay? --Jayron32 03:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed a solution to Racepacket such that he simply stops utilizing his off-site copy and edits the article as everyone else does. This would end the issue of his massive and unilateral reformatting of the article and the WP:LAME edit war that he and I have been involved with. However, he has not appeared to respond to this suggestion. If he manages to pay attention for five seconds and see my comment here and respond in a clear and coherent matter, I would be glad to have this stop. I'm not seeking any moral high ground. I'm just seeking that he see someone else's opinion instead of thinking he is the one who is the end-all be-all for the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not hearing me. This isn't about these edits. You and Racepacket have been disputing for a long time. The conflict between you two is the problem; it has nothing at all to do with this batch of edits. If it was this one batch of edits, then we could solve it by facing that. Its about the fact that neither of you wishes to back down against the other over any issue. This is the merely today's one thing; if we did decide somehow that one of your versions of the article was favored, we'd just be back here tomorrow on a different problem or a different article. The problem is the conflict, not the article, so we need to end the conflict. Seek mediation so you can work together harmoniously, or stop working together. That's the only two solutions I see... --Jayron32 03:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Then I don't know what the fuck will resolve it. I just have been finding things that need fixing (the reference formatting), things that would be better suited to other articles (like this block of only references), or things that are trivial or poorly referenced and I feel should be removed ([11]) in his edits and he starts accusing me of sabotaging the GA review.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support the interaction ban and topic ban. Judging from WP:Requests for comment/Racepacket it's unlikely that calm will be restored any time soon at the University of Miami article. This dispute can't be allowed to continue on the admin noticeboards without action being taken. I'd withdraw my support if Ryulong and Racepacket would suddenly agree to work together harmoniously on the GA nomination, but that's not going to happen. The October, 2009 RFCU on Racepacket (opened by Ryulong) shows that the underlying dispute has been going on for many months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1) Ryulong said, "Topic banned from the article of my own alma mater?" but shouldn't we have sensitivity for WP:COI and the need for objectivity necessary to avoid further WP:BOOSTER problems. We have a number of experienced users noting WP:V and WP:BOOSTER problems with the UM article, and these concerns need to be addressed. I have asked Ryulong and others to join me in this work, but so far I seem to be the only one working on finding reliable sources for the UM article. I don't OWN the UM article and want multiple other people working to improve it. In a prior dispute (involving the Miami Hurricanes football article), I suggested repeatedly that we use mediation, but Ryulong rejected the proposal. I am not sure what dispute there is to mediate -- the current goals are not being disputed: Wikipedia expects articles to meet WP:V; Wikipedia aspires to have all articles meet Good Article criteria; Wikipedia does not want copy and paste from the UM website. Somebody in authority will say whether quotes are mandatory or optional in <ref> tags -- from what I read it's currently optional. We need to get on with these goals. 3) I thought that Ryulong and I had worked the quotation marks issue out until Daedalus969 started his WP:POINT edits. I am willing to continue working on the UM article to meet the matters raised in the GA review. Racepacket (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Aside from the ridiculous quotation marks business, are you saying that Ryulong has been POV pushing? out of interest, why are you removing the quotation marks? It's not normal practice, even if it doesn't cause an issue. Hopefully we'll never move to a strict XML format that requires the quotation marks, else we're going to have to put them back in again. Would it hurt you to use quotation marks? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Abstain - I am a bit involved, therefore I will not comment support or oppose.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban and topic ban. (1 & 2) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So you do not support the lifting of the ban at any point? That would seem counterintuitive to the mediation seeking.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I would've only supported 3 if it's the community who comes back here and decides that the condition has been satisfied; I am not comfortable leaving that in the hands of either the parties, mediators, or any other committees. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I have been following this drama from afar for a bit and, while I tend to think one editor is a bit more "in the right" than the other in general, there to me at this point seems no possible amicable solution. This particular conflict -- that it even exists -- is strongly suggestive of that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mutual end

Per the discussion that was taking place at WP:AN3#User:Racepacket reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: No action) and User talk:EdJohnston#3RR/Racepacket, and I hope with Tbsdy lives's comments above, I would believe that this is done with. Unless anyone else thinks otherwise and still believes that a ban is necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not convinced that the underlying issues have/are been/being addressed in the long term. But I am very open to being convinced. I'd like to hear others views on this matter; and also, would letting you both edit together unsupervised (or without a mediator) be a good idea, given the history? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what the underlying issues are at this point. Racepacket has been adding content to/removing content from University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have it in my Watchlist and I see what he has done. I come in and perform grammatical fixes or as I state in my comments to Jayron32 that I move it to other pages or remove it due to triviality I perceived from the content. The "dispute" results from his stubbornness (which I attempted to bring up in the RFC) and my reaction to it. His goal for the article to be of a better quality is admirable. However he can't take "no" for an answer unless a consensus tells him he should stop. I know the quotation mark thing is incredibly lame, but he was ignoring me on his talk and accusing me of wrong doing. Again, at this point the issue seems to have ended and I don't see how preventing anyone from editing a single page is going to resolve matters.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Second proposed interaction ban

Neither Racepacket nor Ryulong may remove or add quotation marks on existing references on ANY article. This whole issue is over the lamest edit war I've ever seen, and this proposal would a. stop this stupidity, and b. allow them both to edit any article they want to, aside from this restriction. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support (proposer) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Rama - again

Resolved

 – Sanction enacted: Rama banned from using the di-replaceable fair use tag.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've noticed that despite ongoing discussion about Rama's behaviour and the misuse of the fair use dispute template that he continue to do add this tag to images.

I propose that we enact a ban on him using the {{di-replaceable fair use}} tag as he clearly is not able to use if correctly. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support this needs to end, post haste. It's gone on long enough and is highly disruptive. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Doing this on the heels of the RFC is not wise, and shows a tendentious will to defy the community on this matter. -- Atama頭 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support He is well aware of the lack of support for his particular interpretation of the NFCC policy. He is well entitled to have his opinion on it, and I appreciate that he has a different opinion, but rather than working to change existing policy from the inside, its clear he wants to enforce his own view on the policy from without, by forcing his view. It started with outright deletions, when it became clear that was causing a problem, he has shifted to tag-bombing such articles. NFCC-tagging and deletions is good work, and much needed, but Rama has breached into a side of the work that has little broad support, and it would be best if he disengaged. I would support his right to continue to argue for changes in the policy in discussion settings, but to act as if the policy supports his view, when it does not appear to, is clearly disruptive and he needs to slow down. --Jayron32 03:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support per the comments already given. He is clearly acting against strong consensus in opposition to his interpretation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, he knows that he is not backed-up by the community on this, and doing it after the RFC is ludicrous. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy, what you are doing is harassment, intimidation and wikistalking. I will report further such behaviour.

Furthermore, you have given ample proof before that you are incapable of judging whether an image is replaceable or not, going as far as speedily removing a tag for an image claimed as Fair Use for an image for which a better version was available on Commons under a Free licence (of the very same image). We have Free replacement readily available, for instance File:Mogador-2-guns.jpg, an obvious crop of File:Mogador-2.jpg. Your attempts at proving the done to be impossible is just ridiculous, but how you persist in doing it after being pointed to particularly egregious consequences of your incompetence is blamable. It is outrageous that people make claims about images being impossible to replace without have first looked it up on Commons. Rama (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's really not. If you want to misuse a template even when you are in the midst of a user RFC on this sort of thing, expect others to start looking into what you are doing around this area. That's all I've done, and I noticed that you have continued to add in the tag, which was promptly removed by an entirely uninvolved editor who told you to take the image to FFD.

If you feel that you need to report me to someone, somewhere then please go ahead. I feel that my actions stand up to scrutiny, and if they don't then I will ensure that I take corrective action. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1) You admit that you have been wikistalking

2) You forget to say that the tags that I have added have been vindicated. You are therefore reporting me for a perfectly appropriate use of the template. That constitutes harassment. Rama (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not wikistalking to keep an eye on a user whose edits have in the past proven problematic. From WP:HOUND: Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. –xeno^talk 14:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Second Xeno's interpretation above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Blaming TB by calling him a stalker is just plain low. You are drawing attention to yourself, of course people are going to watch. This is not admin behavior. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support This is ridiculous. The point of the image is not that it's 'some guns on a French warship' - it's that particular model, used in the article on that particular model. Unless Rama is aware of a free version showing that model of ship's artillery, the odds are well against there being a free version, given the circumstances and all. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that I provide such a file right above, do you ? Rama (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I would support asking Rama to use FFD instead of the speedy queues (as I recommended to him earlier), because it leads to less drama. That said, I note that the actual cases he picks are at least arguable. In the case of the WWII warship guns cited above, yes, there are free US-Gov pictures of the ships in question, showing the guns fairly clearly [12] (though smaller than in that picture, but then again, the picture hardly reveals any non-trivial structural detail of them either, as far as I can make out). BTW, the replacement image shown by Rama at File:Mogador-2-guns.jpg, according to Mogador class destroyer, should be "138 mm (5.4 in) Mle 1934 guns" – that's not quite the required model, but not quite so different either; it's actually the successor model currently treated within the same article Canon de 138 mm Modèle 1929. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

yes, the fair use image is of a Fantasque class destroyer, the predecessor of the Mogador. Not sure if there are significant differences between them, but they are not the exact same model. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the two types of guns are currently treated in the same article, although the title ostensibly refers only to one of them, so both qualify as illustrations for that article. And we have free images of ships with the other, earlier type of gun too, albeit small ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I see that he used again the speedy tag in that way during the RfC ("Outside view by Xeno" and "Outside view by Tbsdy lives" in his RfC). Since he insists in doing that, we'll (regretfully) have to force him to send instead the images to WP:FFD. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never been requested to stop using this template. There have only been numerous attempts to (1) caracterise my use if the template as abusive, and to (2) cite my continuous use as a proof that I am a "ROUGE ADMIN" of some sort. However, as for (1), my use of the template has been vindicated in numerous occasions, while my detractors have repeatedly illustrated that they label some image "irreplaceable" while we do in fact have replacement readily available; and as for (2), since I have never been formally requested to refrain from using the template because of the process at hand, I fail to see what I am doing wrong.

Your position here amounts to saying that frivolous claims of misbehaviour are binding and sufficient to prevent people from contributing. Rama (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Rama, if you find fair uses that you believe are replaceable, please list them at WP:FFD where other users can double check your work. In cases where you are correct the image will be deleted anyway, and everybody wins. The point of doing this is that the community does not currently have faith in you getting the call right on every occasion and has accordingly asked you several times not to continue acting as you have been doing. If you listen to the community you will in time regain their trust, if you do not listen then it is only a matter of time until you get blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The community has done nothing of the sort. A small group of users have congregated in several instances, such as the present one, to form a so-called "consensus" which is limited in scope and time, informal, and directly contradicts the policy. The statements on which this limited congregation have "achieved consensus" have in numerous instances been reverted by other admins.

Of these limited congregations, some individuals have called on me to stop using templates over some particular incidents in which they were proven wrong. I do not consider that to constitute a request from "the community". The community is not appropriately represented by a handful of its less informed participants congregating outside of any proper process.

