Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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 [1] sums it up:

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

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

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

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

Straw Poll

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

Disruption of wikipedia to push an unpopular policy

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

Lets look at the most recent timeline: G

1. Phil Sandifer "boldly" tags the page as a guideline, despite objections.[2]
2. Kww reverts Phil.[3]
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"[4]
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.[5]
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"[6] I realize that you and Kww are on opposite ends of the spectrum. I can see how other editors comments above could confuse what I wrote. Ikip (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Either you've seriously misinterpreted something about Gavin's viewpoint regarding inclusion, or I have... BOZ (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: This thread sucks

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

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

Generally agree, except perhaps an admin should take a look at Ikips continuing to soapbox and make personal attacks against the "conspiracy group" (ROFLMAO) all over the place. That is the real disruption here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support I am glad we have all concluded that it is okay for admins to delete policy pages. I was simply showing the edit history of those editors who supported WP:FICT, and how this behavior makes a fair Straw poll impossible. The responses to what I wrote were predictably filled with personal attacks, calling me "illiterate" etc, and twisting my words into something they were not.
  Mock me all you want, but your really mocking the policies which we are all supposed to follow and showing that the rules don't really apply to everyone. This thread has shown that the only delusional or misleading editors are the editors who preach that wikipedia behavioral rules are fairly and justly applied. Ikip (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding matter

My proposal of 16:42, 23 January 2009 has not been formally responded to. If a block is not appropriate, then a formal warning should be issued to Phil Sandifer for deleting a guideline page. Regardless of whether he applolgised (he did, so that is a good thing), I think some sort of warning should be issued, as once news gets out that editors can do what ever they please, then we are heading down the slippery slope to chaos. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A block is not appropriate. Phil has apologised and we've moved on. A "formal warning" (from who? phrased how? to what end?) would serve no purpose, other than to provide some semblance of vengeance. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 10:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And you are...? Just to be clear, I am seeking a response or closure of this thread by an Administrator. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Redvers is an administrator. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Then I consider the matter closed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dancing Obama and BLP violation consensus, need uninvolved admins please

Talk:Barack_Obama#Dancing_Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 [7], [8], [9], [10]. 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)

No one is contesting your restorations and there is no need to defend against unrelated accusations here. The case itself is a simple misunderstanding. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong, a little friendliness and looking to the future would close the matter. Please be calm. Dcoetzee 13:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael, I have no clue how it was three years ago, but nowadays it is considered preferable to discuss with the deleting admin before taking action. Putting that aside, however, I am shocked that you remain content to call my comments bullshit without making an attempt to understand them. I noticed the redirect with an external tool, and seeing as the image page had no description (it was a copyvio too, since you copied the file without attribution, which is a requirement of the cc-by-3.0 license). I proceed to delete the image, yet you decide unilaterally overturn me. I've actually fixed the image for you a long time ago, yet you still continue to call my comments bullshit which is concerning on a few counts—you still seem to be unable to properly move an image, you don't understand copyright law, and your behaviour is unbecoming of an admin. Maxim_(talk) 13:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Maxim: What appears to merit the term "bullshit" is your repeated assertion that you attempted to explain what you were doing. You did not and I don't see how it could be maintained that you did. You say it was a copyright violation because it was not attributed. That is false: when I re-uploaded the image, I included a statement of who uploaded it first, when that happened, and under what title it was uploaded, and I also commented that it ought to be made possible to move images to preserve the history.

Several people here have referred to "description pages". I have no idea what those are.

Discussing with the deleting admin is something that I take to apply to things other than "speedy" deletions, in which discussion preceded the deletion. No discussion precedes a speedy deletion. With something like Poisson hidden markov model, in which the grounds for speedy is that the article is "patent nonsense" and gives insufficient context to identify the subject, when in fact the subject is crystal-clear and the only way it could have appeared to be nonsense is the deleter's ignorance and the lack of ten seconds of googling, can anyone object to speedy restoration? Michael Hardy (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• What the heck has this thread got to do with Poisson hidden markov model? Answer - nothing! Maxim's thread concerns the way that you use language to belittle his work in relation to the image:Ladakh Monestary.jpg - both at his talk page and then later at the thread that he starts to discuss this at your talk page. It seems to me that you have blown this whole thing up by way of your reactions - which appear certainly to be not assuming good faith and somewhat vitriolic. I note that there have been several recent discussions at your talk page asking you to reconsider treating others in that way.--VS ^talk 20:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Maxim's initial posting that started this thread cited my restoration of Poisson hidden markov model. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Dcoetzee: You say no one is contesting my restorations. But the initial posting that started this thread contested my restorations and cited in particular Poisson hidden Markov model.

VirtualSteve: The initial posting that started this thread contested my restorations and cited in particular Poisson hidden Markov model, so you're statement to the contrary is mistaken. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael - of course I can see that he uses a series of 4 examples which includes the Markov model situation. But his point is not about that situation, (or indeed the other examples he cites) it is about the way that you come to, or comment about other long standing editors/admins pages and treat those persons in a way that you clearly would not accept being treated yourself. You are clearly a good, perhaps even great editor, but your inability to assume good faith of your fellows, and then when they come to your talk page to complain, seek explanation or apology (as the threads and history shows) for writing such things, does not assist you in maintaining such an appearance.--VS ^talk 22:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Maxim cited your previous restorations as (dubious) evidence that you made a habit of irrational wheel warring, and nobody agrees with that implication, which we've already dismissed. It's not your actions that are at issue here, it's your attitude. You're being highly defensive, and refusing to admit fault, which isn't conducive to resolution. In an area where you lack experience, namely working with images, the appropriate response is to explain what you're trying to do and ask what you ought to do; you could have politely asked why he deleted the image, which may have been out-of-process but was in good faith. And likewise Maxim should have checked the history, seen that you were trying to do something, and contacted you before deleting. Try to understand his point of view, and think about reconciliation - no one will remember this thread in a year, but relationships with other editors are important and long-term. Dcoetzee 23:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

He wrote an enormous number of words, of which he later said they were an attempt to explain what he did. I don't see that they amount to an attempt to explain.

I do wonder if he looked at the image before deleting. He says his grounds were a redirect to a non-existent page. But if you find that or anything else that plainly matches a criterion for speedy deletion, you're not supposed to delete at that point; you're supposed to look into the matter and find out what's going on at that point. (Same thing with pages that you find incomprehensible and contextless. Usually a google search can settle that very fast and tell you that it's actually a badly written page but capable of being cleaned up; clicking on "what links here" and finding a thousand respectable internal links would also indicate something, etc.) To say that he tried to explain is a considerable exaggeration. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there some reason you don't thread your comments? Protonk (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban by CadenS

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24h

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

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

Question: Does his topic ban reset from the time of this violation? AnyPerson (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's covered here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

• DasV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has caused a remarkable degree of argumentation given his extremely limited editing history. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Fillairs has copied the article to their User page. AnyPerson (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

is DasV the same person - certainly looks like that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Question to Cameron Scott: what is the evidence that DasV is really my sock puppet. This is my first venture into Wiki world and I have to say it's quite surreal. Can't someone see that I'm probably in a completely diferent part of the world to DasV? Is someone going to adjudicate this by looking at some facts? Fillairs (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Also cameron: does your suggestion that the article should be flushed down the shitter, conform to Wiki rules regarding civility? Fillairs (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes - if I had said "you should be flushed down the shitter", then the answer would have been no. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is almost interesting:

DasV leaps to the defence of an article written by an SPA, Fillairs

DasV probably came across the AfD because he's keeping an eye on User:Flopsy_Mopsy_and_Cottonmouth's edits. Yet he also knows a lot about the subject.

Fillairs claims one of DasV's edits as his own.

Fillairs now says he's "probably in a completely diferent part of the world to DasV " - how does he know?

The logical conclusion is that either Fillairs has lost the plot while DasV is a knight in shining armour who defends hapless editors against "deletists"; or else Fillairs is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of DasV.

The question now to the administrators is: is this sufficient to block either of them for trolling? andy (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please listen to me I am in Australia and I assume that should be something an Administrator can verify. When you talk about blocking that must mean there is something to indicate where I am posting from. I have no idea where DasV is. I simply assumed that it's a very big world we live in, so the odds that he or she is in the same city as me are quite remote.

As to my losing the plot, I make no claims to ever having had the plot. I really am feeling my way around in the dark and I'm somewhat stunned by the level of suspicion and hostility I'm encountering. If Administrators are watching this, as you imply, I would be grateful if they could verify that I am NOT DasV. I feel the hostility and suspicion has made civil discussion of the issues of my modest paper almost impossible. I made some changes in response to what I slowly understood to be the point of the critical remarks and then floated the possibility of more changes, only to be told that it was all gone, dead and buried, by a process that I still don't quite understand. Speaking as an outsider who has ventured into Wiki, this is not a good advertisement for Wiki. Fillairs (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Eleland

Resolved

 – Both editors dealt with - nothing more to be done here. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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

---

User Eleland has been blocked five times previously, mostly for incivility, 3RR, and violations of the ArbCom I-P judgment, to which the article at issue in this matter is subject. Due to a content matter on Adam Shapiro in which he's not totally in the wrong, he's chosen to leave inappropriate language in reply to a comment I made on his talk page here and on the article talk page [11] As I said, content wise, he's not totally in the wrong, see my analysis here. However, nothing justifies the way he has acted in this matter. See also the foul comments he put on my talk page Obviously, this is matter that I can't handle myself as an admin, both because of personal involvment and because during my RfA, I recused from exercising admin powers in I-P related articles.Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for that, Fayssal, it's appreciated. FWIW, I think an indef is easily done, and amounts to permanent community sanction unless/until someone lifts it. He's been blocked for two weeks, now, I gather, which is far, far less than it should be, but I'm not going to make a fuss. As for the admin in question, he's said he was wrong to make the edits he did -- Eleland has, AFAIK, remained defiant, even slipping in a reference to the Final solution above -- is that an editing environment we should tolerate? IronDuke 16:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As other admins have already said, both editors have been dealt with - no further admin action is required. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only have other admins said it, I said it myself, in the very thread you replied to. IronDuke 17:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wehwalt is also in the wrong; his edits to Adam Shapiro are canonical violations of WP:BLP. He has repeatedly restored material that violates BLP, specifically by adding material sourced to a personal website, adding unsourced potentially defamatory material, and using the article as a coatrack for quotations that cast the subject in a bad light. This has happened repeatedly over a period of more than two years (diffs: [12], [13], [14], [15].) 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 [16].
• Notified Wehwalt about the BLP violations and cautioned him about repeating them [17]. 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 [18].

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

How amusing. Chris, I can't help but wonder if the non-invocation of WP:ARBPIA is influenced by the fact that if it were invoked, it would be obvious that you could not be taking any action against any editor, including "cautioning" someone, because you are an "involved arbitrator administrator". Indeed, your involvement as an administrator in any capacity at all when it comes to this subject area, even so far as commenting on this board, creates at least an appearance of impropriety. 6SJ7 (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Wow, well that was a little bit of a Freudian typo, wasn't it? I am well aware that Chris is an admin, not an arbitrator, and that is what I meant. It does not change anything that I have said (other than that one word). 6SJ7 (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

When a situation can be corrected using Wikipedia policies, it should be. Arbcom general and discretionary sanctions are extensions of our basic policies that lower the threshold at which an administrative action can be taken. The ARBPIA sanctions are not required in this case, because the editors involved have breeched ordinary, everyday Wikipedia standards. Chris, incidentally, is not a member of the Arbitration Committee. Risker (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As Risker says - and I might add that being incivil in a thread about incivility is not a good idea. 6SJ7, I'd suggest you tone it down. Wikipedia is not a battleground and this discussion should have highlighted to you the outcome of editors attempting to treat it as one. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There was, if you really stretched it, the barest whisper of incivility in 6SJ7's post above - but that would really be stretching things. Yet, your mentioning it is ironic, considering that you lessened Eleland's previous indef block for appallingly bad behavior. I would disagree 6SJ7 that you are disallowed from mentioning possible BLP vios to someone, but -- as I know you realize -- you wouldn't be able to take any admin action here. IronDuke 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you're quite incorrect. Any administrator is empowered at any time to take admin action on BLP issues. No permission slip is required - certainly not from you or 6SJ7. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am entirely correct. You came very, very close to getting into hot water for using admin powers (among other things) in an area where you have a storng POV (I-P issues). You would be ill-advised to try that on the Shapiro article, even should I give a permission slip to do so. IronDuke 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think your imagination is playing tricks on you again, and an editor with your record should be careful about making implied threats. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My "record?" Surely you jest. I am a user in good standing and have never been blocked (except accidentally once) -- unlike you, who have not only been blocked multiple times, but received multiple warnings, one of them quite stern, from sitting and/or ex arbitrators. Also, there was an RfC in which a large number of editors strongly criticized your behavior. Don't see how you get me threatening you, BTW... though I note with wry amusement you reply to me, then try to seal of the discussion. Again: no admin actions in the I-P area. You know this. IronDuke 18:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Eleland made a complaint about Wehwalt at WP:AE, and after some discussion I have responded with this analysis and decline. The summary is, it is in my opinion that no Arbitration Enforcement sanctions are appropriate at this time, and any edits of Wehwaht's that are objectionable can be dealt with by normal wiki means. Another administrator, may at their discretion, take action.--Tznkai (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The assessments and actions by ChrisO and Tznkai are sensible. It doesn't seem that additional admin intervention is needed at this point.  Sandstein  16:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Comments on this closure

I have some comments on this closure, but I decided to put them on the nearest talk page, Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that should be closed and the discussion is perfectly fine here. You could also actually try to discuss it at his user page if you want before going to the board too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Excessive block

I'm sorry, but I think a two week block for telling someone to "fuck off" from their talk page is excessive. That it happened to an editor who was trying to blow the whistle on blatant BLP violations makes it all the more unacceptable. No wonder we have so many good faith users abandoning this project.

