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

User:Markacohen disruptive editing and forum shopping

Markacohen is a SPA whose main purpose is to add links to Holocaust denial sites into a range of articles. He claims to be an anti-Nazi and that he only wants to add them to "expose them as pseudo-science" and "shine the light of truths" into dark corners. He has come into conflict with a number of editors, has been blocked once for edit warring, and is now forum-shopping around Wikipedia, trying to sell a fairly creative interpretation of events. Methinks he does complain to much. This edit leads me to lay aside WP:AGF and assume that he is indeed a Neo-Nazi in disguise. I'd suggest a last warning or an immediate block. Input from other admins would be appreciated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I genuinely apologize for the edit warring and personal attacks I made initially, and was blocked for 2 days to think about it - which I did. During those 2 days, I apologized to everyone numerous times, and pledged to work within the system to resolve issues in a civil manner. During those 2 days I began reading the policies and procedures on how to properly overcome disputes. It is my genuine and honest desire to bring resolution to some issues which seem very ambigious, I am genuinely asking for help in these regards.

I am asking in good faith and with genuine honesty:

1. What is the proper way to seek resolution or help over the problem of Dougweller editing, deleting and modifying my discussion posts, which I believe are preventing a civil and neutral discussion of some very sensitive, taboo and controversial subjects?

2. Can someone please help me get accurate understanding of the rules and regulations on linking to hate sites from a hate article? I understand Holocaust Denial is a very sensitive subject, so please tell me how to properly, get resolution over someone deleting a reference link to the Leuchter Report, from the Leuchter Report article.

3. What does this mean, Wikipedia is not a collection of links? Whenever I post some external links in a hate article about the very hate article, I had WilliamH delete the links saying Wikipedia is not a hate collection of links.

4. What is a SPA?

I am asking in good faith, honesty and with genuine purpose for help in these regards. I do not want to fight, I make no personal attacks, I am criticizing certain behaviors that I believe are making open debate difficult in the discussion area. I know this articles are very sensitive subjects, i'm seeking how to work within the system for resolution, which is why I went to these various places asking for help.

Please help me or tell me, how I can reword my language or questions, so they are not adversarial or causing problems.

I apologize for anyones feelings I hurt, in anything I said. I am genuinely want to be a productive member of wikipedia.

Sincerely, Markacohen (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

An SPA is a single-purpose account. The accusation is that you're here to make some sort of point or prove some sort of truth. (I haven't gotten involved in this to know what's going on, just clarifying the terms.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for helping me out here. I genuinely would like to be here for the long run, not just on controversial areas. I have been reading Wikipedia for more years than I can count (love it to death!), and to be part of this project is an honor and a privilege for me. My interest isn't only in Holocaust Denial / Genocide Denial, I have many other interests as well. Although, right now I have gotten into some heated discussion regarding the Holocaust Denial areas and seeking resolution. If the Administrators want, I will voluntarily resign from Wikipedia or simply no longer contribute to areas concerning taboo or controversial subjects. It would make me sad beyond belief if I was banned and banished from Wikipedia. I am humbly asking to please not kick me out of this community, I genuinely believe I can be a valuable asset here once I learn the rules for resolving issues.

Sincerely, Markacohen (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You've accused me today of stopping links to the Leuchter report without mentioning that I was one of 4 editors reverting you, or that there has been a link to it (albeit not to the hate sites you are trying to add) since the 23rd. You've tried to add similar links to Germar Rudolf and complained on the talk page about me and another editor, despite the fact that your rationale is that people need to read what he wrote, and we already link to what he wrote. So all your links would do is add links to hate sites. You say you want to "make sure the proper and accurate keyword(s) Pseudo Science or Pseudo History" but you seem to do nothing about that. Your links are all to hate sites, it is other people who (since you started this) have added links to debunking sites. You get reverted by 4 other editors and won't accept that there is a consensus against you but go around complaing and asking for someone to help, although during your block you were given the link to dispute resolution.

Full disclosure - Markacohen has complained about me at Witiquette Alert [1] because when after being reverted he added the links to the talk page and I removed the 'http://' bits. Everyone involved knew what the links were. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we just do this like a week ago? //roux   16:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Stephan Schulz may be on to something here, but I'll continue to assume good faith for now and wouldn't endorse a sanction at this stage. Markacohen, I strongly advise you to drop this and edit something else entirely. Per WP:RS and for other reasons, we are extremely reluctant to include external links to extremist and similarly problematic websites, except where the sites themselves are the subject of the article. Each such link (like any other article text) needs editorial consensus, and the links you want to insert currently have not. You will be taken much more seriously in any discussion about this issue if you dedicate a few months to making useful contributions to entirely uncontroversial subjects, in order to demonstrate that you are serious about contributing to Wikipedia and not a throwaway account with some disruptive agenda.  Sandstein  16:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC) (Note: the preceding comment was added in parallel to those of Dougweller and Roux above, but for some reason there was no edit conflict.  Sandstein  16:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

I'd strongly recommend not to assume good faith anymore. What makes me think that "Mark A Cohen" (why would someone "mark a cohen", actually?) is at best a kind of agent provocateur is his claim Leuchter is an "engineer" ([2]), a claim that has been debunked several times in court and elsewhere and is held up only by fellow Holocaust deniers ([3]). Cheers, --RCS (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been at WP:EAR for the past few days too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI I closed the thread at WP:WQA to avoid forum shopping. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this discussion closed here? or are we still able to discuss things? After watching Mr. Death on google video, there is no doubt in my mind Fred Leuchter is an engineer. You don't have to have a degree in engineering to be an engineer, it is possible to become an engineer through real life experience. I personally abhor Fred Leuchter. I abhor the message of the Leuchter Report. Just because someone is a Holocaust Denier, it does not make them not an engineer. Fred Leuchter being a bad man doesn't take away the fact he is a skilled engineer in execution technology. Please stop with the personal attacks calling me Agent Provocateur and other insulting personal attacks.

Please stop with the personal attacks and stop trying to change the subject about the lack of substance and merit in your arguments. Can we please consolidate this discussion in one area? so I do not have to go all over the place to follow up?

Markacohen (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The diff brought forward by Stephan Schulz and the inclination to refer to Leuchter as an engineer when he isn't one in this context, even by his own written admission lead me to believe that we are not dealing with a good faith contributor. Furthermore, I have not reverted any of Mark Cohen's links on the basis that they are hate sites, but on the basis that Mark keeps adding them so that the reader can "come to their own opinion" - about a matter which is not a matter of opinion.

This is a flagrant violation of WP:FRINGE, and a completely nonsensical position if Mark opposes Holocaust denial as he says he does - yet another reason why I'm inclined to believe that User:Markacohen is a SPA/Holocaust denier trying to proliferate Holocaust denial material. I would endorse an indefinite block. WilliamH (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi WilliamH,

The whole basis of me linking to the Leuchter Report, from the Leuchter Report articles is because if you are going to properly write an article about the Leuchter Report you should link to the original source. I did so on this basis:

Extremist and fringe sources Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and Wikipedia:PSCI

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,[3] or extremist may be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals, especially in articles about those organisations or individuals, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources;

An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance.

I am more than happy to have all those hate documents put on www.Archive.org so that we do not promote all those hate sites, which if this would be the best solution to stop the revert wars and the personal attacks against me. I would rather promote neutral sites, then hate sites. However, if there are no Neutral web sites I think it is reasonable under the guidelines I posted above to link to a hate site from an article about that same very hate. I would infinitely prefer we link to a neutral site than a hate site.

What do we do in situations where, there isn't a neutral site to link to, but only a hate site? Even though its legitimate to link to hate sites if the article is about hate, I don't want to upset you, RCS, DougWeller, jpgordon and anyone else who I consider to be on the Light side of the force if you know what I mean.

WilliamH, I want to work with you, not be adversaries. I don't think you realize we are on the same team, we both hate Holocaust Deniers, Haters, Extremists and Racists. However, i think we should put our sensitive and personal feelings aside and work towards making wikipedia neutral and keep our own political biases out of it. Can we burry the hatchet and work together to make Wikipedia an even better place? I forgive you for and anyone else that made personal attacks against me, even if they are sometimes couched.

Lets please try to work together and not fight.

Markacohen (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• More evidence to suggest that we are not dealing with a good faith contributor. WilliamH (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks.

We finally came to consensus on Leuchter Report and found a way to link to the specific and relevant reference without linking to a hate site. You should be happy we came to Consensus, not turn this into an opportunity to make personal attacks. I am a good faith contributor, I worked within the system and we achieved consensus. Today is a great day!

Markacohen (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but will you PLEASE stop making flat out wrong claims? We did not "finally find a way" - the link has been in the article for 4 days, and this has been pointed out to you over and over again. It's just that you suffer from an incredible case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I say leave the man alone, I don't agree with that Link being in place on the Leucther Report article but well they want it there and I don't really think that all of them are Neo-Nazis so fine they can have their link and this guy Markachoen isn't doing anything worse than anyone else around.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I always think it's considerate when sockpuppets report themselves at ANI and save us the trouble... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with William–some things do not add up here, and with the sockpuppetry above, I'd support a block. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What's a sock puppet or sock puppetry? Markacohen (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

See Sock puppet & WP:SOCK. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

someone on my personal page posted I am a sock puppet, im getting tired of the slander and personal attacks against me. What do I need to do to stop the personal attacks against me? And stop the abuse and slanderous finger pointing at me? Markacohen (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, being labelled a "sock" or "sockpuppet" is only a violation of WP:NPA if they fail to submit the SSI/SSP request to back it up. "SSI or STFU". (see User:Bwilkins) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you please be so kind as to elaborate on what SSI/SSP request to back it up. "SSI or STFU" means, how the process works, and how long she has to file this report before it becomes a personal attack?