In the present state of affairs, I might renounce dealing with frivolous Fair Use claims, either in part or altogether. It must be noted, however, that this is the result of the pressure of a group of angry people who militate to gang-rape the policy on WP:NFC. There is "consensus" enough to circumvent the policy by harassing people who enforce it, but not enough to change the policy. There are numerous quotes to prove that this is not a problem specific to me:

• "I've often wanted to remove that one (...), and I suspect I'd be reverted", SlimVirgin [13]
• "I'll happily endure the machine gunning I'll get for doing it. I don't care." Hammersoft [14]
• "Removed and watchlisted. (ESkog) Be prepared!!!! Damiens.rf " [15]

Wikipedia is supposedly "not a democracy"; in the present state of affairs, it is worse than this, it is the rule of the mob. Rama (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is not the community who is asking you to moderate your approach, why has no one stepped forward to endorse your approach? –xeno^talk 14:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Curious - Rama: if you had found a free replacement, why didn't you actually replace the image before tagging the one you felt was replaceable for deletion? –xeno^talk 12:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not have to. The image was replaceable whether a Free replacement was or was not available at the time. It is explicitly specified that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." [16]. Rama (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody here has to do anything. I ask again: if you knew there was a free replacement, why didn't you replace it? –xeno^talk 14:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I feel Rama's responses are indicative of the problems relating to their editing in these areas; faced with an overwhelming majority pointing out concerns and suggesting alternatives, Rama complains about the motives of one or two of the more vocal opponents of his actions. This is more troubling as they are an admin, whose major role is to enforce consensus - I suggest that they need to be able to recognise it first, and be able to abide by its conclusion. I see neither here.
  I also note xeno's excellent point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel that your answer amounts to "screw the policy if a local and temporary group can assemble and overwhelm a single admin attempting to enforce it". Rama (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support as Rama spends much of the time above blaming a WP:CABAL, rather than listening to what the community's telling him. I'd also suggest that further comments down the line of "a group of angry people who militate to gang-rape the policy" be considered as personal attacks and dealt with accordingly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Possible compromise: Rama can keep a subpage of images he feels are replaceable, preferrably, but not necessarily with a pointer to the free-replacement and other individuals who do work in NFCC can watch the page and ultimately place tags if they agree the image is replaceable. This will perhaps help Rama to align his beliefs about replaceability with those of the community. –xeno^talk 14:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support My one and only encounter with him was quite annoying, and I am not at all surprised that others feel the same way. In view of his continuing behavior, this seems a good solution. Ray^Talk 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. His actions are extreme and seem to be a little POINTy; he must have know, for example, that picking on Holocaust images would be controversial, especially during a user RfC about this very issue. I support Xeno's idea of Rama keeping a subpage of images that he feels should be dealt with, then uninvolved editors can decide how to proceed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Sadly. I would hope that an admin would respond to the communities requests to stop, however since the response has been pretty much "I am right an you are wrong" I see little alternative. Fair use is not enforced by the fiat of an admin who is sure they are correct, it is enforced by consensus. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Chillum has actually said what I was thinking, so I'm not going to add to that. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Procedural request

Could whatever uninvolved administrator that reviews and acts on this thread also close and enact the results of the discussion over at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama (which has been open almost 2 months). Any action taken here would probably be the same taken as a result of that RFC, so the closing of this thread should be comensurate with the closing of that RFC. Thanks! --Jayron32 16:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd opened a proposal to close the RfC/U on the talk but participants wanted more time...? Technically, this sanction proposal only addresses one of the issues raised in the RfC, so there's no need to wait for the results of this to close the RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that while this topic ban is related to the RFC, it is but one aspect of a larger issue. The RFC should continue or end on its own merit as should this motion here(imho). Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin who's inclined to close;

1. I'm going to wait for 24 h from the original post here to close
2. If I close, I would note on the RFC but not close it directly; anyone else would be free to do so after the note.

Someone else is free to act sooner if you like. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Waiting 24 hours from the original post is a good idea. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:LivingMuse removing AFD comments.

User:LivingMuse has now twice removed my comments in this AFD [17], [18]. WP:DUCK strongly suggests that this user is a puppet of User:GoldbergEva the accounts both started editing within days of each other and both are single purpose accounts that edit exclusively on topics relating to Katia Tiutiunnik Ridernyc (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if it's not a sock of that particular editor, it's a sock of someone and an abusive one at that. Blockify. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Adilette

Just looking for a little advice on this article. I stumbled across it a while back when it was created. The language was very poor and notability was an issue. I have suggested it be merged with Adidas, or the article improved, but several IP's, all originating in Madrid, Spain keep removing the templates with minimal edits to the actual page. My suggestions were added to the Talk Page only to be removed by one of these IP's. I think their grasp of English is not exactly great, the article is poorly written, and is only really notable enough to be mentioned in a sub-section of Adidas, especially considering the only people (or is it just one person...??) editing it are not really up to the standards expected. I don't know enough about the actual subject to edit it myself - I have no interest in a type of Adidas sandals to write an article on them(!), but yeah - leave to edit with templates (I'll keep replacing them and issue warnings if removed) or merge with Adidas? _Will^dow (Talk) 09:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as an editor (admins have no special remit over article content) I'd say the current sources don't support any of the content, much of which is puffery or unintelligible. The article looks to be a direct copy of the Spanish Wikipedia's version - possibly even run through an online translator. My personal opinion is that in its current form a merge/redirect would be the kindest option, though even that will need decent sources to be found.

Speaking as an admin, I suspect that the author may be this chap, who from the username might have a WP:COI. However, I think the real problem is their lack of facility with the English language; we can't assume they've understood the warnings and advice well enough to realise what the concerns are. This is itself a WP:COMPETENCE issue, so depending on how things develop admin action may need to be taken. Ideally a Spanish-speaking editor (anyone?) is needed to help explain WP:OWN, WP:RS and WP:V; if proper sources can be found (shouldn't be too hard given the brand) and someone is willing to tidy the article up, the problem would disappear. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 11:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Now Afd'd it. PROD removed by Spanish IP - probably a sockpuppet of the creator Uder:Adilette1972. Any comments on AfD here. Mentioned perhaps a sentence or two should be in the Adidas page. Thanks, _Will^dow (Talk) 12:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Stifle and his rollback removal

Resolved

 – Rollback bit restored.

This user/admin had alleged that I rollbacked libelous material at Talk:Harvey Dorfman. Since the alleged rollback edit has since completly been deleted, I have no way of actually looking at what I may have done wrong, nor do I have a fair chance to defend myself among the broader community as a whole. I did recieve this message:

A recent rollback of yours restored libellous material to this page (it has now been deleted). This is a really serious issue. To encourage you to slow down when patrolling recent changes, I've removed the rollback right from your account. This is intended to be temporary and I intend to restore it in a few days. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jojhutton"

In order to encourage me to slow down (code for teaching me a lesson}, the admin removed my rollback. Seems couter productive to me, especially since I have made thousands of good rollback edits in the past year. This, I think, only helps the vandals in the end, since that means that there will be one less set of eyes on their vandalism.

The real question is, what was restored with my use of rollback, and how was it edited before before I rolled it back? I have no real way of knowing, nor will most anyone else now. I know that admins have the ability to look these things up, so I hope that this will be looked at.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the material should not have been restored; that being said, repeating what it is here defeats the purpose of the original suppression. It contained unsourced accusations of impropriety. –xeno^talk 12:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a lot to add to this; this admin-only link shows the rollback in question, accompanied by this template warning. I will defer to the consensus here (and hereby authorize any admin who feels that Jojhutton's rollback right should be restored to restore it without reference to me). Stifle (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a completely inappropriate and indefensible restoration by any standard, and hopefully temporary removal of rollback will encourage Jojhutton to look more carefully next time, as no one in their right mind would have restored it and issued a warning if they had. The previous editor had blanked the page by the way. What's more surprising is that the content had been there for six months. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Endorse Stifle's actions. It's rollback is easy and quick, hence the need for additional caution to ensure what is restored isn't material that was, in practice, courtesy blanked. MLauba (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Very difficult to defend myself against invisible evidence. Please look at how the page was blanked, was an edit summery used properly? I have no idea at this point, nor willl 95% of those who see this thraed, who aren't admins.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

An edit summary was not used. However, when reverting blanked text, you should always look to see why. Per policy: "When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a biography of a living person, it is important to remember that this might be the subject of the article attempting to remove problematic material. If this appears to be the case then such an edit should not be treated as vandalism. Instead, the editor should be welcomed and invited to explain his/her concerns with the article." The material that was removed was completely unsourced accusations of criminal impropriety. I suspect if you had read it, you would not have restored it. Accidents happen, but when you revert blanking you are responsible for the material that you restore. If you had been under the impression that blanking without edit summary was automatically vandalism, then reconsideration is a good idea. (Adding, from Wikipedia:Vandalism: "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself..." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

When a one-shot IP zaps a large section of uncontroversial-looking text, that's usually vandalism. It's always good to check it first, though, before reverting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it usually is, but in this case, though, it clearly wasn't. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I can't see it, I have to take your word for it. :) One thing, though - If you blindly revert, you can see the results of the reversion, so there's really no good excuse for not taking note of what was deleted or restored. You can always fix a mistake by reverting yourself, or if it's not clearly vandalism but needs reverting, by reverting yourself and then reverting again but with an explanation in the edit summary. That may seem tedious, but it makes it less likely you'll end up here with an accusation of rollback abuse. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

After looking at this myself, I agree entirely with what Moonriddengirl's said here. I'm not sure if I'd personally have removed rollback for that one incident, but it was certainly a pretty egregious piece of vandalism to restore, and I guess it's worth learning the lesson. I'd certainly support restoring your rollback in a few days as Stifle initially stated. ~ mazca ^talk 13:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just use WP:TW instead.--Otterathome (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Endorse temporary removal of rollback. After a quick review of Jojhutton's reverts, I suggest that rollback is reinstated in the near future so that they can continue fighting vandalism. Also suggest that Jojhutton is provided the deleted content privately, to clarify the reason for removal. Otherwise the suspension may seem rather Kafkaesque. decltype (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Moonridden Girl also. But I don't think that anyone should be given the deleted content and I am going to email OTRS suggesting that it is oversighted. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Why email OTRS? Just email Special:Emailuser/Oversight if you think it qualifies. Make sure to give them diffs to the deleted revisions. –xeno^talk 13:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I meant oversight, sorry. That's who I emailed. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I respect your judgment in this matter. decltype (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I support giving back rollback right now, instead of waiting for a few days. Jojhutton isn't a child, he doesn't need Wii privileges taken away for a week to make sure he learns his lesson. Unsubstantiated accusations against a living person are bad. Blanking text without an edit summary is bad. Blindly reverting it without reading what you're restoring is bad. Of the three, blanking text without a summary is least bad, by far. Moonriddengirl, above, nailed it, so any further discussion is unnecessary. I think it's safe to assume Jojhutton knows he made a mistake, and from the number of admins commenting, knows it was a fairly obvious and serious mistake. Let him learn from it.