As has been pointed out by others in regards to WP:CIV on numerous occasions, context is everything. Eleland posted a history of BLP violations by Wehwalt at AE, a number of them involving the same scuttlebutt Wehwalt recently chose to reinsert in the article. At what point is WP:AGF exhausted? It seems pretty clear to me why Eleland, who has identified this pattern of Wehwalt's, lost patience. I'm not trying to excuse his incivility but which is more reprehensible, an uncivil word or a series of blatant BLP violations? If anyone should have been blocked here, it was Wehwalt. Either that or both of them should have been blocked. But to give one a two week block for incivility while the other - an admin who should know better - gets off with a warning for repeated BLP violations is pretty rough justice if you ask me. Gatoclass (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The block is far from excessive. Eleland has a horrifyingly bad history, and it is to the project's detriment that it's been tolerated as long as it has. As for Wehwalt, the difference there would be a) He is a member in good standing, and Eleland isn't and, more importantly b) He has indicated a sincere willingness to reconsider his edits, and take criticism onboard. Eleland has done no such thing, and shows no signs of doing so. IronDuke 00:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's see. We have one editor with a long history of poor behavior, and a seeming unwillingness or inability to change (Eleland). We have another editor, who does not have a long history of poor behavior, but is genuinely willing to change his approach after questionable edits were brought to his attention (Wehwalt). Yep, the result of the above discussion seems quite correct. - auburnpilot talk 01:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Gatoclass, there were not just one, but four posts that Wehwalt cited that contain the kind of language in question -- and this from someone who has been blocked three times before. Eleland's last block was indefinite until it was shortened through a process that was highly questionable. Now he gets two weeks? Two years might be more appropriate. Two months would still be a gift. Two weeks is nothing, in this case. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad language may be distasteful to some, but it is hardly incivility. There is only one direct example of incivility cited by Wehwalt above, and that is the "fuck off" message on E.'s talk page - but people are generally given more licence on their own talk page than in the rest of the project in any case.

My concern is that punishing a user who has been clearly trying to uphold BLP, albeit in a less than ideal manner, is sending entirely the wrong message. We should be supporting those who are trying to uphold policy. Certainly Eleland deserved a warning, and perhaps a short block given his previous history, but two weeks in such a case is far too long in my opinion - especially when the repeat BLP violator is walking away with nothing more than a warning. Gatoclass (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Telling another editor to "fuck off" is uncivil. End of story. For a user with a long history of incivility, a 2 week block is little more than a slap on the wrist. As 6SJ7 wrote, 2 months would hardly been excessive in this case. NoCal100 (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Eleland decided to enter this into the Adam Shapiro permanent history: ibid - WOWOWOWOWOWO!!! somebody ought to be blocked for that. Someone was. This is my message: take BLP seriously, but work with other editors until it is absolutely impossible.--02:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, why don't we take a closer look at that.

Here is what Wehwalt inserted into the article (with a misleading edit summary of "rv vandalism") which E. reverted:

According to the Michigan Daily, in 2004 at an ISM rally in Dearborn, Shapiro called for the State of Israel to be "razed to the ground, the Jews expelled, and the seeds of a new stronger Palestine to be planted." Shapiro denies the remark.

In effect, Wehwalt added an unsourced claim that an LP made a call for ethnic cleansing. BLP violations scarcely get any more egregious than that. Wehwalt then continued by adding more negative material from a blogsite.[19]

My question is, what possible excuse can there be for an administrator to be adding such negative material to an article in gross violation of BLP? Why is this not an actionable offense, while Eleland's finger flip earns him two weeks in the sin bin? I would suggest that adding an unsourced claim accusing someone of advocating ethnic cleansing would if anything be closer to a desysoppable offence than a blocking one - all the more so when one considers the problems we have with Is-Pal pages, and the general sanctions applying to them. So it seems to me that some users have dismissed Eleland's complaints very lightly, while taking the easy option by slapping a substantial block on E. for profanity. This does not strike me as a rational or evenhanded response. Gatoclass (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You've asked that 3 times now, and have been answered three times. To recap - there is a difference between an editor who has a block-log as long as your arm, including blocks for incivility, who appears unrepentant, and an editor in good standing with a clean block log who has acknowledged that his edits may have been inappropriate, and has not repeated them. I suggest it's time for you to move along and stop beating this dead horse. NoCal100 (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And I would suggest we recognize that incivility is nothing in comparison to exposing Wikipedia to defamation suits. I would also suggest that we hold administrators to a higher standard than people with bad records, not a lower one. Administrators who intentionally break the rules they're charged to enforce need to be banned for life; no exceptions, no excuses. Spotfixer (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, admins are not "charged to enforce [the rules]". We are not police officers and we are not hall monitors. We are here to ensure the interests of the project are upheld. While that might be what you meant, I thought some clarification might be in order. Tan | 39 04:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Disciplining administrators as administrators is reserved for Arbitration. And short of that, what do you want, a public pillory? Hows this: "Wehwalt, as an admin in good standing I'm formally telling you that you screwed up. Don't do it again." The goal of a complaint should be to change behavior, not to punish someone. Likewise, whatever failures Wehalt has or does not have, it doesn't excuse Eleland's behavior. Those raising BLP concerns have equal duty to explain their objections on BLP articles as they do elsewhere on wiki.--Tznkai (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Incivility no doubt damages the collegiate atmosphere here, but so do breaches of policy like blatant and repeated BLP violations, because they encourage cynicism and make it increasingly difficult to extend the assumption of good faith. Such edits are, in effect, provocations to incivility, and that should be taken into account when judging uncivil exchanges. One "f-bomb" in response to Wehwalt's BLP violations and attempted rationalizations, on the user's own talk page, does not seem so outrageous as to warrant a two-week block in this context, while the other user merely gets off with a warning. Gatoclass (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He's not an admin in good standing; he's an admin who violated BLP, and yet he is somehow not only still an admin, but not even blocked. This sort of double standard sets a very bad example, making Wikipedia look corrupt. The solution is for Wehwalt to voluntarily step down and hand in his sysop bit. Spotfixer (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Calls for desysopping are utterly ridiculous and serve no purpose other than stirring up unnecessary drama. What does any of this have to do with being an admin? Nothing. There is no threat of admin abuse, there is no indication that there will be BLP issues in the future, yet here we sit with people calling for his head. Ridiculous. - auburnpilot talk 07:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What's utterly ridiculous is confusing justice with drama. He's getting away with violating BLP because he's an admin and gets to be held to a lower standard. No wonder "30 Rock" makes fun of Wikipedia; we're a joke. Spotfixer (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Justice? You seem to be very confused about the purpose of blocks and the meaning of being an admin. We don't block people or remove their sysop flag in the name of "justice"; we do it because of abuse or disruption. There is no indication, or even suggestion, of admin abuse. And frankly, who the hell cares if 30 Rock makes fun of Wikipedia? - auburnpilot talk 07:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If a block is unjust, then how does it do Wikipedia any good? When you figure that out, let me know. Spotfixer (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A guy drops the f-bomb on his own talk page and gets 2 weeks "vacation", and an "ADMIN" adds defamatory, libelious, and potentially legally actionable material to a BLP and gets a "don't do that again"? Even tho the F-bomber has a history for uncivility, shouldn't an admin know better than to do what he did? I mean, come on, in the real world I cuss like a sailor, but I don't call the local politician a genocidal maniac, especially in PRINT. If anything, they both should've been blocked, not just the f-bomber, and a revocation of admin privilages should be considered, whether or not he says "I'm sorry and I won't do it again". He's an admin for chrissakes! Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive. If somebody credibly promises to stop whatever the problem is (as Wehwalt did here), they are not issued. Eleland, on the other side, has not yet indicated that he understands the imperative to observe WP:CIV and WP:NPA at all times. Removal of administrative privileges is outside the scope of sanctions that admins may issue on their own; it would require at least an WP:RFC followed by a WP:RFAR, but that would be completely unhelpful at this stage. Based on the diffs I have reviewed so far (see also the discussion with Misarxist at my talk), it appears that Wehwalt has repeatedly reverted the article Adam Shapiro to a version that ascribes controversial statements to that WP:BLP, while not sourcing these statements tightly enough (e.g. "according to the Foo Newspaper, Shapiro said ..."). These are violations of WP:BLP, but these violations are not such that they warrant desysopping, especially given that they seem now to have been resolved satisfactorily. Desysopping is generally reserved for misuse of the admin tools, not for bad judgment with respect to content.  Sandstein  07:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone repeatedly makes such "bad judgements", is it likely that they are suitable for adminship? I would have to say no. However, I am not calling for Wehwalt to be desysopped, or even to be blocked. What I want to see is the block reduced for Eleland, because I think he was genuinely incensed by Wehwalt's edits and was trying to do the right thing. Dropping an f-bomb on one's own user page in reaction to a self-serving lecture from a BLP violator does not seem such an outrageous offence to me. I do hope you will reconsider and reduce the block Sandstein, or that if you will not, that some other admins may be prepared to consider doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are for all editors, even admins. Letting an admin off the hook means holding them to a lower standard rather than a higher one. Removal of administrative privileges is only right and fair, since this is a person who violates the rules they are expected to hold others to. There is no benefit at this point, except that a bad apple is removed and other apples are motivated not to be bad. It's the latter than matter most. Spotfixer (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Put the pitchfork down. Nobody will be blocking Wehwalt, and nobody will be desysopping him either. A block would serve no purpose whatsoever and there has been no admin abuse. - auburnpilot talk 07:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A block would serve a very important purpose: it would show that we hold admins to the same standards as other editors rather than giving them a free pass to violate rules and fake an apology when they get caught. Desysopping him would put all admins on notice that they are not above the rules they are supposed to enforce. It would send a message that would not be ignored. The end result would be that Wikipedia corruption would be lowered. Spotfixer (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt certainly doesn't have a "free pass". I notified/warned him on his talk page about repeating the BLP violations, and I said in the thread above that a block would be appropriate if he repeats them. I am a little disappointed that he has chosen to delete my notification rather than replying to it [20], but the acid test is what he chooses to do on the article in question. Admins are subject to the same rules and penalties as everyone else, and BLP issues certainly aren't an exception to that. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Making judgements without a close awareness of context is always dangerous. Several good I/P editors have been repeatedly suspended because they have short fuses for clear and persistent violations of core wiki policies. There seems to be a pattern of making their contributions difficult to the point that the known impatience with tomfoolery will reach a tipping point. These are tricks of gamesmanship. Eleland and a few others are sick and tired of it and wear the penalties, even though they are excessive. Not a word of severe correction is ever raised against the antagonists. The pattern is to approve of Cornwall, implicitly, and side with him against Kent, who is loyal to a cause.

Cornwall:You beastly knave, know you no reverence? (for wiki etiquette)

Kent: Yes, sir; but anger hath a privilege.(Lear,2.2)

Kent is right. Unfortunately, wiki sides with Cornwall (who is the equivalent of an administrator), for anger has no privilege, and rightly so. Yet the abuse of privilege engenders anger. To jump mechanically at etiquette's p's and q's, while ignoring persistently provocative bad editing is one reason so many bad articles stagnate. It is particularly poor to allow what serious admins in here have noted to be persistent bad editing by Wehwalt to go unpunished. Not even an hour's suspension to balance Eleland's customary 2 weeks. Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that a common pattern is for an admin to unfairly block an editor or otherwise antagonize them until their complaints becomes emphatic enough to be used an an excuse for further bans on the basis of "incivility". The idea is to provoke a reaction by mistreating a person, then mistreating them some more for not being perfectly tactful in the face of the initial mistreatment. Essentially, it's like beating someone until they yell, then beating them some more because they yelled.

When this happened to me, I didn't realize at first that it was par for the course around here and one of the many ways that partisan editors push unwanted contributors out the door. It was only when I researched the matter on Wikipedia Review that I realized my novel observations were just old hat.

As I see it, what's happening here is just another example. We have an admin who violates BLP in a big way, knowing that admins never get punished. We have an editor who complains loudly and gets blocked for not whispering. The admin is slapped on the wrist with a warning they immediately delete, chuckling merrily over their victory, while the editor accumulates a track record of blocks that will, ironically, be used as a justification for further blocks of extended length.

So let's not kid ourselves. This is just Wikipedia corruption in its most basic form. If Wikipedia were not corrupt, the admin here would have lost their sysop bit and even been blocked from further editing. That this has not occurred is overwhelming proof that the fix is in. Want more proof? Watch what happens to my comments. Spotfixer (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

To any interested, please read this version of Spotfixer's talk page. He is not here because he's looking for 'justice', he's here because apparently he thinks that any mistake made by an admin is admin abuse, and he refuses to be told otherwise.

Spotfixer, no one here but you thinks that wikipedia is corrupt, and you only think it because of a single bad block. All I really have to say is, get over it, and quit disrupting conversations in order to push your POV.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

By all means, look into the three bad blocks I've received so far. Keep looking until you find the protests on the blocking admins' pages, the arguments here on ARI, and the blowback. Spotfixer (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is ridiculous. What are blocks for? They are not meant to be punitive. They are meant to prevent damage to the encyclopedia.

