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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Angie Y. - community ban time?

For at least the past 3 years, people have been telling Angie Y. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not to add uncited personal opinion to articles. I ran across her recently when her editing on Willy Wonka-related articles was brought to ANI. Just about every time I trimmed something of hers out of an article, she would restore it with no discussion, even in the edit summary. Today she reminded us that her editing style isn't restricted to fiction: she edited the Priceline article, adding the text "One of Shatner's early commercials for the company had him sitting in a spaceship's captain's chair, in loving tribute to his famous Star Trek role." The existence of the commercial is uncited. Its position as "early" is uncited "Loving tribute" is opinion. "Famous" is WP:PEACOCKish.

As she has been told that this sort of thing is not acceptable for so long by so many people, I am forced to conclude that she is unwilling or unable to work within our community norms, and suggest that she be community-banned for at least a year.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is a problem... but I see a lack of blocks to tell her that this is a problem. I see only one from a couple years ago.. Surely a series of escalating blocks should be attempted before an outright ban, right? Friday (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, she tends to skirt right under the edge of blockability for any one incident. It's the long-term pattern I'm looking at here, and that's harder for a single admin to act on without this kind of discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

She does seem to have a lot of warnings over the past few years telling her not to insert her POV into articles. Not sure what to do about it. Possibly assign her a mentor? Basket of Puppies 16:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like mentoring was tried, pursuant to her second RFC, but didn't go anywhere. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose editor is no doubt a pain but lack of long block log suggests lesser sanctions are not exhausted. Or you could have Willy feed her a candy bar that turns her into a huge helium balloon and the Oompa Loompas can sing as she floats away. Ooompa Loompa loopa de do ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree it is a seriously issue that needs to be dealt with. Also wondering at the lack of previous blocks beyond the one, when her user page also shows a lot off issues with incivility, ignoring or harassing other editors when they try to correct her, constant lack of edit summaries and just reverting when people undo her OR/opinions. Also curious as to whether there has been any recurrence of the meat puppet issues which caused her one block. Her response to your warning about the OR of "Ah yeah"[1] however also strongly shows that you are correct in that she seemingly doesn't care. Looking at her contribs, she pretty much ignores her own talk pages and rarely tries discussing anything with others on other user talks[2], while her contribs to article talks seems mostly to ask random questions[3]. I also worry how much truth there is in her edits to fictional topics, when she is fond of injecting her own opinion into topics, and if any of her edits are being checked in those areas? Not an admin, so I don't know the rules on blocking, but I do think some kind of block and an editing restriction, at the minimum, would be a good start. Any violations to the restriction gets escalating blocks, until she exhausts the usual set, then go for a ban. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The editor's behaviour has been discussed here several times previously. TFOWR^propaganda 16:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Forgot to mention her RFCs above.
  • 5 July 2007
  • 11 December 2007
• Granted, it's been a while since the last one... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Block for a while. No evidence she works around them, so going for a ban isn't necessary. But (as one who has warned and reverted her many times) she's royally painful to pin down. Pushes right to the edge of a block, then backs off either by moving away from the target-page of the moment, or by saying she will change her ways. Again and again. With some good edits too IIRC. Taken together, the Park Service needs to give this forest a block even if each ranger doesn't think any one tree is irredeemable. Enough community time-wasting. DMacks (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Block for at least a week. This person seems adept at gaming the system here, and as I see it the record cited shows that. Too early for a ban, but count me in with those wanting accountability. User should be encouraged to discuss this issue here at ANI. Jusdafax 17:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW, this user was once a pusher of birther arguments, pushing fringe sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berg v. Obama and at the main article. Old edits, yes, but this is clearly not a user that plays well with others. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't think that's really relevant to her current editing behavior. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse blocking for around a week or two perhaps. With increasing durations for further problems. This may very well end up a ban, but I'd rather see us get there in a few steps than just one. Friday (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Issue stern final warning, then block I feel that she needs to be put on last notice, and that any further infractions will result in an immediate block. The stern final warning will be indefinite for duration- meaning that in 6 months if she makes an infraction she will still be blocked. No one is irredeemable but some need special circumstances due to the length of disruption. Basket of Puppies 17:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm only trying to help in any way I can. Angie Y. (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, Angie, is that the ways you try to help tend to make more work for everyone else. Even though many people have told you to add references to your edits, and not to put your personal opinions into articles, you keep doing it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Block now clear lack of competence, three years is generally enough time to determine if someone is capable of or willing to learn. Time sink, net detriment to the project on a review of the edits. Make it indefinite. If they cogently explain what they've been doing wrong and promise to never do it again, maybe unblock.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have imposed an indefinite block; there isn't really an established community block process here, but reviewing many edits going back several years, plus her talk page history, convinces me that the concerns raised here are valid. I believe that she is editing in good faith, but the net result of editing in good faith but with poor understanding of project goals and policies, the difference between encyclopedic factual content and personal opinion, is disruptive. If she comes to understand the policies and issues and seems likely to comply going forwards, any administrator can unblock her without consulting me, though given the community input above I think that bringing it back to ANI for discussion would be wise (at least a notification afterwards). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment —I've encountered Angie in the past (circa 2+ years ago, I think) and tried to gently nudge her in the right direction. I've not seen the recent issues other people have concerns over. If there is further discussion of this, I'll root through history and the more recent events, and offer an opinion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• ... and I have declined her first unblock request with a couple of questions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Block for only a week; an indefinite block is not necessary, in my opinion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Block - indef. I was the admin who introduced her last AN/I (a few months ago). I have seen zero improvement since then, and her long history of non-improvement speaks for itself. I recommend she take up blogging instead where the rules are more lax. Rklawton (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse indef block that has already been imposed. I don't see the sense in putting a timer on the block if there's nothing to guarantee that it won't just continue once the block expires. It's up to her on how long it takes her to understand, and this way, sanctions will only be in place for as long as necessary. Of course, without socking, I don't think an outright ban is needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Amend to a couple of weeks to give her time to understand that no, we really mean it about the personal opinions. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse indef. The sanction can be lifted as soon as there is a reasonable undertaking to amend their approach to contributing; 2 hours, 2 days, 2 weeks... whatever. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Based on her interaction with the folks who have reviewed her request for an unblock, that will be a long time coming. She seems incapable of understanding what the problem is. (And as long as this is simply an indef block -- not a community ban -- I endorse this as an adequate response. A community ban in this case would be the equivalent of breaking a butterfly on a wheel.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse 1 week block - There needs to be some indication that this issue is taken seriously, but it's too early for an indef. Shadowjams (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Post-indef block comments

