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

Sanity check

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

← (e/c)

Barneca writes on my talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reason I included Pigsonthewing in the ban is twofold:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: he had already edited my comments without my permission. THEN he "schooled" me on it, talking down to me as though I'm a child: "again correctly indented your comments." [1] In "gratitude" I "thanked" him for doing what I never asked him to do in the first place and then asked him to do it again. His indentation of my comments were not meant to be helpful but to be insulting, to suggest that I am an inexperienced editor who doesn't know what he is doing -- and he is an experienced editor who is better than me and is going to tell me how to do it all correctly. My sarcastic comment was not an endorsement of his insulting treatment of me, but a statement that he is not better than me and I do not take seriously his suggestions that he is. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently, putting information in the wrong section (your original edit made it appear that Evita the musical is an Argentine production [2]), referring to another's arguments as "straw man" arguments [3], being condescending and patronizing from the start (despite my initial attempts at diplomacy [4]), and editing another's comments without permission, are acceptable. I'm not the only one to notice that you have a better-than-thou attitude with others and have a tendency to edit others' comments. And, again, I was joking when I asked you to indent my comments. But it should probably come as no surprise that you didn't see that as a joke, because it has become apparent that you have no sense of humor. Thanks. (Please note, this editor had already indenting my comments anyway.) --- Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

About the "nationalist bias," I simply pointed out earlier that it was a consensus reached between myself (a former exchange student to Argentina) and an Argentine that the musical should not be mentioned in the intro paragraphs [5]. I then pointed out that the Spanish language version of the article does not mention the musical in the intro paragraphs [6]. I suggested that it is in the English speaking world that the musical is seen as of great importance in Eva Peron's legacy, but in Argentina the real woman is far more important and famous -- and this generalizes to the rest of the Spanish speaking world. I then pointed out that the musical is written by two English men, the musical based on a book written by an English woman, and the editor who suggests that the musical be mentioned in the intro paragraphs is himself English. Is it really such an outrageous suggestion that an English person may see things from an English perspective? (And, yes, if you want to go deeper, you can easily see that the anti-Evita tone of the musical is ultimately founded in the anti-Peronism perspective of England, and the musical itself even dramatizes this. The artistocracy that rejects Evita sings in a British accent, and the musical contains lines like, "(She) gave us back our businesses/ Got the English out" ... "I don't think she'll make it to England now....") -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit which inadvertently put detail of the musical in the "wrong" section was changed before Andrew Parodi again removed the material. Examples of Andrew Parodi's false accusations of nationalist bias: "Right back at you, my English friend…your nationality influences your view of Eva Peron's greatest significance as derived from the fact that two English men wrote a musical about her. ([7])", "I postulate that your insistence that the musical be referenced in the opening paragraphs is correlated to the fact that you are English, as it has become apparent that you believe that the most important thing that ever happened in her life was that she was the subject of a musical by two of your countrymen. ([8])". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Doctor of Chiropractic

This article needs work, yes. However, there has been no AfD approved and yet editor QuackGuru (talk · contribs) keeps deleting/redirecting the article [9] [10] despite ongoing conversations on how to improve the article. I have already reverted twice, and in the interest of not fostering an edit war, I am here requesting that the article be restored by an admin so that discussions on article improvement can continue. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have never blocked QuackGuru.[11] I do support Ioeth's block though. --Elonka 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• QuackGuru has had a long history of disruption and questionable editing behavior on this article; he's been cautioned and warned several times by a variety of admins. Heck, Tim Vickers read him the riot act pretty specifically a few months ago ([12]), though that did get him to shape up temporarily ([13]). In that context, and in the context of his previous blocks, this seems like a reasonable enforcement of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions. MastCell ^Talk 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

In an "interesting" and unwelcome development, User:Levine2112 has continued to unilaterally oppose the merge of this article, despite what I see as a clear consensus fr the idea at Talk:Doctor_of_Chiropractic#Background_to_chiropractic_section. I've left him a note requesting that he reconsider his action [14], but if this does not occur, I'd consider his actions rather disruptive. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Wasn't aware of this thread at the time, I've just left a note for Levine asking him to reconsider based on discussion at the talk and especially in light of QuackGuru's very recent block for the same behavior.[15] Since Chiropractic and related articles seem to be the only area where Levine has difficulty, I would support a topic ban if the situation isn't rectified. Shell ^babelfish 17:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Levine2112's action was clearly in opposition to consensus.[16] I too would support a topic ban. How about, "Levine2112 is banned from editing any articles that are related to Chiropractic (broadly defined), for six months. He is still allowed to participate at talkpages, as long as he does so in a civil manner. He is strongly encouraged to be sensitive to a forming consensus, and to try and adapt to it, rather than fighting against it." --Elonka 18:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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