  So, is this one of those "must have consensus" things, or is it one of those "any admin willing to overturn" things? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think most of us are waiting for Jojhutton to change their line of argument from, "How can I defend myself against edits I can't see" to something including an undertaking to be more careful in the future. CIreland (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite patronising to remove his rollback to “encourage” him to be more careful. A polite reminder would have been sufficient. Heavy handed and condescending removal of R/B from a consistent vandal fighter for one slip-up. Leaky Caldron 14:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He may be a wonderful vandal fighter, but I think the comments about this matter at the talk page reflect a clear misunderstanding of practice, here...something beyond one slip-up. He evidently was under the misimpression that any blanking without edit summary could and should be automatically reverted. Hopefully he will know better now (both based on policies above and Wikipedia:Rollback itself: "When using rollback to restore text to a page, ensure that the text restored does not violate Wikipedia policies."), but I would also like to see some indication that he does. We all make mistakes, but there's no harm in waiting for an "Oh, I get it" before restoring the status quo and marking the matter resolved. I'm also a bit concerned about his characterizing an expressly temporary removal of rollback as "being led to slaughter". I hope that he realizes that it is not an attack against him to make sure he is using the tool correctly, and his note that Stifle had "convienently erased" the evidence in first instance seems a bit out of accord with WP:AGF. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I won't restore without such an explicit indication, then; in any case, I see he hasn't edited since your clear summary above. Keep in mind he can't see the deleted content, and the rollback removal came out of the blue; there was no explanation first. I can certainly put myself in his shoes and understand him getting his back up. Permission removal is not a substitute for discussion. In fact, it can be an excellent way to make sure the other person is too offended to listen to what you're saying. This could have been handled better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd have been a bit shocked, too. :) That said, I think it's a good thing that Stifle decided to engage him about it. If he had not, Jojhutton might not have realized it was his approach that was the problem rather than this particular set of circumstances. I don't think anybody is a bad guy here. There was just some clarification needed about the way blanking reversions work, and it really should be easy to settle at this point. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Stifle already said that he is fine with another admin restoring it without further discussion, however I would also like to see some commitment to be more circumspect in future rollbacks. There is a setting (I believe it is the default?) that shows you the result of the rollback. You should take a quick peek to make sure you've done the right thing! –xeno^talk 14:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The material that was rolled back was pretty serious, but I take it that this was an accident and not deliberate? I'm sure we've all hit the rollback link wrongly a few times as admins, it seems quite unfortunate that this one happened but it doesn't sound malicious to me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of malice, but of misuse; his talk page and comments above suggests that he has not understood how reverting blanked material works. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Per Tbsdy lives, plenty of admins occaisionally accidently rollback things they shouldn't, or block the person reporting vandalism instead of the vandal, or make all sorts of other mistakes. We don'r remove their tools, however obtuse their response. DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A silly comparison. You're comparing apples to uranium, or apples to the early works of Raymond Carver. One set of tools we give to people who have a heartbeat and can demonstrate that they don't write "poopy" on the wall; the other takes 5000 edits of experience and a hell of a gauntlet to run. Tan | 39 15:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's silly of me to expect admins to treat non-admins with the same courtesy, understanding and patience with which they treat admins, you are quite right, and it's entirely proper that we extend greater forgiveness to misuse (accidental or not) of tools which have the real potential to cause lasting damage to the encyclopaedia and the community than we do to a one-off mistake that was easily corrected. DuncanHill (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not the issue, as I can pretty much feel the collective wince of all admins when they saw the mistake that was made - a mistake that many of us could have easily made also. That's not the issue - the issue is that the mistake needs to be acknowledged before they get the tool back again. That's all! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Restore the R/B and continue the discussion with him away from here. That would be AGF - and not in glare of a public forum, which would have had the singular benefit of preventing Tan’s typical, wholly unconstructive, sideswiping generalisation of editors that carry out basic counter-vandalism. Leaky Caldron 15:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• These edits have now been oversighted as they contain potentially libelous, unsourced accusations of serious criminal acts - Alison ^❤ 15:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Alison. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Unless we're going to remove admin tools for one bad protection/block/deletion, Stifle's action was inappropriate in the extreme. As someone else said, Jojhutton isn't a child, and removal of the rollback bit shouldn't be treated as some kind of friggin' timeout or something. UnitAnode 15:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a misunderstanding that could have been resolved by discussion without the need for administrative action. I believe removing the rollback for what appears to be a first time mistake, that was done in good faith, was a little harsh. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm not sure why this particular situation is generating so much excitement, but Wikipedia:Rollback feature says, emphasis in original, " Misuse of rollback may cause the feature to be revoked by an administrator." It also says, "An administrator can grant (or revoke) rollback using their own judgment, via the interface at Special:UserRights." I wouldn't have immediately revoked rollback myself, but I don't think there was anything inappropriate in Stifle's action. There was clear misuse of the rollback feature, even if it was well-intended, and there evidently needed to be some clarification that blanking should not be blindly reverted, but reviewed, even without edit summary. This looks like a misunderstanding of the tool's usage, not an accident. Unlike adminship, rollback really is "no big deal" (and anyone who thinks adminship is no big deal has either never experienced the modern RfA or has a very thick skin). At this point, it seems like a simple "message received" is all that's needed for everybody to go on happily about their day. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is a perfect example of why I refuse to have any of these gaudy bits; they're just treated as baubles to be handed out and taken away at the whim of any passing administrator who's having a bad hair day. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Rollback enables you to revert all the entries most recently made by one guy in an article. It's basically just a time-saver, i.e. you don't have to go back to the version just before and then edit it and save it. Just one click and those entries be reverted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Please don't take me for a fool; I know perfectly well what rollback is, and that it's a complete waste of time when compared to Twinkle. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I have sometimes taken you for a malcontent, but not a fool. What I was trying to explain is that rollback is useful, and is worth hanging onto by refraining from misusing it, while losing it is not the end of the world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

• Unless Jojhutton has a history of misfeasance with regards to use of the rollback feature, the revocation of the right - even temporary - was a heavyhanded solution to a single error. The situation could have been handled in a much simpler and less dramatic fashion by making him aware of the error and encouraging him to be more deliberate with his use of the rollback feature in the future. I would support the immediate restoration of the access. Shereth 16:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I share the same view as Shereth on this matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jojhutton, please be more careful with this incredibly valuable tool. Tan | 39 16:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to accept that, from time to time, people will make mistakes. The material certainly should not have been restored, and certainly we can and should bring it to someone's attention when they re-introduce such a problem, but absent some history of malicious or careless misuse of a tool, immediately removing it with no warning seems excessive. One over-hasty response probably won't fix an over-hasty revert, but hopefully everyone's got that figured out by now. For the record, I emailed Jojhutton a (very truncated) summary of the revision's contents. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I am grateful to get the rollback tool back, I feel that I have one more thing to say.

In the past few days I have recieved several personal e-mails from various admins on this site. Although the text of each e-mail was different, the idea of them all was the same. They all seemed to think that I should just admit that I made a mistake and apologize. One of the e-mails, although cordial in its wording, was threatening in its nature. Demanding that I admit I was wrong or else I may have difficulty in the future.

I have only one thing to say to those out there who want me to admit that I made a mistake. How can I acknowledge that I did anything wrong, when I can't even see it? This is not like most mistakes that some may make on wikipedia, where a user is shown a thread, and they can look at it, and see where they went wrong. No this is much different. This is more like someone telling me I did something wrong, then when I ask what I did, I'm told that they can't tell me, but trust us you were wrong. I wouldn't expect anyone in the world to admit to anything like this, especially in this manner, on or off wikipedia. I know that wikipedia isn't a court of law, but I am still a human being with the same feelings and emotions as anyone else.

Others have argued that I just reverted the page without looking at it. That I somehow blindly rolled back a page, just because I misunderstand how rollback works. This too is false, but it is impossible for me to defend against these particular accusations, since again, I can't see the thread.

I no longer feel that I can fairly justify what happened, so I have decided to take a different road and practice a form of Passive resistance.

This is why I have decided to silence myself for a full week. Mostly out of the content of many of the e-mails that I recieved, (which was like a punch in the stomach), and secondly out of the fact that many want me to admit to doing something wrong, that I can't even verify happened.

I am not doing this to be bitter. I am not bitter, although many may see this as so. Actually I feel really good about myself right now, but I am doing it to show how wrong it is to silence users who are somehow guilty, even when the evidence can't be seen.

I hope to be back in a week. I may come back with a vengence, or I may go out with a whimper. Either way, it is clear that I am not wanted at this time, so thanks for those who supported me, and see you all in a week.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. You are taking this WAY too seriously. Enjoy your little crusade. Tan | 39 00:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Cool three

I'm fine with people venting in some way and he certainly has a right to do so I think, but I'm not sure if the farewell message on his user page is appropriate. ANI regulars are "power-hungry teenagers without the social skills to survive in the real world", hell is "other Wikipedians", and his detractors are "scum". I'm not going to remove it, but like I said, it doesn't seem appropriate.--Atlan (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen worse. Any idea what his specific complaint was about? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

His RFA.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is unwise, but no more than that. His RfA was not going well, and I gave a long explanation of why I felt the community would not support him and so he should withdraw. I didn't word it well, as he felt I was commenting negatively on his mainspace contributions - he has, under his previous account, written several FAs. I have left an apology on his talkpage. If someone close to him whose judgement he trusts blanked the page so fewer people could see it, that might be acceptable, but if anyone else did I think it might just make matters worse. SilkTork *^YES! 19:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. Yeh, I probably would have said no also, if I voted in RfA's. I recommend leaving it be for awhile and see if he decides to come back and edit. If not, it could be cleared after a decent interval. Very few are likely to see it anyway who don't already know about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, who cares. Tan | 39 19:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Good summary. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I sure don't, but maybe editors mentioned there care. I just brought it out here for attention. Yeah, leaving it for now seems best.--Atlan (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Reads like the typical screed I've seen since my BBS days: "You didn't make me a moderatorgive me an admin bit! That means you're all power-hungry bastards! You'll be sorry I left!" As long as he's not making personal attacks, I'd say leave it so people can see they were right to vote no in his RfA. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc's ongoing abuse

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am going to go ahead and end this discussion now. It's moving around in circles and several admins have already chimed in and decided not to act on it at this time. I suggest that Tarc takes this as a civility warning and modifies his behavior in the future. As for many of the other points brought up, they are personal disputes... We are admins, not babysitters. While I understand that you are having a difficult time overcoming your disputes, keep in mind that we don't have any extra dispute resolution tools that you don't already possess. Trusilver 01:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

---

}}

Resolved

 – Nothing for admins to do. -- Atama頭 21:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just taking his last 50 edits into account (since February 4), User:Tarc has been fouling up talk pages with incivility and personal attacks against all sorts of editors. I know he's done this before, but this is what he's constantly doing right now to degrade the atmosphere of page after page -- it doesn't seem to be a reaction to anything in particular, and only the last two have anything to do with me:

• Violating WP:NPA, WP:CIV: [19] Way to assume good faith there, sport. You're a credit to the project. Edit summary: not
• NPA, CIV: [20] rv - Perhaps you should go write for the National Enquirer then, as that is where this tripe belongs. Has no bearing on the bio of Barney Frank A personal attack on User:ChildofMidnight (as Tarc removed information that a congressman expressed surprise that his lover was growing marijuana in the congressman's home)
• NPA, CIV, WP:TALK: Here's another diff [21] but it's actually better to look at the context: Tarc immediately moves the discussion away from the topic at hand and toward commenting on the other editor in an uncivil way. Here's a recent version of that talk-page section: [22] Tarc does mix in a little discussion of the issue, but it's larded up with so much bile that he can't expect the other party, or anyone else who disagrees with him, to concentrate any more on the issue at hand. His bile just eclipses it.
• NPA, CIV: [23] In removing a polite request on his talk page for Tarc to be polite, the edit summary: the perpetrator does not get to troll the talk pages of others
• NPA, CIV, TALK: [24] Wow. With that bit of bizarre grandstanding, you have pretty much torpedoed any chance of you ever being taken seriously on this page again, or any chance of other's giving your editing suggestions anything more than a polite dismissal. The edit summary: Arivaderchi
• TALK, WP:AGF: [25] Oppose as "I don't like the current name, so we gotta change it to something" is an exercise in pointlessness. Also, any suggestion of "-gate" is a non-starter.

And here's where I come into the picture:

• CIV, TALK: [26] Rejecting your points does not mean I ignored your points. You already waltzed this pedantic dance with Good Ol’factory earlier; we don't need to see Round 2, thanks. Edit summary: pedantry
• CIV: [27] [...] it would do you some good to learn that rather than make personal attacks and call other users trolls. In response to this comment from me [28] in which I said he was trolling. Feel free to look at the context.