As there's been an indefinite block, some of the above comments are outdated. Further comments below. Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think an indefinite block is appropriate in this case. As discussed above, a progressive blocking structure would be more fair. This has clearly gotten Angie Y's attention. I would advocate a short-term block, followed by reconciliation, attempts at mentoring (I see above that's not worked before), and scrutiny. By indefinitely blocking we're just inviting a new username and alienation. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think it has to come to this quite yet. Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Indefinite is not forever, the user does not seem to understand how to fix the problem (and seems to be suggesting that she has some issue personally that might make it impossible and that we should "understand") so indef is correct. I have left a suggestion that she try proposing some sourced NPOV changes on her talk page, to see if she can satisfy people that she can do it. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I share Shadowjams's concern, in as much as I feel that there should be a clear route back for Angie Y. That said, Guy has advised Angie Y. that there is a way back, so I'm happy with the indef block standing for now (i.e. until Angie Y. indicates that she's prepared to work constructively to end her block). TFOWR^propaganda 11:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Each case is distinct; using an indef block in all cases will obviously not be appropriate or ideal (and this should not be interpreted as establishing a precedent as such). In this particular case, my opinion has not changed - there is a clear way back and putting a timer on the block would not otherwise be helpful or sensible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

IP evading block

Resolved

 – Fresh IP blocked—Kww(talk) 22:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:12.7.202.2, User talk:74.242.231.200, User talk:74.162.153.141, and User talk:Mbhiii were blocked for edit warring and socking. (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#User:Mbhiii misuse of IPs and edit warring) Just recently, User:74.242.252.148 from a close location (Raleigh, NC area) has edited two of the same articles with the same edits as the blocked IPs.

• [[4]] (previous attempt [5]
• [[6]] (previous attempt [7])

Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued evasion of block

This was properly closed out above by Kww but it is still ongoing. User:68.210.144.13 has just made the three simalar edits on three articles that Mbhii's IPs were working on before being blocked. The IP does not match the location so I believe he is using a wireless device, proxy, or simply calling up a buddy in Louisville.

• [8] Edit to Tea bag (sexual act) adding "humor" to a subsection for the third time or so. Previous [9]
• [10] Edit to Progressive Party (United States, 1912) again discussing Theodore Roosevelt. Previous: [11]
• [12] Edit to Hyperbole again inserting a long section on the Pope. Previous: [13]

I also noticed that User:98.69.170.215 made a very close edit to Sunscreen controversy that removed a copyright violation template. There may not be enough evidence with this one and they are out of Atlanta. Recent: [14] Previous: [15]

So at this time, 68.210.144.13 should be blocked as a meat or sock puppet. I don't know what needs to be done with Mbhii and his IPs but an extension in the block may be appropriate. Also, is there another way I should be reporting this if it continues? Should the articles be semi protected if volume increases or would that be overreacting?Cptnono (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Mbhii indefinitely for his ongoing block evasion; it clearly demonstrates that he does not respect Wikipedia policies. If more IPs pop up, post them here and we'll keep blocking those as needed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You responded with the blocking before I even finished this report I think. And there is another IP who has had problems with that IP who jumped in too. The guys was just swarmed. Kind of a shame since it looks like he is trying at times but he really should have learned what is frowned upon by now. It appears that he has changed tactics with another IP out of Louisville (65.80.37.13). I removed the resolved template since this might be ongoing.Cptnono (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible messing around using socks

Ladyspyde‎ (talk · contribs) and Zynthax (talk · contribs) appear to have been playing around with each other. They could be the same person, looking at the gibberish being posted. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 00:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I blocked one account 24hrs. The other hasn't edited since the warning, so no action there.--Chaser (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not gibberish, by the way. Google translate tells me it's Filipino and it appears that they're probably just a couple of friends violating WP:NOT#MYSPACE. —DoRD (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Now we have socks. Ladyspyde‎1 (talk · contribs) and Zynthax1 (talk · contribs). ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 18:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Both new accounts blocked. —DoRD (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Self Harm

New User threatening SELF HARM in edit summary NOTE has E-mail address too!. HERE --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Notifying oversight. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Think we should go through the same steps as WP:SUICIDE with this one? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Notified checkuser. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup. SGGH ^ping! 09:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My spidey sense says they're being dramatic and not serious; however, I agree that it's past the point that the WP:SUICIDE process is justified. If the CU can localize them, a report to their local law enforcement and visit to make sure the threats of self harm weren't serious seems appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• If y'all want to bug the cops, I guess I can't stop you. But this is just some punk wasting our time, and I've blocked them indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC) (p.s. that email address will turn out to be a friend's email address, not the vandal's.)