It's usually best with arbitration enforcement discretionary sanctions to start with lesser sanctions (ban on editing) and then only increase to more severe sanctions (ban on editing and talkpages) if the earlier ones don't work. The hope is that Levine2112 will realize that he's on a short leash, and that the ban could be expanded unless he adapts his style. That said, I would not be opposed to an "all topic" ban if other uninvolved administrators feel that this is the best course of action at this time. Tim Vickers correctly points out that Levine2112 was indeed warned about a topic ban in early November,[17] in relation to the Chiropractic article. --Elonka 19:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive edits by Jackal4

• Jackal4 (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Profanity -- Jackal4's use of profanity when dealing with those who criticize the innapropriateness of his edits; see, for example, his accusations of those who criticize him: "You wouldn't have triggered an edit war if you didn't ... fuck up articles": [18]. (emphasis added)

2. Adding innappropriate placeholder material, and refusing to go back and delete it. See his violation of the image placeholders directive, [19], which mandates that one not put up the ugly blank placeholder in lieu of a picture.

One (of many) examples can be found at [20]. The examples are many in his revisions over the past months.

I've cleaned up many, but many remain.

I asked him to clean up his dozens of innappropriate placeholder additions. His refusal can be found at [21], where he said, in part, "You'll be fine doing it yourself." (emphasis added)

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

An example of this activity on his part can be found at [22].

4. Deleting others' communications on others' talk pages. When another writer complained about Jackal4's innappropriate behavior on a third party's talk page (where the third party had warned Jackal4 in the past for similar behavior, Jackal4 deleted that complaint from the third party's talk page. See [23].

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

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

When I indicated that Jackal4 had used profanity, and deleted others' communications on others' talk pages, Jackal4 deleted my comment, falsely writing in his edit summary "(removed false accusations)." See [24]. In fact, as detailed above, the accusations were correct.

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

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

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

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

Insults by 59.101.23.24

On [25] discussion has gone off topic, and some users including 59.101.23.24 is calling other users (in which I'm included) blood thirsty maniacs, loosers and fascists. I warned him yesterday (23. of January) to stop, but he continued with his behavior. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Appropriateness_of_sectioning

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

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

While I was, and still am, pretty torqued at Phil, I resent any implication that I have either been trolling or acting in bad faith. My summary [26] sums it up:

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

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

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

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

Straw Poll

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

Disruption of wikipedia to push an unpopular policy

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

Lets look at the most recent timeline:

1. Phil Sandifer "boldly" tags the page as a guideline, despite objections.[27]
2. Kww reverts Phil.[28]
3. 16:32, 23 January 2009, Phil deletes the page, with a personal attack: "Proposal was killed by trolling and personal attacks by Kww and ThuranX"[29]
4. 16:36, 23 January 2009 supporter of policy, User:EEMIV reports Phil to AfD
5. 16:42, 23 January 2009 User:Gavin.collins, a strong support of Phil writes a Straw man argument: "I propose an immediate 24-hour block for Phil Sandifer who deleted WP:FICT on the grounds that his unnecessary action has set an unfortunate precedent."
6. 16:46, 23 January 2009, Long time supporter Sgeureka undeletes the page.[30]
7. 16:49, 23 January 2009, Long time supporter Sgeureka here: "Restored. Tempers have been running high at FICT for over a year, but deletion was unnecessary and was likely just the result of a moment's overreaction on Phil's part."
8. 18:01, 23 January 2009, Strong supporter Bignole starts a straw poll, stating "informal, as in it doesn't mean that the guideline will or won't get promoted, this is for our benefit" Bignole is not the first person to comment on the straw poll:
9. 18:02, 23 January 2009 Phil Sander is the first person to support the straw poll
10. 18:05, 23 January 2009 Galvin Collins, who 1 hour and 17 minutes before was calling for Galvin to be blocked, is the next person to vote support, along with the other editors above.
11. 23:41, 23 January 2009 Despite Bignole's statement, that this is not an official poll, Protonk, posts a WP:CENT notice "Notability proposal for fictional subjects"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further, I'm not even involved in a conspiracy with my own side, and haven't contacted ANY editors who agree with me, on or off wiki, about this. It's stupid and too messy to try, and we get more done, or less done (sometimes that's better)k, by staying on the talk page. ThuranX (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, I am sorry for the confusion, I never said you manipulated anything. I simply quoted Phil, when he deleted the page: "Proposal was killed by trolling and personal attacks by Kww and ThuranX"[31] I realize that you and Kww are on opposite ends of the spectrum. I can see how other editors comments above could confuse what I wrote. Ikip (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Gavin completely at the far end of the inclusionist side" - wow, never thought I'd hear that! I suspect he didn't, either. :) BOZ (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, he is. He's right behind Phil in arguing that the fact that people want an article means the topic of the article's notable enough, independent sources or not. ThuranX (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Confusing? These were your exact words: "It is no secret that Masem, Phil Sandifer, Bignole, ThuranX, Protonk all have generally the same opinion about this proposal, and all have the same point of view about notability." -- That is a pretty clear statement that you believe(d) that all of us are on the same side, share the same views, and all-n-all basically WP:OWN FICT. I never mentioned anything about Kww, but the fact remains that you are attacking all of us with your statement, and have yet to acknowledge (at least to me) that you have made a err in judgement on that call (given that facts were presented to you that not only show we all do not share the same beliefs, but most of us don't actually operate on the FICT page beyond the talk page).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I even understand what you're suggesting. Are you actually trying to say that they got together off Wiki and choreographed this, because they believed such a disruption would *promote* unity rather than inflame tempers? Randomran (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess it is OK for admins to delete policy pages? That is what this all comes down too. Ikip (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