Markacohen (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note that User:194x144x90x118 has already been blocked as a sockpuppet on the basis of the account's behaviour in relation to Markacohen's. WilliamH (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain how the user name User:194x144x90x118 is associated with me? I'd really like an explanation to this false accusation. I have a right to know why and what proof my name is being slandered as a sock puppet. I'm really getting tired of these personal insults. Personal attacks: I've been called Agent Provocateur (RCS), SPA (RCS), Posing as a Jew (RCS), Sock Puppet (FisherQueen), and many other insults couched or overt. I would like this uncivilized behavior to stop.

Markacohen (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered you may have actually blocked a real person? Not a poser or someone trying to pretend to be me or sock puppetting? You're meritless and substanceless and proofless accusation towards the oddly named user may have resulted in banning a legitimate person. Banning a legitimate person who committed no crimes is in my opinion a serious abuse of privilege and people IMHO who abuse their high privileges do not deserve them IMHO. IMHO, we expect the people who are given power in position of authority not to make rash thoughtless and careless decisions. Does this make sense? In other words, where is your proof this guy was sock puppetting? Inquiring minds want to know.

Markacohen (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a checkuser would care to comment? WilliamH (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reporting as requested. ;-)

Having looked into this, I have not seen any IP evidence that would support Markacohen and 194x144x90x118 being the same person.

James F. (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that James. I wouldn't call 194x144x90x118's behaviour disruptive, although certainly suspicious. WilliamH (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you guys break down some of these Wikipedia acronyms, slang words and technical terms into laypersons terms? Can someone please explain what IP evidence means? Can someone please explain what hard evidence or facts are being used as the basis for slandering my name and defiling my personal page?

"Suspicious" and "Disruptive"? or more false accusations without substance against other innocent people? That is the question!

I looked at the less than a dozen or so edits / comments this guy made in total. I did not see anything disruptive or suspicious per say by user User: 194x144x90x118 other than it is clear from his comments / contributions this guy is a newbie like me. I did see him debating or commenting in the controversial and taboo articles discussion areas. Are these words "Suspicious" and "Disruptive" meant to be "conspiratorial" political code words for people who don't agree with the sort of emerging group of politically aligned cohorts? Can people have alternative opinions without being labeled with keywords which result in their termination? I humbly ask these question because I can't see anything disruptive or suspicious this user did, the only thing suspicious and disruptive I see is permanently banning this user without any basis of fact, evidence, substance or merit. The only "suspicious" and "disruptive" behavior I see is the defiling of my personal page with Sock Puppet scarlet letters and the slander and personal insults against my name.

I don't know this guy from a hole in the wall, but what I see is a green newbie being terminated because of a "hunch", "suspicion" or "feeling". These actions are a blatant misuse and abuse of power, which is in and of itself suspicious and disruptive behavior if you ask anyone with a sense of fairness and neutrality. Completely unacceptable and abusive behavior against another newbie.

Now, back to the new issue at hand, can I please have the debasing, personally insulting and defiling of my personal page with sock puppet banners removed? As well as an apology for accusing me of being a sock puppet as a "feeling" accusation and slander without merit and substance!

I didn't come here to endlessly War against some kind of entrenched political and emotional sort of sowing circle for a lack of a better word! My G*D is this the pledging process in Wikipedia ? I came here with the genuine purpose of learning how the policies, procedures and rules of wikipedia work and hopefully someday become a learned elder who has made valuable contributions to the content of wikipeda. I make no personal attacks towards anyone in particular, my criticism is towards the disruptive, uncivilized and unproductive behavior directed towards me.

I am humbly asking nicely and politely for the personal insults directed at my account to please be removed and for this drama against me to stop. I hope you would consider my humble request for the personal insults whether couched or direct which have been directed at me to stop. I genuinely want to contribute to Wikipedia and work in consensus towards making the controversial and taboo articles more neutral.

Friendliest and humblest of all possible regards

Markacohen (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mark, you are free to delete anything you want from your user and talk pages with a couple of exceptions, there's no problem with that. Read this: Wikipedia:User page

Dougweller (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear DougWeller,

With veneration and humblest regards, I do have a concern, in the hopes of not instigating any more drama against me.

The problem I'm concerned with is that User:FisherQueen is an admin. Even if User:FisherQueen did potentially abuse her power with baseless accusations and slander, I don't want to get punished for deleting her libel against me on my personal page. Can you assure me I won't be banned for removing the empty and false accusation made by an administrator on my page? I seriously, don't want any more problems and I don't want to agitate any more of her admin or editor friends to harass me. I'm already dealing with a sort of sowing circle for a lack of a better word which hounds me and follows me around looking for every opportunity to insult me. Can you pretty please guarantee I won't be punished for removing the personal attack, factless, substanceless, baseless, libelous, slanderous banner from my personal page? I don't mean to be overly cautious here, but I really would like all this harassment against me to stop and I do not want to give any more excuses to be harassed.

Please assure me! I genuinely would like this war against me to stop, so we can get on with our lives and focus on making the content on Wikipedia more neutral with less emotional feelings and politics.

Thank you for all your help.

Seriously, I look forward to learning and growing my knowledge of wikipedia and I thank all the patient souls out there who genuinely care enough to help a newbie like me become more acquainted with the policies and procedures.

To the editors and admins above, who argued for neutrality on my behalf, I commend you to the highest and bow in respect to your determination and dedication to excellence.

Markacohen (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• I echo what Doug says above - you may do as you please (within reason) to pages in your userspace. However, be mindful that removing warnings from your talk page is taken as indication that you have acknowledged them. WilliamH (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fisherqueen was in error and has unblocked the account and apologised to both that editor and Markacohen. I now ask MarkaCohen to do what he should have done (see again WP:AGF) and apologise for the language used in attacking Fisherqueen.

I will here apologize to everyone.

Markacohen (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiplyperfect

Can somebody take a close look at the contributions of Multiplyperfect (talk · contribs) and possibly take action in light of Obama article probation. There aren't many so it shouldn't be too hard, but the user has been given warnings and still continues. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 19:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, he knows he's on his last chance. If another admin feels that he's gone too far, I will support any reasonable sanction. Note that this is essentially an SPA so a block and ban would be roughly synonymous. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed in this case the editor has been warned a number of times. I do wonder, however, if experienced editors should be more careful when dealing with new SPAs who exhibit troll-like behavior. The potential is high that accounts like this are just socks, or editors here just to pull our leg. But assuming good faith, it may well be a young or inexperienced editor who simply has a fascination for negative Obama trivia and wants to explore that here on Wikipedia. If you have a fascination however unhealthy with antique steam engines or species of extinct insects, and you add a whole bunch of little snippets about that to the encyclopedia, you're welcomed and gently guided to the appropriate style guidelines, content policies, and behavior rules. An editor whose fascination happens to be conservative politics gets much rougher treatment. My fear is that these people may be well meaning, just misguided. Calling them trolls on the talk page, cursing at them, taunting, insulting, etc., may well be a self-fulfilling accusation because it may sour them on the project and fuel any paranoia they may have about Wikipedia being a censorship cabal. Just a thought. We'll probably deal with this question in more depth in the arbcom hearing. Meanwhile, can I ask for some courtesy and decorum even when dealing with trouble? Wikidemon (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

An editor who posts "little snippets" about antique steam engines that are factually incorrect or intended to "pull our leg" would be dealt with in exactly the same way, and rightfully so. Nothing to do with politics or "decorum", everything to do with maintaining the accuracy and reliability of the reference resource we're supposedly building here. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the ideal for sure. But (1) we can't presume bad faith - my concern regards the possibility that some are misguided newbies, not intentionally misbehaving, and (2) even in the worst case scenario, it does more harm than good to harangue trolls on an article talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd expect a good faith newbie to react in some way to policy/guideline links and explanations being posted on their user talk page. In this case, the user just seems to keep on going. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

User is clearly not here to contribute constructively. Time to show them the door. Mike R (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The user has been adequately warned, and indeed SheffieldSteel bent over backwards to explain the situation. I think we are easily at the point where the next talk page note along the lines of this one will mean an indef block and I would certainly implement that myself. I don't think we need to stress about this because it will be over one way or another shortly, though I do want to echo the gist of what Wikidemon said above about assuming good faith on these articles, hard as that may be at times. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This guy is wasting our time, either he's incapable of "getting it" or simply doesn't want to. The articles are on probation, so it would not be a problem to tell him to find a different set of articles to actually *edit*, you know as he's clearly a good faith contributor (can I get one order of rolling eyes over here?) and that's better than an outright block. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose all of you are right, but I must say that I'll be sorry to see him go: I find his regular curt demands for inclusion of this or that (not always comprehensible) evidence of alleged failure by Obama (together with his statements that without such inclusion the article depicts Obama as a "Superman") a fairly reliable source of unintended amusement. I regret that at least once (when I suggested that he might enjoy Wonkette instead of Wikipedia), I didn't entirely avoid expressing this; I'll try harder in the future. Quite how he managed to generate this fucking reaction mystifies me, but I infer that others actually take him seriously. Anyway, if there is a topic ban, I predict that his enthusiasm for toppling the false god that is Obama, combined with his Olympian disregard for the qualms of others, will bring him back as another username -- whereupon he'll be easy to spot, thanks not only to his obsessions but also to his distinctively unidiomatic English. Hoary (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

His antics might be amusing to some, but for most editors his activity wastes time and frustrates efforts to improve Barack Obama. I'd suggest he was an SPA, but his comments are so indecipherable that I'm not even sure what his agenda might be. Thus far, he has been no use to the project whatsoever. Any administrator thinking of banning or blocking may wish to consider checking 166.135.220.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which may or may not have been used by the same editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What to do about the editor is a completely different question than the appropriateness of everyone's response on the talk page. The editor's posts to the Obama talk page proposing inappropriate material, forum-style chat mocking Obama, bizarre comments, and a newfound incivility, are all continuing despite a "last warning" and being notified of this discussion. I really can't tell if the person is deliberately trolling or socking, misguided in their concerns, or just acting weird. It seems unlikely that yet another warning would help, though it does not hurt either - we just get one more strange proposal or incivility at worst. It's so over the top that it's just a time waste, not a flash-point that causes a more widespread dispute. Under the circumstances a block certainly would not raise eyebrows. Wikidemon (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I blocked the editor for 24 hours after a review of their latest contributions, and before reading this thread. I would just like to say that I don't think a ban would have been functionally any different to a block, as this editor has not edited any non-Obama-related page. Feedback is invited, though, and I wouldn't oppose unblocking in favour of a (longer) ban. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

More edit-warring by Badagnani

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

Same old story as documented in his RfC/U, the many 3RR reports on him, and most recently, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532#User:Badagnani.