What is more damaging? Repeatedly including libellous material in an article on a living person for months despite the objections of other editors? Or responding to this kind editing that violated policy by writing the word "fuck" in exasperation on the talk page of the editor in question? As Wehwalt only got a warning, Eleland's block should be lifted. Blocking whistleblowers while letting crooks off the hook is indefensible. Tiamut^talk 14:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You ask 'What are blocks for?", but I think you know the answer - since you gave it, as advice, to Eleland on his Talk page. Reread your post there - you admit you were a serial edit warrior, but after being blocked for 3RR four times, you finally understood that such behavior is unacceptable, and have apparently been reformed. The hope is that this block, which is Eleland's third one for incivility, will finally get the message across, as the 4th block for edit warring did in your case. Conversely, if we were to lift the block, the message we'd be sending to him , and to other uncivil editors, would be "incivility is no big deal, just keep on doing what you're doing." NoCal100 (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

For those interested in addressing the issue I raised: "What is more damaging? Repeatedly including libellous material in an article on a living person for months despite the objections of other editors? Or responding to this kind editing that violated policy by writing the word "fuck" in exasperation on the talk page of the editor in question? As Wehwalt only got a warning, Eleland's block should be lifted. Blocking whistleblowers while letting crooks off the hook is indefensible." Tiamut^talk 15:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a question of which is more damaging. Eleland has been warned repeatedly, including repeated blocks, about incivility. From reading what I am reading here, this is Wehwalt's first "official warning" regarding BLP (although one might argue it doesn't count, since it was issued by an admin who has no business giving out warnings in this subject area, but let's leave that aside for now.) So which is more damaging is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Eleland is much farther along in the "sanctioning process" and therefore a more serious sanction is necessary. It also seems to me that he shows no signs of "getting it" regardless of whether he is blocked for 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months or 2 years, but so far no admin has seen fit to extend the block. As for your comment about "exasperation", a lot of people get exasperated, including me. What incentive is there for people to control their exasperation when they see someone who makes no effort to control it, get only short blocks, time after time? 6SJ7 (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, I suggest you tone it down and avoid attacking other editors. Besides, you're asking the wrong question. When looking at whether or not to place a block, you should be asking whether it will be preventative or punitive. Eleland has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with policy and work with editors in a civil manner. Block=preventive. Wehwalt was made aware that there was a problem with edits he was making, and he has not repeated that problem. Block=punitive. This isn't a "person A didn't get blocked, so person B shouldn't have either" situation. - auburnpilot talk 16:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Admins do not deal in punishment and do not dispense justice. We are simply charged to use our tools to stop damage or disruption to the encyclopedia, and that's what I'll continue to do. If A and B both cause disruption, but A credibly promises to stop and B does not, then I will block only B, even if the disruption caused by A was more severe. In this case, I promise you this: If Wehwalt, at any time in the future, reverts content in Adam Shapiro so as to restore material that unambiguously violates WP:BLP, drop me a note and I'll not hesitate to issue a block or another appropriate sanction.  Sandstein  16:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As a quick note, we're not qualified to dispense justice and neither (generally speaking) are our detractors. Leave that to judges, priests and philosopher-kings.--Tznkai (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, I appreciate your pledge, but I do want to point something out. Wehwalt has been reinserting this material for months now (I believe almost a year). Until Eleland said "fuck", no one paid attention to this. In fact, when Eleland raised this issue at WP:AE (before saying "fuck"), Tzanki did nothing to address the issue of Wehwalt's BLP violations. It seems "fuck" is a way to get people's attention around here, while BLP violations are not. So really, can you honestly say that this situation was dealt with correctly through and through? Can you see how admin intervention that took Eleland's complaints seriously earlier on might have prevented us from getting to point where Eleland felt he had to say "fuck" and then you felt that you had to block him? Tiamut^talk 16:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Misarxist below) Could earlier admin intervention have prevented Eleland from making a fool out of himself? I don't know. I wasn't seized of the matter earlier. I prefer to deal with issues as they are, not as they might have been. I only know that, for reasons only known to himself, Eleland chose to go on a verbal rampage instead of requesting appropriate intervention in an appropriate manner, and bears the consequences.

But if you read our dispute resolution policy, you'll note that it does not provide for administrator intervention at any stage. Instead, it says: "The Administrators' Noticeboard is not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors." Which means: Admins are not your mommy, and they are not Wikipedia's dei ex machina. We're just editors with a few more tools. In disputes that are more complicated than those involving obvious disruption, don't expect us to solve them. Do it yourself. WP:DR tells you how.

So, was this dealt with correctly through and through? No, probably not. What situation ever is? But none of the users concerned are now causing obvious disruption. And in an administrator's limited role that I occupy in this dispute, that's just about all I can try to achieve. The rest is up to you.  Sandstein  18:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On the same point, doubt we're going to get any sanction fr Wehwalt, but the 2 week block of Eleland might need reconsideration: Sandstein (as he stated at 1st, & this is amplified by my conversation with him on his talk where he had to have the BLP breach explicitly pointed out to him) hadn't looked further than Wehwalt's side of the story. Given the circumstances E's reaction while not excusable is understandable, and does not seem justify following policy to the letter and simply doubling the length of E's last block. Could a previously uninvolved admin please take a look at whether the block should be reduced? Misarxist 17:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would ask that a previously uninvolved admin also please take a look at whether the block should be increased. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to put down the stick and back away from the horse. The block length is within admin discretion and the only people who are complaining about it are partisans on both sides of the I-P issue. Another admin has already called you out for disruptive forum shopping - let it go and find something else to do, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That can't possibly be true since I don't even know what the I-P issue is in the first place. I just dislike corruption. Spotfixer (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Two points: 1) Wehwalt has done exactly the right thing here -- acknowledged his mistake and moved on. Others should as well. 2) I propose that Eleland's block be neither lengthened nor shortened. Rather, have it be indefinite, with an option to come back any time after two weeks if and only if he promises to stop his extraordinarily antagonistic, NPA-violating edits. This should have happened the last time he was indef blocked, and yet that was reduced -- twice -- with no promise at all from Eleland that he would reform his ways. Small wonder that he did not -- and I doubt he will if he is allowed back again without some sign of contrition. IronDuke 00:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And I propose that we block Wehwalk indefinitely for their actions, and unblock Eleland with with a sincere apology for the unwarranted abuse. Wehwalk can come back if they promise not to violate BLP or make excuses for their violations, but they obviously can't ever be an admin again. Spotfixer (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer, I highly suggest you take ChrisO's advice and move on, or you'll likely find that an admin is going to force you to move on. You've made your opinion clear above, and you've made it clear on Wehwalt's talk page.[21] Drop it. - auburnpilot talk 01:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Wehwalk, I'm not violating any rules, so no admin has any possible basis upon which to threaten me. Your comment borders on harassment and incivility. But back on the topic of Wehwalk, true to form, he immediately deleted my request that he step down. He doesn't even pretend that he's willing to be held accountable for his actions, which is why he needs to be blocked permanently. Spotfixer (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Conduct unbecoming of an admin

I'm concerned with Gimmetrow - I know that he's been a valuable contributor in the past, and I'm somewhat reluctant to bring this here, but his recent conduct, particularly with regards to this page strikes me as rather short of the bar for an admin. See also the talk page, unilateral changes to a heavily-used template to support his edit war POV without any discussion on the template's talk page, and a particularly vitriolic series of attacks which, to the best of my knowledge, seems to amount to "how dare you use infoboxes and project banners?" I'm genuinely mystified as to where this is all coming from, particularly as this user is a well-known and otherwise respected admin, and has no prior bad blood (AFAIK) with any of these issues or editors. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow informed. Steve ^{T • C} 21:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "unilateral changes to a heavily used template", Girolamo invited me to change the template. I consider his actions now, misprepresenting that fact, to be a personal attack. Gimmetrow 21:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Note this response to the claim above made elsewhere. Also here. Happy‑melon 21:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a silly argument that has become personalised. What's the root of all this? I can't believe it started from this edit with no prior history. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at this without really commenting on much, this edit (which was part of the history listed), which Gimmetrow labelled as vandalism, was most certainly not such a thing. — neuro^(talk) 22:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm sure this could have been avoided had Gimmetrow taken a few moments to compose a more diplomatic drawing of our attention to his problem with the {{film}} template, we have as a result started discussing ways in which the template's impact can be reduced for users that have Javascript disabled. But a "silly argument that has become personalised" seems to about sum it up, and I personally don't think any administrator action is required now this incident has been logged. If Gimme is willing to offer any ideas he may have, or bring any further issues to the relevant talk pages, we'll be glad to hear them, and I'm confident we can move on without lasting grudges being formed. That's not what we're here for. The concurrent—yet seemingly separate—issue regarding the infobox at Talk:By the Sword (film)#Infobox is a simple content dispute that should be resolved over there. I hope we're all happy to accept Gimme's edit summary that labelled an edit as vandalism is extenuated by the previous edit's accidental reversion of genuine improvements Gimme made that were unrelated to the dispute. These were subsequently re-inserted. Steve ^{T • C} 23:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Note this edit - [22] where he accused editors (presumably including myself) of having "tag-teamed to vandalize the article" - I cannot speak for the other editors but my edits are perfectly reasonable and cannot be defined as vandalism in any way. Exxolon (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Personally, I think that repeated, uncalled-for personal attacks ("ass" "moronic") warrant a block, but at the very least I ask that a neutral admin warn Sephiroth that any future violations of WP:NPA will resuilt in Sephiroth being blocked for at least 24 hours. Sephiroth has certainly shown poor conflict resolution skills and should, as an administrator, know that personal attacks like this not only do not help, but completely undermine any respect that might have been due. Yet more personal attacks and insults from the so-called "coordinators" of FILMS project lead to be believe that all the coordinators there probably need to be removed. Gimmetrow 17:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And I think that Gimmetrow's lack of knowledge of what is vandalism is detrimental to his ability to even consider the situation clearly. Seriously, adding an infobox is "vandalism"? The entire conversation at Talk:By the Sword (film)#Infobox frankly shows your lack of knowledge on what vandalism is, along with your perception that everyone's words somehow constituted the words "fuck you". Complain about my word choice all you want; it's irrelevant to how you're suddenly calling for the heads of every coordinator in the film project, which sounds nothing more than a petty attack resulting from you being overriden by established consensus. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, for an admin who's been here for nearly three years and has over 30,000 edits I'd expect a little more knowledge of what vandalism, consensus and infoboxes are and a lot less rampant bad faith assuming. Hell - if Gimmetrow is qualified to be an admin then I am as well (and I'm very aware of my limitations and don't consider myself to be good potential admin material). Exxolon (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are now logged for future reference, should you continue. Thank you, Sephiroth and Exxolon. You have been most helpful. Gimmetrow 22:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Er - what's that supposed to mean? If I/we continue to comment, you're going to keep notes or tabs on we/us? Exxolon (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Getting out of hand

This is getting out of hand. Rather than disengaging from the dispute, having failed to get his way on the infobox Gimmetrow has decided to remove the poster image from it that I recently sourced, uploaded and added to the moved infobox - there is a widespread consensus that film posters fall under WP:FAIRUSE - this is perilously close to a WP:POINT disruption. Can we get some help here please? Or are admins above the law? Exxolon (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mark Thompson

Can we get some more eyes on Mark Thompson, director general of the BBC - there is an attempt to turn his article into a laundry list of quotes about one incident (oh and did you know his wife is Israeli? nudge nudge...). It was mentioned over at the BLP board (which is where I saw it) but it's clear this one is going to run and run... yes this stuff should go in but the current slant and tone is shocking. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the offending section per WP:UNDUE, but yes, it is probably going to be readded. Watchlisting, suggest others do the same. — neuro^(talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oop, turns out I did it at the same time as Cameron, so yes, actually he did it. — neuro^(talk) 23:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there an actual article on this 'incident' somewhere where we can direct people to? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

BBC controversies#2009: Gaza DEC Appeal, in ink of somewhat greenish hue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

<looks> I don't have my ten foot bargepole so will be unable to edit that article... --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Same editor now trying to run around BLP at DEC Gaza appeal --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirected and protected, doesn't need to be in two places. Black Kite 23:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You missed a copy --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, and communications with user started. Black Kite 00:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is ongoing - there is clearly off-site canvassing going on, more eyes needed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

[this is inline with BLP?] --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi's personal attacks and harassment again

• I seek for administrative actions since Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) made "racist/personal attacks against me "again" and harassed other editors. This guy has recently been blocked twice for wikistalking, incivility and harassment[23] and disruptive editing as opposed to consensus and BLP policy. Unlike his pledges[24], he has not been willing to change his attitude. From good faith, I had not reported his violations to AN3/ANI, but he even harassed me.[25] When an admin reported the matter to AN][26][27], I did not intentionally left my opinion because he was freaked out. Sadly, my good faith only feeds his disruption further and this analysis is a very acute summary of his behaviors.[28] Given his verbal attacks and behaviors today, I request a longer sanction or “topic-ban” to Korean related articles for him at this time.

• Racist/personal attacks /false accusation: Today after I removed his original research with no source from SeeYa, South Korean singers, he attacked me like "revert vandalism by known anti-Japanese troll" and the anti-Japanese motivation of the previous editor. I don't see any thing of which he accused. So I gave him warings[29] but he further falsely accused me that I'm assuming bad faith, wrongly templating and making personal attacks because of the warnings.[30]. I requested him to explain his attacks[31] but he further accused me of making a threat[32] Intead of answering to my questions, he even lectured about mannors.[33] He further has falsey accused me that I accused everyone of being a "racist" and attacked[34] This is very outrageous because in the article and talk page, I have been attacked by a block-evading banned user[35], based on my ethnicity and even an admin warned him[36][37]. I asked about his explanation[38], but he said he intentionally did and refused to apologize for his behaviors and even made further unpleasant accsuations[39].

Even more
Harassment Just like block for his wikistalking Korean editors one by one, I noticed that he suddenly followed Historiographer (talk · contribs) to SeeYa and then deleted info regaring the singers' naming.[40] Historiographer retored it with Korean news sources[41], but Sennen blanked the whole Korean sources as repeatedly insisting that only English sources should be used[42][43]. This is not only contradictory to his insertion of Korean sources to other articles but also trying to make a WP:POINT. Another user came with the correct policy on sourcing, he inserted his own "though" with no soruce. His such insertion is also contradictory to his deletion of unsourced/sourced.
Gaming/bullying: Is bullying and attacking "alleged sockpuppeters/socks" O.K before filing a SPI file? Because Sennen goroshi has been doing such to Wondergirls/Lakshmix/Ziggymaster and publicized his suspicion to everywhere for about one month[44][45][46][47][48][49]. He lied to an admin[50] that he has no experience with filing sockpuppet reports unlike his past[51][52][53][54], so asked his help and exchanged emails.[55][56] Along with this forum shopping, he left provoking comments over and over to him.[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64] Then finally enraged Wondergirls attacked Sennen goroshi like this.[65] Although I have not agreed with his edits[66], I can't agree with Sennen goroshi's bullying. Anyway, Sennen reported him to ANI as playing himself as a victiom[67], and then Wondergirls was indef.blocked. Still, he did not file a SPI but still proceeded his behaviors to the accused editor(s)[68][69][70][71][72]][73][74][75] until I suggested him to do so[76][77]. This tactic wa previously done when Sennen tried to get rid of his opponents (1)First provoking his opponent to lose his temper, (2) waited for the user going nut, (3)reporting him to ANI, (4)and then the user was blocked/banned". Besides, when other editors reverted Sennen's, he warned them not to revert "sock's version" in threatenin tone.[78][79]

• Conclusion: This are just "current" issues on him so I believe Wikipedia does not allow this disruptive to have a privilege to edit to prevent further disruption. This guy clearly acknowledges what “racist attacks"[80], so I guess he takes reponsiblity on the same ground. Thanks--Caspian blue (d) 26 janvier 2009 à 01:17 (CET)

Response

It hardly seems worth responding, but I guess that someone might assume that silence equals acceptance, so here goes...