He got off with a warning, because he apologized and openly admitted he acted completely out of line. Saying "I'm sorry I won't do it again" goes a long way on Wikipedia, because sanctions are meant to correct the behavior, not punish somebody. If it happens again, I don't think he'll be so fortunate. Randomran (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, I probably agree with your inclusion criteria; however, I don't think Phil deleted it in league with Kww and ThuranX. I think his expressed frustration was genuine, i.e. it really was tension among these editors and not the editors somehow in league with each other to feign their annoyance with each other. A case can be made for incivility in that discussion, but I do not believe this incivility was somehow planned by those involved to draw attention. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

ANobody, "I don't think Phil deleted it in league with Kww and ThuranX" This is the third correction, I never said that. Anywhere. Other editors said that. Ikip (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not what it comes down to. You asserted that a conspiracy among longstanding editors existed to cram a guideline down the throats of an unwary community through the nefarious workings of a straw poll (without any evidence to speak of). If your accusations weren't so completely laughable you would probably have pissed a lot more people off. As it stands, we are well aware that you are treating this proposal as a battleground (see here). I'm involved, so I can't ask you to leave as an administrator, but I'm on the verge of asking someone else to. This is not a conspiracy. Assume good faith. Add substantively to the discussion or leave things alone. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

ANobody, "I don't think Phil deleted it in league with Kww and ThuranX" This is the third correction, I never said that. Anywhere. Other editors said that. Ikip (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm bummed that Ikip uncovered my massive conspiracy with six other editors to establish a notability guideline, but I'm glad he still doesn't know where I hid Jimmy Hoffa's body. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil, your snide personal insults do not hide the fact that you disrupted wikipedia to make a point. Again, is it okay for admins to delete policy pages? Thanks for being an upstanding administrator, an example to everyone on wikipedia. All that you have showed me that the rules only apply to those who don't have a large group of powerful friends on wikipedia. Those who do have those powerful friends can act with near impunity, including blanking proposal pages. All your fierce supporters, Randomran, Masem, Phil Sandifer, Bignole, ThuranX, Protonk, cannot mask that dirty fact. When you mock me with your personal insults in this case, you are mocking the rules that we are supposed to all follow. Ikip (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Don't continue to twist things around. Phil messed up. We all do. It wasn't "Ok". But don't even pretend like your post here was in spirit or content meant largely to point out the fact that Phil unilaterally deleted a project page out of process. Protonk (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

LMAO. Doowaaa?! I'm a fierce support of Phil? I highly doubt that. I believe if you trace my contact with Phil back to the beginning, we have frequently butted-heads on many topics and I usually do not agree with him on things (though, we don't tend to get into wars about it, just respectful disagreement among fellow Wikipedians). As for letting him get away with his actions, if you check the history, I (that's right...ME) was the first to tell Phil that he couldn't delete the page just because he didn't like how the discussion was going (I'm not an Admin, so I couldn't undelete the page, thus the best I could do was say so on the talk page of FICT). Once again you have shown that you have no idea what is actually going on, and are simply out to cause trouble. There is a limit to how much one can assume good faith about people's opinions and edits, and you've reached mine. Next time, try actually backing up your accusations with facts. It's what we do in the real world, and it's fun to do on Wikipedia as well. I'm done with this ridiculous argument, have a nice day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX as a big supporter of mine is even funnier. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