Eight examples from the last 50 edits over five days, victimizing various editors. He won't listen to me. Warn him, watch him, and if that doesn't work, block him. And whatever happens, you'll have this as a record if he gets into the same pattern again. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the diffs and concerns noted above are valid. Tarc's contribution history shows that he has been pursuing me and disrupting discussions where I'm involved by attempting to smear, bait, and provoke me into conflict. It's something I've tried to get some attention and assistance with for quite a while because it's the kind of harassing and intimidating behavior that degrades collegial work and disrupts encyclopedia building. I don't mind if someone calls me an ass once in a while (if the shoe fits...), but the persistence of this kind of hostile incivility is damaging to the project. And I've seen him do the same kind of thing with other editors, but I try to avoid engaging with Tarc because I don't want to inflame the problem further. I do think some interventions to correct this pattern of interaction would be useful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc

Tarc is not always Mr. Warmth. He's yelled at me a time or two also. But I don't see anything in the list that's any big deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The current version of Barney Frank won't even mention that his lover was arrested for growing marijuana in the congressman's own home after Tarc attacked the editor who put it there, both in the edit summary and then on the talk page, and reverted the edit. Never mind the content dispute: Why would a third editor want to get involved in that talk page discussion -- so that Tarc could abuse someone else? How is that not harmful to the encyclopedia? How is it no big deal to edit in a way that could goad other editors to respond uncivilly? If you don't mind a filthy editing environment, coddle him. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anything "filthy" in what Tarc said, no "abuse", just strong opinions. Has Frank been accused of breaking any laws in connection with that alleged incident? If not, then the only reason for posting it is to take the National Inquirer approach to editing the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bugs. Nothing bad in the list of diffs. Indeed, most of them seem completely justified when taken into context. Seems like the genesis of this complaint was a content dispute, and another dispute over retaining a non-neutral, policy-violating category. Recommend the editors avoid each other. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's primarily a content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

When it's something like six unrelated content disputes, how is it primarily a content dispute? In my own case, this isn't going to help me "win" the content dispute. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Focus on article content and ignore the sniping of other editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey has a long history with me. Our most recent interaction was here [29]. I wonder, which of the four editors Tarc was denegrating should avoid him in the future? And this only goes back 50 edits. How many more editors should we be recommend avoid Tarc? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I can think of several editors I've had some history with. Rather than trying to control their behavior, generally I control things by staying away from articles they edit. There are a couple of gazillion articles in wikipedia, many of which need much more improvement than the Frank article does, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Referring to editors as "slackjawed retards" seems a bit extreme. Yes, that comment may be from offsite, but it reflects over all attitude and opinion of other editors. How can we have a serious discussion when we know that is what someone thinks of many of us? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What it reflects is frustration with POV-pushers and scandalmongers, a frustration which I share, and which I found I was constantly fighting when defending the Obama and the Palin articles, and which is why I don't edit political articles any more, as it's not good for my blood pressure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia Review is populated and run by slackjawed retards, it's also kind of funny. HalfShadow 20:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has their calling. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That's nothing compared to the kind of language I use to refer to other editors offsite. Tarc may use any language or say anything he pleases offsite without consequence. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that Tarc has actually been relatively restrained in his comments? If so, it's time for someone to wrap this one up as "no admin action needed". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Lulz, where to start.
  • Barber, formerly Noroton, has a bee in his bonnet over at a current DRV where his rather unique take on WP:USEFUL is not gaining any traction, which is apparently leading to a bit of frustration and lashing out. He has been repeatedly accusing other users of ignoring him, his points, or to quote Good Ol Factory, "You're free to interpret guidelines in your own way, but don't try to tell other users what they mean or how they must interpret the guideline in context.". It appears that this frustration has led him to dig into my editing history and snip out of context some very disparate quotes, from dealing with persistent SPAs at the Obama talk page, to thwarting ChildofMidnight's attempt to do to Barney Frank what he was sanctioned for doing to Barack Obama last year...to a Stone Temple Pilots discussion? Seriously, Barber, you're getting on my case for responding to another users extremely bad-faith assumption about other users who are on one side of a genre discussion? If you seriously have a beef here, wouldn't WP:WQA have bene a better first step than the morass of AN/I? That you came here first smacks more of "look at me!" than anything else.
  • ChildofMidnight has a rich history in AN/I, which can be perused via the archive box above. It is unfortunate that he still feels he is the victim of a massive cabal, ever since the Obama ArbCom. His counter-reports on others who file reports on him at AN/I or elsewhere have been met with universal rejection. The boy who cried "wolf!" to a T.
  • WR. What I may say or so there, or at ED or anywhere else, has no bearing here. For the record, I disagree with WR more than agree with it, from their providing a safe soapbox to the well-known stalker, harasser, and sock-master Joehazelton to their Think of the children whining about nekkidness in wikipedia articles. Tarc (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Addendum; the only one I would wish to retract would be the edit summary here, that was a bit too confrontational and hip-shooting. The others I am good with. Tarc (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me. To borrow a line from a movie, it's "a bunch of rinky-dink tabloid garbage." Unless Frank has been charged with a crime, that story is irrelevant POV-pushing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Agree with BB. Time to wrap this one up. Leave the content dispute for the disputants to settle and let's move on.--Wehwalt (talk)
        • Right. Tarc was perhaps ruder than I'd have been, but then I was brought up a very proper Bostonian and am never the least bit rude to anybody. No harm, no foul; de minimis non curat an/i. PhGustaf (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Even when Bostonians say "Yankees suck!" they mean it in the best possible way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just one note as I see it. I fly pretty loose with civility at times myself, but Tarc is at least as incivil as User:GoRight, who is currently on a one strike then out civility probation. If this had been an WP:RFU and Tarc had been given a week off for the comments above, I would be upholding the block. I don't see any action that really needs to be taken as things stand right now, but I would definitely caution the editor to remember the adage: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." Trusilver 21:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion's been an an exercise in ignoring crucial points, distracting with irrelevant points and coddling. Tarc talks about content disputes as if all this happened on one or two pages. He's been acting like this at nearly every talk page he's been to for days. I had nothing to do with three quarters of the examples of his bad behavior listed above. Our "content dispute" is irrelevant, so why is it necessary to comment on it here? I looked into his edit history because I (correctly) guessed what I'd find there: more than one out of seven of his previous 50 edits was to disparage other editors. Not one, not two, not three, but five. No matter how many times Tarc responds with further attacks on me, that doesn't excuse it. It's a pattern. When it gets to be a pattern it's worth bringing up for review.

Tarc's response is to say I'm "lashing out", except that nothing I've done compares with his bad behavior. If I dislike being attacked, I guess that means I must have a bad motive in looking into and reporting his bad behavior. He goes on to attack ChildofMidnight, again, right on this page, when CoM did or said nothing to provoke the attack. He says the quotes were taken out of context, but he's blowing smoke: Context sometimes explains snapping at one or two people, but not five different, unconnected situations. And in each one, Tarc acted worse than the editors he was interacting with -- there's your context. And he hasn't shown where any "context" either justifies or minimizes his drumbeat of bad behavior. Should I have brought this elsewhere? I thought the WP:TALK violations would be outside the focus of WP:WQA, but I didn't look into it.

I'll consider Trusilver's comment as the warning I was looking for, and Atama's comment at the top, "Nothing for admins to do." as an example of not getting it. If Tarc continues trolling, I'll be complaining again. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And if you continue the bad-faith assumptions, the name-calling, the continued habit of discussing the editors rather than the subject matter, and of course the wiki-stalking, then you can expect a swift return here as well, Mr. Barber. Continued frivolous AN/I filings will not reflect very favorably upon you. I must say that I am beginning to see Wikidemon's predicament a bit better now, after he had to deal with your tenacious harassment of him last year. Tarc (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

ahem. *cough, cough* - would you mind not bringing that old dispute up? JohnWBarber is a fine editor. I have had a good working relationship with him at times, rocky at others but we are not in an active dispute now. Can we please not raise old issues? JWB, would you mind holding off before defending yourself to see if we can encourage Tarc not to stir that pot? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:F6Coloratura80 and their WP:DE and WP:BLANKING behavior

This user, who is unregistered, has been editing the article, Celine Dion for quite some time now. At first, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt, but after they began revetting long-standing edits, and ignoring other users' requests to explain their edits, I became concerned that they were potentially endangering the article FA status. The user has been ignoring requests to engage in conversations about their edits on the article's talk page, as well as their own page. Despite this, they continue to add information that is either unneccessary or completely false in nature. The edits they create contain nearly all in-line citations, most from the same source, which makes it very difficult to verify. I am worried that their apparent WP:DE is hurting the article's status. Lastly, I am also concerned that this user may be the same exact one that was banned from editing about a month ago. Their actions are very, very similar in nature, and the way they interact with other users, makes me believe that it may be the same person. Nevertheless, I would greatly appreciate if something could be done to help. Thanks. BalticPat22Patrick 19:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It could be that they are new to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome template to their talk page. If disruption continues, let us know. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:76.102.12.35

This IP has been busy tagging articles for speedy deletion but absolutely refuses to notify the original authors, despite being politely asked to do so numerous times.

Quote: "Yes. I have no desire to become a mentor/tutor/personal WP guide. Been there, done that, waaaay over it." [30]

Also revert vandalism without placing warnings (hardly ever). This is very uncooperative. One reply to a complaint was "well, though shit." Messages are deleted from the talkapge with "cleaning out the detrius".

This a) seems to imply that a former user has resorted to being an IP and more importantly that WP:BITE (which isn't policy, but consensus) is completely ignored.

(notified)

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

76.102.12.35 does not strike me as an adherent of WP:Etiquette. The impression he gives is that he is very BITE-y. Jarkeld (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This user also has started tagging articles for AfD, listing them on the AfD page, but won't actually start the specific AfD pages - he leaves that for other editors to complete. Not the first time he's done this, either. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

IP editors can't create new pages, and therefore can't create the AFD pages. Woogee (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we know that, and so does s/he. But other people aren't this user's footsoldiers. Of course, the IP doesn't deem it necessary to dignify said footsoldiers' concerns with a comment here. Par for course... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The MO sounds vaguely familiar, as does the speech. Sound like anyone recently blocked? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry guys, while it is suggested that you notify the original author when CSD tagging, it is not policy. If they don't want to do it, and they've been advised that it would be nice if they did, then that's all there is to do about it. Nor do they have to respond to this thread if they don't want to. I don't see anything actionable here. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Beeblebrox. I generally find it counterproductive to respond to those who think I should do what they want as opposed to what is actually required. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

James dalton bell returns as IP sock

Please see here, thanks, and please block this obvious sock.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is indeed him, he's editing Jim Bell again and seems to be skirting right on the edge of WP:BLP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm certain it's him alright. IP blocked for a week. —DoRD (?) (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Another one, 71.36.122.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), making same edits, using same edit summaries.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The edits themselves seem fairly minor. I should note that there are {{fact}} statements in there... these should be removed until a source can be found, per BLP guidelines. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Second IP also blocked. Both clearly related, in the same Qwest subnet even. —DoRD (?) (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

On second look, scratch that. They both have the same Qwest hop #11 [31] [32] gateway, though. —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And another: 97.120.244.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Woogee (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad uploads by Rock&MetalFan

Resolved

 – 31 hours block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Despite several warnings (in edit summaries as well), including a final warning, the user won't stop. Any administrator who can step in? Thanks. Nymf _talk/contr. 22:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be completely ignoring cautions and continuing to upload pictures of living people that do not meet WP:NFC. I've given a preliminary 31 hour block, which hopefully will get his attention. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Incivility/racism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing this. A Nobody is not going to be blocked and nothing else will come of this. ÷seresin 01:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Evening all.

We have here an editor, talking about the Article Rescue Squadron, referring to them as "you people".

We have here, another editor stating that this is "racist".

I don't know what the appropriate admin action is here (or if there is any), so it's all yours.   pablo_hablo. 23:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an issue for ANI and it doesn't appear to really be an issue for anything. If it keeps up, perhaps it's an issue for WP:WQA, but you don't need to take a bit of testy/insane dialogue all the way to ANI. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your input.   pablo_hablo. 23:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely it's a violation of WP:NPA's "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." Ryan4314 (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

more lol-inducing. Describing people who don't like the ARSes as "racist"? :p. Ironholds (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that's what I thought. I didn't think there were stringent entry requirements.   pablo_hablo. 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There has been somewhat of a urination contest going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the occult secret societies. I've been fussed at for making an off-hand joke well away from the main area of battle, and I've also told two of the main combatants, User:A Nobody (who apparently has a history of not being to civil) and User talk:Ryan4314 (much more civil) to take their dispute elsewhere. User:A Nobody has been particularly troublesome, and erases any comments on his user page with which he disagrees. I understand he's been the subject of an RFC before. I'm not sure this has risen to the level of an ANI yet, but some wiser heads might want to keep an eye on A Nobody and the AfD discussion, just to make sure things don't get out of hand. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody — Jack Merridew 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't I see this in Tropic Thunder?