This time he reverts 17 edits made by three editors (myself, Quiddity, and Gwalla) [4], then reverts Quiddity's attempt to restore the material: [5].

His contribution to the talk page between these two edits, and only recent comment even vaguely relevant to his reverts, is one about working together: [6] --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been involved in several disputes with Badagnani. I'm currently involved in one now with him, on Talk:Buddha's delight. But the way I approach the issue with him, is much different than how others do it. I use the discussion page and wait a bit. My experience tells me that Badagnani has only the best intentions for Wikipedia, but his method is somewhat eccentric. It seems that he expects other editors to understand and agree with his POV without much fuss, as if we were all inside his head along with him. This perspective often leads to edit wars because frustration levels rise on both sides. I think if we all calmly use the talk page with Badagnani, things will work themselves out and everyone will be happy. I would like Badagnani to make an effort to put himself in the minds of others for once, and in this example, I would like to see him try to understand where Ronz is coming from. Far too often, Badagnani puts us in his head, and that isn't reasonable. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen he just repeats his point of view, and reverts any changes against as "massive blanking", or has his MO changed? Verbal chat 10:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That is certainly one way of looking at it, but there are multiple perspectives on it. I'm coming from a different POV. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that Wikipedia has many different personalities, and it takes a certain kind of person to use this site for any period of time. Some people have strengths in one area, and serious weakness in another. Badagnani does a great deal of good work here, but when it comes to dealing with anyone who disagrees with him, he has problems. As others have mentioned in previous/ongoing discussions, Badagnani needs a mentor. I've found that he is open to reason, but it takes some effort to get there, and some editors find it easier to edit war. Simply saying that "he repeats his POV and reverts any changes" could apply to many editors here. Looking at my discussion with him on Talk:Buddha's delight, I think Badagnani makes some really good points, but the chasm between the way he goes about doing things and general policy and guidelines is very wide. All I'm saying is let's at least try to bridge that gap with more discussion. After some discussion, Badagnani does get around to compromising, but we all need to work towards that goal together. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've been at Talk:Buddha's delight too, and see nothing different: the usual false accusations of stalking, and Badagnani revert-warring to keep completely unsourced material on grounds of appeal to personal status - "An enormous amount of research went into the writing of this article (by a WP veteran)". Why should the rest of us have to compromise to humour an editor who is at odds with a long list of content/conduct policies, guidelines and conventions, and is producing a trail of substandard material and bad interactions alongside whatever good? It's not merely about style of handling disagreements; he appears not to understand stuff such as the importance of WP:V, and how we don't write articles by personal compilation of primary sources. 86.148.152.232 (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please put aside your anger and try to see this with clear and calm eyes. I wasn't asking anyone to compromise against their will. I'm asking for those involved to take a different approach, one that works harmoniously towards a satisfactory resolution rather than the edit warring and reverting that seems to follow the same group of editors who complain about Badagnani again and again. Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at the page history of the article in question, List of gamelan ensembles in the United States, I see 153 peaceful edits (many by Badagnani) from inception on 29/01/2006 to 25/03/2009, that is roughly 50 per year. There have been over 150 edits to the page since Ronz's first edit on 24/02/2009 (50 in the last 2 days), not to mention 2 afds and much heat on the talk page and several user talk pages. It seems to me that Ronz, having manifestly and deliberately stirred up an edit-war on and about this page, is now complaining about it. A simple solution would be for Ronz to remove the page from his watchlist and police the other million or so list pages, many of which are far worse than this one. There is List of symphony orchestras in the United States, for instance. Or is just Eastern lists that need attention (cf List of Chinese music ensembles in the United States, afd'd and deleted by Ronz et al)? Occuli (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's comments like these are the best support that Badagnani gets for his tendentiousness, then he most definitely needs a block. Arguments that assume bad faith and intentional disruption are of no help. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith has been amply demonstrated on this particular list; AGF was exhausted long ago. Ronz has now (yesterday) followed the 2 unsuccessful afds with an immediate rfc on the talk page. I would consider a block on Ronz for perfecting a new variety of Wikihounding, WikiPitBulling or similar. The jaws are locked and there is no respite in sight. I take it that it is just Badagnani-related lists that are to be subjected to RonZealotry. (I am watching List of symphony orchestras in the United States, a Badagnani-unrelated list.) Occuli (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You made me check to see if you were an admin, because you're saying like above. Don't make such the wrong impression to others. I see your bad faith instead.--Caspian blue 11:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Badagnani again. I warned him at Talk:Nokdumuk last Sunday not to further edit war with editors, but that does not work obviously. At that time, he may have breached or been close to 3RR violation to several articles as wiki-stalking his another opponent. My suggestion is just to report Badagnani to WP:AN3. No need for further him indulging in endless edit warring. Even before Ronz and Badagnani battle, Badagnani has been always edit warring with multiple editors for his nonsensical insistence and made bogus accusations like "blanking". If I would've reported his 3RR violations, his blocks (more than 4 blocks perhaps?) would have been piled on. Enough is enough. Mentorship? Who's gonna take the hard job? One admin failed it already. I guess Viriditas will do the honor.--Caspian blue 13:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I am pleased to announce that my discussion with Badagnani on Talk:Buddha's delight has led to fruitful results. Perhaps this demonstrates that a calm and direct discussion with Badagnani can work. In the future, I hope more editors will engage Badagnani in this manner. It is the least we can do for our fellow editors. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Why do you think I have not reported him once to ANI/AN3 regardless of his numerous 3RR violations and wrongdoing to me and editors for a long time? Badagnani wikistalked not only me but also other editors (Jeremy, Tanner-Christopher, Melonbarmonster) to harass them. I was once in your position - I created many articles or edited per his requests and persistent nagging - and did discussion with him in calm manner with patience, but that did not make him changed a bit. He is still doing the same behaviors and I gave up my hope that he will be changed. Please do not boast your one time effort. I still recall "your dreadful threats" to Eugene. What a first impression.--Caspian blue 10:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I may have been here longer than you, and I have been involved in other disputes with Badagnani. These things have always worked themselves out to completion. We cannot "change" others, only ourselves. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but if the user is blatantly ignoring and disregarding the RFC against him and continuing to engage in the activity that has led to the RFC in the first place, then, as has been done in the past with other users, a block may be necessary and probably an indef one until the user decides to address the RFC. MuZemike 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, IMO, the RFC was started as a vendetta against Badagnani, and some of the editors participating there (both in the creation of the RFC and as commentators) were hounding Badagnani to the point of following his contribution list and reverting all of his edits in retaliation. To me at least, the RFC was made in bad faith, although some of the concerns there are of course, legitimate. It's akin to catching flies with honey, and this RFC is dripping with vinegar. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• As an aside, see Talk:Music of southern China#Merges. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Edokter edit-warring, gaming the system, incivility

Edokter (talk · contribs) is growing somewhat prickly in the Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) article. This is much the same sort of argument that was brought to light a few weeks ago, and the arguments are essentially the same. After it was decided that opinions as to inclusion or exclusion of certain info in the article, most of us decided to participate in mediation to get a neutral voice into the discussion, and help solve the issue. I am not going to go into it, as its a content issue.

After Edokter decided to participate in the mediation, he expressed his opinion (along with the rest of us). However, his opinions, which included singling me out for specific personal attacks, started again, increasing in intensity until it boiled over a little while ago. Despite the fact that mediation and discussion is ongoing in article talk, Edokter suddenly and unilaterally decided that discussion over and has repeatedly added the same information into the article, complete with veiled threats in the edit summaries of these additions. Again, I am not discussing the content of these edits, but it bears mentioning in addition to seeking to end-run the mediation without anything approximating a consensus, the information he is adding doesn't match the citations.

This has happened a few times before, and at least once before in this article that I am aware of. I am unsure how to proceed, as Edokter's tone in the discussion has gone from unpleasant to hostile. If he doesn't want to mediate, he shouldn't sign up for it.

Lastly, I am reporting this here because Edokter has a history of blocking those editors with whom he disagrees with in article discussion. I'd prefer to not be subjected to that again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Page has been protected for 1 week. I don't have a comment on the behavioral issues. Would you mind posting a few diffs which exemplify the behavior (I've read the two you linked)? Also, have you informed him of this thread? Protonk (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I did, moments after posting here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, figured I would ask. Protonk (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

History of blocking? Incivility? Really... Put the evidence on the table or shut up! Let's see what is happening here. Arcayne has an opinion, and needs 1,208,465 posts to meake his position clear, even though is is going completely against consensus. Yet he keeps beating the dead horse and declares all other opinions 'against policy'... at least his interpretation of it.

This is a content dispute, and the mediator hasn't chimed in yet, yet Arcayne removes the infomrmation anyway. Pot, meet kettle. Arcayne, you need to stop it. I invite all available administrators to go to Talk:Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica), see the entire discussion, then finally see the complete and utter nonsense that Arcayne has been poisoning the talk page with. And deal with it this time! Seriously folks, had I been an uninvolved party, I would have blocked Arcayne indeed. I want closure now. — Edokter • Talk • 23:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you blocked me over a content dispute you were actively involved in with me less than 6 months ago, and were universally lambasted. Are you saying you do not recall? Have you already forgotten that this exact same uncivil, attacking behavior less than 3 weeks ago fueled the last ANI complaint? In the very same article. Did you forget that you threw a tantrum over edits not going your way and sent the article for AfD? And this is just your interaction with me.

This complaint is not over a content dispute. I am interacting with others who disagree, and yet they haven't decided to get muddy, yet you have. Twice in this article alone. This is behavior I have seen in you in at least three different articles, and not just directed at me. I am no angel, but I've been polite, professional and civil here. You haven't.