Calling Caspian Blue, an anti-Japanese editor

1. Caspian Blue is an editor who spends about half his time on wikipedia attempting to promote his own nation (South Korea) at the expense of Japan - numerous edits on ww2 related articles and removal of the Japanese influence on Korean culture - as much as I would call an editor with a pro-life agenda, an anti-abortion - I would call him anti-Japanese, in the same way that he calls me pro-Japanese. If his edits were only promoting his own nations, I might call him pro-Korean, but the great interest he takes in articles relating to Japanese war criminals, comfort women and the ww2 actions of Japan, not only in Korea, but also in other nations seems to point towards being anti Japanese.

2. I find it ironic that he would complain about such a comment, when so many of his edit summaries consist of comments such as rvv by Eichikiyama vandalism by anti-Korean propagandic vandal blanked the sourced material about the assassine of "Empress Myeongseon and rv by Bukubku (talk) whitewash by a Newbie with Pro-Japanese angenda here are some diffs [[81]] [[82]] [[83]] [[84]]

3. Perhaps comments such as the following can shed a little light on what has been said between the two of us in the past

Your pathetic personality

I can' tolerate your impudence any more. You keep insulting me with your dirty mean tongue. Stupid? I think you can't see any context in my comments. You are the meanest and pathetic person in the world I've encountered in my life. I pity you. If you have graduated from any university in the US, you would be required to take several humanistic and social science classes. Did you ever take any class in which Japanese war crimes would be understood among the international society? haha, even students from Japan said they felt shame of their ancestors because they didn't know and just learned with hugely edited textbooks. But you keep denying your origin and then that's making to look you stupid. You might be a Japanese-somewhere citizen. So what? You've produced offensive destructions on Korean-related articles and overly defended cruel Japanese war crime. In addition, you don't have any plausible arguments, then you choose to attack me with personal abuse that shows your true nature. Your English have been not near eloquence but close silliness and shallowness. So dream on!

[[85]]

note: the message was made by Caspian Blue's previous account.

Harassment

Again a comment that I find ironic, especially seeing the article given as an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SeeYa&action=history

I edited the article and was in a content dispute with other editors - no edit warring, constructive comments made by all involved. Then Caspian Blue decided to participate and reverted me - fair enough, he is entitled to do so. I do take offence to the accusation of harassment, considering that he had never edited that article before, however within about 30mins of me editing it for the first time, he has decided he wishes not only to edit the article, but to revert me.

I don't really mind this, if someone wants to take interest in my edit history, then fine - but for an editor to do so, and then to use that article as an example of harassment seems rather strange.

Attacking Sock Puppets

I made it clear that I considered certain accounts to be sock-puppets - I do not have extensive experience filing sock puppet reports, my only prior reports were rather lacking in evidence/diffs, so I thought if I voiced my suspicions that they might cease their actions without me having to go to the trouble of filing a report.

I did not make personal attacks against these accounts, even when I was sure they were sock-puppets.

To say that I made these comments to remove opponents is absurd - I made these comments and finally made a sock puppet report because these accounts were being used to bypass editing blocks, obtaining false consensus, making personal attacks against me (quote Sennen goroshi FUCK OFF you stinking JAPANESE, u have broken the 3-revert rule TWICE already and VANDALIZING Korean related articles for NO REASON. You are the BIGGEST VANDALIST I HAVE EVER SEEN) and most importantly these accounts were blatant sock-puppets.

For the record because of my report Lakshmix, Wondergirls and Kingka625 have all been indef blocked - these were no innocent victims that I attacked, these were abusive sock accounts, that got indef blocked for their actions.

Bullying

Telling sock-puppets that socks are not allowed is not what I consider bullying.

stating that I have 5 minutes to provide an explanation is bullying

I give you 5 minute to excuse[[86]]

coming to my talk page and demanding an apology is bullying [[87]]

Summary

I used an accurate term to refer to an editors bias, I voiced my suspicions about sock-puppets who got themselves indef blocked for sock-puppetry, I tske offence to Caspian Blue acting like a wounded victim, when he has done all of the above on so many occasions - when he accuses someone of sock-puppetry or bias he is the victim, when I accuse someone of the same, I get an ANI report against me.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Can we just topicban these two the hell away from each other, already? While I'll admit this is the first CaspianBlue/SennenGoroshi thread in a few weeks, there has to come a point where we say "Right, enough already, stay away from each other or be invited to leave the project." //roux   03:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to say this, that is probably a good idea. I don't know exactly what topics you are thinking of, but I would be happy to stay away from Korean articles, if Caspian Blue was topic-banned from Japanese articles - with perhaps the condition that on Japanese related articles, I do not make edits concerning Korea - ie. for example I would not be allowed edit anything to do with the popularity of Korean barbeque on the Japanese food article - and vice versa - ie. Caspian would not be able to mention the popularity of the Korean artist BOA in Japan on the Korean music article. I am not going to act all pure and innocent, I think neither of us are - whether this topicban is temp or indef, it applied equally it might make life easier for myself, caspian and all the admins dragged into this drama. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Roux, you feel okay if I call him "Anti-Japnaese troll's vandalism motivated by agenda" "twice" just like Sennen goroshi insulted me? I don't respect your too much generosity toward incivility (but you requested a block to somebody for your alleged harassment that nobody agreed). I'm the one suggesting topic ban on him for his behaviors so far. If you do not comment to ANI, you will not see any drama here. That is my honest suggestion for your "tiresome".--Caspian blue 01:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So I'm one of the people involved in the whole SeeYa debate, simply because I was one of the editors. And just from even this, I agree with the above. It's just unnecessary drama. For example, with SeeYa...basically, what could have been fixed up by an experienced editor who had free time stretched out into multiple edits between these two. There was no need for User:Sennen goroshi to name the other editor an "anti-Japanese troll", as SG's edit clearly inserted an additional opinion into an already-opinionated sentence (in other words, it would have been better to remove the questionable sentence entirely). And User:Caspian blue did not need to threaten the other editor with a "5-minute" warning; that's just jumping the gun. I don't know about the tensions between these two, but if this is how it's gonna be like across all the articles that they edit...yeah. Not good. SKS2K6 (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, I feel compelled to agree - the SeeYa article was a content dispute, I was concerned about facts being included without English language citations being present, I argued the case that if there were no English language sources, then the facts were not notable enough for inclusion in English language wikipedia - I may have been right or wrong with that opinion - however it was a mere content dispute than got blown out of proportion by Caspian Blue's arrival - he had never edited the article before, and if I had not edited it I doubt he would have even looked at the article. From the attitude of SKS2K6 above, I have no doubt that if Caspian had not jumped into that article, we could have sorted this out on the discussion page and come to a conclusion that everyone was happy with. Most of my blocks stem from dealings with Caspian Blue and/or articles relating to Korean/Japanese disputes - most of Caspian Blue's numerous blocks stem from dealings with myself and/or articles relating to Korean/Japanese disputes - I have never tried to get around a block with an IP or sock, neither to my knowledge has Caspian - removing the ability for us to interact might be a good solution, as I think I have made some good edits, when not involved in the drama, as has Caspian. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You said you did not make edit war, but change your opinion. You just attacked me with no valid reason. So you're okay to be called "Anti-Korean troll motivated by pro-Japanese agenda". Sennen goroshi, most of your numerous blocks (you were blocked two more than me) are related to not only dealing with me and edit warring/POV pushing on Korea-Japan related articles but also your incivilty (Korean cuisien) and wikistalking. So my proposal for only Sennen goroshi's topic ban is very due cousrse.--Caspian blue 01:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Sennen goroshi

This report is originally about Sennen goroshi's ongoing harassments and verbal attacks. I gave him several oppotunity to apologize his attacks, but he intentionally did. Although I admire Sennen goroshi's abiltiy to divert his responsibility from the main topic, I reply to his answers.

1.Regarding your excuse for the calling

You just did not called me an anti-Japanese editor but vandalism by known anti-Japanese troll and troll motivated by anti-Japanese sentiment after I removed your original reserach without source.

“ but unlike some other Asian musicians such as Ayumi Hamasaki they have had no success outside of their own country. ”

How is this removal that makes me "anti-Japanese troll"? I've never heard of such attacks except banned users. However, you instead lectured me about "my mannor". Unlike your accusation, I’ve spend more than half of my time creating and editing articles based on reliable “sources” unlike you. Not only Korean/Japan-related articles, but also I've created/edited France/Germany/USA/China/Vietnam related artices while you've created 0 articles. Most of your edits are testing Wikipedia and blanked out contents with uncivil edit summaries (crappy, vandal, WTF, bullshit etc). And you pick up on Korean editors. Regarding my nationality (not ethnicity), have ever I said that I’m South Korean? You’re basically wrong on the assumption. Your accusation of me promoting for one side is just your diversion from the main topic; your disruption. You intentionally picked the word, troll and I wanted your apology.

2.Your support for sockpuppeters'

You’re intentionally picked "my following responses to them only". Why didn’t you show the previous and preceding diffs? Bukubku called me doing "vandalism", and the others first attacked me more than that. Except, Bukubku, you have sided the mentioned sockpuppeter. You first deleted massive citations without proper reasons and then Amazonfire suddenly appeared to meatpuppet you (in fact, he is a sock of Azukimonka who was blocked one year ago and has been block-evading) Then he later admitted he self-reverted his edits after I pointed out to him.

• The sockpuppeter’s comment‘’’rv misleading citation by uncomprehending user’’’[88]
• Sennen goroshi [89]’’’ Please base your edits on facts not rumours and anti-Japanese bias’’’

3.Harassment

Since you brought up my comment after your various attacks one and three months ago, I fresh up your memory. As soon as you created your account, you harassed people just like mentioned in your first ANI report. You violated WP:BLP as exposing personal information about your real life enemy for a month. (the article and contributions were deleted)

There were clearly edit warring at SeeYa because you first blanked out information on their naming with the reason that the removed one is unsourced and non-notable. Since it was referenced, you blanked out twice. That practice is very contradictory because you’ve used Korean sources many times to back your claims promoting your POV or reverted for other editors (generally proven as sockpuppeters) in dispute with me. You even admitted many times that you did not check Korean sources when reverting. Then, your deletions of the Korean sources from Historiographer's edits are all ironic of your own. Then after your attempts were failed by, you inserted unsourced original research. I’ve editing all Korean-related articles (including pop stars) while you don’t edit Korean entertainers. How could you explain your sudden edits to the article right after Historiographer significantly expand the article? This practice is just same as when you were wikistalking Kuebie.

4.Your lying regarding filing sock reports

I’m curious as to why you lied to an admin that you have no experience of filling it and then exchanged secret emails? Nobody agrees using sockpuppetry abusively. I even reverted to your edit on South Korea. Then all you gotta do is accusing me of assuming bad faith? Even though you’ve had suspicion on them for a month, you’ve been exploiting your "just suspicion" all over the place for one month. In my though, you have enough experience with SSP reports (4 cases) but instead of filling, you’ve been bullying the accused. Whenever I feel someone is abusing multiple accounts, I gather as much information/diffs as I can, hen file to RFCU or SSP. I wait until the result comes out. If they’re evading after the final confirm and blocks, then re-report to admins. That’s a common course as others do. I’ve seen you've been teasing other users (someone even accused of sockpuppetry. You wait until the accused users lose their temper, then you victimize yourself from verbal attacks. I suggested you to report SPI, and then you followed it. I’m criticizing your lying and behaviros against alleged sockpuppeters. Your way is just simply bullying.

5.Your usage of sock IPs?

I'm just amazed by your behaviros to the harassed sockpuppeter becuase you even violated 3RR with sock IP to evade block sanction. I see another irony of your comment.

6.Rape is a surprise sex

I don't think you should edit all Korea and Japan related articles because of your titled view. You said "Comfort women are Chon prostitutes" that should be casually used and popularized. (Chon is a racial slur used only in Japan) You said "Korean eating cute puppy flesh is barbaric". You even said "Rape is a surprise sex". At that time, you also gave me following comments like a "wish for me to die" and "mocking my English and intellect".

• how people with limited skills manage to perform simple tasks such as remembering not to stop breathing[90]
• I will have to learn Pidgin English in order to communicate with some users'[91]
• I think the whole communicating with adults scenario is a little beyond him.[92]

• More recently, LMAMF ("Lxck My Axx Mother Fxxker")

As soon as I spot "your sockpuppetry" and said to you don’t blindly blanking cited information, you gave me the slur. I’m bemused at your ability to divert attention from your verbal attacks and to be out of any charge for them even though you report your opponents blocked with similar degree of insulting.

I don't believe your so-call contribution with “blanking”/”wikistalking”/harassment are improving Wikipedia. All of your contributions are just “disruption”.--Caspian blue 00:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Topicban proposal

I'm guessing we're all sick of the Sennen/Caspian show, and various attempts at dispute resolution seem to have been fruitless. But my understanding is that both do contribute useful edits. So I'm proposing that for six months:

1. Caspian Blue is topicbanned from all articles relating to Japan, and all editing concerning Japan within other articles and projectspace, broadly construed;
2. Sennen Goroshi is topicbanned from all articles relating to Korea, and all editing concerning Korea within other articles and projectspace, broadly construed;
3. Sennen Goroshi and Caspian Blue are permanently banned from interacting with each other on their talkpages, except for neutrally-worded or templated notifications as required by policies and community norms;
4. Caspian Blue and Sennen Goroshi are encouraged to avoid interacting with each other at article talk pages and projectspace pages (especially AN and ANI), to comment solely on content when avoiding each other is impossible, and to invite a neutral admin to step in if the other one crosses the line, and not respond themselves;
5. Sennen Goroshi and Caspian Blue are specifically forbidden from starting any new AN, ANI, WQA, or similar threads about each other. Should such a thread be needed, they are required to find a neutral admin to handle the issue;
6. All of the above to be enforced by escalating blocks as per normal practice, which will reset the topicban duration (for the 'offender' only, not both).