"What do you mean, 'you people'?"

"What do you mean, 'you people'?"

--Father Goose (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh; I'm gonna have to see that movie ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can some admin please ban me?

Resolved

 – User is getting the help they need, thanks to some clever javascript. –xeno^talk 00:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can some admin please ban me for 2 months? I need to get off Wikipedia, but it has become some sort of an addiction :( I'd appreciate a quick response, thank you. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOCKME, we can't do this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Admins don't block people on request. Try Wikibreak Enforcer. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:52, 9 Feb 2010 (UTC)

"typically". You could if you wanted. And if enough of us started doing it, the guideline would of course be rewritten to better describe (rather than prescribe) our actions. –xeno^talk 23:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, then. I can't really think of a reason to be against it yet. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:01, 10 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I remember a similiar request a year or so back, I said no but another admin went ahead and did it for two weeks as they requested. A week later they requested an unblock saying they only meant one week, they were unblocked and it was pointed out that this is why we don't typically block on request. They didn't take it very well, thought they were being attacked, overreacted and now they're blocked indef, including a few sockpuppets.--Jac16888^Talk 00:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, it's basically because of the administrative overheard. To be clear, I'm not going to do it - but I've seen admins who have in the past and no one really batted an eyelash. –xeno^talk 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Aaa, crap. I'll try that, thanx. --JokerXtreme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

I never thought much of that part of WP:BLOCKING, and as it says "typically", I usually do it on request (see users talk page). However, in this case, it seems that merely logging out has solved the problem. Tan | 39 00:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, looks like they setup the wikibreak enforcer as suggested by Equazcion (talk · contribs). –xeno^talk 00:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to interject here, the blocking tool is intended to prevent disruption to the project, not one's psyche. Using it to the latter effect just muddles things. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if an unblock request is reasonable and done in good faith it may be approved. Why should a reasonable, good faith block request be declined?> RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 05:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is a simple way to avoid the scenario mentioned above where they try to back out of it later. Just give them the hardest possible block, no talk page+no email access=no unblock request. Done that way, I don't see any harm in it, although nobody would be required to fulfill such a request either. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

HalfShadow is deliberately baiting me

Resolved

 – HalfShadow warned and acknowledged. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 04:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Outright insults, [33], refactoring my comments [34][35], more snark [36].

Do something about this. I will tell you now, I will categorically not listen to 'just ignore it'--if I did the same things, I'd get blocked. You're admins, deal with the problem. → ROUX ₪ 04:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you stop reverting his posts while your at this?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Because at no point did I attack him. The reverse is not true. Once again, Coldplay: I'm sure you contribute to articles, but your contributions elsewhere are largely marked by being wholly ill-informed about the issue. Please stop. → ROUX ₪ 04:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• And again[37] when I dropped the required AN/I notice on his talkpage. → ROUX ₪ 04:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Look. I don't want anymore trouble but the truth is, I've been watching this issue for a while now. Ever since (and even before) Malleus got blocked (again) I've been paying attention. I look down on those who drive away one of our best content creators on this whole site.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I beg your fucking pardon? Malleus shows up to do nothing but attack and harass me (and then, indeed, does it again with zero repercussions apart from a wholly-ignorable warning), and I'm the one who drove him off? You have less than no clue of what you're talking about there, kid. → ROUX ₪ 04:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Roux, you seem stressed...you might want to step back and take a 30 minute break or something. Just get away from the stress for a while, and you will feel better I'm sure. =) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Or, and I realise this may be a novel concept, how about you address the actual problem here? → ROUX ₪ 04:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not an admin...but just step back and let them handle it...you're getting to stressed with this to keep control much longer it seems. Just go watch a thirty minute comedy on tv or something, and relax...you will feel better! Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh so [I] have less than no clue of what [I'm] talking about there, kid? Give me a break. Your starting to act like a fool. Edit waring does'nt help your case either.[38].--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good job, Coldplay. Insulting me just like the person you inexplicably believe I drove away? Good job. Now, could we please return to the actual issue at hand, which is HalfShadow's unacceptable behaviour? → ROUX ₪ 04:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the subject of an AN/I complaint today about as superficial as this one, honestly. You're both baiting each other...WP:DICK accusations and templating and such. Either develop some thicker skin or disengage, IMO. Tarc (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using a template. If it's fine for newbies who we should be nicer to, it's fine for regulars. And that is hardly the point.. I have in fact not attacked or baited HalfShadow. The reverse is not true, so yet again I must say: familiarise yourself with the situation before commenting on it. → ROUX ₪ 04:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the subject of an AN/I complaint today about as superficial as this one, honestly. You're both baiting each other...WP:DICK accusations and templating and such. Either develop some thicker skin or disengage, IMO. Tarc (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

/facepalm Roux, you've only been back to editing, what, a couple of weeks and you've been to ANI how many times...? Just sayin' ... maybe there are people and venues you should avoid as if your life depended on it. —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

By which you nicely show your ignorance of the situation and inability to read diffs. I had said nothing to HalfShadow. Not word one. Nothing. Nada. Zero. He showed up and started attacking and baiting me. Yet again, familiarise yourself with the situation before commenting on it.→ ROUX ₪ 04:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Connotation and tone (literature), Roux. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Don't need to read diffs. The point is, maybe you should avoid contentious areas like WQA or ANI and stick to something a bit less stressful. Seriously. —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Contentious areas have nothing to do with this. People attacking me out of nowhere (and yes you do need to read the diffs, that's the whole point of providing them) is the problem. Do us all a favour and address the actual problem for a change. I know, that's not in the Admin Handbook, but try breaking the mold. → ROUX ₪ 04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Roux, what problem do you wish addressed? Shadow made a light hearted comment after a post where you yourself said you were an idiot. Why is your sarcasm at WQA OK but someone else's take on it is not OK? Then you go to their talk page and issue a warning about a so-called personal attack and they don't take it seriously. You could have posted again about how uncivil it is to change idiot-edits because the idiots furrow their brows in a vain attempt to understand what happened [copyvio]. Instead you come back with a DTTR. What behaviour do you wish addressed here? Franamax (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Because making a comment about oneself is one thing. Someone showing up to dig in a bit further--someone who has left insults on my talkpage prior to this incident--is a very different animal. Far from 'not taking it seriously', he continued with insults, and indeed completely rewrote what I had written. Or has the policy against rewriting comments made by others changed recently? → ROUX ₪ 04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Just my 2 cents due to numerous past observations here, per WP:POINT... if the complainant continues to behave per such manner, it is possible that he/she might end up being the one getting BLOCKED instead. Also, the complainant might wanna read up on WP:Gray Area first before carrying on with his/her hounding, as HS has chosen to disengage from an escalating situation and you should take the hint. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hounding? What? He showed up in a thread in which he was previously wholly uninvolved solely to hound and harass me. What part of that is difficult to comprehend? → ROUX ₪ 04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(Both of which he appears to lack one way or the other) This is going nowhere. Roux obviously has a grivence (I'll give him that) but he's going about it the wrong way. Ever tried actually asking them to stop? Instead of creating several ANI threads?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I did. But, y'know, you know all about this situation, so you should know that. → ROUX ₪ 04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh and your such a saint who's been wronged and now your out to get revenge, right? Like I told you before, two wrongs do not make a right.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-yous here, but [39] is way way inappropriate. Halfshadow had better refrain from that in the future. RxS (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And HalfShadow, whatever your beef with Roux is, stop now. Your only causeing disruption. Move on.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

unblock review User talk:Bibleopedia

Is it just me or is this user being jerked around a bit? I don't see any username violation in their original unblock request, unless we are to believe that "Bible Crusader" means they are officially on God's own payroll and are here to promote the Bible... Their only edit outside of their talk page was to create a user page that did in fact promote a website. They were blocked for that. Fine, I can get behind that, but then they get a block notice saying their username is the only reason for the block, and now apparently any other name they might choose is not good enough because the first name promoted a website. Beeblebrox (talk)

I think I was justified in declining "Bible Crusader", not because they're on God's payroll but because (to me at least) it just screams out they're here to push an agenda--Jac16888^Talk 05:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is really kinda weird. There are names that are way worse. This could easily lead to anyone w/ the name Mohammed, Jose, or Maria being disallowed... Go thru the names we have. "Headbomb" (terrorist?)... "Tide rolls" (pro Tsunami?)... "Hell in a Bucket" (Satanist?)...Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Jac, they really haven't even been given a chance to edit beyond his one page. Just give him a second chance, as there is no harm in trying. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was a bit out of line there. Crusaders do, however, annoy me. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not stopping him. I didn't block him and I haven't declined his following unblock requests. I saw him requesting an unblock with a name I felt was inappropriate so I declined the request. Change his name to his latest request and unblock him--Jac16888^Talk 05:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I've unblocked them and told them to choose either of their last two requested names as their new name. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Racepacket: copyright problems

I was doing my daily rounds at WP:SCV when I came across Robert B. McGinnis "by" Racepacket (talk · contribs). The article is a close paraphrase from [40], with two paragraphs almost copied verbatim (the ones beginning with "McGinnis's 1965 book" and "He founded"). Having a look at his talk page reveals a history of similar copyright problems spanning more than two years.

• Mary Margaret Whipple deleted twice as copyvio. I haven't checked the third creation.
• Sylvester Willard - [41] copied from [42]. The article remains a derivative work. (May be pd as the source sources something pd, but can't really tell.) Sent to WP:CP.
• Marguerite Ross Barnett, see [43]. Essentially, [44] from [45]
• Jacksonville Developmental Center, see [46]. Was sent to WP:CP and revised.
• William T. Miller see Talk:William T. Miller

At the very least, please revoke his autoreviewer permission. I've also requested a CCI (not opening it directly, would like feedback). MER-C 05:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. That article is a very close paraphrasing, any user who would do that shouldn't carry the autoreviewer flag. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) None of the McGinnis article is verbatim from any source, and the facts from the different sources are arranged in a meaningful order. Marguerite Ross Barnett was based on a public domain resume that was distributed with a conference. I have reviewed the history of the Mary Margaret Whipple article and am not aware of it being "deleted twice as copyvio," because it is still there. I took a one semester course in copyright law, passed the US Patent and Trademark Office admission to practice exam, and am familiar with what constitutes infringement. Again, the facts vs literary express distinction can be tricky and subjective. Based on this, I have identified and tagged a number of copyright violations, including [47] [48] [49] Racepacket (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC):

• Sorry, but no - a quick check of the McGinnis article after your last edit against the apparent source shows two paragraphs that are substantially identical in each. Other paragraphs can be similarly traced to the other two sources. There does appear to be a significant problem. - Bilby (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Mary Margaret Whipple was deleted twice as a copyvio. You created it first here: "01:43, 26 September 2007 . . Racepacket (talk | contribs | block) (812 bytes) (start article)" Corensearchbot tagged it, you removed the copyright flag, and it was deleted by User:Butseriouslyfolks at 04:47, 26 September 2007. The next day, you created the article a second time: "21:50, 27 September 2007 . . Racepacket (talk | contribs | block) (986 bytes) (stated article)". It was deleted by the same admin as a reposted copyvio the following day. The current version dates to later that same day. I have been evaluating some of your recent contributions. I have reverted your edits to Worcester State College; see Talk:Worcester State College for an example of copied text. I have found additional issues (not yet cleaned) in the article Salem State College (content you added here duplicates text at [50], [51] & [52])). Given that and the history above, there does seem to be need for further review at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. You may not have intentionally violated copyright, but your handling of previously published texts in these articles has not accorded with copyright policy and non-free content guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• The CCI is open at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Racepacket. I will notify the appropriate projects in case they are interested in assisting with evaluation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is a somewhat minor point, but Racepacket, what is with the "edit conflict" note on your initial post here? My post and your reply were hours and hours apart from one another. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I suspect it was with my response - Racepacket left a message, I responded, then Racepacket expanded on the message. My guess was that the ec was due to the expansion. - Bilby (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mardi Gras