You decided you were done discussing, and said so. After you made your third revert, adding information that was specifically the subject of the mediation. Since the mediator - as you said - hasn't chimed in, you were fully aware that the edits were disruptive. We block editors for that sort of crap, Edokter. That you are an admin and doing this is disturbing. That you have to be told this repeatedly is more so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And my basic complaint is you beating a dead horse. You are unable to concede. You are acting against consensus. Looking at the talk page, you take up 80%, simply because you refuse to acknowledge other viewpoints and try to force the issue, using remarks like "you as an admin should know", mis-applying policies and utilizing edit-warring and system-gaming to force the issue. No, Arcayne, this is indeed purely a behaviour issue, and it is your behaviour that is being discussed. You have a history (and a block log to show for it) of disruptive editing and tirteless discussions against consensus, and this one is no different. — Edokter • Talk • 10:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And, as has been pointed out before, there is no consensus for that which you seek to add. This is why we sought a mediation. And I wouldn't be too quick to point to my block log; you added to it in an abuse of your tools and were chastised here for it, and calls for your de-sysopping were set aside with the explicit caveats that if there was a reccurrence of this behavior, removing the mop might have to be discussed. You've clearly shown that you are willing to use your admin tools to seek an upper hand in a discussion (evidenced by the proposed article ban below). The difference between an editor and an admin is that if an editor has a problem with another user, they have to come here and explain the problem to others, who decide what to do. An admin can simply block/ban the editor they are angry at. Block logs cannot be scrubbed of bad blocks, so an admin needs to exercise better restraint than you have in this matter. That is why I keep pointing out that "you are an admin, and should know this". You should know, and clearly do not.

Part of the problem is that the mediator initiated discussion in article talk as opposed to a page set up for the mediation. That, and the fact that the mediator hasn't weighed in for a number of days might mean that the mediator is inexperienced. Admin eyes might be helpful, both as a calmative as well as acting as de facto mediators to the issue. The more the merrier.

I have not contributed to the article discussion, as I am waiting for the mediator to weigh in. My reverting of material added by Edokter was an attempt to stem an end-run of the mediation. Since reporting here, I have not offered any discussion- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Article ban for Arcayne

You are hereby banned from Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica). Any edit you make will immediately be reverted. This ban will not be lifted until another admin has fully reviewed your behaviour on that article and posted his assesment here; Or you step back from the dead horse and concede to consensus, apologize to all involved and get on with your life.

To ohter admins; The lack of response is disappointing, and it is forcing me to seek other people's involvement. I will not accept any blanket unbanning if that person has not evaluated Arcayne's behaviour first. It is time to remove the only force that has prevented this article from inproving (it could have been featured by now). — Edokter • Talk • 10:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hereby"? Good lord, Edokter, you are evidently an involved party here. This "article ban" is quite obviously null and void, unless there should be a consensus by uninvolved admins first. Trying to push this through on your own whim is itself serious admin misconduct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Then tell me... what do I have to do to get another admin to evaluate the situation? I have to take some action to get others involved. I cannot do this by myself. The silence by other admins is quite shocking too... So I simply have no choice. — Edokter • Talk • 11:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

go and ask one on their talk page?  rdunnPLIB  11:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tell me... What sort of fool do you have to be to do precisely what the other party said you might, and use your sysop privileges in a dispute in which you are the other party? How many hours has it been since Arcayne first posted? How many days since mediation was first started? Do you know something about the encyclopedia having an input cut-off date in the next month or so? Are you not prepared to allow othere sysops to review the situation and agree what actions should be taken? What are you thinking in demanding that no admin may "reverse" your unilateral and partisan ban without conducting the review that you were too impatient to wait for before acting? Without looking into any part of the content dispute, I should say that you have justified Arcaynes original comment here beyond question - you are demonstrably unable to separate your editing and your adminning. I think, at the very least, you should strike through your first two paragraphs in this section, and wait until your fellow contributors have had time to review and comment on the situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am the fool that has been trapped in one of Arcayne's carefully set up traps. His sole intention is to get me to loose it and then yell "See? I'm right!" This issue has been brought to ANI many time, either by me or Arcayne. Each time met by a deafening silence. I HAVE to force the issue because up until now, not a singe admin has taken any steps toward even evaluating the issue. So any comment here that start with "Well, I haven't looked at the situation yet, but..." is also automatically null and void. And as soon as I strike my ban, it will only be a signal to other admins that "things have died down again, move along..." Well, not this time. The ONLY way to resolve this is for another admin to actively investigate the situation and post a review. Seriously, I have been left here to dry, and I can simply not imagine any other way to have another neutral admin involved. Justified or not, this has been ignored long enough. Thsink what you will. You are welcome to reverse the ban, but I demand that an uninvolved admin look into the whole situation. I am really disappointed at the lack of interest by other admins to even try and resolve this. — Edokter • Talk • 13:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been following the above dispute, but haven't commented recently since I thought the mediator had matters in hand. The ban declaration above should be struck out; it has no community support and its impropriety is quite clear after the most trivial reading of WP:UNINVOLVED. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I hereby propose that Arcayne be banned from Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) for a period of six months. The reason is that he is the sole disruptive force on that article. He refuses to concede to consensus, blocking any improvement to the article by way of edit-warring and generally continuing to beat the dead horse, which include requesting mediation for the sole purpose of dragging the issue. I surely hope for a lot of comments, because any lack thereof will default to no opposition. — Edokter • Talk • 15:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I oppose such a ban. There actually isn't a consensus for the information currently being debated, and I am most certainly not the only one who is opting for the point of view which created a deadlock. That deadlock created the need for the mediation. Since then, the four users - two on one side of the issue and two on the other - have spent inordinate amounts of time rehashing the same issue, and no one is budging. At that point, I suggested repeatedly that we all stop talking and wait for the mediator to weigh in. That seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

I am certainly not seeking to be disruptive, though if disagreeing with Edokter on inclusion matters equals disruptive, then both myself and another user are guilty of that. Three different users have argued against that which Edokter wishes to add (to whit, some names of robots), which, in a group of four would seem to constitute a consensus of sorts. Another matter is also being mediated, which Edokter has largely avoided discussing.

I think that the larger part of the problem appears to be a more specific issue with Edokter towards myself - I certainly don't seek him out (why would I want to?). We share many of the same topic interests (Doctor Who, Battlestar Galactica, etc.) but little in the way of editing style. I like discussion. Edokter has shown he doesn't, preferring quick action and fait accompli. Both are valid styles, though the first takes longer to find an enduring consensus, and the latter creates a lot more dramahz before getting to a consensus.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone should interpret a lack of response as tacit support for a ban proposal. A better interpretation, I think, would be apathy and/or conflict fatigue. For what it's worth, I don't think a ban is the right solution. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Both persons are long-term, established editors who simply ought to know better. There comes a time in many of these disputes where one party needs to simply pause, realize that the other is not a troublemaker or a kook violating WP:FRINGE (or whatever the policy is called), & because that means there is a reasonable chance the other may actually be right pick one of the other 2.8 million articles to work on. -- llywrch (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd. Edokter, the best path for you would not be to immediately confirm Arcayne's allegations by announcing a unilaterial topic ban. why don't you just step away from this dispute? Also, for what it is worth, I oppose the topic ban. Again, no comment on the merit of the allegations made, but I don't think that you should be proposing one and I certainly don't want silence confused for consent in this case. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Review of article talkpage and mediation

I hope I never have to regret the 15 minutes of my life reviewing the article talkpage... From my review of the pages, it appears that Arcayne is insisting upon a stringent interpretation of WP:OR on two matters, over which there has been an edit war. Edoktor and another editor are arguing on a looser interpretation of WP:OR, or WP:RS as applied to this matter. I see no resolution to this content dispute. I note that mediation has been initiated, and that again there appears to be no resolution. I have asked the mediator ErikTheBikeMan to respond here regarding how he views the present situation regarding the mediation - has it stalled/concluded.
In awaiting for the mediators response, I would comment that my conclusions is that Arcayne's actions are in good faith and in keeping with his interpretation of Wikipedia's policies - and that he should not be banned from the article (pending ETBM's response, at the least). I am more concerned with Edokter's actions, although I believe them also to be in good faith as regards the content dispute. I see processes in place for the resolution of the content dispute, yet they deciding to act before that case is resolved or noted as stalled. I also see increasing belligerence between the parties, but until the comment linked to by Arcayne in his initial comment regarding this matter no indication that the dispute was not going to be resolved in an appropriate manner.
Unless there are examples of Edokter mixing editing disputes with improper sysop actions as regards other editors, I do not see that there needs to be a RfC or RfAR on Edoktor's retaining the bit - it is understood that there is a history between the two editors which should not detract from the rest of their contributions to the encylopedia.
Lastly, if any other admin or editor wants to review the matter and post their views then please do - the more opinions the more sound will be any conclusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, the core of the probelm is left out, namely that of consensus, no matter how narrow. It there are two editors who are in favor of inclusion, and one against, it should be clear what should happen. Arcayne has a history of ignoring consensus in his firm belief that his interpretation of policy supersedes any consensus. That is what we shoulld be focussing on. More comments welcome. — Edokter • Talk • 20:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

One person saying the sky is blue is not negated by two others who think it is grey/green - nor, such is WP, the other way round; WP is not a !vote or a democracy, but a project built around references and policy. I am willing to wait for the mediator to comment upon the state of that process before considering how to progress the dispute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If and when the mediator will actually mediate, I am most interested to hear what he has to say. This is a matter on interpretation of policy, both having merits, in which case the one that leads to improving the article should be adopted. I believe Arcayne's interpretation is not valid. — Edokter • Talk • 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but that is why being a disputant and using the bit in that dispute is to be separated - you may be right, but it isn't your call to decide upon that. Hopefully my request to the mediator will provide some imputus in the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but two are in favor of exclusion, and two are in favor of inclusion in one part of the mediation. In another point, three are in favor of exclusion, so far as the specific point of Edokter's desired inclusions. I'm not seeing this consensus Edokter is keeps claiming. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And as for previous occasions of using the bit like a hammer, there is the ANI from March. I think there are others, but most of you admins have had a lot more contact than I have had with him. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That is another case in which you are involved. I don't think that a review of Edokter's general sysop conduct is going to happen, so it may be best to concentrate on resolving this particular matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I disagree with it, but I will concede that more evidence is necessary to undertake such. If (and hopefully not when) that happens again, I trust that such would be on the table for serious discussion. I think we all agree that admins, while being editors with extra tools, unwittingly set the tone for Wikipedia, and the bad behavior of one affects all admins. If we want to maintain the quality of admins that we have in place, I think we need to be willing to consider the idea of reaffirmation of the bit. Treating adminship like an appointment for life seems short-sighted and clique-ish; perhaps periodic re-evaluations by their peers would be a better path.