Thoughts? //roux   05:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Look the edition of page Talk:Yaeko Taguchi. Caspian Blue told like that rv by John Smith's (talk) the woman is almost unknown in South Korea.[93] However, look the page Yaeko Taguchi, most sources are South Korean News Paper Chosun Ilbo. 朝鲜日报中文网 is Chosun Ilbo Chinese version. 조선일보 is Chosun Ilbo Korean version. Caspian blue lose his mind things related with Japan. Now I am topic-banned by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs), so I cannot edit the page, even if Caspian blue's words is not truth. So I approve of his topicban. And some neutral person edit the page.--Bukubku (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, Bukubku and Sennen's edit is generally tend to POV about Korean articles. Especially, pastfor some time past, Bukubku raised some problem such as Empress Myeongseong, few of Korean Kings' posthumous name changed over the transom and Edit warring, Caspian file a protest against to him. So, may be Bukubku seem to be hostile attitude to Caspian Blue. His statement is based on some articles and claims. This articles only news articles and not received opinion. In spite of that, Bu and Sennen excessive insist its true. Therefore, It is not only wrong attitude against to the other user, but also point of view edit. So, I rather oppose to your view. --Historiographer (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bukbuku, you forgot to mention about User:PC's previous reverts of your exceeding assessement "triple".[94][95][96] The women is "almost unknown" to the public, that means she is not famous just like Kim Hyun Hee(no rating) and Choi Jin-sil(mid-importance). So she is not notable enought to be rated "high". I suggest you to read WikiProejct Korea's guidline. Since you want to get me topic-banned just like you, I bring a present for you.

Talk:Imo_Incident#Massacre and No Original research, Talk:Empress_Myeongseong#Misusage of primary sources by User:Bukubku.

You've misused primary sources over multiple articles and inserted "origianl research" so many times, and you have admitted your practice also "many times". I've patientionally waited for your English translation of your used sources and regardless of your attack against me, you disappointed me very much. Do't complain about Future's saction on you.--Caspian blue 01:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sennen and Caspian are both excellent editors that for some reason tend to turn stupid when they have to deal with each other. I've gone through both of their histories and aside from a few minor incidents, either one is a generally reasonable editor that has made multiple, excellent contributions. This is the second time now I've had to go through page upon page of past edits becaue of their fights, so I'm all for flipping a coin and indef banning the loser. However, since that idea generally hasn't gained consensus in the past, I will settle for the idea of the topicban proposal. Trusilver 07:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont beleive that 6months is a fair proposal as both editors do spend a lot of time correcting and improving articles. I would say a three month ban from both Japan and Korean articles for both as sometimes their arguements can stop other editors producing good input.--CorrectlyContentious 10:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As much as the devil inside of me might get a real thrill from seeing the editing rights of mine being decided with a coin toss, the sensible editor that lurks somewhere inside of me tells me that it would be too much of a risk to take - so assuming that I am not allowed to challenge editors to 1v1 on Quake III Arena for the right to edit, I would not whine too much if we were both topic banned - as it has been pointed out we are both capable of contributing to wikipedia and despite a topic ban limiting the scope of articles we are able to edit, if we both spend the time we spend making/dealing with ANI reports on actual editing, it might actually increase the amount of constructive editing that we do. I would also state that I would at no time contact any other editor through E-mail etc regarding Caspian's edits, as Caspian has voiced concern in the past regarding me contacting editors by Email in relation to articles we are editing. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I must point out that you have requested three sockpuppeters(Eichikiyama, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Lucyintheskywithdada), and others to send you Emails just right after I had discussion with them[97][98][99][100] (Lucy's talk page is deleted). Your following is also your typical "wikistalking". I must state that you also have time to exchange Emails with admins secretely for your never-ending-filing SPI until my suggestion to file it. You're also lying about me again. I did not contact editors to discuss regarding "you" at all. You're making another false allegation based on your "wishful thinking". --Caspian blue 01:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - the proposal as written. one minor clarification, I usually take 'broadly construed' to mean talk pages also. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment to Roux You must forget the fact that I was attacked by him unreasonably, so I requested his apology to me, but he even mocked me further with false accusation. Also your claim that "all measures" are tried"? If I knew that you're intervening here, I might have reported him to RFC/User conduct not here, but it is a new thing to learn. When he has been sleuting, I felt somewhat relieved because his over-one year-wikistaking/harassing me are significantly reduced (not stopped because he stilled followed me to some articles beyond his interests). However, he moved onto another Korean editor just as his usual habit. That’s why I come here for administrative intervetion. However, you’re suggesting evaluating me in the same ground with Senenn goroshi? I certainly acknowledge that you’re sick of anything related to me, but not all. So please do not exaggerate your “own feeling” and “jumping to your own conclusion” without close investigation. Regardless of your own feeling, if there are repeated problems that can not be resolved by discussion between involved parties, here is the place for them. Please do not try to divert the main topic on Sennen goroshi’s behaviors. --Caspian blue 01:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

historian19

Due to copyright violations and editing nonsense, User:historian19 was blocked. Today, I see that a subsequent account of his/her User:ScottishGunner was blocked. While checking and reverting the stuff added/changed by this account, I also see that he/she used IP address 41.249.57.101 after historian19 was blocked and prior to taking up the account ScottishGunner (from Jan 20 to Jan 23). I know this from the nature of the edits and language used along with further copyright violations. Can you check on this and consider a block on this IP address. You may also want to see if some type of permanent basic block can be done as this is an editor who is very persistent and prolific in adding nonsense and copyright material to articles. Hmains (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is not much that can be done with that IP, as the last edits were 3 days ago and the IP has likely been reallocated to another person. Have you seen any more recent IP edits? Kevin (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

no, Historian19 then went on to use ScottishGunner from the Jan 23 to today. Hmains (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility and sourcing

I'm referring an issue with Nikitn (talk · contribs) here for further review. He's been warned twice for conduct issues and has taken a rather hardline stance to the inclusion of what appear to me to be reliable sources. I don't believe this topic area is under arbocm sanctions (otherwise I'd restrict him to the talk page), and saving that I am thinking a 24 hour block would be in order. But before I act, I wanted to see what others thought and if anyone is an expert enough in the field to opine on the sourcing issue. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

While he's not being blatantly incivil, I do get the distinct impression he's toeing the line quite intentionally ("How cute...", etc.), and would appear to be becoming rather disruptive. I have no experience in this field, of course, so I have no idea if he has a valid point or not, but the way he's going about making said point is the point, if I haven't turned anyone's head in circles by this point. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides uncivil comments in edit summaries this user has also stalked me to my YouTube page and spammed it with comments like "a biased little shit". He has also vandalized my userpage while editing under IP. Comments like all Swedish historians are "idiots" doesn't give much room to a civil discussion either. Närking (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Among his edit summaries you will find examples like these: [101], [102], [103], [104] (note that he instead of a sourced figure inserted an unsourced), [105] (here he removed a picture from the article for no other reason than I had put it there). The list can go on and on... And note he only has edits like this, no other serious editing. Närking (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps these discretionary sanctions are applicable.Biophys (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick Warren

The Rick Warren article was recently unprotected after being under full protection for a couple weeks. A new contributor to the article, User:Phoenix of9, who from his contribution history and user page appears to be an activist similar to User:Teledildonix314 (who caused the article to be protected), immediately began making wholesale changes to the article without any consensus on the discussion board and started edit-warring with another editor. Clearly, with an article that was just under full protection as a result of a very similar situation, User:Phoenix of9 should have at the very least discussed his ideas on the discussion page before he made changes - he didn't. I politely asked him to follow User:Teledildonix314's lead and walk away from an article he is clearly very biased against, but he rudely refused. Please keep an eye on him and the article - hopefully it won't need to be protected again. Thanks. Manutdglory (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone please comment on Manutdglory's behaviour?

Manutdglory "As someone who clearly has a similar bias (noted from your user page), I would encourage you to follow his lead and abstain from editing this article before you start another edit-war."[106]

It seems he was already warned by two users (including an admin, User:ZimZalaBim ) about civility and edit warring issues: [107] [108] [109] Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction: he was warned by 3 people, besides me [110]. He deletes warnings at once so it's hard to go over his talk page. And he seems that he likes saying he can bring in an administrator [111][112], so any admin opinion would be appreciated.Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Past comments by other users have nothing to do with this situation. Your actions however, do. Manutdglory (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of you need to cease the personal attacks and the petty "stop or I'll call mom" rhetoric. Use the article's talk page to work through the content differences, and if necessary, seek the appropriate dispute resolution. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I didnt make any personal attacks against Manutdglory. Feel free to go over post histories. His actions are unwarrented. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I took your advice and went through dispute resolution, creating an entry for Manutdglory in Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And you were told by administrators that you had no case there either. Manutdglory (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I have added a comment in the RfC on this talkpage but do notice some rather contentious editing and comments. I feel uncomfortable warning other users, as a now-involved editor, but would appreciate more eyes on this situation. Whatever has gone on in the past here seems like its boiling up some which likely isn't helping the article. -- Banjeboi 01:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh, and if you don't mind Benji, what exactly are your interests and intentions for the Rick Warren article? A glance over your user page and edit history seems suspicious, based on the profiles of users who have previously caused the article to be fully protected. Manutdglory (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, please wp:Assume good faith. -- Banjeboi 02:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have warned Manutdglory regarding continued incivility and failure to assume good faith, especially wrt this edit. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Gerardw made him a suggestion too [113] but he isnt listening: [114] Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it humorous that Phoenix of9 is yet to directly respond to my complaint against him. All his rebuttals seem to have one thing in common - ignoring the issue at hand and attacking me. Yet I am accused of being the one who is uncivil. Interesting. Manutdglory (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm not going to respond to your personal attacks except to say they are irrelevant and that you should comment on content and not on editors. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I suggest you both disengage for a while. Perhaps spend a day improving articles about puppies or lollipops. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That was the previous suggestion regarding Manutdglory and other editors. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive504#User:Manutdglory_-_another_issue_of__bad_editor_behavior_connected_with_the_Rick_Warren_article Wikipedia seems quite inefficient. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

@Manutdglory: No, it's not interesting, and it's not as you describe. It's a repeat of the sort of situation in which i found myself involved with you a few weeks ago, and although i changed my behavior after going down in flames, you have yet to swerve at all from your choice of behavior. The History pages of the Rick Warren article and of your UserTalk page make this quite painfully obvious. If you don't believe the Rick Warren article is being handled appropriately, i would suggest you consider the course of action which i already recommended on the Discussion Page for that article: let an editor with a Neutral POV write a good draft, and then let other editors discuss whether they are at a concensus with such a draft. Until then, your edits are not helping, your edit-warring on the Discussion page is not helping, and it would seem that you are going to only encourage other novice editors to repeat the same pathway i followed along with you. Perhaps it's time for *YOU* to step away from the article. Teledildonix314 ^talk 02:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jb5-hy

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

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

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

Persistent incivility by user:Dicklyon

user:Dicklyon has been persistently engaging in incivility against me (and a host of other editors). user:Dicklyon has been blocked three times for edit warring on this and other topics [115], as well as topic-banned for inappropriate behavior on other topics [116]. His edits below are grossly inappropriate and are conducive neither to productive discussion nor dispute resolution. His continued problematic behavior, despite repeated sanctions, does not suggest any serious intent ever to moderate his behavior. His edits below follow a failed attempt to delete Feminine essence theory of transsexuality (which I created), a failed attempt to move the same page (started immediately afterward), and an RfC which also failed to bring any uninvolved editor to agree with him.

After I indicated on a talk page that I am a colleague of one of the people whom I cited on the main page:

"If your "disclosure" were more complete, you'd note that Ray Blanchard made up the "feminine essence theory" in these so-called reliable sources, by listing an unattributed set of "tenets" of it that he then proceeded to knock down. Nobody believes the theory, nor likely many of its so-called tenets, and he knows it, since they're a bit absurd. His reason for putting it forward to knock it down is obvious: to prop up his controversial Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory of transsexuals. So to call this a theory, to help your boss spread his nasty propaganda, by writing this horribly misleading article, is the worse kind of WP:Conflict of interest." [117]

After an uninvolved editor asked Dicklyon's what information he was trying to gain from his RfC on that page:

"Well, I was hoping you'd read some of comments, see what Cantor is doing here, and be as appalled by it as I was. It's really quite vicious to present this as if it was a theory held by transsexuals, just for the purpose of saying what a stupid idea it is. That what Cantor does here, just as his boss Blanchard did in the real world. The appearance of sourcing disguises what he has done. I guess it was unrealistic to expect someone not familiar with the controversy to be able to help, though." [118]

After the near-unanimous defeat of the AfD that he himself proposed for the page:[119]:

"Oppose – It would be nuts to move this content to a place where a real article could go. It's better to leave it here as a monument to James Cantor's and WhatamIdoing's collusion to have some "fun" with wikipedia." [120]

Although Dicklyon will sometimes apologize for his behavior, the clear lack of change after such apologies does not suggest sincerity. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
— James Cantor (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

To repeat my earlier point about user:Dicklyon's clear lack of intent to change his behavior, after notified him on his talk about that I made the above incident report (using the ANI template), he repeated his behavior on the same page:

Following my indicating that I believed his edits to violate WP:civility:

"It's about your article and your editing behavior, which I repeat I find appalling and vicious; not to mention WP:COI." [121]

and

"In fact, nobody adhere's to such a theory, as it was made up by Dreger and Blanchard just for the purpose of attacking transwomen; Cantor reports to Blanchard and does his dirty work on wikipedia." [122]

Permitting such behavior is never in the best interests of WP.
— James Cantor (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dick has been showing similar behavior at Eric Lerner and WP:FRINGE. There's an active arbitration enforcement thread here that seems to have petered out due to lack of interest from admins. Of his most recent disruptive edits in this area, IMO this edit takes the cake, where he claims that Arno Penzias, recipient of the Nobel Prize in physics, is not a physicist. He seems unable to comment on the content, not the contributor, and often follows editors who have vexed him to other pages. Skinwalker (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think my separate editing disputes with ScienceApologist are in any way related or analogous, nor do they represent any misbehavior. If you disagree, please give me a clue; I have not had any edit pointed out as disruptive or uncivil by anybody there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing was pointed out as disruptive or uncivil? Have you read in any detail the arbitration enforcement thread and the responses? Skinwalker (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Obvoiusly I discounted ScienceApologist himself, as he's just trying to get me banned; Shell didn't get back to me on my request for any indication of what I did wrong, and PhilKnight and you basically said I shouldn't refer to ScienceApologist's SPOV or editing methods in my comments or edit summaries. I'm still unclear on whether anyone has anything specific that they think I did that was inappropriate, as these are just ways of saying I should stop fighting with ScienceApologist; but it takes two, so tell him, too. Now back to the present... Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Every time someone has presented your problematic behavior and other editors/admins have said "stop that", you respond with "stop what?". This is getting silly. Its not appropriate for you to attack other editors that you are in a dispute with - in fact, its not appropriate to attack other editors at all. Learn to play nice or get out of the sandbox. Shell ^babelfish 03:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon is not behaving very well but I sort of understand his frustration -- the Feminine essence theory of transsexuality article goes way beyond what its sources justify. The term was invented in a commentary published in April 2008, and nothing has yet been published in response to that commentary, so really all the article should properly be able to say is that Blanchard said XXX a few months ago and no reactions to his ideas have yet appeared. Looie496 (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is mishaving to call James Cantor's edits and behavior on this particular page as appalling and vicious. It also baffles me that he is allowed to continue to push his boss's vicious transphobic attacks via wikipedia; I didn't have much luck taking him to COI in the past, but probably it's time to try again. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist and Skinwalker (and now, apparently, still more editors just two doors down here) emphasize my point regarding Dicklyon's multiple prior blocks: Dicklyon's behavior is not limited to me, nor to other editors, nor to any specific group of pages.