Maybe so, but it isn't worth the risk - and the police won't mind. It's their job. SGGH ^ping! 11:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I really disagree with that, but like I said, I won't try to stop you from doing what you think best. In the mean time, hopefully they're autoblocked and will leave us alone for a while. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I know my local police would always rather people reported and let them look into things than run the risk of not reporting and something horrible happening. DuncanHill (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur with SGGH, Georgewilliamherbert and DuncanHill. See WP:SUICIDE-Contact local authorities, Quote:

"Law enforcement and emergency services have consistently stated that such reports are not a waste of their time, even in cases where the suicidal statements are determined to be a hoax or non-immediate threat."

Nothing to lose, everthing to gain IMHO. And the Cops can give the punk a well earned 'kick in the arse' too. if it is a hoax! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The police would never ever do anything about an unidentified IP address that has said I a am going to kill myself on a web site. That essay is a bit much imo. Off2riorob (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) WP:SUICIDE is an essay, not a guideline or policy, and one that a lot of people disagree with. If you think this is the right thing to do, then fine. All I really want to do in posts like this is continue to point out to people reading these recurring threads that they are under no obligation to do something they think unnecessary. If someone sees something like this and calls the cops, fine. If someone sees something like this and doesn't call the cops, fine. We all do what we think best, and it is not a policy or requirement to report to ANI a vandal playing the "don't revert my vandalism or I'll cut myself" card for laughs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There's arguing "essay vs guideline vs policy", and then there's "common sense" and "the right thing to do". –MuZemike 14:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're the ultimate arbiter of what the right thing to do is? Nice to meet you, God... Badger Drink (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• The police have repeatedly said they want to be informed of these things. Let's not second guess them, ok? No editor is required to do anything, but try not to discourage them from doing so. Basket of Puppies 16:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the Basket. The worst that happens if we call it in is that seats open up at Dunkin' Donuts (or Tim Hortons). The worst that can happen if we don't call it in is ... well ...--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Amy Pond3.png & Talk:Amy_Pond#Image_Discussion_Redux

This file is currently part of an RFC. User:TreasuryTag has tagged it for deletion on the NFC/copyright grounds even though the RFC still has some time to run. I reverted this as inappropriate - the file needs to be accessible/referrable to during the RFC process and we traded this back and forth again. As User:TreasuryTag is in favour of keeping the current image I don't think it's a good idea for him to to try and get the image deleted at this time, but he's insisting on keeping the deletion tag on the image. I'm not looking for any sanction here, more some kind of feedback on whether this is correct as we're on the edge of an edit war/3rr. Exxolon (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• The image is a non-free one, and is not used in any articles. It hasn't been used in any articles for well over a fortnight. WP:NFC and WP:COPYRIGHT are very clear on this matter. Exxolon is free to put the image anywhere else on the Internet and link to it if this is his concern. As it happens, the RfC is about three-quarters completed and there is a clear consensus for the image in question not to be used anyway, though this is, of course, irrelevant. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 14:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  I agree with this comment, by TreasuryTag (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  It's not being used in the article because TreasuryTag reverted it being put in the article in the first place! If the RFC concludes the current image is preferred this image can easily be deleted. Chucking it elsewhere is not a good solution - other image hosting sites may not be accessible due to blocks/filters, the image needs to be here for evaluation. Exxolon (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  It's not being used in the article because TreasuryTag reverted it being put in the article in the first place! Wrong. It's not being used because there is a clear consensus not to use it. If you don't want to host it elsewhere, then don't: it's entirely up to you. Wikipedia's copyright policies, though, are not up to you. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 14:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  Er...this edit [16] clearly shows you reverting it's addition. Maybe that was backed up by the previous consensus (which for the record I was unaware of at the time - it was hidden in the talk page archives) but that doesn't change the fact you did revert it's addition. Exxolon (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I'm not disputing who physically removed it. I'm saying that the reason it is not used in the article is not my removal, but the motivation behind my removal (the consensus), but this is anyway a discussion completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, and I will not be engaging further in it. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 14:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• The original copy of the image can, presumably, still be seen and linked to even if the local copy is deleted. I'm not sure that we necessarily need a locally cached copy during the RfC - we can simply direct interested parties to the original, BBC copy. TFOWR^propaganda 14:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, splendid, TFOWR, you have the perfect solution! There we go! Exxolon, you may link to the original copy of the image if you wish. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 14:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  Hmmm...I can see TFOWR's point but I don't think that's an ideal solution either. Off site images can be moved, have titles changed,be deleted at any point or even be overwritten. Also having access to Wikipedia doesn't necessarily imply access to the BBC website - this is not a good solution in my book. Exxolon (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Then, as above, don't use it as a solution. That's your choice. Wikipedia's strict copyright policies are not your choice, though. (Also worth mentioning that there's only a few days between the image being deleted and the end of the RfC anyway.) ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 15:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  I am going to write to the BBC and demand that they never remove that picture. ;) I do contribute to their wages after all. – B.hotep •talk• 15:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Umm, it's pretty clear that you can't unlink something and then nominate it for deletion on grounds that it's not linked from anywhere. Bad form. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  That's an intersting point of view, not only because of the months-old RfC consensus that the free image should be used, but also because Wikipedia:Image use policy#Deleting images clearly identifies as one of the steps preparatory to nominating images for deletion, "Remove all uses of the image from articles—make it an orphan." ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 14:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  I suspect that instruction refers to criteria for other deletion rationales, but I have raised the question on the talk page. It's still bad form to claim that something is deleteable because you took the actions to make it that way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Hmm—re-reading it, I agree that it is ambiguous. However, I am confident that I acted properly (especially given the consensus), and if the worst sin I may potentially have committed was being of "bad form" then I can't claim to be overly bothered by the point. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  Respectfully disagree with SarekOfVulcan, because there had been prior dispute resolution on this exact issue, and the image was not supported by consensus. The actions by Treasury, in this case, were therefore appropriate and inline with consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  I see your point, Cirt. I accept that TT seems to be acting within consensus here -- I'm just not convinced that consensus is correct at the moment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• The free image is perfectly acceptable so the unfree rationale falls on its face, that is not especially controversial. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, the free image serves the same encyclopedic purpose, so the non-free image completely fails WP:NFCC #1. While there are valid reasons in the linked-to discussions for finding a better picture, they aren't convincing that the free image isn't an adequate representation of the character. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• I actually disagree there -- as I commented in the RFC, the free image is a picture of the actress in costume as the character -- not the character. It's perfectly acceptable in the Karen Gillan article, but I don't think it's appropriate for Amy Pond.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• If the image was of Gillan off to the side having a smoke break or something, yea, I could almost see that point. But this almost looks like it was taken during an actual action sequence. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm personally of the opinion you could probably make a pretty fair case for deletion of the current image under the "derivative works" clause of copyright policy/law but I won't try and get it deleted under this criteria as that would be a conflict of interest on my part. Exxolon (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  Very wise. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 16:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  You don't see the parallel I take it. Exxolon (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  No, more like I don't give a shit. If you want to try and nominate the free image for deletion, go ahead. I won't complain; I'll likely be amused! ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 17:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that there's a perfectly good free image (two, actually) means that we simply can't use the non-free one and so it must be deleted; WP:NFCC#1 is the relevant policy. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• While yes, the act of making something deletable and then nominating it for deletion is bad form, that's not the case here. The thing that made this (and every other possible non-free image) deletable wasn't consensus or the presence or absence of the image in an article. If a free image exists all non-free images are off the table and to be deleted from the encyclopedia, period. Doesn't matter what consensus is, nor does it matter how much better the non-free image might or might not be: It's not up for debate. Between two non-free images or two free images, by all means let the debate continue in a polite and aboveboard manner. In this case, however? Nuke the non-free image--there's no debate to be had, just a reiteration of the policy. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