Again, my motivation for posting here was not to get Edokter de-sysopped, but rather to point out some bad behavior that was escalating out of control, and to protect myself from admin-type retribution from an admin who wasn't above using the bit to gain the upper hand in an argument. As we can see from above, it wasn't an unwise step to do so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• The mediator has not edited in over two days, and I am now too involved to be considered a neutral party - please can some other editors/admins look over this matter and see if there is a legitimate content dispute that might be taken to an RfC if there is no mediation soon, or if any party needs to be sanctioned in regard to this matter. It isn't fair to either side that this needs to wait for someone to log back in. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens' comments

I am one of the other two editors involved, who happens to agree with Edokter's position, but not his conduct. Arguing with Arcayne can be frustrating, but as others have observed above, it's not reasonable to portray him as acting in a disruptive or vandalistic manner. We just have an impasse, where a mediator or six would be welcome, on whether the inclusion of three separate bits of information (real world robot models seen in the epilogue, a line that seems identical to a poem line, and a spaceship model that appears to have been used elsewhere) hinge on the interpretation of WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY.

I do not endorse either Arcayne or Edokter's alteration of the article (which had been previously page protected) during the dispute, nor do I think either has been acting impeccable with respect to politeness. I will fault both of them for not notifying me of this thread--I just happened to be browsing ANI and discovered it. However it falls to Edokter, as another admin, to act for the duration of the dispute as if he had no bit, had never been selected by the community at AfD, and was just another editor. I think the principle that some things are and should be attributable to primary sources is an important part of what makes Wikipedia a good encyclopedia, and that's why I've stayed involved--certainly not for the drama. Again, mediation would be most welcome, and I cannot fathom why a topic ban of Arcayne would benefit the encyclopedia: I don't want him to go away so I can "win", I want my interpretation of WP:PRIMARY to be vindicated, or refuted, by the community. Jclemens (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the calm and considered input above. If there is no response from the mediator in another day or two, perhaps filing a content RfC will be the way to go? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you felt slighted by the non-notice, JClemens; I didn't notify you because it wasn't a content dispute, and your behavior had been calm and professional. For my part, I don't feel I was rude, uncivil or attack-y; certainly not to the extent that came from Edokter. I would think that mediation with perhaps another mediator might lead to a better, more durable consensus. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Eye of the Lion

Resolved

 – Indef'd

Eye of the Lion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User's primary purpose seems to be attacking other editors. He also vandalized the AIV page, deleting this posting before an admin could evaluate it. I put it back there. Posting it here also, for whoever sees it first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef for disruptive editing, but if anyone thinks that this is too harsh and sees signs of a potential productive editor emerging, feel free to reduce or remove the block. Bencherlite^Talk 23:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Given his comments post-block, I entirely agree. Rodhullandemu 00:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlike the user who was the subject of Lion's attacks, I hardly ever get threats of violence. Maybe my crocodile farm is the deterrent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I could threaten you with a lead pipe if you like. Or would you consider that patronizing? HalfShadow 15:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead pipe with Miss Scarlett in the secret staircase. Who says I'm Clueless? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Get offa my lawn, y'damned kid! *shakes pipe menacingly* HalfShadow 16:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not half as scary as Herbert from Family Guy running across your lawn ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Block User:CommonsDelinker - negative non-obvious bot powered contributions detrimental to the project.

Can someone block this stupid thing? This edit [7] was entirely counter-productive. Sure it removed the link to the deleted image on commons but spectacularly failed to notice there was a previous perfectly good image used before leaving the article with no image, and no redlink to the deleted image to alert a HUMAN editor to the problem so they could check the article history. The only reason it was picked up was I had visited the article recently and knew there was a perfectly good freely licensed image there at that point and went digging to see where it had gone.

This is a net NEGATIVE to the project - we shouldn't tolerate edits that degrade the encyclopedia from a bot account that doesn't conform to our naming conventions on bots, isn't mantained on the english wikipedia by anyone and requires running off to commons if there's a problem. Block immediately and permanently. Exxolon (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose and disagree with the evaluation. The deleted image is in copyvio, so the bot is doing its job properly. --Caspian blue 00:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No it's NOT. It's making it harder to correct problems where a freely licensed image is replaced by a copyvio. That's then correctly deleted as one but this thing then deletes all references to the change to it so you end up with NO image and NO clue that there was ever one there. Exxolon (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That's your thought and why don't you calm down? Bot is bot.--Caspian blue 00:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

An edit that fixes broken syntax is "entirely counter-productive"? The inability of a bot to detect the existence of a suitable alternative image is a "spectacular failure"? A broken page is a better notification of an image problem than an informative edit summary? Hesperian 01:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn straight. Check [8] - this is the version of the page the bot left - no image, no indication there ever was any image, no clues, no nothing. The redlink is better left unremoved - this can alert a HUMAN editor to a problem, they can then check the history and fix the issue. Exxolon (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Exxolon, I can understand your frustration, but I don't think there's much alternative. I don't even want to think about writing a bot that would search the history of an article looking for the last time there was a valid image. At the same time, we can't very well have red link images scattered about. Get mad at the person who put the bad image on the article in the first place, and get mad that not enough people are watching the article and familiar enough with it to know that images are available. Wknight94 ^talk 01:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with those above who find that this particular bot is doing nothing wrong. However, we have a bot that goes and "rescues" citations from previous versions of a page. How about either making a new bot, or adjusting this bot, to drop a note on the talk page if there was a commons or other still-available image removed from the page and reflected in its history, prior to the more recent copyvio removal? bd2412 T 01:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Redlinks to files are never helpful, as files typically have either cryptic or highly specific names which don't help anything. I see this as a case where the system worked. The bot made an edit removing a bad image link. You, a watchful editor, added a good image in place of its absence. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about it the first few times people asked for OrphanBot and ImageRemovalBot to restore old images, and there are just too many cases where it's the wrong thing to do (say, an album cover used as the lead image of a biography, or a generic image name where the original has been replaced by something else). It's better to have no image than to have the bot accidentally insert the wrong image. --Carnildo (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: this bot also produces some broken syntax on en-wiki. Recent example: [9]. Gimmetrow 01:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm going to ask a template guy, but I think that syntax breaking is the fault of the template not failing gracefully when no image is present. Protonk (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I was looking into it, and I think it may be a bug in ParserFunctions. There is simply no reason why that if clause should be invoked when the logo argument is blank. Hesperian 01:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
      • The problem is that the field contains the character U+200e, the left-to-right mark. Presumably it was inserted by someone's copy-paste when they inserted the image filename. The bot should be able to easily detect that the field after image removal consists only of that character and handle the situation, but to date the operator has not done so. Anomie⚔ 01:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Anomie is correct as to the cause of that specific bug. The bot operator was informed months ago. Gimmetrow 01:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Ah. Ok. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Exxolon, I can understand your frustration.... Not me; I have no idea what you're carrying on about. Judging by your edit summary in response to that bot edit, I'd say you need to go have a lie down.[10] Hesperian 01:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• The bot removes deleted images. Often, however, an image that gets deleted replaced another image, and the bot doesn't restore that other image. The effect of the bot, in many cases, is to hide the removal of good images from articles. I think that's what Exxolon is frustrated about. Gimmetrow 01:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this version after the bot edit is preferable to this version before. As a bot operator and member of the Bot Approvals Group, I do not believe that a bot can reliably determine whether an acceptable image was recently replaced with a version that was deleted from Commons. I'll go on record saying I'd approve this bot if it were up for approval today to do just what Exxolon is complaining about. On the other hand, the unrelated bug Gimmetrow mentions is legitimate, if relatively minor. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think the unrelated bug is legitimate. Templates should be able to handle empty parameters robustly. Strangely, both the implementation of this template and its documentation suggests that it can handle empty parameters. I think Gimmetrow may have found a ParserFunctions bug. Hesperian 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not an empty parameter. There is an invisible unicode character (see above) in the field. Gimmetrow 01:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So to sum up, for those following along at home: Exxolon's original complaint (removing redlinks) is not valid. Gimmetrow's secondary complaint (failing to remove invisible characters when removing images) is valid. It's a subtle bug, and no one holds it against the bot-op that he didn't catch it. However, he's been unresponsive in fixing it once it was brought to his attention, and that's a problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

...and per BD2412's comment, someone may want to request a bot that would attempt to rescue good images that were replaced by bad images. Wknight94 ^talk 02:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't this bot just leave a note on the article talk page to mention what it did? And, preferably, why the image was deleted? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• It could leave a note, I guess. Ask the bot operator on his talk page if he is willing to write and get approval for that change. As for why the image was deleted, who knows? It was commons, so I guess the history there would show a deletion decision or discussion. Protonk (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a Bad Idea to have this account flagged as a bot. I agree that its work is generally necessary and improves the immediate appearance of articles, but it would be beneficial if we could actually see easily what it's doing and when it needs to be 'followed-up' on. This would address the legitimate complaint that it can constitute a subtle removal of images. Happy‑melon 09:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have strong objections to me archiving this section? Protonk (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Before you do so, would you run an ad for m:Free Image Search Tool and WikiProject Check Wikipedia's Template with Unicode control characters report? -- User:Docu 09:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have contacted the bot operator at Commons:User talk:Siebrand#CommonsDelinker problems on the English Wikipedia. – Quadell ^(talk)