First time we agree. Ikip, you're clearly completely illiterate. I've been more blunt and brusque to phil than to anyone else in this project. I'm completely opposed to his 'free pass to fiction' proposal, and want a serious inclusion of 'independent reliable sources' in any such policy. That you can't see that's different from Phil's 'that someone wants to write about it makes it notable' idea means you should take up a new hobby. I suggest remedial reading. ThuranX (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The notion that these editors are involved in a conspiracy is hilarious. No, seriously, it made my day, as did characterizing Gavin as an inclusionist. Fun, fun. The inclusion philosophies of many of your supposed "conspiracy" are so far apart you'd think Ann Coulter had joined forces with Ariana Huffington to produce an article. Per above, do your homework. The ridiculous notion that any of these users is involved in a conspiracy is not only reeking of bad faith but a clear lack of clue. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Man. I'm just sad I missed out on being involved in this conspiracy. None of the cool cabals want me as a member. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave you a shout out above, AMiB. Sephiroth, if you have that video of Coulter and HUffington, and Arianna's being the 'man', please use my talk page. I have a greek progressive fetish. ThuranX (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I missed all this too, which may puzzle those who watch AfD (or my talk page) & know that i am generally a strong supporter of inclusive content on fiction. But I have been almost inactive on the policy page involved, and no longer even watchlist it. I do not think we will succeed in having an adequate solution there, and the argumentation has been too circular and too repetitive for my patience. I understand how Phil could have gotten impatient, and I would have been tempted myself--knowing that, I avoid the place, as I do most wp policy discussion not devoted to resolving individual issues on individual articles or sources, all of which are at least arguments of finite length. When there is a basic disagreement on what the encyclopedia should be, we have no way of resolving it except for mutual tolerance. If there is no such tolerance, we're helpless. DGG (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: This thread sucks

Never have so many words been typed in order to say so little (well, not since the G33 debacle, anyways...). I propose this just be archived and we move on. Enough stupid drama. Jtrainor (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: I must concur with my colleague/sockpuppet (depending on whom you ask). I've actually lost track of what this had to do with WP:FICT in the first place... MalikCarr (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Insulted by a user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gaza conflict talk page

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

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

This is one of John Hyams' statements to another user "You are clearly a Hamas operative on Wikipedia, and this has to be dealt with" [32] --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best Boyfriend Award

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

image removal

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

keeps removing images from

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

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

This isn't the first time the user has been inappropriately been removing islam related images. [33][34][35][36] I think a block may be appropriate as the user is clearly driven by religious motivation and has already been warned by another user too.--Otterathome (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I think I have found appropriate replacements from Flickr[37][38].--Otterathome (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

This can be uploaded [39].--Otterathome (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Amid.Abdullah

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

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

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

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

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

Possible sock puppetry at SPLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:68.45.90.254

Since August 2008, this user has repeatedly added unsourced information to the Jerry Lewis article, alleging that Lewis has an illegitimate daughter [40]. Despite numerous requests, the user has continued to re-post the material at regular intervals. WWGB (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Dancing Obama and BLP violation consensus, need uninvolved admins please

Talk:Barack_Obama#Dancing_Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested page protections.