Looie496 is completely entitled to disagree with me, of course, but the purpose of WP:AN/I is to discuss/intervene regarding editor behavior, not page content. I do invite user:Looie496 to make content edits and suggestions at the page and its talkpages themselves.

— James Cantor (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I welcome a review of my block history and editing history by anybody. Compare it to User:MarionTheLibrarian, the name James Cantor used to attack the bio of my friend Lynn Conway while hiding his identity as one of the principals in the real-world dispute with her. The current issues are a contiuation of his essentially single-purpose campaign on wikipedia, to polish the reputation of his academic sexologist friends and boss and to push thir views that have been characterized by many in the real world as transphobic. If anyone is willing to look into this, the result will certainly be welcome. As to the other disputes that I get into as an active wikipedia editor, I am happy to have them examined, one at a time or all at once; I make no claim to being the most congenial or whatever, but I stick to policy and push back on abuse. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add my $0.02 to this I even went as far as to open a userconduct RfC on him and his behavior Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dicklyon. He has made more of his little comments than I care to hunt down diff's for. He has been given a pass for acting the way he has for far too long. Nothing much has been done with this(I am not sure what more needs to be done before it will go through). Someone needs to send Dicklyon a message that his behavior is not acceptable. Or else he will keep on keeping on. Thus leaving no recourse but response in kind. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Tfoxworth

Resolved

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

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

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

Removal of content by user:Dicklyon

Please note multiple deletions of content by Dicklyon:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=262335435&oldid=262334671
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=264956655&oldid=264936715
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=266005255&oldid=266002509
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=next&oldid=266079819
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&diff=266149808&oldid=266141240
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&curid=6247691&diff=266332064&oldid=266288359
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_wool&curid=6247691&diff=266450011&oldid=266446974

and also multiple removal of a suggestion for merger of the article Excelsior_(wood_wool) to the present article wood wool:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excelsior_(wood_wool)&diff=264902703&oldid=263760235
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excelsior_(wood_wool)&diff=266005479&oldid=265974147
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excelsior_(wood_wool)&diff=next&oldid=266128674 (claiming finishing the merging without an actual merge taking place, just copying part of the content from the article wood wool)
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excelsior_(wood_wool)&curid=5410719&diff=266449647&oldid=266447545

Meanwhile, a discussion is still on in Talk:Excelsior (wood wool)#Proposal for merging.

The user appears to be acting in good faith, maintaining civility, but still he is removing content, in fact deleting a page, denying the tag for merger suggestion at another, because he thinks that another course of action was necessary (a move proposal instead of a merge proposal).--FocalPoint (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has been deleted. FocalPoint persists in trying to do a move of excelsior (wood wool) to wood wool by a content fork followed by a merge to there; I have advised him on the procedure for a move request, and have given him a final warning for the six or so times that he has done this. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. What are you alleging FP of doing, Dickylon? Near as I can see, you insist onm a redirect in the opposite direction of FP's efforts, which look like a move to a more generic, more world-wide known term for it, over a North American, specifically USA, name for it. Please explain in more detail. ThuranX (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He keeps adding his preferred article into the redirect at wood wool and then proposing to merge excelsior (wood wool) to it; I keep reverting him, having merged his new material into the existing article already. What he wants is to move excelsior (wood wool) to wood wool; I've told him how to propose that (and that I will oppose it). The question of which name is more generic, or which is a better name for the article, would be addressed after a move proposal is started. Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like you're treating BOLD like DICK. You should've taken this to his talk page LONG ago and settled this that way. I see you edit warring, to be frank, and it's not the only place you're doing it tonight. There's different sources and slightly different content, so your hostility isn't really that warranted. I understand process, but I understand asshole as well. Tonight, you're speaking asshole, not policy. Might be time for you to log off and take a breath. ThuranX (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Our discussions are all over his talk page, my talk page, the two article talk pages, etc. Mostly here: Talk:Excelsior (wood wool) I think you're missing what's been going on. Did you look? Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

But while you are discussing the issue, you continue to revert to your preferred state. I have restored the text and merge tags to both articles while the discussion is ongoing. I don't much care if we are discussing a merge or a move so long as discussion and consensus precede action. Kevin (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have incorporated all his new material. The "preferred state" is the one that avoids an improper move. Please don't egg him on. The point of the move proposal process is to get more eyes on the proposal; we can't have a consensus discussion of it with so few of us; that's why he need to follow the process, not do his content fork and merge proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He changed wood wool from a redirect to a new content fork in this Jan 6 edit. The same day, here I replied to his incorrect statements on Talk:Excelsior (wood wool) that I would oppose a move to wood wool; I don't think I had seen his fork yet. We have been in constant discussion since then, and I have advised him on several occasions that what he is trying to do is called a move, and how to propose it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

About the time he filed this, I had taken FocalPoint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to AIV, and noted that if that wasn't an appropriate shortcut for his persistence past final warning in trying to do an improper move via a content fork and re-merge proposal, that I would come here next. He came here first, obviously. Anyway, I hope someone will let him know that move proposal process is not all that hard, and that trying to circumvent it this way is very disruptive. Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it, and his talk, and so on, I see you coming on like gangbusters, rebuking him heartily, then going with a big fat stack of templates. I cannot find the unanimous consensus you claimed for the unanimous actions you took, link please? This doesnt' reflect well on you, Dickylon.ThuranX (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The templates were after I had lost patience with his repeated circumvention of process. The unanimous consensus was when he posted a merge tag after I and LouSheffer had told him not to do a content fork, but to merge his new material; since he too requested a merge, nobody being against it, I went ahead and did a merge. What he always really wanted and still wants is a move. The material is all merged into the article we had before he started this nonsense two weeks ago. Why is it so hard to get help straigtening out this mess? Dicklyon (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On Kevin's advice, as a show of good faith, I've gone ahead and started a move request for FocalPoint's intended move; of course, I also explained that I oppose it. See Talk:Excelsior (wood wool)#Requested move. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Though I agree with FocalPoint's proposed move, I agree more with Dick Lyon that he/she was going about it the wrong way, starting with a content fork of a 1-page article, then a request to merge the two articles into the new one. This is an inefficient, unilateral, potentially contentious way to move a page, and could lead to a permanent useless content fork. The right way, IMO, is to add content to the original (even if you believe it is mis-named), then request a re-name. As soon as FocalPoint realized the move was contentious, he/she should have backed off to the more consensus based procedure. LouScheffer (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Resolved

 – I'm on it like white on rice Tan | 39 03:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is pretty backlogged. AnyPerson (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please take a look at 98.223.164.233 (talk · contribs), whose listing was removed from WP:AIV without any action. The editor has a huge page of warnings for vandalizing wrestling related articles, has been blocked twice in the last two months, continues to vandalize this evening, but apparently nothing is to be done? AnyPerson (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they have stopped (no edits in about 30 minutes). Let us know if it starts up again -- Samir 03:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And quit forum-shopping, AnyPerson. Stop getting worked up about one editor - you left a not-so-polite message on my page and shopped to JulianColten as well. Three admins have now said that there is insufficient evidence for a block. Tan | 39 04:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care how many admins tell me that there is insufficient evidence for a block (and I only count two). If a person is vandalizing and the admins can't read the evidence provided to see that the person is vandalizing, then I'm going to continue trying to get somebody to block the vandal. The admins (You and JulianColten) are obviously not reading the vandal's edits properly. At the point when I reported them to WP:AIV, they were currently in the process of mixing possibly good edits in with obviously vandalistic edits, but the two of you shrugged. What does it take to get a repeat vandal blocked? AnyPerson (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless a vandal is operating a bot or otherwise editing at a rapid pace, there's no need to get so worked over having to revert an edit or two. John Reaves 18:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. I guess I won't bother to report vandals any more, if admins don't care. AnyPerson (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

When there is a question whether a person is editing in good faith or vandalizing, most admins will err on the side of caution... This is A Good Thing™, in my opinion. –xeno (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So you're telling me that admins can't figure out whether or not this is a good faith edit, in light of the editor's past history and block record? AnyPerson (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That edit was from 21:39 (my local time, don't feel like doing UTC math atm), and the report was removed at 22:35. The most recent edit was in good faith, so the administrator must have decided the vandal had moved on. As should we. –xeno (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you are just jumping on the "rant about admins every chance you get" bandwagon or what, but drop the indignation and just accept that everything won't always go your way and get back to the encyclopedia, this isn't constructive. John Reaves 22:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Block review requested

Can an anyone give me some feedback on the block of User talk:RhawnJoseph please? They sent me an email with the following text:

[SNIP]

Clearly, this user is confused as to what constitutes censorship and vandalism, but there may be some underlying valid points. Tan | 39 04:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As a non-admin I'll say that he may very well be legit, but he doesn't have to be a dick about. Perhaps reply with links to policies on WP:COI, WP:FIVE, etc. etc., and see if he's still interested. Grsz¹¹ 04:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A google search on the name suggests a certain amount of infamy associated with the name rhawn Joseph. Can we get a confirmation that this guy is who he says he is?--Tznkai (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The email came from brainmind dot com, so I'd say we're dealing with Dr. Joseph. Tan | 39 05:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think his books are decent as sources, but he would need to understand how to contribute if he wanted to stick around. The way he did, it seems like he just wanted his name out there, in which case it's a good block. Grsz¹¹ 05:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hopefully he'll read up some. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just visited that site myself. Augh - I'd rather we not link to that page ever simply based on aesthetic reasons. I see confirmations of actual books published from reputable academic presses. I also however, a lot of dipping into non scientific areas. Nothing I've read has suggested Joseph is widely considered an authority or not.--Tznkai (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he also used 98.210.119.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), worth keeping an eye on. Grsz¹¹ 05:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: What I've read has suggested Dr. Jospeh is an R.S for neurobiology NOT panspermia.--Tznkai (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've snipped out the email pending confirmation that there is permission to publish this email here. Generally it is not allowed to post private emails to Wikipedia without the author's permission. Jehochman ^Talk 05:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sort of policy or guideline that states that, Jehochman? I don't mean to argue with you, here, but I have never, ever come across anything that says I can't post that email here. Tan | 39 05:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, aside courtesy and privacy issues, there is a certain amount of GDFL legal copyright finagling that complicates matters.--Tznkai (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy means nothing in the context of this discussion. I disclosed no email address or contact information. Wikimedia's privacy policy says nothing on the matter. Off the top of my head, I would say this is an overreaction that is perpetuated because it "sounds right". Tan | 39 05:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is some arbcom case that basically said "don't post the content of emails". Though I agree with you that in this case (posting them so we could review a block), it seems valid. Protonk (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at the contributions I see a familiar cycle. Researcher (or author or whatever) adds copious info about their own work to Wikipedia page. Edit is either reverted or altered somewhat to bring the article back to due weight. Researcher gets increasingly more upset and escalates the back and forth, eventually getting blocked. I don't know anything about Panspermia, so I can't tell if his contributions to that field are any more or less credible than the average. But I do smell something fishy. Evidently, UniversityPress, California isn't a university publishing house at all. This (http://universitypress.info/) is their website. HMMMM. Looks similar to something else. My thoughts are: relatively good block. Unfortunate that we got into the cycle I described above but it is unavoidable. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence. This issue seems to be up in the air at Wikipedia:Harassment#Private correspondence. Jehochman ^Talk 05:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2#Private correspondence -- Samir 05:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I didn't mean to sidetrack the conversation. Thanks to everyone who reviewed this; I'm sure we'll be revisiting shortly after the block expires. Tan | 39 05:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Good block, Tan. Protonk's points are bang-on. WP:NPOV#Undue weight definitely holds here, and screaming censorship if the material in question is removed is certainly disruptive. Not criticizing Dr. Joseph's ideas but I think that they are certainly apart from mainstream academic views on panspermia, and should not be over-represented in the article. -- Samir 05:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, but whois confirms [123] that universitypress.info was registered to the same person as Brain-Mind.com,and that Brain-Mind.com was registered to Dr. Joseph [124]. Anything Dr. Joseph published through University Press probably ought to be regarded as self-published. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Only now have I taken a look at his website. So far, his edits look like original research to me, along with coatracking to sell books/publications. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Digging a little deeper into his self published material, I believe Joseph's PhD is in neuropsychology, and in that where hes published legitimate material, and somewhere along the line, he decided that his credentials gave him wide scientific insights into the soul, God, the rape of nanking, panspermia, the origin of life, evolution and everything else. In addition there are dubious presses here. "Academic Press", San Diego and "University Press", California (as opposed to University Press of California). The edits in question seems to be drawing from the latter category. --Tznkai (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I received another much longer, rant-y email that includes phrases such as "I am asking that my material be reinserted, and that a lock be placed on the panspermia article to prevent these three despicable, unethical, ignorant characters from vandalizing the article further. Indeed, I believe it appropriate if you remove the privileges of these 3 vandals. Their conduct is outrageous. Their user names are: Silly rabbit, Tanthalas39. and Glane23" (it was cc'd to all three editors). I propose to up this block to indefinite, as this clearly isn't going to stop upon block expiration and the emails are bordering on harassment. Can I get some opinions? Tan | 39 15:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I should add this gem too - "These 3 cretins have been contacted, and none of them have the courage or the integrity to respond to my emails or requests that my material be reinserted." Tan | 39 15:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this is more of the same thing the original block was for, I'd re-block for a week this time, with email disabled. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with a longer block, but we should give a heads up to whatever OTRS queque likely to suffer the next rant. Separate thought, is this guy notable enough for an article?--Tznkai (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone would have to want to write it. ;) My guess is...maybe not? That CV looks pretty standard for an academic (not sure what the expected publication rate is for primate biologists), so he might not meet WP:PROF. Not sure if he has been otherwise covered in a detailed biography somewhere. Protonk (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked for a week, email disabled. See you all in eight days ;-) Tan | 39 16:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I left a message to suggest some reading while he's blocked. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That was a good thought, although it might be even more helpful if the puppy were to sign it :P SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Resolved

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

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

Disruptive editor at the page of Cher

Wildhartlivie reinserts unreferenced sales-figures to the article of Cher [125],[126] claiming (in edit summary) that "dead links" simply need to be replaced; in fact, the very statement which he seems to be quite protective of has been there with the same dead link for eight months at the least. It's quite difficult to keep pages clean when there are such editors who believe reinserting a material without a source is not against the Wikipedia policy. I'd appreciate if someone could enforce the policy, I have a feeling that he might start edit warring with me if I tried to remove it again. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any discussion about this; the last talk page comment was Dec 9th by an anon. Maybe you should bring it on talk? Or bring it up with the editor on their talk page? :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wellllllll, I was unaware that reinserting improperly removed material was being disruptive. I was also unaware thata sales figure which has a reference, albeit a dead one, qualified as contentious material or unsourced. In fact, keeping the sales figure, with the dead link note, is exactly what is indicated by WP:DEADREF, which says Deactivate the dead link, and keep the citation information if still appropriate to the article. Even with an inactive link, the citation still records a source that was used, and provides a context for understanding archiving delays or for taking other actions. The statement is not unsourced and it is improper to flatly remove a statement and the supporting, albeit dead, reference. I'm well aware of when the dead link tag was placed at the ref, I was the one who did it, and it wasn't 8 months ago at least. Although a fresh source needs to be found, the content isn't contentious or disputed, unless of course, Harout72 is disputing it.