• This matter is why we have Village pump. Archiving is better to save everyone's time.--Caspian blue 13:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Addendum, for those following along at home: the bug has apparently been fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:TruthIIPower

Resolved

 – Blocked as sockpuppet of Spotfixer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

TruthIIPower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user, whose first edit was a month ago, appears to be on a crusade of some kind, specifically to take ownership of abortion-related articles to remove any hint of what he considers to be "bias". That in itself may not be a bad thing, but his constant insults leveled at anyone he disagrees with are getting a tad irritating. It's also been implied that he's a sock [11] but no one has investigated that so far. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I should probably mention that this dishonest and insulting summary comes from a guy who's been adding bias to abortion articles so that they support his personal views. I've been working to keep articles in compliance with the neutrality requirement. If that's an "incident", then I'm glad to be guilty. As for incivility, I freely admit that I have been subject to plenty of it. Wouldn't it be great if you came into this with clean hands? TruthIIPower (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not actually made any edits to the article in question (Religion and abortion), and if I've ever edited another abortion article, it must have been a long time ago. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:WQA#TruthIIPower and WP:WQA#TruthIIPower 2. Looie496 (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Washes hands extra long to make sure they're clean and free of infectious diseases. Was just reading those wikiquette alerts. It's not a good sign when two different WQAs get filed within an editor's first month, and to see this diff[12] after the second WQA had been open for three days is an indication that TruthIIPower isn't catching on. Nor is it edifying to read TruthIIPower's presupposition regarding third party responses to this thread:

To be frank, only if they're stupid and hasty. If they actually read carefully and think about what they're reading, it should be obvious that any apparent aggression on my part is a response to blatant abuse. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[13]

Well what I happen to see at User talk:TruthIIPower is Philosopher, Andrew c, GTBacchus, and Tznkai (all administrators) and several other experienced users politely explaining policies and site standards, and receiving hostile and dismissive replies. Toward the latter part of the talk page a couple of posters are beginning to lose patience. If anything is unusual here, it is that an user who has been involved in three formal dispute resolution requests in such a short time (here's the third) has not yet received a single formal block warning. Strongly recommend TruthIIPower review a relevant policy and bear in mind that Usenet standards of interaction are not welcome here. A preference for hot button religion and politics articles[14] necessitates more tact at this website no matter what viewpoint one happens to have; ideally one's personal stance on a subject should not even be detectable. Our site mission is to inform the public, not to sway its views. Whether right or wrong on the merits of a subject, editors whose interactions are consistently combative tend to get ejected from the discussion. Please take this to heart. Durova^Charge! 05:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed the link. It is, oddly enough, entirely accurate to call it ritual cannibalism. According to Catholicism, they are in some way eating the flesh of Jesus. If it is a breach of civility to state this fact, I suggest you ban me forever. TruthIIPower (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy and courtesy are separate concepts. I devoured portions of a dead animal corpse this evening for dinner, but polite society prefers to call it steak. ;) Durova^Charge! 06:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If I were to bring up this ritual cannibalism thing for no good reason, then perhaps it would be out of place and therefore discourteous. However, I brought it up when it was entirely relevant, since the issue at hand was whether we can call a wafer a wafer. I'm sorry, but there's just no incivility in that quote, no matter how deeply you search for it. TruthIIPower (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Saying that Transubstantiation is equal to canibalism, and demanding that everyone else acknowledge your analogy as the truth is a bit much to ask for without discussion. I'd suggest you find a reliable source stating that before trying to add it. T2P, you seem bound and determined to make it impossible to side with you, even for people who would agree with you on the issues. Dayewalker (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you google "transubstantiation cannibalism", you get 12,000 links. Among those links would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation, which brings up the topic and does not dismiss it as absurd. Clearly, this is not original research on my part, and if it's so horribly offensive then perhaps you need to immediately censor Transubstantiation. I repeat; there is no incivity in the statement I made. I know I'm supposed to admit to my sins and act contrite so you can forgive me and leave me alone, but I have an unhealthy amount of integrity, so this is not an option. 06:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthIIPower (talk • contribs)

Hmm, and do you see anything odd about the context of these conflicts? TruthIIPower (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we all do. Dayewalker (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, I'm not sure that we're talking about the same thing. TruthIIPower (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll drop a hint with a leading question: How do I treat people who treat me reasonably? How do I treat people who outright insult me? How do you account for the difference? Partial credit given, but only if you show your work. TruthIIPower (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you expect others to welcome your presence and relish the opportunity of collaborating with you, you might do well to make the prospect seem more inviting. I see and appreciate the fact you've made a number of good edits, but I also encourage you to bear in mind that at its core, Wikipedia is and will always be a cooperative endeavor. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Luna Santin. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Before you take the 'Universe vs me' stance, try to think if your own behaviour is not the root to this 'insult' problem you mention. To me (as an independent observer who has had nothing to do with editing the related articles or even in this discussion so far) it seems as if you are taking every comment addressed to you as an 'insult' and then respond aggressively. You have acted in this manner to even Durova, who has just tried to make things clear. Making sarcastic and heated comments is not going to help you and will not make anyone turn to your views. Chamal ^talk 06:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I proposed a topic ban to the user, which was rejected. No comment yet on the rest of this thread. Protonk (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This should be no surprise. It was a highly unreasonable offer. If you want to fix things, fix things. I suggest you start by restoring neutrality on Religion and abortion, then permanently blocking Schrandit. Anything else is just playing games. TruthIIPower (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

How about I propose a topic ban of the user? If he wants to play soapbox, that's fine, just go somewhere else. Whatever points he has, he sure doesn't care if he's effective about them. Why do I see MPOV as the problem? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That proposal has been rejected, so you'd be wasting your time. I will not accept a topic ban. You can kill me but you can't silence me. TruthIIPower (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes we can. 1 month for the second paragraph in this edit. yandman 09:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, not really. I keep a link to the good and gentle folk at WR on my userpage to remind me that there is always a place less useful than AN/I. No real harm in mentioning it on his user talk page in itself. Protonk (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

He was alluding to simply enacting a topic ban without your consent, rather than asking you to abide by one. Protonk (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Amidst all the brouhaha, TP created this little article: [15] I wonder what that was about? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's evidence that a topicban wouldn't completely stop him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The indef-block should slow him down, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sanction proposals - Probation

Even through a block, Spotfixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (sockmaster of TruthIIPower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) seems to repeatedly demonstrate that little will change. I propose the following sanctions be enacted by the community:

1) Spotfixer is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator and logged at User:TruthIIPower/Community_sanction.

2) Spotfixer is limited to one revert per week per page. This includes page moves.

3) Spotfixer is limited to editing with a single account.

4) Spotfixer is banned from editing Wikipedia.

NOTE: Editors under probation are expected to be especially mindful of both content policies including (but not limited to) BLP & NPOV, and interaction policies including (but not limited to) CIVIL, NPA, 3RR, EDITWAR and POINT. If sanction 4 passes, everything else becomes moot. Please indicate whether you support/oppose each sanction. Eg; "Support 1 and 3 only", "Support All - prefer sanction 4 over 1 2 and 3", "Oppose all", etc. The rationale for #3 is to explicitly prohibit evading these sanctions under other accounts - something that certain tendentious editors have somehow argued as being non-explicit in the past. Hopefully, that sort of gaming of the system will as a result, no longer be an issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)slightly modified

• Support All. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, and 3. His editing at Charles L. Copeland, for example, seems perfectly fine, and he seems to be able to handle himself on other topics in a calm manner. A topic ban may be more productive, but sanction 1 should encourage him to voluntarily consider one. Moot though considering User:Yandman's one-month block. Close and move on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to revert the ban if there is consensus to give him another chance (and if he agrees to the conditions). I'm not involved in the editorial dispute, I just didn't like what I saw coming out of his keyboard. yandman 11:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is just as a measure of what he is restricted to, if and when he returns to editing. The status of the block will not change, unless #4 passes whereby its duration will be extended or made indef. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we add 5) TruthIIPower will ensure all edits, edit summaries, discussions and interactions with Wikipedia editors follow WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, or else he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator and logged at User:TruthIIPower/Community_sanction.

(yes, the above could be lumped into "disruption", but incivility was the genesis of the original 2 WQA events, so I believe it needs separate mention) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's very much covered; editors under probation are expected to be especially mindful of both content policies including BLP & NPOV, and interaction policies including CIVIL, NPA, 3RR, EDITWAR and POINT. I'm reluctant to codify this because then there'd be wikilawyering over previous probations not specifying this exhaustive list - but nevertheless, it's in the note section now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:TURNIP

Let's cut to the chase: Spotfixer gained a month's good faith by starting a new account that concealed a substantial block log. Per WP:TURNIP there's no need to structure complex probations for an editor who shows no willingness to accept them. The standard solution here is to let the month's block play out, then if problems resume initiate either a topic ban or a siteban, depending on whether this editor is collegial and productive anywhere outside the hot button issues. Let's not waste too much energy over this; we have other things to do. Durova^Charge! 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know we had WP:TURNIP, but it seems like a good idea. This shows us Spotfixer isn't interested in getting along with anyone else. Sadly, even people who may agree with him can't support him. Dayewalker (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That's true (though I too didn't know it existed as WP:TURNIP). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Guess it's a moot point, as Protonk just indeffed Spotfixer. Subtract the drama. Dayewalker (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah; that saves us a lot of time - only time I think we would need to bother reviewing is during unblock request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Turnip article helps get to the root of the matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as sockpuppet

Luna Santin has confirmed that TruthIIPower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Spotfixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The only sanction we can offer is to ban the sockmaster account...though I assume that's moot for now? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Schrandit kept referring to TP as "Spot", so he had him pegged fairly quickly. Seems like he could have helped shorten this process by raising suspicions more directly, although maybe he did behind the scenes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