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

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

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

Possible checkuser abuse, inappropriate block threats by admin AuburnPilot

I generally edit from a public workstation. It is part of my local school/library network. Blocks on such a network would not be surprising from time to time. I believe that within the last month or so I saw at least one block on IP editing. Earlier this week, I received a nasty message on my talk page from AuburnPilot. [[41]] He claimed to have put one of the blocks on my IP address, and has threatened to block me over a dispute on removal of uncivil personal insults and BLP-violating content over a page in userspace. He has also made a claim, in the edit summary but not in the talk page message, that I am a sockpuppet of someone he did not name. There is no sockpuppet investigation, either. AuburnPilot does not have checkuser authority. No checkuser request regarding me is in the record. If a checkuser request were run, it would have been against Wikipedia policy for the checkuser person to disclose my IP address to AuburnPilot. If what AuburnPilot said about blocking my IP address previously was true, my privacy/user rights have been violated. If what he said is not true, his making such a false claim is grossly inappropriate. AuburnPilot also refused to give any basis for treating my edit as inappropriate. The content I deleted was a general attack on other users, plus specific attacks on two named individuals. One of them is a Wikipedia editor. The other apparently is not. (At least he does not have a Wikipedia user page.) Several recent discussions make clear that content like this should not be allowed. Even outside articlespace Example: [[42]]. I am not a sockpuppet of anybody. Auburnpilot has behaved very very badly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• No, I am not a checkuser and no checkuser has contacted me. However, when an account that is dormant for over two years[43] shows up to continue the user page blanking of an IP with no edit history, it's not very hard to connect the dots. I'm not sure where I "refused to give any basis for" reverting Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, but a diff to back up that assertion would be greatly appreciated. A quick look at my talk page history will show that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has never contacted me; s/he also did not respond to my note on his/her talk page. - auburnpilot talk 20:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It is the link to my talk page. How did you find out my IP without violating the checkuser rules? I have never edited as an IP. And if you look at my edit history old and new you will see many many many edits removing BLP violations. The text I removed was a garden variety personal attack. The only basis for your claim is your refusal to assume good faith. I would have expected that such editing as I have made, including this discovery of an appallingly bad BLP and privacy violation [[44]] should indicate that I am editing in good faith. AuburnPilot seems to be admitting that he jumped to his conclusion without real evidence. He does not contest that the text in question violates NPA and BLP. He should look before he leaps. Especially when he hurts the people he lands on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Disruptive / aggressive editing two users in astrology related articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well yes and no, if there is general agreement in the astrology community about something then it can be quoted with "Astrologists believe that... (cite}". However, when they can't agree with each other whether being born on September 17th makes you tall, dark-haired, beady-eyed and likely to become a dentist, or short, blond, bad-tempered and likely to become a circus performer, then for some reason my inclination is to remove such sections. (The one in my own star sign section was predictably inaccurate, which is a shame as I'd like to "stand high and walk like a Centaur" [45]) !! Black Kite 21:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

How incredibly rude of kashimjamed/Someone963852 to blame me for sockpoppeting without the slightest shred of evidence. Isn't there a rule against this?? (above and in edit summaries eg [46]) Since showing up on Wikipedia he's again and again made unfounded allegations about me. This is getting tedious. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Here ya go, another one [47] Thanks for reverting it Realist2 --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Users Anak Kalimantan and Khuntien Ngin

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

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

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

Hunington-Horstachio

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

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

Michael Hardy

Michael Hardy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) I had been attempting to resolve a conflict over a deletion with Hardy, but he insisted on calling my comments bullshit four times, I don't think one on one discussion would work with him. I had deleted an image he uploaded, without any description page; instead, it had a redirect to a non-existent page, which I proceeded to delete. He proceeds to inform of his unilateral undeletion, also adding an unnecessary inflammatory note on my talk. I revert the note, and attempt to explain why I deleted the image, but the discussion ends in the bullshit comments. I'm at a loss as to how I can further explain, and hopefully someone can help me out. On a tangential note, I've looked through Michael Hardy's deletion log and it seems he likes unilaterally reversing other admin's actions, for example [48], [49], [50], [51]. Maxim_(talk) 23:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned by the undeletions of Robert Denno, which appears to be a text book example of a wheel war. Two administrators deleted it as being a copyvio, and twice Michael Hardy restored the copyvio via undeletion. Truely concerning. MBisanz ^talk 23:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be a really good idea to talk these out, and ask Michael to weigh in here with this, especially on the undeletion of possible copyvio material (not that possible wheel warring is a good thing, either, or the hot language). rootology (C)(T) 23:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The explanation at Talk:Robert Denno and the logs seem clear enough. Apparently the initial speedy deletion was a mistake (not for reason of suspected copyvio), and Hardy only restored possible copyvio to the history once, while Moonriddengirl eliminated it from there subsequently. John Z (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is what happened:

• On September 1st, 2008 someone uploaded image:Ladakh Monestary.jpg. That is a misspelling of "monastery".
• Today I found that I could not move an image. I first tried at least redirecting image:Ladakh Monastery.jpg to image:Ladakh Monestary.jpg.
• I inquired at the village pump and was told I needed to download the image and re-upload with a different name.
• I did so. Then there were two identical image pages with different names. The page titled image:Ladakh Monastery.jpg was then a jpg image. If you looked at image:Ladakh Monastery.jpg, you saw the picture.
• "Maxim" deleted that within one minute.

I don't know what he means above when he says "instead, it had a redirect to a non-existent page". That is nonsense. There was nothing resembling a redirect; there was only a picture, with my comments about who had uploaded it first.