As an aside, the other statements Harout72 makes are a bit of bad faith: "I have a feeling that he might start edit warring with me if I tried to remove it again." Bad faith. I spend a great deal of time policing this, and other, articles to maintain "cleanliness", thank you very much. My edits are 4th on the contributor list for the article at 151 while the person complaining here has made 7 edits, all in the last 9 days. I'm not sure how that equates to attempts to keep the article clean. In any case, retention of this statement is well in keeping with Wikipedia policy as were my edits regarding it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk to them first. Don't assume people are aware of the larger context, debates, whatever. You know, generally just assume good faith? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

incivility ... i think

on the article Glock's talk page, after mentioning to User:Nukes4Tots that he need not have a meltdown [[127]] and to chill with the (what i believe to be) borderline personal attacks, his response (with an edit summary of 'I WANNA KILL') was "Jeez, would you please use the shift key. Meltdown, my ass. Throw a fucking cuss word out once or twice and people who can't use a fucking keyboard freak out. So, two fucking sources and my personal expert opinion combined don't mean shit to you? What do you want? How the fuck am I attacking you? An attack would be me calling you a fucking moron. I do not believe you are either a moron or a fucking moron. Asking you to use proper grammar is just a request. Saying you can't use a keyboard is an observation. See how cool that was? You say I'm having a meltdown and I say you're freaking out. Toss a few explictives and you're convinced. Problem is, none of this is really happening. I'm here at my easy chair typing on a laptop watching a show on Anartic core sampling, sipping a cup of cold water. Just 1's and 0's dude, not enough to get my dander up. Here you are fantasizing about some Arlo Guthrie song that I'll quote for you to ponder: "And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy." [[128]]. obviously this response of his is not relevant to an article, and is not an efficient use of an article's talk page. but it also borderlines on personal attacks and incivility, i think. i don't think sarcasm is really an excuse to be uncivil. since he told me 'i can't use a fucking keyboard,' i'm probably not the one to talk to him about this. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Formally warned on his talk page. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

...although I'm wondering if a warning is enough? I'll defer... Xavexgoem (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I judge that User:Nukes4Tots is calm and that perhaps Theserialcomma is missing his point. Perhaps one needs to know Alice's Restaurant. Sure, User:Nukes4Tots is forceful, but the tone of this exchange appears to have been set by Theserialcomma's it's irrelevant to me if you are a 'heavy hitter' on this article, a complete newbie, or a flying unicorn made out of magical puppy kisses. As she/he says, "obviously this response of his is not relevant to an article, and is not an efficient use of an article's talk page. but it also borderlines on personal attacks and incivility, i think. i don't think sarcasm is really an excuse to be uncivil. " --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's from Alice's Restaurant as quoted by User:Nukes4Tots. He does that. It's for the children, you know. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He was warned for quoting Guthrie? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh sheesh, and told in no uncertain terms he'd be blocked if he did it again? Xavexgoem, I must disagree here, and concur with Tagishsimon above. This is humor. You know, ha-ha? Not personal attacks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was Arlo. No one minds if you quote Woody, but quoting Arlo is a punishable offense in some states.—Kww(talk) 13:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Woody was a socialist, he's not popular in some regions either. This land is your land, this land is my land.. replace "land" with, oh, Motersickle. This pickle is my pickle, this pickle is your pickle... see? Socialism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Woody had a guitar bearing the words, "This machine kills fascists." Would that it had said Socialism = fascism + late trains. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

some context: i first tried to add to the lede that glock also makes an automatic pistol, the glock 18. the consensus was that this is not worth mentioning in the lede, since it's a specialized weapon not representative of their products - and the glock 18 is already mentioned in the article. i did not argue further once consensus was against me, i was just arguing against the reasons provided until consensus was formed. for example, nukes4tots said that 4 heavy hitters disagreed with me, and that he was a personal expert on the topic and knew i was wrong about the glock 18 being different internally than the glock 17. i told him it's irrelevant whether someone's a 'heavy hitter' on an article or a newbie unicorn - there is no policy stating that 'heavy hitters' are more correctly following WP policy than a newbie. but consensus was against my change to the lede, so i didnt bother arguing or editing against consensus at that point. people didn't want it in the lede, i read their arguments, and i conceded thta i wouldnt edit against consensus. the thing that set nukes4tots off was a referenced change further in the article that the major parts of the glock 18 are different from the glock 17. he disagreed [[129]], disregarded my source, with the edit summary "Reference it or not, the main components of the Glock 18 ARE interchangeable with the model 17. Frame, barrel, slide. Only the selector, disconnector, and a few other non-major parts don't." so he reverted a reliable source to no source at all, because he is an expert. i tried to explain that you don't remove something that's sourced to revert to something that is not sourced, just because you think you know the truth. his next edit summary was [[130]] "Please, back off unless you know what you're talking about. Here's the reference, you put it in--> [131]" that is the 'borderline' personal attack i was referring to - he told me i dont know what i'm talking about when i was accurately quoting from a reliable source. he was attacking the editor, not the content. then he wrote all the other stuff above, which i believe is more uncivil than a personal attack. e.g. " nukes4tots: "(two unreliable sources) and my personal expert opinion combined don't mean shit to you? What do you want? How the fuck am I attacking you? An attack would be me calling you a fucking moron. I do not believe you are either a moron or a fucking moron. Asking you to use proper grammar is just a request. Saying you can't use a keyboard is an observation. " . i saw it as a passive aggressive way to try to hide a personal attack in sarcasm. he said basically "hey, i never called you a fucking moron, because that would surely be a valid example of a personal attack, which i did not do. i specifically said you WEREN'T a fucking moron! see, it's negated! humor! now i am going to quote from a song that mentions murder, for reasons unspecified. more humor for you!" maybe i should just thank him for bringing needed humor to the gun article. sometimes my ideas are best expressed in a song too. mixtapes for everyone. Theserialcomma (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you two don't agree on how to say the models are very, very much the same, but a 17 can't be quickly made into an 18 by swapping in the key bits. Why does this bring my thoughts back to Arlo and Woody? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I dunno but all this talk about guns and Guthries has got Ludlow Massacre running through my head. The song, not the event. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I once heard a Cuban comedian quote Alice's Restaurant in his act. Of course, with his accent it went something like, "Jews can get anything Jews want at Aleece's Restaurante." Can't help, to this day, imagining the Kosher menu they'd serve there. Do they serve Gentiles too? I'm afraid nothing I can say towards the matter at hand would suffice. Never much cared for Woody either, on that subject. Theserialcomma, Arlo didn't really want to kill anybody either. His entire performance was tongue-in-cheek, much as mine was. Hope your dander settles down some. I'm sure Alice's Restaurant would have something to help you in that respect as well, brother. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

IPv6Gate

Resolved

 – Both blocked 5 years John Reaves 18:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

IPv6Gate uses both User:213.197.27.252/User_Talk:213.197.27.252 and User_Talk:94.75.219.73/User:94.75.219.73 at the moment. Please *PERMANENTLY* block both 213.197.27.252 and 94.75.219.73 from editing anything unless the user has taken the time to login with a real account. Clearly people are too childish to abuse the feature provided by IPv6Gate. Users who are using IPv6Gate and want to contribute meaningful items will register/login and provide their contributions that way. Basically IPv6Gate is an Open Proxy, especially as the Wikimedia software doesn't support XFF for IPv6. See IPv6Gate and IPv6Gate:Talk for other details. Blocking those two IPs avoids work for you and it is just the sane thing to do at the moment. 213.197.27.252 is blocked at the moment already because of this, thus make that one, and the other one permanent please. (/me is jeroen@sixxs.net and responsible for IPv6Gate) Jeroen (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you're responsible for said Proxy, then why don't you just deny access and leave anyone trying to reach Wikipedia a note telling them this? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think only Wikipedia has the ability to distinguish registered users from unregistered ones.—Kww(talk) 13:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As Kww mentioned, we can't see who is registered or not. The normal case here would be to use XFF so that admins could see the original IP, but unfortunately XFF doesn't support IPv6 on wikimedia, as such, that is simply not possible. Jeroen (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • We don't do indefinite IP blocks, but I think a long block is in order. — Jake Wartenberg 13:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
      • That is fine, a block for a long time which avoids anonymous users from abusing Wikipedia by using IPv6Gate without having a registered account would be the way to go. Jeroen (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that we do in fact do indef. IP blocks (rarely). — neuro^(talk) 17:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! I've updated the talk pages to explain this block. Jeroen (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:BatterBean's Jake Gyllenhaal forgeries back again

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked by AuburnPilot, hoax articles deleted

We've been through this twice before: here and here. This time, it's by YouMustLoveMe12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), hosted on User:YouMustLoveMe12. Time for deletion and another indef block.—Kww(talk) 13:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted and indef blocked. - auburnpilot talk 15:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User Jeffrey Pierce Henderson

Resolved

 – 48hr blocked by Ohnoitsjamie

As much as it pains me to do this, I can only say - I tried. Someone please review these comments and take the action you feel you need to. You can take a look in the history of AN/I as well as Bench Press article to establish a history of incivility. Padillah (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Insulted by user:Jake Wartenberg

Resolved

 – Not an AN/I issue at this point. –xeno (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He is continuously blaming me of vandalism, as I cleaned up an article Brahmi script. Doesn't assume good faith. --91.130.91.84 (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How about discussing it with him on your or his talk page, instead of immediately running to ANI? Tan | 39 18:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine fine --91.130.91.84 (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry at SPLC; actual evidence rather than supposition

There was no admin response to my initial vague query, so I did a little more digging with regard to what's been going on:

• Dooteyr's very first six edits were to jump into SPLC Talk with a long commentary on why a source critical of SPLC is inappropriate. I partially agree with him, and change it so that it's attributed it as opinion and not fact. He later removes the source entirely. I revert and explain on Talk.
• Spotfixer's first edit at SPLC or SPLC Talk is to restore Dooteyr's Mainspace edit and say in the edit summary that he agrees. I revert and explain on Talk.
• Tom/North_Shoreman jumps in right after and reverts again, claiming "see discussion page where it appears to be one editor versus everybody else". It was his first edit at SPLC in quite a while, but It's entirely plausible this was opportunistic rather than coordinated.
• BBiiis08 adds edits primarily to agree with the others or join in removing criticism; one being to simply echo Tom/NS's wording on the abovesaid source.

---

• Dooteyr, created last week, demonstrates advanced knowledge of policies and tools almost immediately. After 21 edits on SPLC and on a creationist's page over two days, he disappears.
• Spotfixer, created not quite three months ago, demonstrated advanced knowledge of tools with his first edit. He edits heavily in creation/evolution, gay rights, and abortion.
• BBiiis08, created a little over three months ago, demonstrated advanced knowledge of tools with his first edit. He edits heavily on creation/evolution and creationists, SPLC / Morris Dees, and televangelists.
• Tom/North_Shoreman dates back to 2006, almost all of it in the Civil War and none in religious issues that I found, though the huge number of edits he's made may have obscured it. To me that makes it seem much less likely he's directly tied in, but I'm not sure.
• My actual guess as to the original sock farmer would be Ramdrake, who didn't weigh in until later (with the Westboro Baptist Church edit referenced in my original query here). He was editing heavily in creation/evolution near his start in 2006 and has spent some time on religious issues, but of late spends almost all his time on race. He got dinged twice in late 2006 for 3RR; my nastily cynical mind speculates that he "learned" how to get around it. In an equally nastily-cynical vein, he's made several tweaks to WP:Tag team. As examples, this one and this one changed wording to soften criticism of tag-teamers and make it harder to assert that tag-teaming has occurred. arimareiji (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji, please by all means request an RFCU on me. But when it turns out that all these users are actually different users, I will expect you to back down and admit that this is just you battling consensus and common sense interpretation of policy to push your POV.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is pure harassment and an attempt to intimidate. Two of the alleged sockpuppets (each of whom has over six times as many edits as Arimareiji) have here [132] and here [133] have invited Arimareiji to pursue an RFC on the underlying issue (Arimareiji’s attempt to have a Talk Radio host treated as a reliable source). Instead, we get this second attempt after his first one was ignored by administrators.

His claim about my January 21 edit (“It was his first edit at SPLC in quite a while”) is false -- I actually made an edit on January 15 here [134] when I noted that sourced material I had added had disappeared. Unlike Arimareiji, I actually have conducted research and added sourced material to the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake with regard to timing; I didn't see you appear on the talk page and I missed that one while scrolling through the thousands of edits you've made (I looked and that one was something like #250ish-most recent). The first one I saw was over six months ago, but it obviously was not the next most recent. I've struck through my errant assertion. But I fully stand by my other assertions. Your ad hominem aspersions don't change the edit histories of those accounts, which contain severalfold more examples than the few links I made.