SirFloyd

While working on the Tito article, I looked up the reliablity of an author named Bernard Meares and rediscovered this little gem. It is the article "Titoism and Totalitarianism" that user SirFloyd created on en.wiki earlier but was later deleted due to its POV content. This is apparently a wikiclone which user SirFloyd uses to, among other things, stalk users and "strategize" his moves for the real wiki. Among the findings are:

• A page dedicated to countering user DIREKTOR's edits "Wikipedia & Political Agendas".
  • In it is a section "Wiki Articles that are manipulated by Neo-Communists" which contains a list of articles that user DIREKTOR has edited at one point or another.
  • In another entitled "Propaganda Pushing Editors" editors DIREKTOR, Ivan Stambuk, AlasdairGreen27, myself, BokicaK, and Zocky are listed alongside nationality and are apparently identified by SirFloyd as a clique.
• Another page "Nationalistic Editing on Wikipedia" discusses the "House of Bona" article which DIREKTOR and SirFloyd were engaged in. While he is careful to not mention names it is obvious at whom such quotes are directed at: "Wikipedia with its current group of editors is participating in that process [cultural genocide]."
  • Attempt at canvassing for the "House of Bona" article [17].

Taking this evidence into consideration, it is, in my opinion, that SirFloyd's intentions on Wikipedia are far from good faith. His actions are in violation of numerous policies including: WP:COI, WP:HOUND (stalking DIREKTOR), WP:NPOV (creating the POV fork "Tito and Totalitarianism" after his failure at the original article), WP:OWN (using a wikiclone to evade deletion and own an article), and WP:CANVAS. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir Floyds intentions and contributions here have been very beneficial to the project. His contribution was deleted here and he is able to post it wherever he likes. He is perhaps in opposition to your group but that is good , we don't want everything from a single perspective do we. I also note that in those links you provide there is no mention at all of any specific people. I don't see anything requiring any Administration action.Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? "Director Croatian, Ivan Stambuk (Croatian), AlasdairGreen27 (Croatian), Producer (Bosnian), BokicaK (Serbian), Zocky (Slovenia) Wikipedia Administrator" ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

@User:Off2riorob.

• 1) being in opposition to someone is fine, its a way to ensure against POV, mine included. However, User:Sir Floyd is not reported here for being opposed to someone.
• 2) You are, as you say, a "close friend" of User:Sir Floyd. It comes as no surprise that you would support him even after this was uncovered, and its certainly not a surprise that you would judge his "lobbying" as beneficial to the encyclopedia.
• 3) Finally User:Off2riorob, I cannot believe you are being honest when you say you "don't see any mention at all of any specific people". Have you noticed this link? You see, it lists all users who dared oppose Sir Floyd as "communist propaganda pushers". Add to this that User:Sir Floyd has been attempting to WP:OUT users on this project [18] and I think you'll find this is not only actionable, its indeff block material.