As it's now the season this article and Mardi Gras in the United States have been getting quit a few ip vandals lately. Anyone willing to semi for a week or so to stop the IPs from having fun? We've been getting a few good Ip additions, but about 90 % have been vandalism and they are increasing by the day right now.. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been an edit to that page in like eight hours, and only two edits yesterday total. If the level of vandalism increases, consider reporting to WP:RFPP, but I'm going to have to decline for now. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 05:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You noticed I also linked Mardi Gras where 2 vandal edits were made 20 or 30 minutes ago which I just reverted before posting here the first time? Or that every hr or 2 all day we had a vandal or 2 show up? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I semi-protected Mardi Gras for 1 week after verifying an elevated level of IP vandalism over the last couple of days. I note that similar protection was applied last year. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, load off my mind. Back to work on article. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the preemptive protections. This is turning into a common modus around here, and there was no consensus for doing it in the first place, let alone doing it all the time. Woogee (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There may not be a concensus written up as policy, but there a valid reason for occasionally doing it, keeps those of us who would rather be doing something productive(aka adding to article space), from having to revert IP vandals constantly on short term targets like a holiday party in NOLA.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There is also an entirely separate board specifically set up to handle these types of requests. In the future WP:RPP is the right place. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Occasionally, yes, but repeatedly, no. The discussion about protecting every single Super Bowl player was an excessive reaction, and it leads to the precedent of possibly preemptively protecting every article concerning the upcoming Olympics and all of the participating individuals. Woogee (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actions such as this are entirely inappropriate when there is no ongoing vandalism, nor any vandalism at all in the five days prior to the protection. The reason for the protection is false, as well. Woogee (talk) 06:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I must've missed that discussion, I have no opinion on it. But after repeatedly reverting vandals for the last few days, with an ever increasing frequency, I felt it was appropriate to ask in this situation. Also, next time I will ask at WP:RPP, sorry, didn't realize there was a special place for this. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Semiprotection_of_BLP_articles_for_Super_Bowl_players. There was never a consensus to violate the protection policy, but it was implemented anyway. Woogee (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Probable IP sock puppetry, I'm involved in the article

This one's a bit complicated. I've been involved with Reargun (talk · contribs) in edits on David a while back, and Khirbet Qeiyafa more recently over an inscribed piece of pottery and an excavation and their implications for the historicity of the Bible. This is a live issue in real life and a disputed/contentious one, and I hope and think I've been trying to keep the articles NPOV and not coming out for one view or another. Reargun (in my opinion I emphasise) seems to have been edting to put emphasis on one pov (and also has some problems with English which hasn't helped his edits, so I've reverted or edited some for that reason also). A little while ago Reargun said on his talk page that he had a storker {sic) and was going to 'lose' me. He started editing Khirbet Qeiyafa with an obvious sock, BerelZ (talk · contribs). [53] I tagged the sock and told him [54] that if he wanted to use an alternate account he could but needed to tag it with an alternate account tag. Then similar edits were made by 216.209.86.141 (talk · contribs) and I took the sock acccount and the IP to SPI, where the Checkuser confirmed the sock account but declined to comment on the IP.

I blocked the sock account indefinitely and told Reargun, as you can see on the diff above, "OK, I've blocked your sockpuppet indefinitely after it was CU confirmed. Please don't create any more. And please don't edit logged out. I'm not blocking you -- I'm assuming good faith, see WP:AGF. Please don't prove me wrong.". What I didn't do is note my actions on the SPI case, and a clerk blocked Reargun for 2 weeks and then unblocked after seeing my note (I was duly chastised for not having placed my actions on the SPI case, and apologised).

Next came more edits by the IP, and at that point I asked the Checkuser about the situtation, and was told "Just because I refused to say whether an IP was related to a user does not mean that you are forbidden to take action if you think it is necessary." At that point I blocked the IP (this was last night). This morning when I woke up {my first night with over 5 hours of sleep for several days) I decided I was too involved and unblocked the IP. I then found that another IP was making the same edits, 99.246.2.8 (talk · contribs). A WHOIS shows that both of these IPs are from the Israeli Embassy in Ottawa.

Can anyone advise or help me deal with what I still think is IP sock puppetry? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it's a bit borderline. I think it was probably a good idea for you to reverse the block, in terms of being "involved" and all. Logged-out editing is normally not regarded as illegitimate in and of itself, as long as it's not done to circumvent WP:SOCK (i.e. simultaneous editing both with the IP and an account with deceptive purposes, or using logged out editing to deliberately prevent proper scrutiny). Technically, I see one edit by the second IP done while the first was blocked, which would be block evasion, but then again, since that block was lifted as somewhat questionable shortly later, I personally would be a bit reluctant to sanction them for that. In any case, I've semi-protected the article for a while, to encourage them to return to their proper account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

GiacomoReturned, yet again

Sigh. Archiving the archive comments. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Fellows, it's archived! Either remove the archive tags or just stop. Giano, you have what you want now, I do hope you are satisfied, now perhaps you can do your worst to that discussion page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh do hush! For your own sake. GiacomoReturned 15:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

OK, I withdraw. As the once productive discussion on the proposed policy page has turned decidedly nasty (I really didn't cause that) I'm totally withdrawing from it. I think it could work, but I guess I just don't have enough time or energy to pursue it, especially when it's has been taken over by some people I have no real respect for and who would prefer it if half the contributors here were to stop editing. Very sad. Oh well, I'll find other areas to work on. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I couldn't have done something more for you. Obviously I would have really liked to, but I believe an admin needs to be fair to everyone, an attitude that probably cost me election to ArbCom last year. Maybe I'll go and be arbitrary, cliquish and popular. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Aham aren't you the man who does not think it incivil to call another editor a "cocksucker" [55]- when it comes to incivility you people don't know the meaning of the word.  Giano  15:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't have baited him now would you Giano? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I frustrate Giano a great deal by not rising to his bait.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wehalt, was overuled and the person concerned was blocked. Always baiting when you people are found to be in the wring isn't it?  Giano  15:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Another admin had a different view. Notably, I did considerably better in the ArbCom election than that admin, whose present contacts with ArbCom are--regrettable. I'm content. Got miles to go before I sleep, Giano, so I will leave you to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Meh, it's not your fault. I really tried hard to get some good discussion going on that incivility block page, and it was doing well till Giano showed up. As he's seen fit to camp there, and nobody can do anything about it, then I'm just not going to bother - I'm handing the reigns over to someone else to see if they can sort this out. I have clinical depression, so I'm not going to spend precious energy battling with him. I know a lot people think I'm baiting him, but that's just not the case. I was genuinely horrified at his blocking attack page, so I submitted it to MFD. If some thought the timing iffy, oh well. I did what I thought right. On the incivility block talk page I did make a suggestion that he should just go away from it, as he wasn't contributing anything and I still maintain this. I have to say that I'm just plain amazed that Giano is able to get away with the sheer audacity of calling others "priggish hypocrites", and make sexual jokes at their expense like he did on the talk page of that proposal. Frankly, I'm gobsmacked, and truly saddened by it. I've never met anyone so mean in all my time on Wikipedia, and that is definitely saying something! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• This is achieving nothing. Go take a break, you can go back to arguing later--Jac16888^Talk 09:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So if Giano changes the talk page, then will an admin do something about it? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm de-archiving as I don't feel that this is resolved. I'm extremely concerned that Giano is going to derail the discussion and remove text from the talk page. I would like to know what can be done about this. And what of the edit war that resulted? He violated 3RR, is this not to be enforced? Surely this is disruptive? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks, I'm sorry for the drama, but Giano has basically decided that as he was insulted by some others that he was going to cause as much upset on Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks as possible. As the discussion on how to start off the proposed text got so completely sidetracked, I moved it to its own thread (there was one suggestion which was to archive to stop the drama which Giano reverted several times). This is now being opposed, and Giano has stated that he is going to move it back after this was done almost 8 hours ago. He has also stated that he's not concerned about removing material due to this move, as he stated that "Whatever, if not restored shortly, I shall do it myself, and it would be a pity if anything were to be accidentally lost.". This is getting pretty disruptive, can I please have a review?

Also, he's currently attempting to bait me on my talk page. I'm not really interested in engaging with him directly, as I've stated a number of times, so I would appreciate someone telling him to desist from my talk page. Especially as he was quite willing to also do the same to me, I would have expected him to undertake the same behaviour he expects in others.

I would appreciate that this time the discussion not be archived until we can get a resolution, because this was done last time and the issues continue. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy, I think where baiting on talk pages is concerned you are the expert. I am happy to take your page off my watchlist. There - done! However, you are becoming monotonous and dull. You cannot exclude people because they don't happen to agree with you. It is a great pity, but one I fear you will have to learn yo live with. You attempted to force through a policy, based on a deebate largely centred on me (about which no one thought to inform me). Now I share my views with you and that debate, you are unhappy. That realy can't be helped.  Giano  08:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What about your statement where you said you were prepared to lose material from the talk page? Can you confirm that this is the case? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ta-Bu you are becoming over exited. I said it would be a pity [56] I am known to be Wikipedia's worst merger and mover - nothing more. If you or soemone else put my comments back into context it would be far safer, look how carefully you moved them in the first place. You are very clever at things like that - I am not.  Giano  08:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm feeling pretty calm, but thanks for asking. Your comments were not related to the previous discussion, and my move of them into their own thread actually still shows them in their full context. Any reasonable editor will be able to follow your concerns, which have nothing to do with starting off the policy text. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, not at all, read the debate, if you are able, you will see your friend, Wehalt, was overuled and the person concerned was blocked. I rather leave baiting to others more expert than me. I merely mention the episode to show the hypocrisy surrounding the blocking for undenialble and true incivility. Now I am truly done here. Good luck in your future Wikipedia career.  Giano  15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you moved comments on a wikipedia debate, without consultation of wisdom. You had no right to do that and were attempting to influence a debate that was not going the way you wanted it to. The page duscussed me at length, in my absence, and now you throw a mega-strop when I arrive and start to corect some of the conclusions drawn by slandering and defaming me. My name occurs 20 odd times before over a two week period before I edit it for the first time. Then when I do, you remove my edits to a corner out of context because they don't fit your view. You should be banned from the discussion for distortion.  Giano  08:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. What happened here was that you started talking about something that was entirely irrelevant to the topic thread. Then FatherGoose set archived header and footer on this material, but you reverted it here, here, here and here, all because you want to continue the discussion. Now at least one editor commented and stated how confused they were about the discussion, mainly due to the poor use of indenting and the fact that the new discussion you forked has nothing to do with the original discussion. So to compromise, I moved your totally irrelevant comments into its own thread. I thought this was a pretty fair compromise, given that you were edit warring. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, I've tried to tell you this quite a few times now, but I had nothing to do with that conversation you are, justifiably, upset about. I'm not feeling "strops" (now that is an Australian word if ever I've heard one, have you ever visited?), all I'm really interested in is getting topics of conversation back on track again. I don't think it's appropriate for you to be using the incivility block talk page as a forum for your grievances - if you have an issue with the way that someone has treated you, try filing a case at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, as this is a more appropriate avenue for this sort of thing. Certainly it's less disruptive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ta Bu you really should disengage, your distortions in order to win your points are now becoming concerning. Anyone reading the dialogue as it was before vandalised by you could see a rationed arguement. You took exception to my metephor and idiom which you could not understand. That is now many people debate.You really have to learn to be a little more broad minded and tolerant. I hope you can acheive this. Now, I'm not coming back here to talk to you further because these threads here of yours are becoming disruptive in themselves. Adieu.  Giano  09:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's your right Giacomo, but you are mischaracterizing my actions. As I stated above, I'm not happy about the conversation where you were mentioned without being around, but I can't condone you disrupting the talk page. Evidently I'm not the only one, as Father Goose tried to archive the thread to stop the drama, GoodDay also tried to get an uninvolved admin involved and expressed a desire to collapse your part of the conversation, Doc Quintana has expressed some frustration as it's not easy to follow proceedings and obviously I would like it if you took your grievances elsewhere. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So we have a situation here where at least four editors are not happy with the the thread that Giano forked and a compromise was attempted. However, he is now saying that he's prepared to disrupt the policy discussion by readding the material and continuing his grievances. Why is this not an admin matter? Yes, I know it looks like a squabble, but surely the four editors I've noted above should be at least considered in this whole thing? Giano is the only one who wants to continue the conversation, but surely this is not the place for this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