My praise goes out to everyone who noticed that. I must confess I am a coward here, I feared that TP would be able to slip away by claiming to be a legitimate seccond account and so I failed to press the matter. My hat is off to Luna Santin,outstanding work sir! - Schrandit (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's indeed better to err on the side of caution when calling someone a sock. But you can always send an e-mail to a trusted admin, privately expressing your concerns. Keep that in mind in case you "spot" another potential sock. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD)In regards to Ncm's question, if Spotfixer is not permanently banned (currently only for a month), is it time to discuss the topic ban we were debating above for T2P now applying to the sockmaster account? Or should we wait until after he returns from his block? Dayewalker (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh...good point. I assumed the sockmaster was indeffed. As that's not the case, I think we can just continue from where we left off; might as well impose them (if any) while we're here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a deal could be arranged. Let him come back, if he promises to inform WorldNutzDaily that wikipedia is now infested with conservatives. Then maybe they'll leave us alone. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I just indeffed the master. No reason to put up with this nonsense again in a month. I'll contact the blocking admin immediately to let him know I modified his block. Protonk (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think he will mind. But for clarity, endorse extension per Protonk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse block on sockmaster. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse indef on sockmaster. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Indef was done. Good block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse, user showed that they were not willing to change, especially when they tried to sock in order to avoid scrutiny(spelling?(this comp doesn't have spell check as you type, but my new one will)).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • We have a checkuser here. What we need is a spellcheckuser. Socks can avoid scrutiny only if they stay away from the "scene of the crime", otherwise they might as well be wearing an "I'm a sock!" tattoo on their foreheads. My socks, for example, are only in knitting, darning, and shoes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I keep a drama sock in the drawer, but he's distinctly apolitical. Other than being somewhat of a royalist out of self-interest. Durova^Charge! 04:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I had a mischief sock, buuutttt I forgot the password. :) Protonk (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User 68.33.205.149

Can someone go through this anon IP user's list of edits and tell me if they see the same kind of disruptive bias I think I see? Additional feedback is welcome.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing. Hope this feedback is okay. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This alone is uncivil enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth going through Category:Black supremacy and ensure there aren't any BLPs that don't clearly belong in there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the same user just came back at it, but under a different IP: 198.200.181.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Additional eyes may be needed.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The curious case of the History nut

I noted some very unusual edits made by The history nut talk:

1. Amelia Earhart
2. Albert VII, Archduke of Austria
3. James III of Scotland
4. Erik Wickberg
5. Diego Martínez y Barrio
6. Sonny Liston
7. Ebenezer Sumner Draper

These are very subtle changes in dates that are reverted in most cases but I am puzzled in that the MO also includes legitimate edits. Can an admin check this out? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

This needs attention particularly as some of the articles are BLPs, and in no cases do the date changes seem to have been referenced. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Warned the user that continuing this behavior may result in a block. Cirt (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless the dates that editor was removing were sourced, they should be removed rather than changed unless the changed dates are sourced. Especially for BLP's. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:12.32.94.66

This "user" is not an individual; the IP address belongs to a public school (specifically, John S. Park Elementary School in Las Vegas NV). I have visited this school on prior occasions, in the course of my job. While I bear no personal grudges or ill will toward anyone at the school, I can say from both personal experience and every update I've seen on the relevant talk page that vandalism and non-constructive edits are all we are ever likely to get, from this "account". The vandals (elementary-school children) will never read or heed the warnings, short-term blocks have made (and will continue to make) no difference, and I doubt the school itself will take any action with or through Wikipedia, to stop the vandalism from continuing... if they are even aware it has happened. I know other school IPs in the area have been permanently blocked for ongoing vandalism. Perhaps this should be the next one? Zephyrad (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually we don't block IP addresses permanently. Although we do block them for a while. Once in a blue moon when long blocks have happened, I contact the IT department and ask whether the school administration is aware of the problem. Most of the time they are not aware, and are quite cooperative. Due to various reasons (access time, vandalism type) it may be possible for the faculty and administration to identify the particular individuals involved. It's none of our business as Wikipedians who the children's identities are, of course, but that does open the possibility of a win-win situation.

You see, school pupils often vandalize Wikipedia from libraries. Libraries are filled with books. Rather than punish the entire student body by cutting off Wikipedia access to everyone, the individuals who caused the problem can be tasked with improving an article under teacher supervision. Those children learn valuable research and citation skills while the school solves its problem, and Wikipedia (along with the public) benefits. ;) Durova^Charge! 04:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to tell me about school pupils and things they do; you're preaching to the choir there. ;-) I'm pretty sure any such student who'd be likely to contribute positively probably already has their own account, or could easily request that one be set up on their behalf. (And doesn't a temporary block "punish the entire student body", to use that same logic?)

I doubt it will be possible to track down the individuals in question (in this school district, the staff is usually busy beyond busy, and probably would not be interested in tracking them down, much less making such an "assignment"), but you're certainly welcome to try contacting the school's IT department, and I'd encourage you to do so. I'm mostly tired of seeing the ongoing vandalism and unheeded warnings. (I will refrain from making personal remarks, regarding what I've seen of the students there. I don't think WP:OR would apply, but all the same.) Zephyrad (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Zephyrad is right. The IP has a pattern of long-term vandalism and few (if any) constructive edits. It's also had a recent six-month block and seems static, so I've soft-blocked for a year. EyeSerene^talk 09:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure which school is meant here? Or is it a charter school?[16] Durova^Charge! 14:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You've lost me Durova :P The whois link resolves to "Edison Schools, NY", while the IP talk-page (User talk:12.32.94.66) says "John S. Park Elementary School, Las Vegas NV" - is that what you're pointing out? The talk-page label may be wrong, but there's a long history of vandalism from the IP regardless so I don't feel a long-term block is unjustified. If I've mucked up though please feel free to send trouts my way, and I'll do what I can to fix it. EyeSerene^talk 16:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No objection to a long term block based upon the vandalism history. It seems no one wants to contact the school administration (which is actually quite easy with school IPs). That can work out well in the long run, but we don't always have the volunteer staff to attempt it. Mainly intended to mention that it's a viable option. Durova^Charge! 16:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. I hate to confirm your suspicion, but I don't have the time (or incliniation if I'm honest) to do it myself at the moment. I drop in here from time to time as a change-of-pace from copyediting; I find a change of scenery helps while I'm chewing things over ;) I will bear it in mind in future though. EyeSerene^talk 17:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User Mammamia9905

 – indef blocked by Valley2city--GedUK  08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Mammamia9905 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Many mindless edits against Wikipedia rules and guidelines. It's not an edit war as user can't justify any of his edits. Many warnings. Max24 (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this belongs at ANI, but don't know where else to tell Max24 to take it. I agree with Max24 that Mammamia9905 is being disruptive. Apparently edits in anonymous mode as well. Note this sequence, where Mammamia9905 performs 7 serial reverts, undoing Max24's corrections to the charts. Max24 then reinserts them, with detailed sourcing for each correction (parenthetically, something I really like to see on single and album articles). The anon then reverts it all with an edit summary that echos earlier edit summaries by Mammamia9905, asserting that those sources don't exist. Max24 started a cleanup drive on the Mariah Carey albums recently, and Mammamia9905 has been thwarting Max24's edits.—Kww(talk) 13:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Further note: I've just gone through and reverted the last six edits that Mammamia9905 has made, as they all inserted false figures and certifications that contradicted the sources he claims to have based them on.—Kww(talk) 21:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• From the style and behavioral practices, I would guess that Mammamia9905 is a reincarnation of blocked sockpuppeteer User:Petergriffin9901. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Petergriffin9901/Archive. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely concur. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Petergriffin9901 has been opened for anyone that cares to just go ahead and block him. He'll get blocked in about two edits for vandalism on the path he's going on down now, but doing it for block evasion will shorten the time to the inevitable indef block.—Kww(talk) 01:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Mammamia9905 is still making many vandalizing edits, without giving any reliable sources. Not even one. How many warnings must he have before someone will do something about it?.Max24 (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks from anon editors

I've been receiving hate mails from IP editors regarding my contributions on showbiz-related articles; they're in Tagalog, but the usage of English and Tagalog profanities stuck me, as well as sexual and homosexual remarks against me and User:NrDg. The IPs in question are 121.97.203.166 and 210.4.58.35. His mention of Nrdg and me alludes to User:Gerald Gonzalez, a banned user. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Both IPs blocked for 1 week for personal attacks. EyeSerene^talk 12:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Reversal of valid contributions, calling them "vandalism"

[17]

It is a systematic practice by this user.189.27.37.46 (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

He didn't even call it vandalism. Hardly a matter for administrators. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 12:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at the edit summary again, Opinoso called it vandalism. Seems to be a good faith edit. Is it? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't comment on the interpretation of the source, but it appears to be good faith. I've dealt with Opinoso before, and concur with the reporting IP that Opinoso frequently labels edits he disagrees with "vandalism", such as this recent example. That said, Opinoso does revert a lot of vandalism, and appears to me to be a good faith editor himself.—Kww(talk) 12:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit seems uncontroversial and supported by the source, a newspaper article which looks at least fairly reliable, so I take it as at least made in good faith. I've told Opinoso about this thread and asked him to review the meaning of vandalism on en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I saw "Undid" at the start and skipped over that assuming it would just be the standard message given by using the "Undo" function. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 13:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

He does revert a lot of vandalism. He also does revert anything that does not fit his extremely biased views[18], often calling it vandalism, even when the good faith is evident. 200.198.196.129 (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this user Donadio was blocked several times last months for disruptions in different articles of Wikipedia. He pretended to be leaving Wikipedia, and he even claimed he "did not want to be associated to Wikipedia in any way".[19] [20]

Check his contributions page. He reverted all his edits at Wikipedia, pretending to be leaving. But sometimes he appears here, usually creating more useless discussions on article's talk pages or trying to get some attention on administrator's pages, creating discussion against me.

I don't know why an user who reverted all his edits and said he was leaving is still using Wikipedia's pages for personal attacks. If I were an administrator, I'd block him.