Finally, I don't think anyone here is prepared to pretend he/she is stupid. It is perfectly obvious that User:Sir Floyd has been stalking editors, following them around, and marking their edits (as well as themselves!) for the attentions of his buddies. This explains much of the suspicious coordinated MEAT that's been going on in this Wiki. The purpose of all this evidently seems to be outnumbering editors with meatpuppets and bypassing proper discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are mentioned there as a POV pushing editor, I did not search all the pages. I know and respect Sir Floyds contributions here. He was in dispute with user direktor when I met him and helped him to become a good contributor here. I still don't see any issues worthy of Wikipedia Administrator action. There is nothing to assert any meat issues at all with Sir Floyd. I don't see any stalking. As I said, we don't just want one side of the story do we. So you present a six month old ANI archived thread with no action at all as a claim to Sir Floyd outing, nothing happened then, never mind now and a wikibiz article http://www.mywikibiz.com/User_talk:Ockham/Wikipedia_&_Political_Agendas#Propaganda_Pushing_Editors complaining about POV editing on wikipedia, not very startling is it. Perhaps you could try dispute resolution, or we could topic ban you both from Yugoslavian articles. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh lol Off2riorob... We're not in any conflicts at all. I think you've conclusively demonstrated your "neutrality", not to mention a serious need to familiarize yourself with policy (WP:MEAT, WP:STALK, WP:OUT, WP:CANVASS etc.). I for one admire such dedication. Leave it for the guys here to read and decide, lets not clutter the thread up. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I had one brief encounter with SirFloyd and after that it was clear to me that his motives are not good. If this does not convince others, then I don't know what will. -- Bojan  Talk  05:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The GFDL says that any content of Wikipedia can be copied and distributed everywhere. If this content will be deleted the content distributed must not be deleted. Please give me the part of GFDL where the license says that the distributed content must be deleted and I will accept your position. I would invite all persons, most of all administrators, to understand the principles of GFDL in detail. Do you need that also the old dumps of database will be corrected? In this action I can only see a "programmatic" action of a group and surely I will start to open an investigation about this group. --Ilario (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, GFDL was abandoned in favor of Creative Commons few years ago. But this is not the question. The question is that what Direktor stated above. -- Bojan  Talk  08:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I've only encountered SirFloyd on the Tito article. IMO, he does have a bit of a point - some of the ex-Yugoslav users do wear extra-rosy-tinted glasses when looking on their former country. However, in my experience, SirFloyd wasn't doing anything to counter that productively. His modus operandi consisted of pushing his (IMO rather extreme) POV by listing out-of-context quotes, often from extremist and/or amateur authors. That in itself wouldn't be a big problem, because it can be countered with other quotes and sources. But, he also incessantly engaged in accusing other editors of having sinister agendas, which sort of kills any sort of productive discussion.

All that said, I don't care much about what he writes on other websites. If there are good reasons to believe that his activities on Wikipedia as a whole are a net loss for the encyclopedia, we should probably do something about it. If not, water under the bridge. Zocky | picture popups 09:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

In hereby calling for action on this and similar situations, I would remind readers of the WP:ARBMAC ruling, which all of us are beholden to apply. What requires action here is that s/he is displaying the most grotesque bad faith imaginable, and the most extreme Balkan nationalist aggressive POV. I would like to work on articles with editors who think I can contribute something. We can work together well. In what way is it possible to work collaboratively in the true spirit of Wikipedia with someone who derides the whole idea(l) of Wikipedia, who describes and derides good faith editors as communists, who describes our articles as communist propaganda and so on. The Balkan Wiki area is overpopulated with POV monsters as it is. If Sir Floyd is allowed to demonstrate such POV and total bad faith and continue to edit regardless, then we might as well ring fence all of our Balkan articles as POV garbage that no-one with a sane mind should read. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have un-archived this discussion as it appears to have been prematurely archived. Toddst1 (talk)

This is pretty clearly off-wiki harassment by Sir Floyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and calls for an indefinite block until such harassment is removed and ceases. Done. Toddst1 (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, no on can be judged in Wikipedia for something which is extermal to Wikipedia and most of all no one can be judged for his point of view. It seems to me a judgement of a person derived from some other persons who has the other extreme point of view. If Sir Ffloyd is extreme I cannot see that the persons who are judging him are neutral, absolutely wrong. I would add that in the article written by him there are also official documents and I am a little bit disappointed that their are judged like "secondary" sources. Sorry, but I would have a more neutral decision here. This is a discussion to judge a person where only few users are participating and most of all the users accused by him. In this case I think that the accused persons should not be considered to give to the community the opportunity to be more neutral and to don't consider the parts involved in the original discussion. --Ilario (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• As there are quite a few externals would the blocking Administrator please point directly to the "off wiki harassment" ones and the exact content the harassment is referring to as regards the alleged Wikipedia:Npa#Off-wiki_attacks Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I Agree. Having a personal opinion about something inside wikipedia, and espressing it off-wiki is a very different thing that doing harrassment. So i suppose it's necessary the blocking Admin will point clearly what exactly he considered harassment, just in order to not make his decision an unclear or fuzzy precedent. Theirrulez (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not understand why Sir Floyd was blocked. I cannot see personal attacks in that pages. He only expressed an opinion. An opinion is not law.--Grifter72 (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the "resolved" tag. If I'm off base, please feel free to re-add, I won't object or consider that an issue. It just appears that this matter appears to remain under discussion. As far as I understand it's pretty clear that off-wikipedia behavior, however bad, does not by itself merit an on-wikipedia block. Nevertheless, off-Wikipedia statements can reasonably be interpreted as evidence that someone's presence on Wikipedia is not in good faith. Which is it? Incidentally, I have no idea what the underlying dispute is about and I don't think it's relevant to this particular question. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh the huge manatee