fwiw, I think moving peoples comments at all (or archiving discussions, or using 'collapse' boxes etc.) is generally a bad idea - it gives (to me at least) the impression of a sort of unhelpful passive aggression that's just not very useful in actually moving forward and resolving discussions. A valid argument could be made, in my opinion, that it's not very 'civil' either (I get more annoyed by these things than by people saying nasty things about me (shock! it's true! not all see the beauty of this private muse!). On the other hand - I am aware of one groovy way to encourage folk to disengage and chill for a while ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL! I only use that for folks who have already expressed their opinion but have nothing more to add :-) In this situation, there has been a 3RR violation and a total derailment of several conversations all because one editor has been justifiably upset by the comments of some totally unrelated editors to the thread they were commenting on. I feel that something needs to be done here. Even if Giano is told not to readd the thread, that would be fine by me. But then, technically he should be blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Note that this isn't the best course of action, but I think it shows a clear indication of disruptive behaviour. The function of ANI is for reports of problems with disruption, so archiving without a clear resolution is not helpful. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

nah... blocking's a terrible idea for a whole bunch of reasons, I reckon, and I think you can be confident at this point that you've expressed your thoughts on the matter well - so the best next step is probably to disengage yourself, and allow others to take action (or ignore the whole thing, and drink tea, as admin.s are occassionaly wont to do!) - either ways it'll all come out in the wash... Privatemusings (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)heading offline now, so it really is the end of my correspondance ;-) - good to see both you chaps around here, btw - even if you are getting on each other's tits ;-)

Well, I have to disagree. I really need some reassurance that Giano will not try to restore the thread and disrupt existing threads. That is all I'm looking for here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why because it might have a chance of actually solving this? I just hope if I ever go off the deep end I'll be given 10¹² chances to turn it around too.--Crossmr (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am absolutely amazed at how much patience people show to Giano. Even when he disrupts and is completely rude (says things like "priggish hypocrisy", etc.) nothing is done. In fact, if anyone dares to complain or ask for assistance, admins close down the thread? Why?!? We wouldn't let someone like Nothughthomas do this, why should we let Giano? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it a good idea in the middle of a dispute with another user to nominate one of there userpages for deletion? User:Giano/The_spooky_"Curse_of_Giano" Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If he is maintaining an attack page, sure. Why not? If you reported a vandal or a troll who maintained an attack page like this, what would you do about it? I mean, come on - even the people who are currently voting keep are basically saying that Giacomo should be banned for his incivility. Since when did we put up with this sort of mean spirited and hurtful behaviour? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to let such a drama monger continue to have editing privileges here? The sheer volume of controversy over this user should tell anyone all that is really needed to be known. I'm just waiting for some of his supporters and the supporters of other long term drama mongers to make public the WP:CONTRIBFORPOLICYVIOLATION cheat sheet so us plebs can finally keep score.--Crossmr (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats not much of an attack page, its a simple reference to some of the blocks that he feels a bit grieved about, it looks pretty harmless to me. Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, that's not the case here. He's basically saying that any admin who has the temerity to oppose him gets blocked. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So what is actually going on here? This editor has clearly been a huge drama, and is completely rude in every way. Yes, we all know of his brilliance in terms of architecture, but if he was abducted by aliens tomorrow and were to never return, would Wikipedia survive? Well, yes, it would. So why are people so concerned about upsetting him, when he is clearly not worried about doing this to others? Can anyone explain this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't, and like all great users who show up here on what seems like a weekly basis, I always support showing them the door indefinitely.--Crossmr (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically, any time someone reports Giano for civility, it results in a huge, week-long dramafest that never gets anything resolved, but creates a lot of bad faith and (usually) wheel-warring over blocks. Giano has enough friends and enemies that nothing ever gets consensus, so we just keep going round and round. Outside of him doing something bad enough for ArbCom to step in, which he seems smart enough to avoid, there's no way he's going to be blocked. So, at this point, people just shrug and go about their business, rather than step into the mire of drama that will ensue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that's fine, but I'm not having him hold Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks to ransom. He'll not be moving that thread. If no admin has the guts to step in to stop it, then I guess I'll need to ensure it doesn't happen myself. I'm not going to have such an important policy proposal derailed by one editor, no matter how brilliant at architectural articles he may be. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the thread with great hope, because I am no friend of Giano's and would not mourn overmuch at his wikideparture. Unhappily, I see nothing blockworthy or otherwise deserving of administrator intervention. Giano tends to crowd the edge, but he wasn't even close this time. Ah well.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What about the violation of 3RR? He's already shown he's willing to get into an edit war, and I fear he will do this to readd the thread. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is likely any 3RR violation is stale. However, if you want to make an issue of it, go ahead and post the diffs. I am about to leave for the day so won't be dealing with it, but perhaps you can find someone willing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, forget about it. I'm not going to let him return that thread against general consensus. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OH dear, I thought this thread was closed before I went off to spend a morning in the real world, yet I come back not to harmony, but more strange behaviour by TBSDY (his AFDing a humourous user page - just ignore it). Now, would someone please restore my comments back into context as they were before TBSDY removed them. I tried last night, but then realised it was probably beyond my limited merging capabilities, whatever, I am prepared to have a go if no one more capable is prepared to try - please just don't all shout "Giano - you have lost something important" because it won't be deliberate - I assure you.  Giano  14:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we've already established that this isn't to be done. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• TSBDY, I am not going to tit-for-tat with you here any longer, we shall just see what happens in the next hour or so. I am too busy at present to try it myself as it wil requite all my powers of concentration. Hopefully, some clever person will try it for me. Now please don't reply, you are becoming tedious and I won't either.  Giano  14:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please don't restore that thread to where it was before. You are honestly being disruptive to the policy page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Distruptive editing by User:Stemonitis

Administrator User:Stemonitis is doing long term (at least since 2007(!)) Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: "edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive". He is adding for very long time a space (non-breaking space) before ref tag in very large number of articles. Although discussed his "proposal" 3 years ago, it was not implemented into guideline. This is exact example of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. He inhibit standardization of articles. Standardization and proper way of such editing is described in Wikipedia:Footnotes. He did not stopped this behavior although he was informed about it at User talk:Stemonitis#Citing references and at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#User:Stemonitis and space in front of ref tag. Administrators "are expected to observe a high standard of conduct". His restive behavior is against the guidelines and spirit of wikipedia. I appeal to other wikipedians to solve this situation in effective way in the same way as vandalism is solved. --Snek01 (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is nowhere near needing admin action. As people at the Content noticeboard said, discuss it there but you're escalating this beyond proportion. And, I might add, going to WP:PLAXICO yourself if you push too hard. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the third place I've seen this. Snek01, you might get better results if you confine yourself to the one page and tone down some of your remarks. This is not a major issue and Stemonitis is doing no long term damage to Wikipedia. And in now way does this involve any use of his administrative powers so stop bringing that up. something lame from CBW 13:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is major issue. Stemonitis is continuing this every day including this day. All infomation I have written above is correct. When administrator does not accept policies and rules guidelines, then is is very alarming and it could devastate moral of wikipedians. When s single user is blocked for three reverts, then administrator Stemonitis can not be blocked for thousands of intentionally made errors? --Snek01 (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't he ask Jimbo Wales to comment on this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please indicate which "policy or rule" he is not "accepting". Tan | 39 14:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. For details see Content noticeboard. --Snek01 (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The first and third are behavioral guidelines, the second is a style guideline. I'd like to point out that there is no "policy or rule" being violated. Tan | 39 14:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Corrected to "guidelines" and these guidelines are violated. "Never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point," is included in fundamental principles called Wikipedia:Five pillars. --Snek01 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing about this that's a WP:POINT violation. User:Stemonitis is making what appears to be good-faith changes, which you happen to disagree with. Seriously, you need to go back to discussion with him, rather than seeking to punish him. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Elize du Toit

Please see File:Elize du Toit at the BAFTA's.jpg The picture came from Flikr and states (and Consequently so too does the wiki article) that it was taken at the 62nd Baftas. I was suspicious because I recognised her "costume" from Material Girl - Episode 1. The "additional information" attached to the file shows the picture was taken in April 2009, not at the Baftas in Feb 2009. I do not know how best to stop this misinformation being promulgated. Þjóðólfr (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Says it was uploaded in April, not taken. Original Flikr also says it was from BAFTAS. Is there evidence it wasn't???? Gerardw (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the metadata (under the assumption it was not changed by hand) says that the picture was taken 26 April 2009. Of course, metadata is trivial to change, and some software overwrites it inappropriately, but assuming it was done correctly, the picture was indeed taken in April. However, there's not much that can be done here because this picture is on Commons. Perhaps you want to raise the discussion there? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Per Full picture, the second female is Beth Cordingly who also featured in the programme in that dress. For circumstantial evidence look at the scabby underpass & the casually dressed people they are with - hardly a Red carpet affair!. Finally anyone in England will attest that short sleeves & sunshine are more likely late April than early February.Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Autofellatio

Resolved

 – WP:NOTCENSORED is policy. Consensus has determined that the photo stays.

-- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I just received a warning on my talk page, to by remove [the image] in the article Autofellatio, an image that can be very "grotesque" to many people and of sexually explicit content, which can mistakenly be seen by minors, therefore: is it necessary to add such images to articles related to sexual content?. Ccrazymann (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not necessary, but entirely appropriate in the article space. See WP:NOTCENSORED. Toddst1 (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is not necessary, charting the article with such photos, therefore, propose to withdraw this photo from the article, you think?¿, opinions please. Ccrazymann (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed a million times. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED and leave the image alone. Gah. → ROUX ₪ 18:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And you were looking at this article for what purpose? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter? Quit trying to throw gas on every goddamn fire, Fred. Tan | 39 18:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? My response was to have suggested that had he been looking to see what autofellatio meant, then the image would have explained it rather more rapidly than reading the article. No fires, no petrol, just an assumption of bad faith on your part. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To add to what Roux said, you should also read Talk:Autofellatio. —DoRD (?) (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

While I'd never frame it and hang the photo on my bedroom wall, I don't think the image should be removed; however, I might suggest protecting the page and image as both are bound to be vandalised in the near future as a result of this discussion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it an editor? I think he's been enhanced because I don't beleive it's possible.  Giano  18:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is possible with the right combination of endowment and flexibility. A... umm... friend has seen it done with his own eyes. → ROUX ₪ 18:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Gosh! That must be handy.  Giano  18:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently in his younger days Ron Jeremy was quite adept at it.... or so I have been told. – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that an observation drawn from experience, Giano ;) Rockpocket 18:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, not.  Giano  18:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it reminds me of a Greek picture I have representing the god Pan, although the latter is better-endowed. I still have it, but my husband forced me to remove it from our bedroom wall.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly do you buy your art collection?  Giano  18:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In this case, where I used to work at Naval Air Station Sigonella. It was my job to sell the pictures and fend off the complaints from offended customers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Was he depicted playing his own flute? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It appears as if you've seen the picture. I believe (as I used to inform the customers) that the god was an ancient fertility symbol.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Did the picture say what the tune was?  Giano  19:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably 'I Wanna Fuck', though I can't see how that could be played on a flute. HalfShadow 19:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User CRAustralia

Resolved

 – CRAustralia (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours for edit warring

I am not sure this is the best place to report this, but there are several issues involved, and I can't see anywhere better.