Is there REALLY something wrong with my restoring Poisson hidden markov model? That restoration has already been discussed at great length. Someone deleted it on the grounds that it was "patent nonsense" and the subject could not be identified. That is absurd. Just because an article is clumsily written and an admin doesn't understand it because he lacks familiarity with the field, is no reason to call something "patent nonsense" when 10 seconds with Google would have identified the subject. Speedy deletions are not for disputed cases; restoring after a thoughtless speedy deletion is proper. If someone thinks Poisson hidden Markov model should be deleted, they should take it to AfD (I don't think anyone will do that; I don't think anyone thinks an AfD could succeed).

It is nonsense to say that the image that got speedily deleted "had a redirect to a non-existent page". There was nothing remotely resembling a redirect in it. Here's the history. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear what's going on - Michael Hardy was attempting to rename an image, a task he's never done before, and he got confused. User:Maxim reacted to the peculiar activity before he could straighten things out, and they both assumed bad faith. Also, User:Maxim may be unaware of MediaWiki's new support for image redirects since version 1.13. See here. This may not be turned on on En (I don't know), but it is on Commons. Also, let's not conflate this with Poisson hidden markov model, which was a clear-cut correct restore. Dcoetzee 00:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Except that this revision is undoubtedly a redirect to a non-existent page. Black Kite 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of copyvio in Robert Denno, the other restores all look legitimate. WP:IAR is very useful in dealing with speedy deletions done by users who have no idea what they are doing. No idea why the situation with Maxim got so heated over the Ladakh Monastery image, as both users were trying to do the right thing -- Samir 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no redirect in the page Maxim deleted. He could have just left it alone; it was a perfectly good jpg file.

For the Robert Denno matter, the solution was to rewrite the page so that it didn't contain copyrighted material from another web page. (It was probably not a copyright violation, but rather a case where the fact that permission had be given had simply been omitted. But it wasn't formatted properly for a Wikipedia article and would have had to be rewritten because of that anyway.) Michael Hardy (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to get technical, neither article was an R1 (now G8) candidate because there were versions in the history that were not G8. However, the new image was eligible for deletion under F1. To avoid this, I'd suggest we create some kind of template indicating a image move in progress, that can be included in the description of re-uploads. I also suggest that you assume good faith, considering that Maxim was understandably quite confused about what you were trying to do. Dcoetzee 00:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's any way I could have figured out that he was "understandably confused", I don't know what it was. He deleted an image that was in fact an image and called it a redirect, although it in no way contained or resembled a redirect. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The 17:22 version here says #REDIRECT[[Ladakh Monestary]] (Ladakh Monestary is a non-existent page.) One minute later, you uploaded the picture, at 17:23. But though the picture shows, take a look at the source of the page. It still only has the redirect. The actual material one would expect to see doesn't show up until here after being repaired by User:Maxim. Perhaps this is why he thought it was a redirect? I'm not much into uploading images myself, but I can see that this might have been confusing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael, the details are unimportant, and there's little sense in rehashing them. The point is that you were just trying to rename an image, and your initial introduction of a redirect - spotted by Maxim midway through the process - gave the wrong impression of what was going on. Maxim should have been more careful and checked the history before deleting under R1 (now G8); this also would have pointed out there was an ongoing action and he could have consulted you first. But I'm sure once the misunderstanding came to light, he would have been glad to restore his own deletions and help complete the rename. In an area where you lack experience, you should be more careful and communicative. Dcoetzee 02:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Moonreddengirl: I have no idea how you got those two links both dated 17:23 whose content is different. Can someone explain what those are?

My descriptions of Maxim's comments as "BULLSHIT" were certainly thoroughly deserved by Maxim. Those of his comments that don't deserve that epithet remain cryptic at best. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: I've edited Wikipedia articles daily for more than six years and created thousands of pages, and I think this may be the very first time a page I've created has been deleted. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The first link is to an old version of the image description page; the second link is what you get if you visit the first link and click "edit this page." In other words, the image, the file history, and the file links are all generated information that is included automatically; the only content on the page was the redirect. Unlike uploading a new image, when you upload an image that already exists, your upload description is not used as page content; it is only placed in the upload summary. The page text was fixed by Maxim in this diff. Dcoetzee 05:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification in case anyone is confused by comments above: There's nothing wrong with speedy restoration of a speedily deleted article if the restoring admin deems it appropriate. That's part of what the word "speedy" means. That is NOT "wheel warring". If the deleting admin still thinks it should be deleted and the difference cannot otherwise be resolved, the deleting admin then takes it to "Articles for Deletion". It's not extremely unusual to see admins saying of an article "Molecular biology? What's that??? Never heard of it!!! Speedy delete!!!!" (or substitute for "molecular biology" any other field that requires some study beyond elementary school), although we haven't lately seen the torrent of that sort of thing that we saw in February and March 2008. That's exactly what happened with Poisson hidden Markov model. That's why I restored it. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban by CadenS