For those who remember "bigotgate", the Sue of record has been given a peerage in the dissolution honours list, as has Ian Paisley. Both of these are likely to prove controversial and cause another spate of Lame. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The trouts are loaded and waiting. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Gillian Who? Nah, never heard of her. I make a point of stabbing my eyes out with a fork every time I see a newspaper or a political commentator ram their views down my throat that bigotgate was the high(low) point of Gordon Brown's election campaign. I prefer to let Wikipedia admins tell me what is and isn't notable. MickMacNee (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. NN ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 20:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not a newspaper or a tabloid, Mick. If we went by your, ahem, logic, every headline at TMZ.com would be of encyclopedic value. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites

I have indicated that material dear to another editor, which in fact led to that party being banned from the content for a year, has been once again reinserted without any indication that it does not violate WP:FRINGE, and more than a little serious question that it does. I have removed the material determined to be fringe per the Fringe Theories Noticeboard once again, and request the review of any interested administrator for their input regarding the correctness of doing so, and have indicated as much on the talk page of the article in question. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide us a Fringe Theories noticeboard discussion archives link?

On first impression, the material is not what I think mainstream beliefs say, but it's sourced to sources from mainstream academic publishers, so there's nothing obvious to an "outsider" to the issue about what's truly fringe and what is not.

Also, you need to notify the other user ( {{subst:ANI-notice}} on their talk page ).

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There is discussion in the archives, prior to the ArbCom, which indicated that the Eisenman theory qualified as fringe. The discussion of the Tabor source can be found at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#The Jesus Dynasty. I have also included material from the three reviews I was able to find regarding the Tabor book toward the beginning of the Talk:Ebionites#Possibility of bringing the article back up to FA, which also at least indicates the material from the various encyclopediae I consulted which have all, so far as I can tell, pretty much ignored both Eisenman and Tabor. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Which arbcom case? Neither you nor he is listed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Involved parties ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites, when searched for correctly.

According to that, there were no findings of fringe information on either side. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The only finding related to edit-warring, there were no content conclusions. This is a typical example of John Carter's misrepresentations. John Carter is pushing his Catholic-POV into the article. The article is already overly biased towards the Catholic conservative position (see article talk page.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The above editor seems to believe that Encyclopedia Britannica and various books by Brill Publishers, etc., all of which ignore Eisenman and Tabor, can also be ascribed to his allegations of "Catholic bias" as well. Also, please note the repeated requests made by me for any sort of other sources supporting Eisenman and Tabor, and that all such requests have been ignored. Regarding allegations of leaning toward Catholic sources, I don't think I have never actually heard such an allegation before, and certainly not without a clear representation of what other, non-biased, mainstream sources are available, and without an indication of what is contained in them, as is the case hereJohn Carter (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has just expressed his view (which I agree with) that "you only seem capable of providing reviews written by religious dogmatists". Oh, and he provided an alternative review. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The material on the fringiness of Eisenman can be found basically at Talk:Ebionites/Archive 7 beginning around September 2007. That discussion seems to indicate that there are real WP:SYNTH and other concerns. John Carter (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(restoring apparently accidentally deleted section I posted)

Reading some outside reviews of the Tabor book, http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/04/jesus-dynasty-part-two.html and http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/mayweb-only/120-32.0.html for example, the criticism I am finding is from a Christian perspective, not a historical one. I am concerned by the confirmation bias issue User:Michael C Price brought up.

You may be right, but I'm not seeing any obvious disruption or lack of valid content dispute here; what is there for administrators to do here? What are you asking for? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that there have been repeated requests made of both parties to provide any indpendent sources which indicate the material in question has received mainstream support in any verifiable form, and that such requests have received no clear response. The question of historical criticism basically relates to the sourcing. The Encyclopedia of Religion, amond others, indicates that there is no evidence to link the various Ebionite attestations, and other sources indicate that there is insufficient material to say that the Ebionites, Nazoreans, et al. can be differentiated with any degree of certainty. Regarding the accusation of bias, J. Gordon Melton described the SLU library as being one of the best religious libraries on the planet, and didn't say anything about it having a Catholic bias, although, as a Jesuit school, I do note that it has more Catholic materials than otherwise. And, I guess, my request is to review my action, to see if it was appropriate, in part because another party on the article talk page seemed to threaten to bring my actions here anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