Ramdrake - if that's the appropriate forum, I will. I believed that the guidelines given at SPI indicated that this should be brought here first for review. arimareiji (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum, though I won't further discuss it (it's tangential) - whether or not Smith is a talk radio host, the source being struck was a newspaper opinion editorial. arimareiji (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(Tangent: anyone interested in jumping in, "SPLC" is now a dab page; the dispute is over content at Southern Poverty Law Center. --EEMIV (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

I don't see the sockpuppetry links here; just because a group of people who work on similar articles - while working on others as well - are engaged in a debate over a certain article with another group of people doesn't mean that they're socks of one another. I'd be stunned if Ramdrake were socking, considering how long he's been around and his extensive editing interests; it wouldn't make sense. If you really feel that you have the evidence to back up a sock investigation, have at it. As for the opinion piece that seems to be the source of the concern, it's definitely a partisan affair, and thus I'd be hesitant to consider it a reasonable source, myself. All in all, I think this is better dealt with through an RFC at this point - not much here for admins to get involved with. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say about this. I don't know if he's malicious or just clueless. Maybe clueless, because the link given as my first edit isn't even my edit. In fact, I don't think I've ever edited that article. Oh, and he thinks I'm a guy, which should be proof enough that he doesn't own a clue. I think I'm just going to laugh this off. Spotfixer (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Intelligent design

Resolved

 – Protected for three days. — neuro^(talk) 20:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an edit war currently going on on Intelligent design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the use of book cover images. Some help could be good. --Damiens.rf 19:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest full protection. I would protect myself, however I'm not sure that I'd be perceived as neutral. PhilKnight (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. FP 3 days. Tan | 39 20:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparent GFDL violation

Resolved

 – GFDL attribution to be appropriately dealt with during the requested move process. –xeno (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Arcayne wishes to move Serenity (franchise) to Firefly (franchise). So and good. However, the editor pasted in text from the former to the latter without stating where it has come from, which seems to me a violation of the GFDL, indicating that he was going to nominate Serenity (franchise) for deletion (which would have vanished the originating page's history). I reverted the paste and notified him of Wikipedia:Move#Page_histories (which says not to cut and paste) and WP:Requested moves, the place to deal with this.

While User:Arcayne appears to be willing to follow the procedures at WP:Requested moves, he has insisted on pasting in the text from Serenity (franchise) into Firefly (franchise) twice more, before any page move goes ahead. I'd rather not go to three reverts on this thing if, instead, anyone can possibly get through to the editor over his actions.

Sorry if this is the wrong place, but there doesn't seem to be a noticeboard specific to this. – The Parting Glass 21:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne appears to have initiated a discussion at WP:RM, and I've restored the redirect pending the resolution of the discussion. Assuming there are no further reverts, I don't think there's anything ANI-worthy left here. --barneca (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So I shouldn't have banhammered Arcayne? Oops... Tan | 39 21:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I cut and pasted (and thereafter copyedited) the text from Serenity (franchise) to Firefly (franchise) after I discovered that the Serenity article could not be renamed (the Firefly article was being used, incorrectly, as a redirect). Even though deleting an AfD tends to cock up matters by orphaning the subsequently generated discussion page at AfD, I did not revert the AfD removal and held off finishing the AfD discussion page (I discovered the note from PG while previewing the discussion page at AfD). After PG offered the advice about requested page move instead, I agreed, and pursued that. Shortly thereafter, PG withdrew from the discussion, apparently bruised at being told how to actually address an AfD nomination, and subsequent commentary.

I had been planning on self-reverting when I received notification of this discussion by PG. I can see it has been reverted by Barneca pending the outcome of the requested move discussion. Sorry for any dramaz. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, Tan - what would Wikipedia be without your edgy comic relief? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A more serious encyclopedia, probably. Tan | 39 22:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we can go with that. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Historian19: copyright violations, disruptive editing and block evasions

I've just blocked indefinitely Historian19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for evading his block for the second time in less than 2 days (user:ScottishGunner and user:AlJoseph) —not including a number of IPs he's bragging about using anytime he'd want. Historian19 has created havoc in every article he edited (mainly copyright violations or very disruptive editing) and has bothered many respected editors and admins. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Octogenarian 1928 at Ed Trice article

Octogenarian 1928 (talk · contribs) is essentially a single-purpose account who has been performing multiple blanket reverts ([135],[136],[137],[138],[139]) usually with little to no justification, or with misleading edit summaries, or with nonsense like this.

These edits seem to be tag-team interleaved with those of GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs), who is the subject of the article, and has just been blocked for COI edit warring. Between them, they seem to be attempting to push me beyond 3RR to clear up their mess. I've already informed him that this behaviour isn't appropriate (e.g. [140]), and an admin has suspicisons that he may be a sock/meat ([141] - the "O" he refers to his Octogenarian).

Disclaimer: it's arguable that I'm only prolonging the edit warring with my participation, but at least I'm justifying my every move on the article's talk page! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I wasn't sure whether this should go here or at WP:AN3; the combination of edit warring, disruptive edit summaries, etc. and apparent SPA led me to list this here. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ho ho ho! I was already 38, had 4 kids, and divorced before Ed Trice was even born! Oh my belly laugh could bump a horse out the gate, as we say.

Octogenarian 1928 (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thom Hatch

An editor who may be the subject of the Thom Hatch article has used 5 IPs and one new named account to revert to a spammy version of the article 8 times in the past 24 hours (against 5 6 other editors). They will not discuss or use edit summaries, and even filed a fake report on a user[142] and then vandalized that user's page.[143] Could someone semi-protect the page and try to talk some sence into this person? NJGW (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Unban proposal for Rms125a@hotmail.com / User:Robert Sieger

Moved from WP:AN to here for greater visibility - Alison ^❤ 00:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Back last summer when this editor came up for a possible unban, I vowed that if he went six months without socking I'd open a new unban proposal on him myself. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive451#Proposed_conditional_unban_of_User:Rms125a.40hotmail.com Looks like he's held up his end of the bargain: see User:Alison/RMS log. Eliz81 has a set of conditions at User:Eliz81/RMS and has promised via e-mail that she'd support this proposal. She'll probably endorse shortly. Rms has waited on the sidelines as we've asked; let's give him another fair try. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 02:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What got him banned in the first place? Was it behavioral or what?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

More socks than Sock Shop. There are 340 listed, and probably a lot that were missed, not flagged, or not associated. Black Kite 02:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There are waaay more than that. RMS' socks go easily into the thousand - I, and others, just stopped logging them after a while - Alison ^❤ 05:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The links Durova provided say it all. RMS has quite a...colorful history, but he's really worked hard to hold up his end of the bargain since July. Let's give him another chance to be a member of the community, under the provisions laid out in my userspace. Though maybe this request belongs in WP:ANI? ~Eliz81^(C) 05:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops - I wasn't aware that this has started already, and I'm caught a little unawares. Let me just say that RMS promised both Eliz81 and myself that after the last unsuccessful unban request, he's stay clear of Wikipedia and his notorious cadre of sock accounts. Well, he's done exactly that and I've been checking up on him regularly using checkuser. His IP and other tech info makes him instantly spottable. In short, he's kept up his side of the bargain. I have a pmail here from Jimmy that I was CCd on stating that he'd "support [rms125a] on general principles, if [he has] not been sockpuppeting in the meantime.", when 6 months has passed. I can't believe he lasted this long without socking, but he kept up his side of the deal. BTW - I've been dealing with RMS for ... what ... over three years now, and know his ways very well indeed. I've blocked more of his socks than any other admin and indeed, was vilified on-line and in the letters page of a newspaper by Robert, back in 2006 - and yes, I'd still support his unban 100%.

Having said all that, if he's to be unbanned by the community, I'd like it to be on condition that he be placed on probation for 3-6 months under the Troubles Arbitration conditions. After a while, that can be reviewed. But yes, he's been out in the cold way too long and I believe that everyone (well, almost!) is entitled to redemption. RMS, while socking, has spent most of the year keeping out of his 'hot button' articles, and had spent a lot of time wikignoming on biographical articles, and on early movie actors, etc. Time to bring him back in out of the cold! - Alison ^❤ 05:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Eliz81's conditions are more appropriate than just Troubles Probation. I'd like to endorse that plan - Alison ^❤ 05:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support unban; if they kept to the conditions, and Durova and Alison confirm they have, then we should keep to ours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - although the conditions (specifically #4 and #9) should be written in such a way as to allow an account name change. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• The restrictions look pretty weasel-proof but I think three months probation is too short. A review after three months may be appropriate, but the probation should be in place for at least six and preferably twelve months - a year would be normal if ArbCom sanctioned someone whose history of disruption is of this magnitude. 80.176.82.42 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I see little point in parole; a violation of the conditions is going to result in a block, likely indefinite and therefore a resumption of the ban, no matter if the editor is on parole or not. With their history this account does not need the stigma of parolee to ensure severe repercussions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Call it probation, parole, agreed conditions, whatever - if there is no violation before everyone has forgotten the specifics then I think it won't be a problem. I just think that implying a three month limit to these restrictions is unhelpful in this case. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have a whole lot of visibility here. Mind if I move the thread to ANI? - Alison ^❤ 04:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Last time I checked email adresses were not suitable account names... - Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RMS's account was created before the September watershed, so he's okay there. That comes up all the time on WP:UAA. If needs be, he also has an account in his real name - Alison ^❤ 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The only issues are that we cannot grant userrights to accounts with an @ sign and afaik, they cannot SUL. MBisanz ^talk 15:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really an issue; this was one of the accounts that got grandfathered in before the change. BTW no objection if the thread moves to ANI, Allie. Durova^Charge! 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I am thinking more along the lines that if he ever wants any userright like Rollback or ever wants to SUL, he'll need to be renamed, which some people will claim he is doing to hide his past. But you are correct that it does not matter if he wants to keep the account. MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we're already into worrying about this stuff, does that mean he's unbanned? ^_^ Seriously, though, he also has User:Robert Sieger, which may well be the account that gets unblocked, all going well - Alison ^❤ 23:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why he was banned, what he has done since then, or if he should be unbanned, I'm just trying to head off the picky technical bickering that will ensue if the point is reached where a large number of people want to unban him and a large number of people want to prevent unbanning by arguing over details. Yes, I am jaded, but only because I've seen it so many times before. MBisanz ^talk 23:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

All bans should be publically reviewed after a certain period of time, if requested by the banned editor. Wikipedia risk being guilty of incivility if we don't because administrators can be quite rude by email. I have experience of being mistreated at by an administrator and even told threatened with gang rape by another Wikipedian. (Ryulong and Durova both posted here, Durova was nice. No comment about Ryulong, he'll probably block me if I say anything less than stellar). What would be a suitable period of time? 1 year? 18 months? This would encourage good behavior and not using sockpuppetry. Chergles (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A Couple Deletions Needed

A user created some pages for radio station KORB and kinda went overboard in creations. If an admin would be so kind, could they delete the follow as they are just redirects to the main KORB parent page.

Please delete the following:

• K218EN
• K289AS
• K300AO
• Broken Radio
• Broken fm
• KORB (FM)

Thanks in advance. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 27, 2009 @ 00:45

Why deletion? Redirects are cheap. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Would someone care to review the complaint of an unhappy customer?

Resolved

 – copyvio deleted at Commons and user blocked there by User:Mike.lifeguard; unblock request denied here by OhNoitsJamie; reblocked with inability to edit own talkpage by User:TravisTX. I think that should cover it. Bencherlite^Talk 02:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

See Doctorinth3tardis (talk · contribs) and this novel attempt to win friends and influence people. Oh, and a Commons admin may be interested in File:IHAVEEVERYRIGHTTOUPLOADTHISPHOTO.jpg. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cute. I think I'll upload a photo showing a dog with a gun pointing at its head, and title it "IFYOUDELETETHISPHOTOWE'LLSHOOTTHISDOG.jpg". Although I have a nagging suspicion that's been done already. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Trouble with new RFC at MOSNUM

Help. Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now deleting an RfC on WT:MOSNUM [144] This is intolerable. He is arguing about what old RfCs say in a fashion that misrepresents what editors understood and were voicing their opinions about, and then, when I try to clarify maters with a clear-as-glass RfC, he “archives” it. This is disruptive and must end. Greg L (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please keep in mind that we just had two RFCs barely a month ago (which were advertised in the watchlist notice for nearly a month). This editor is being disruptive by starting up yet another RFC while we're trying to engage in good faith discussion. What Greg L is engaging in is effectively a filibuster, and he should not be allowed to continue. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Links to prior RFCs: WT:MOSNUM/RFC and WP:MOSNUM/RFC, please note these are distinct RFCs (one is not the talk page of the other), and both were advertised in MediaWiki:Watchlist-details for many weeks, closing on Christmas day. This is a pure disruption and will not yield any clearer results than the community RFC recently did (which had over 100 participants). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. The deleted RfC began to shine new light on a topic that badly needed more discussion. Why was it deleted? I don't believe it was up to one person to make the decision to remove it.  HWV258  02:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I’ll answer that HWV258. No RfC is a “filibuster”. That is profoundly absurd. An RfC is a tool to find out what the true community consensus is after editors get locked into endless dispute about what previous RfCs mean. As for “engage[ing] in good faith discussion”, that sounds nice, but that is far from what Locke has been doing lately. He would much prefer tendentiously write for ever and ever about what the past RfCs mean and fears the obvious: that a new RfC to clarify these disputed points will not go his way. That is most unfortunate for him, but determining the community consensus is important to Wikipedia and he many absolutely not delete RfCs he disagrees with, particularly when he feeds everyone a line about how “we're trying to engage in good faith discussion”. There will now be more good-faith discussion: by others who will chose to participate in the RfC he so fears.

  Don’t delete it again, Locke. Any reasonable interpretation of your block log would suggest that you would have pulled this stunt and that you will do it again if given the chance. Greg L (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Whee, trot out my block log (most of it from 2006) as if that gives you license to be incivil to me, personally attack me, and engage in disruption. No Greg, you must stop. An RFC is a tool, and we've used it (twice! in the past two months), it's time to abide by the results received there rather than trying to go back for one more try. This is the problem at MOSNUM as a I see, you guys will ask, and ask, and ask again, until any reasonable person just gives in and quits. Then you get your way. And this behavior is not acceptable here. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nevermind the fact that there is an ongoing RFAR... Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, I think it is in the best interests of everyone involved to not delete the RFC. Doing so is not only disruptive, but can land potential editors with additional blocks. Let's not go down that road. seicer | talk | contribs 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)