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24h

This user has violated his topic ban again (see the editors talk for previous violations. I think a block is appropriate here. — Jake Wartenberg 23:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Already noted - I was in the process of blocking as you posted. It is really unfortunate that this user refuses to understand or comply with his topic ban. He violated it on 21 January and although I should've blocked then, I gave him a final warning; the response can be read on his talkpage. Black Kite 00:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contrarian Journalism

I'm not sure how to handle this.

I nominated Contrarian Journalism for deletion. One editor supported the nomination, followed by a Keep vote from User:DasV who seems to have been stalking him. But it looks like User:DasV may be the same person as the article's author, who is an SPA - see here.

The evidence is possibly not strong enough for a sockpuppet tag or a checkuser, but it smells very fishy. So, what should I do? andy (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted most of the article as original research - should be flushed down the shitter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ownership of article Sindhi people

I have been attempting to remove large sections of unsourced and NPOV statements from the article Sindhi people. All my edits are being reverted by editors User:210.2.140.194, User:Skatergal and User:122.169.71.248 (who may be the same user). They have refused to discuss the matter, in spite of requests by me [52], [53]; warnings [54] and even an Rfc [55].

The editors have flagrantly violated WP:OWN, as evidenced by their comments here [56], [57] and [58]

An intervention would be greatly appreciated.

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

User:Eleland

User Eleland has been blocked five times previously, mostly for incivility, 3RR, and violations of the ArbCom I-P judgment, to which the article at issue in this matter is subject. Due to a content matter on Adam Shapiro in which he's not totally in the wrong, he's chosen to leave inappropriate language in reply to a comment I made on his talk page here and on the article talk page [59] As I said, content wise, he's not totally in the wrong, see my analysis here. However, nothing justifies the way he has acted in this matter. See also the foul comments he put on my talk page Obviously, this is matter that I can't handle myself as an admin, both because of personal involvment and because during my RfA, I recused from exercising admin powers in I-P related articles.Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I find that without my knowledge, another user who has my talk page watchlisted took the matter to WP:WQA. Eleland's response is vulgar and accusatory towards me, and continues the pattern, and can be found hereWehwalt (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to be accurate, those are really three separate blocks. The fourth and fifth blocks are actually changes in the length of the third block. The third block should have remained permanent, and now on his "fourth strike", it is long past the time for Eleland to be banned. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the number. You guys do what you want about it, but it is disruptive. I was spending a productive evening expanding the article on Franklin Knight Lane, an interesting Wilson cabinet officer, while keeping an eye on my own FAC and two other editors' FAC that I had offered reviews on, when up pops everyone's favorite potty mouth and I've spent the last two hours dealing with that and not building an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also agree that some long-term solution is in order. FWIW, and for full disclosure, I have had previous unpleasant dealings w/Eleland. See here. IronDuke 02:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad IronDuke said "long-term" instead of "final." But seriously, Wehwalt's protestations of ignorance, above, are laughable. I pointed out the use of worthless pseudo-sources to smear Shapiro in March 2008, Sceptre took action against the smears in May 2008, and Carolmooredc pointed it out again in June 2008. Wehwalt did not suddenly realize that straightforward application of BLP was "not totally in the wrong" until the matter came to broad notice; now he begins to distance himself from his own actions and plead carelessness. Bullshit. Wehwalt was happy to get away with libel, now he's trying to walk it back. Bottom line, he's a rogue admin caught pursuing a personal vendetta and now he and his nationalist comrade IronDuke are trying to use my four-letter words as a distraction. <eleland/talkedits> 03:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A distraction from what? I have nothing to do with the Shapiro article, and want nothing to do with it. I just want you to be civil. I'd ask again if you are willing to be, but you've indicated time and again you're not. IronDuke 03:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think my most civil, though we disagreed, discussions with CarolMooredc speak for themselves. She did not find it necessary to be uncivil at every turn, unlike you. I have no problem with saying that content wise, you are not entirely wrong, because right or wrong, or in the middle, everyone on Wikipedia needs to be treated with civility, something you have yet to realize. You are in quicksand, throwing handfuls of it at other people only will make you sink more quickly. If this matter has come "to broad notice" it is because I reported you at the page of an admin who has blocked you in the past and IronDuke reported you at WP:WQA, and then I brought the whole matter here. Wrongdoing hates the sunlight Were I the "rogue admin" who is "happy to get away with libel" and everything I said was "bullshit", to borrow your word, I woul hardly be parading it at every turn. For shame, Eleland. Your response to being admonished for your continual conduct is to attack both IronDuke and myself. I could say more, but you make my case so much better than I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I don't believe you are here to fix a problem reasonably and go back editing in peace. This is the third venue you are using so far. I am just amazed by the fact that no one is able to listen. You've been told by User:Gerardw the same thing you'd get here. What are you expecting? You are both wrong: Eleland for incivility that should stop (more than enough) and Wehwalt for his questionable edits (more than enough). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Wehwalt did the right thing by consolidating the issue here, with the most experienced eyes on it, rather than, say, Wikiqutte, which is largely ineffective (why do I post there? I ask myself the same thing.) It's depressing that you don't see good faith here. Your tepid rejoinder of Eleland is effectively an endorsement of his actions. IronDuke 04:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your last part of your comment is a bit out of line. Could you please read again my last part of my comment? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't believe it's out of line at all. It may be wrong, and I am, as always, open to hearing that. But I firmly believe Eleland has had many, many chances to reform -- indeed, he could be forgiven for his latest violation simply on the basis of previous lack of response. He keeps getting away with it, so why should he change. I don't think your comment would make him feel any more like changing than he has done so far. IronDuke 04:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand better now. Well, you are somehow right but you were talking about a long-term block which would require a community consensus or probably an RfC can make it clear for him that the community is fed up with his incivility. That was Eleland's case. Now, what about an admin adding very questionable edits (unsourced edits to a BLP which could lead to legal cases) which himself should be defending the project against? I could have blocked both of them and be fine but I thought leaving other views (yours included) be heard would be better. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I do think libel/defamation (coming from an administrator) is a lot more of a serious matter than "uncivil" language used by an editor. Just saying. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC).