AN/I should not be used as a forum to force a decision over content. That is supposed to be achieved by consensus among the editors or through mediation. I have already requested that Jayjg provide informal mediation to smooth out some of these process difficulties, see User_talk:Jayjg#Request for informal mediation. The issue of WP:SYNTH is a separate matter of conflation of sourced content. That has been addressed by temporarily removing the content in question to the talk page where it can be be sorted out later. This trip to AN/I seems to be an end-run to avoid mediation and request a summary judgment. Ovadyah (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot control the opinions of others. I came here to receive a judgement on my actions, nothing more, and have placed my reasons for my taking the actions I have. If I am found to have behaved incorrectly by individuals not previously involved in the discussion, then, obviously, I would welcome the reversal. That is all. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I should also correct a factual misstatement. The paragraph in question by John Carter was not recently added into the article. It was content supported by multiple sources that John Carter deleted from the article without discussion. That deletion was reverted. The material in question was not contributed by Michael C. Price. It was mostly contributed by Str1377 who was editing collaboratively with me at the time in an effort to improve the content during FAR. Ovadyah (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Admit the editor above may be correct. However, I note once again that for all the "commentary", no independent sources indicating the material is not regarded as qualifying as fringe have been produced, despite repeated requests for same and evidence to the contrary produced. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your request is very unusual. I don't recall many literature reviews where the reviewers pronounce articles to be "mainstream". Anyway, even critical reviewers that question Tabor's conclusions claim that he is speculating too far beyond his primary sources. They don't claim they are due to a lack of scholarship. He is making a conjecture about what may have happened, not proving a theory based on experimental data. Ovadyah (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are not particularly usual either. And WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE remain policy and guideline anyway. Regardless of certain parties apparent failure to assume good faith about my stated reasons for my actions, which, as I have indicated, were prompted by a comment about possibly having them bring this matter to this page, what is the reason for continued conversation which doesn't directly relate to the base subject? John Carter (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to my comment on the article talk page about AN/I, I made it clear that was a step to be considered only if mediation fails or is rejected by the parties. I don't want to waste anymore admin time, so unless we are still missing some important facts that relate to this incident, I am done here. Ovadyah (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out just what the bone of contention is here. I would assume that the disputed material is collected in this diff, but if this is the case, then the dispute is over whether to include 2 books (FWIW, although Eisenman's book has been reviewed as a serious work,, I found it almost unreadable & somewhat bizarre) & the relationship between the Christian community at Jerusalem led by James the Just, Judaic-Christianity, & the Ebionites cult. However, the two sides seem inexplicably entrenched over such a minor disagreement, & maybe the three individuals here -- John Carter, Ovadyah, & Michael C Price -- should all walk away from this article (remember -- to repeat the old saying -- there are 3.3 million other articles) & let some new editors work on this article. Otherwise, everyone involved is going to either get themselves banned or burned out over this matter. -- llywrch (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. As I noted previously on my talk page, this article seems to attract editors that either have a POV to push or an axe to grind diff. Unfortunately (for me), I know a lot about this subject, having actually read the books and publications, and I keep getting dragged back into it. I only became involved because John Carter contacted me about bringing the article back up to FA quality. My involvement, however, does not include any schemes to provoke Michael C Price into an edit war to get him banned from Wikipedia. I am out of it once proper oversight can be established to return the article to FA quality. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, to an extent. And my involvement only extends to getting individuals who may be either SPA or have only a limited interest in the topic, such, as for instance, being involved only to the extent of promoting a single book or two, to perhaps recognize that those books seem to be out of the mainstream and not deserving of the amount of space they have in the article, and, if they continue to refuse to address the issue of weight given those fringe theories, to perhaps act in accord to the guidelines at WP:COI. Ovadyah has requested the input of a former arbitrator, and I would welcome his input. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Samofi

Would an admin please review the recent talk page comments of this indef-blocked (battleground) editor, who appears to be trying to carry on his mission (good Slovaks vs. bad Hungarians) rather than addressing the reasons he was blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It also appears that this user keeps editing with a number of different sockpuppets(see user page), while using the old talk page as well. The latest of them appears to be rather obviously user:MarekSS, just look into the Samofi talk page and compare in detail with MarekSS edits. This user obviously rejects the notion that he could be barred from editing, and instead picked up the pace since his indefinite block. Hobartimus (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please show proofs for your accusations against me. The articles where I made edits are different of the ones where User:Samofi or his confirmed sock User:JanVarga had conflicts. (MarekSS (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

You may wish to take this to WP:SPI for the sockpuppeting issue. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Chris Bennett and Jc3s5h

Resolved

 – Blocked Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

On 7 March 2010 Chris Bennett posted a personal attack on another contributor at Talk:Julian calendar [19]. This was reverted by administrators and editors on numerous occasions, as it was repeatedly reintroduced by Chris Bennett and Jc3s5h, both of whom appear to be problem contributors [20]. I removed it this evening giving fair warning [21]. It has again been restored by Jc3s5h. 78.151.240.205 (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read the big orange notice. I have done it for you this time. SGGH ^ping! 21:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a personal attack, pointing out to a serial sockpuppeteer that their contributions are likely to be ignored. I note that this report came from yet another UK-based IP, though that might be assuming bad faith. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that this has been resolved, since nobody has yet to block the IP as a sock of User:Vote (X) for Change. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and re-resolved. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am the victim of the above – mentioned hate campaign which is still going on after three years. I don’t want people to get the impression that the diffs cited are the totality of the campaign. They are only the tip of the iceberg. Accusations like “all pretence of reason is cast aside, revealing the pitiful, naked troll beneath” from a contributor whose views are shared by no other academic in any university cannot be justified under any circumstances. The following sections consist entirely of POV rants and ad hominem attacks.

• Talk:Mercedonius#Length of Mercedonius
• Talk:Mercedonius#Resolution of Length of Mercedonius issue
• Talk:Roman calendar#Length of intercalary month
• Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 1#Bissextile Day
• Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 1#28-day intercalary month
• Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 2#Correct observance
• Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 2#Celsus and the Triennial cycles:A Proposal

Vote (X) for Change is an account I created less than three months ago to promote my view in a ballot which was in danger of collapsing because the promoter was blocked. When I had finished with the account I added a “former account” template to indicate that I would not be using it again.