User:CRAustralia has been involved in an edit wars on Talk:Simon Overland and Racism in Australia. Apart from the issue of edit warring there is a BLP issue, and also the material which CRAustralia has been repeatedly adding to these two pages is a copyright violation. The same text was previously repeatedly added to Simon Overland by an anonymous editor with various IP addresses in the range 71.135.*.* until the article was semiprotected on 30 January 2010. CRAustralia first started editing later the same day. CRAustralia is a single purpose account which is concerned only with this issue.

CRAustralia has been advised and warned numerous times about edit warring, NPOV, and copyright violation. Warnings have been given by Bilby, Ginsengbomb, HarlandQPitt, and myself. CRAustralia has removed the warnings from the user talk page.

Since this involves several issues (edit warring, BLP, NPOV, and copyright) I thought it could not be covered fully by a forum for any one of these, and AN/I was the one place I could think of which seemed general enough to deal with all aspects of this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

NowCommons - epic backlog

I know that it already has a backlog tag and this may not be news to some of you but the nowcommons categories Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons, Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons have 18.000+ images cumulative its got to a point it needs admin attention.I tx you in advance and apologize if this is not the correct forum for this.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly this much, because Multichill recently ran his bot to tag all that. Actually doing the work of cleaning it up will take quite some time though. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The last time this happened, an admin used a bot or script to indiscriminately delete them all which is not the proper procedure (I still think that wasn't rectified?) - so please nobody go and do that again. –xeno^talk 19:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been working through this steadily, but it's not just a job for one man I'm afraid. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User Lion211989, continuing vandalism of my talk page

Resolved

 – Blocks all around! TNXMan 20:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to give User Lion211989 the benefit of the doubt but he/she insists on vandalizing my talk page. Just look at my talk page[57] for any evidence what-so-ever. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this matter being taken seriously? Or am I not being patient? Jack Quinn UK (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to be a sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Mcjakeqcool would you? I only ask because of your email address. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no eMail adress. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely something suspicious going on. I've blocked two accounts messing around on Jack's talk page, but I find it odd that 90% of a "new" editor's posts are on ANI. TNXMan 19:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at Simple Wikipedia, where Mcjakeqcool uses that same email address. I think we have some quacking going on here. Good find, DC. -- Atama頭 20:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and not to mention here, the email address is given. I had suspicions about this account from the first time I saw it at ANI, and it's interesting to note that they generally comment at sockpuppet discussions on this page. I think this editor has basically outed themselves, so I'm blocking per WP:DUCK. -- Atama頭 20:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threats

Gibnews, frequenter of the Gibraltar article, often uses gibnews.net as a source in his arguments. I have said that this (privately owned, non-peer reviewed) website is not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia goes. In response, he has now twice made legal threats towards me. 1 2 Even though they were made on behalf of others, and even though I'm neither worried by them nor believe he really means it, I would appreciate some assistance, as my reading of WP:NPLT suggests it constitutes unacceptable harassment. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, especially the second one. I have indefinitely blocked this user per WP:LEGAL. Tan | 39 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request ensues with "I didn't do anything, it was a setup", admin eyes requested - Tan | 39 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this was a legal threat, but further, [58] fairly explicitly fails WP:RS. We cannot operate under any theory that such links have a "right" to remain on Wikipedia free of molestation, and so we cannot allow such filibustering even if it does not rise to the level of explicit legal threats. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out for the record that after the first threat, I replied saying that I would post here if he did it again. [59] He then proceeded to repeat the threat. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I declined the unblock: first threat is quite clearly "post using your real name so that you can be sued" and the second is an attempt to quash discussion via the threat of legal action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• As someone with probably a reputation for thinking WP:LEGAL is severely overused on ANI, I agree that this is a perfect example of what it was meant for. Support block, support continuing block until the threat is very clearly recognized and retracted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The user's unblock request (viz. "I have not made any legal threat." and "I was not the party who would be involved") makes it clear that s/he is not threatening legal action. The comments in question were more a case of "Be careful, for those type of comments could land you in trouble [with others]" rather than "I will sue you if you continue". RedCoat10 (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, their unblock is phrased quite differently than the two items (especially the first one) that led to the block. If they were to be so kind as to actually retract the originals, they might have a reduction of said block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm really, really, really disheartened by all of this. I've been trying to help with the situation at the Gibraltar article, and related articles, and acted as mediator for a particular dispute and have given advice to various editors involved in the area. Just today one editor involved has left Wikipedia due to stress over editing the articles, and the other editor who generally takes that "side" is blocked. I have to agree, however, that the block is entirely appropriate; those legal threats are as unambiguous as it gets and since Gibnews is unwilling to retract them the block should stand. -- Atama頭 21:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that the name looks like a username violation, since it tends to identify the user with the website he's trying to use as a source. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Technically yes, but after editing Wikipedia for over 4 years and making 5,000 edits it's not something that an admin is liable to block someone for. -- Atama頭 00:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this can all be resolved by a ban on this editor from using gibnews.net, as this is a clear conflict of interest and an unreliable source. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Waiting to see how he responds to my latest post on his talk page. Tan | 39 00:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall numerious similiarly named accounts being used at that article-in-question a few years ago. Could this be the same editor? GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Gibraltarian blocked indefinitely on 16 December 2005, after initial block on 12 December 2005 [60]. User:Gibnews created on 7 December 2005 [61], picking up exactly where Gibraltarian left off at Disputed status of Gibraltar. The style and language of talk page posts are remarkably similar [62]. Make your own mind up... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal

I propose that Gibnews be banned from using gibnews.net on Wikipedia.

• Support Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support better idea than a username block. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Kundalini yoga - User:Fatehji

Fatehji (talk · contribs) This page got my attention some days ago as the result of an edit war between Fatehji and another user which resulted in page protection. I've since taken a closer look at the article and discovered that Fatehji has turned the page into a blatant WP:COATRACK for Yogi Bhajan and his 3HO movement. After I deleted the COATRACK section, Fatehji has been repeatedly restoring it[63][64][65] based on the transparently POV and, I believe, demonstrably false assertion that Kundalini yoga and Yogi Bhajan's teachings are synonymous, when in fact there are countless writers and teachers on the topic (see Google books search results). Fatehji has also been editing the Kundalini syndrome article, trying to minimize the seriousness of the phenomenon[66] (presumably because Yogi Bhajan has said kundalini yoga is perfectly safe), falsely claiming the article relies upon only one reference[67] and even arguing for its deletion.[68][69] (To refute this position, one need only do a search for the term on Google books).

In normal circumstances, I will try to work with other editors to establish NPOV, but in this case I cannot persuade myself there is a realistic chance of doing so. Unfortunately, spiritual topics tend to attract adherents of one or another spiritual group who attempt to use such articles as promotional vehicles for their own particular group, and in my experience there is little hope of dissuading such editors from their disruptive activities except through bans or blocks. I am therefore proposing that Fatehji be topic banned from all kundalini-related articles, with the possible exception of those pertaining to his particular group (namely Yogi Bhajan, 3HO and Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan). Gatoclass (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I concur with the topic ban, as it appears that there is some considerable bias as regards the promoting and demoting of differing disciplines. As for an allowance on those topics relating solely to their interests, I am assuming Gatoclass has not detected any WP:OWNership issues and agree also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I support the topic ban also. Since he created his account on 18 January, Fatehji has managed to receive warnings from two different admins, and his contributions include frequent reverts. The single most worrisome thing is his minimization of Kundalini syndrome, which has plenty of references. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

please block sock (NEEDED QUICK REACTION)

Resolved

 – Indef blocked by a checkuser. Pcap ping 23:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Crackajack_Mac (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs), and is performing disruptive edits at Kosovo-related articles, which are under probation. He has removed the sock tag without comment[70], so please just indef-block him and tag. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't listen to Eric Naval. He if anything is the new mask of a well known sole user on Wikipedia who spreads Serb propaganda called Tadija who is also FKPCascaris. I am a new user who has been observing stuff a few weeks. Crackajack Mac (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanx Enric Naval. I´ll know from now on that it is here that this sockpoppetry issues are solved. Just a remark, this user has been disruptive in a number of Serbian (Serbia itself, not Kosovo) articles, so it goes beyond. FkpCascais (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk to User:MuZemike, and former Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs) blocking admins, he is WP:DE vandal. --Tadija (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

New mask? Enric Naval has been here 5 1/2 years, "new mask" is ridiculous. Woogee (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I reverted his talk page access as well for abusing it. -- Atama頭 00:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Dashbullder

Dashbullder (talk · contribs) has, among other things, added articles of his own creation to Current Events without discussion [71] [72] and added links to one such article to two unrelated pages apparently as a POINTy attempt at pushing Christian PoV. [73] [74]

Also seems to have issues with "getting" copyright [75] after adding a decently long script CAP to an article [76] -- Pakaran 22:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have reverted a few of this user's edits, including his additions to the Current Events templates. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(ANI is a bad bad place) 66.172.228.21 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Harlan wilkerson

Harlan wilkerson seems to be an "educated troll", namely a person with a lot of knowledge and access to academic sources, but he use them in the wrong way in order to promote his political views through en-wp.

1. Nearly all his contributions are related to article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [77]
2. He has been engaged in several edit wars, usually because he could not accept his edits being rejected or modified by other users. For example: in the article United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine: [78] [79] [80] [81] in the article: State of Palestine: [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] in this case it was also a clear violation of a community decision Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State of Palestine.
3. When the article State of Palestine was reinitiated, he quickly rephrased the article making it very POVized [88]
4. Here [89] and in several other occasions he tried to push the opinion of Francis A. Boyle, even though he knew it is a problematic source in this context, because Boyle, as written in his biographical details "serves as counsel to Bosnia and Herzegovina and to the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine." and "From 1991-92, Professor Boyle served as Legal Advisor to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations." [90]
5. The bottom of this version of his talk page [91] shows he has been involved in quite a few conflicts due to his edits, and his insistence on reverting other editors' modifications. He deleted these posts from his talk page and did not place them in any archive as usually done in such cases.
6. He removed this edit (of mine) [92] on the pretext that it is POVized.

It seems that Harlan wilkerson is not here to improve en-wp, but rather to promote his political views. I can bring more evidences to that, but I think it is enough for the time being. I suggest that he be banned from editing articles related in any way to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His political motives are also revealed in his userpage's subpages, such as this User talk:Harlan wilkerson/Israel-Palestine ArticlesIt is a shame because with his vast knowledge and access to sources, he could have been a great contributor, and yet currently he does much more damage than good. DrorK (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Harlan wilkerson is not here to improve en-wp, but rather to promote his political views. Pot, meet kettle. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There may be some less than NPOV edits here, but nothing that bad that requires admin intervention. The editor making this report has just come back from a 3RR block on those articles. Suggest closing this as a content issue for now. See Talk:Proposals for a Palestinian state#Merge. Pcap ping 00:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Francis Boyle source in question is published in the European Journal of International Law, a peer-reviewed journal published by Oxford University Press. The source Drork relied on for his edit did not support the content of his edit. Drork refuses to acknowledge that his personal views on these issues are not relevant and that in an argument between him and a peer-reviewed article from a prestigious journal he will lose, at least on Wikipedia. nableezy - 00:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Where was this discussed on Talk:Palestine by either side? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)