You are right about that, Falastine fee Qalby, but in this discussion, no diff showing libel (or another WP:BLP violation) by an administrator has so far been provided, and Wehwalt seems now to agree with Eleland that the objectionable content, whatever it is, should be removed. However, plenty of diffs have been provided showing serious violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL on the part of Eleland, who has already received blocks for such misconduct. Accordingly, I'm blocking Eleland for two weeks, doubling the duration of his most recent block. I won't object to any other sanctions against other editors that other admins believe are necessary here.  Sandstein  11:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a situation where both sides are in the wrong. Eleland absolutely should not have been uncivil. I can understand his frustration, but verbal abuse isn't an effective way to resolve issues. A short block would not be inappropriate.

Wehwalt is also in the wrong; his edits to Adam Shapiro are canonical violations of WP:BLP. He has repeatedly restored material that violates BLP, specifically by adding material sourced to a personal website, adding unsourced potentially defamatory material, and using the article as a coatrack for quotations that cast the subject in a bad light. This has happened repeatedly over a period of more than two years (diffs: [60], [61], [62], [63].) WP:BLP very clearly prohibits such conduct.

While this is within the topic area covered by WP:ARBPIA, there's no need to invoke that arbitration case - it's a straightforward matter of BLP enforcement. I've taken the following steps:

• Removed the material sourced to a self-published website [64].
• Notified Wehwalt about the BLP violations and cautioned him about repeating them [65]. If he continues to violate BLP, a block would be appropriate.
• Added a notification to the BLP noticeboard requesting that other editors assess the article to help identify and resolve outstanding concerns [66].

Hopefully this will help to resolve this unfortunate situation. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

IP sock doing the large-scale reversions is back again

Resolved

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

206.53.144.165 (talk · contribs) is back making large reversions to certain articles. We went through this last night (and remembered where I had seen him before) in this thread [67] here. He's obviously disruptive, I'll revert. If an admin could block, I would appreciate it. Dayewalker (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Proposed merger

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

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

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

How many bots to incorrectly edit an article?

Resolved

There seems to be no place to post on Wikipedia about problems with multiple bots. Bots, different bots, keep adding Wikipedia interlanguage links to a page that supposedly shouldn't have them--it's a dab for a common name and the links belong on the article under the genus name.[68] Is this typical bot behaviour, that different bots will keep re-adding information that a prior bot added that was reverted? Is there a no-bots edit tag? Why isn't there a place to discuss general bot problems? --KP Botany (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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