The fact that I had stopped using this account was the trigger for these people to start alleging that I had been banned.80.5.88.40 (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:GAN Backlog

There are ALOT of articles awaiting GA review on the WP:GAN page, some dating back to March 2010. Could a few good admins take a look at the articles listed, review them and get back to the users. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, regular users can do this too. If you are good at reading articles and reviewing them for what is and isn't GA quality, please break up some of this GAN backlog. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, at the beginning of April, we were over 450. That doesn't mean, however, that we should let it get back up there again, let alone keep it as it is right now. –MuZemike 23:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat again

Resolved

 – Re-blocked without talk page access. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

User:45g, already blocked indef for socking and legal threats, has included a legal threat in an edit summary to his talk page here. A removal of talk page access is probably best here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Incivility in dispute over Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome

A disagreement arose between myself and User:SandyGeorgia over the Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome article. I tried at first to speak with Sandy on her Talk Page before moving it to the article Talk Page. It began when I removed unsourced or poorly sourced POV material from the article. She responded by reverting it, expressing bewilderment in her edit summaries as to why I did this ([22][23]), even though I detailed my rationale in my edit summary. In the course my attempt to talk with her, she has engaged in the following behaviors:

• Violated WP:Civility with name calling ("obnoxious") and rudeness ("Do you not read edit summaries?"). She has also accused me of "personalizing" our discussion, even though I have not engaged in similar behavior, but have merely tried to politely advise her that this is not appropriate.
• Repeatedly accusing me of adding false material or making false, uncited claims in the article (I added no new material in the article).
• Challenging me on the basis of my personal knowledge of the subject (which is not a valid basis for editing on Wikipedia, and is a behavior to be avoided).
• Criticizing me for adding a dead link to a url that was in the article.
• Claiming that only BLPs and contentious material requires sourcing.

And so forth. I would appreciate that someone speak with this user regarding her violation of WP:Civility, and other related policies. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

At first glance (no comment on underlying content) I don't see anything wrong with SandyGeorgia's responses. It's miles away from an attack and hardly incivil. This is fundamentally a content dispute, and I'm not convinced your massive posting to SG's talk page the conversation that took place here was particularly explanatory; certainly SG's response was reasonable. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC) (updated; i was incorrect about the page posting)

Calling someone "obnoxious" is not incivil? Falsely accusing someone ad infinitum of wrong doing in bad faith is not incivil? Ignoring one's edit summaries while simultaneously accusing them of the same by saying, "Do you not read edit summaries?" is not incivil? How do you figure this?

And what "massive posting" on her talk page? One paragraph is "massive"? Really? As for it not being explanatory, this is the "massive" paragraph in question:

I haven't made any uncited claims. Rather, it is the material I removed from the article that was not properly cited. As I stated on the article's talk page, sites whose content is user-generated, such as imdb and TV.com, are not considered reliable by Wikipedia under WP:RS, and neither of those two webpages make any mention of the episode in question being "seminal", being the first episode to depict Tourettes, or of people with the condition seeking diagnosis of it after seeing it. The TV.com page in particular never even mentions Tourettes. That's not a "claim", uncited or not. It's a fact. As I have given some detailed examples like these on the Talk Page, I'm not sure why you're continuing to claim ignorance of my rationale, as you did when you wrote the edit summary "restore yet another strange deletion of cited material", but if you want to refute the fact that the relevant policies are violated by this material, you can do so on the article's Talk Page. Otherwise, please stop reverting the article, and claiming the uncited or poorly cited material is actually cited. Thanks.

In what way is this not explanatory? Nightscream (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, calling someone obnoxious is not incivil to the point we should ban them from contributing. Shadowjams (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone obnoxious and asking if they read edit summaries is the shallow end of WP:NPA, perhaps it warrants some words of advice, but no one would ever get banned for that. SGGH ^ping! 09:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Banning someone from contributing is not the same as talking to them about concerns about parts of their behavior. --83.135.75.108 (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Is it just me or is there a certain irony in this? Guy (Help!) 10:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly the same thing. The section heading is a timeless classic. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Has SandyGeorgia been notified of this thread? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've told her. SGGH ^ping! 15:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Whatever the merit of your complaint, Nightscream, it is not okay for you to use the rollback tool in a content dispute. Ucucha 15:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• SandyGeorgia reverted your edits. Eleven weeks later you revert her before discussing. She explains she is traveling so can't access her sources and asks you to wait, but you carry on. What would you call it? Anthony (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. Suggest Nightscream withdraw gracefully, if possible, with kudos for the notice he left on SG's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Anon vandal is back

Someone's vandalising my user page. I would normally give some warnings on vandalism, but this edit makes me suspect it's the same gentleman who previously persistently vandalised several pages I was editing, as I previously reported here, and consequently any warnings I give will be ignored. (The history of my user page should be self-explanatory.) Do you want me to attempt to give these warnings anyway, or do you want to intervene now? Thanks, Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone blocked for 12 hours. Is there a reason not to just permanently semi-protect your user page? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless my information is out of date, I don't have the means to semi-protect my own user page, but I will if someone shows me how. However, this is vandal is who I think it is, last time he/she moved on to vandalising pages I was editing instead. Thanks for the block though. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't have the ability, but I do, and I just did. If you want it un semi-protected, just ask. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Weren't there recent discussions of the propriety of keeping one's user talk page permanently semi-protected?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Bradjamesbrown protected Chris Neville-Smith's userpage, not his talk page. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, all the vandalism was on Chris' user page- which I protected, not his talk. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)