Now he's back, probably using this IP number as a sockpoppet for personal attacks. He uses talk pages of articles as if they were Foruns, selling his personal theories and attacking other users. He has some kind of obssession with Portuguese people, and most of his edits are used to "proove" most Brazilians are of direct Portuguese ancestry. That's because he claims to be of "colonial Portuguese ancestry" himself. Take a look at talk page of article White Brazilian. His past constributions were enterely dedicated to proove that almost all "white" Brazilians are of "colonial Portuguese" ancestry (because Donadio himself claimed to be) and that other ethnic groups, such as post-colonial Portuguese, Italians or Germans are a "minority". He's far from being neutral.

He used the page to sell his personal theories, even using tables to show them. I already told him many times this is not the place for that type of discussion, but he keeps with them. I did not call that edit "vandalism" with no reasons. Just check his block logs, he was blocked several times last months, for the same reasons.

I'd like somebody to check this IP number here and confirm that's another Donadio's sockpoppet. Opinoso (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No need for that. Everybody knows that this IP is mine. I don't need to hide behind anonimity. 200.198.196.129 (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, "take a look at [the] talk page of [article] White Brazilian" is probably a good idea - provided that the people "taking" that "look" make a real effort to understand the issues there.

As it is, Opinoso and me edit-warred because he supported a completely biased view that the majority of Brazilian Whites descend from immigrants coming here during the "Great Immigration"[21], while I support the mainstream position of demographers - that most White Brazilians descend from the white colonial population[22]. Lately he discovered that he is wrong, and changed the content of the article to admit the truth - that most Brazilian Whites are of colonial descent[23] - but, evidently, doesn't want anyone to know that his former edit war against me was entirely dictated by ignorance and arrogance.

Back to the topic, can some other editor please reinstate the edit, and warn Opinoso not revert good faith edits as vandalism? 200.198.196.129 (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting discussion on Talk Page

[24]

User Opinoso deletes relevant discussion from the Talk Page, because it shows that he has actually no solid knowledge on the subject. 200.198.196.129 (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Forum, neither a place for you to sell your personal theories. Moreover, you uses it as a place for personal attacks. If you want to discuss ethnic issues, you should find a Forum, and not Wikipedia. Opinoso (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a back-and-forth that has been going at White Brazilian and other articles for months now. The IP, who may be a sock, is trying to push a claim that has been rejected by consensus. Opinoso labels it vandalism because it has been inserted and removed well over a dozen times by now. Looie496 (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk Pages are for discussing the article issues. You cannot remove other people comments there in this way.

The edit evidently has nothing to do with the former edit war. It is Opinoso asserting his ownership over the article. If he doesn't like the edit, or if he doesn't like the editor, he removes the content, regardless of if it is valid or not. 200.198.196.129 (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That's it Looie496. This subject was already discussed several times, and Donadio was blocked several times too. All he's trying to do is to revive that discussion once again and to create disruptions. I won't discuss this subject anymore with him and his sockpopets anymore. I'm leaving this problem with the administratoes. Bye. Opinoso (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Opinoso. That is not Looie. I am referring to you, Opinoso, removing edits by me from the article, exclusively because they are made by me, even if they are sourced, correct, and in good faith, and calling them vandalism on the top, to further slander me. Go back and reinstate the edit. 200.198.196.129 (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

First things first, is there any reason you can't log in and edit as User:Donadio? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Is this an issue? It's not like I'm pretending not to be me. 200.198.196.129 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Logging as an IP tells us where you are. Is that to your advantage? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If you weren't making controversial edits, it wouldn't be a worry if you made those edits without logging in. However, there is a claim your edits are controversial and you've been blocked in the past for edit worrying so, yes, some editors may see this as an issue. Is there any reason you can't or don't want to edit as User:Donadio? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem with that. I am in Brasília, my IP is 200.198.196.129. Do you want my personal address, my job address, my CPF?

I am a real person, not a webpersona. I have no interest in hiding, pretending to be other person, etc.

And I do want to discuss this: why is a guy with no particular knowledge about either Brazil or demography, and who clearly uses anonimity - "Opinoso" is not the name of a person - entitled to decide who can and who cannot edit articles on Brazilian demography, supporting fringe views and slandering anyone who disagrees with him? Donadio (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for logging in. Anonymous editing behind a username is very much allowed here. I suggest you take this dispute to the article talk page(s) and build consensus for your edits there. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So my edits are controversial? They are quite mainstream. Which is by the way proved by the evolution of the article: it used to imply that most White Brazilians descend from immigrants coming during the Great Immigration; now it states the opposite: that most White Brazilians are of colonial origin.

I have been reverted and called a vandal for stating things like,

- the Dutch conquered parts of Brazil (instead of settling there pacifically, as implied in the article; - the Portuguese committed genocide against Native Brazilians; - that Judaism isn't the third most important religions among White Brazilians (which, to the great shame of Wikipedia, the article still maintains); - there are not many people of African descent in the Brazilian North, nor many people of Indigenous descent in the Northeast (the article, to the shame of Wikipedia, still maintains that people of both Indigenous and African descent predominate in both North and Northeast; - a list of very small cities and the percent of whites in each of them does not substitute for a "Demography by Cities and Towns" section; - gee, I have been reverted and called a vandal for the heinous crime of placing the population of these small towns in the article; - correcting the location of Pedras Grandes (Santa Catarina, not Rio Grande do Sul) - serious vandalism, isn't it? -; - placing on the article that the source for the (rather absurd) figure of 18 million people of German descent in Brazil is Dieter Böhnke.

Are those things controversial too? Donadio (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If anonimous posting is allowed, then it should not be used against editors. I very much resent having my IP called a sock puppet. If I am going to be called a sock puppet each time I edit anonimously, then it would be better that Wikipedia asked for my login as a prerequisite for posting.

In short, either it is allowed, and I shouldn't be called on it - or I can be called on it, and it should not be allowed.

Anyway, registering and posting from an account is equally anonimous. Who is Opinoso? Merely a webpersona. So really there isn't much difference here. Donadio (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI is not meant for discussions about content. I didn't say your edits were controversial, I said someone claimed they were controversial. Meanwhile I've told Opinoso not to call good faith edits vandalism. You should be talking about this on the article talk page, drawing input from other editors and editing through consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

NPA policy on talk pages state that you can remove the personal attack, but not the entire discussion. I didn't read the removed portion in depth, but there appears to be some arguments on the talk page which are relevant to the discussion. Just because an editor has been booted before for edit warring, does not mean he/she should be banned from the talk page. Only a topic ban would allow this, and it appears like there has been no topic ban. Ikip (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah! but as I have complained, Opinoso thinks he is entitled to erase my contributions to the Talk Page - and to ignore them, calling this process "consensus". Can you please tell him that he should, a) refrain from erasing other people's contributions in the Talk Pages, and, b) actually discuss in the Talk Page, instead of ignoring dissent?

And more - why would I be interested in discussing the content with Opinoso? I want people with actual knowledge of Brazilian demography to read the article and make their contributions. Which, as it is, won't happen, because of WP:OWNERSHIP. Donadio (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I understand that this is not the place to discuss whether Pedras Grandes is in Santa Catarina or Rio Grande do Sul. But I hope this is the place to discuss that I have been called a vandal because I corrected the location of the city. Donadio (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidently the edit on the Talk Page removed by Opinoso is relevant to the discussion. The problem is, it makes clear that Opinoso believed somthing, edit-warred me to keep the article in line with his belief, got me blocked for stating the opposite, and afterwards reversed his position, showing that his whole edit-war was completely baseless. So it makes him look like he is, an arrogant ignoramus. Apparently he doesn't like it. Donadio (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've now warned Opinoso and I need to warn you, too: Don't make personal attacks, like you did above. Comment on content and sources, not the editor. I also must ask you to please edit these articles as User:Donadio, which will neatly skirt any further worries about sockpuppetry. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Now about the evident violation of WP:OWNERSHIP. Is this going to be dealt with? Donadio (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also: can I revert Opinoso's undoing of my edit, without further risk of being called a vandal - which by the way I take as a personal attack - or is someone else going to revert it? Donadio (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've undone the edit because it was wrongly called vandalism in the edit summary. I've already warned Opinoso about WP:OWN, removing talk page comments and personal attacks. Likewise, I've warned you about making personal attacks, don't do that. Both of you, stop edit warring. You'll likely need input on the talk page from other editors to settle this. Wait for that. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody else want to edit those pages; they have a clear owner, and to defy such ownership leads you to be slandered, blocked, etc. "Consensus" there is actually Opinoso's biased (and changing) POV. If you don't mind this state of things, please state it clearly. Otherwise, please, read the discussion, or forward it to someone who is actually interested in it, so that Opinoso's allegations that my edits are "controversial" or "vandalism" can be verified. Donadio (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If only two editors are active on the page, the usual course to take for dispute resolution would be to request a third opinion. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of ways to get input, try also asking (in a neutral way, please) for input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Brazil. Meanwhile, you've both been warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been done. All I got was Opinoso accusing me of trying to stir trouble between him and other editors. Listen: NOBODY WANTS TO EDIT THOSE PAGES; NOBODY IS UP TO BEING ABUSED BY OPINOSO.

It is a case of violation of WP:OWNERSHIP. Is this page the correct place to complain about violations of WP:OWNERSHIP? Thanks. Donadio (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What has been done? Have you requested a third opinion? (I'd be extremely surprised if the regulars there weren't scrupulously neutral) What other forms of dispute resolution have you tried? To answer your question, no, this is the place to report incidents that require administrative attention. You have a dispute, and require dispute resolution (IMHO). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying you already asked for input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Brazil? When? If so, please let me have the diff. Meanwhile, as I already said, the editor has now been warned about WP:OWN. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think I have asked formally for help in the Project Page. I have contacted many of the editors listed there, though, and most didn't even reply. If you look at the history of any Brazil-related article, you will see that there were many active Brazilian editors in the past, most of whom have, in a way or other, clashed with Opinoso, and, coincidence or not, became inactive since then.

The usual reaction I get from people regarding this subject is, "I am not interested, thank you", or "Sorry, I don't understand the subject".

I will now ask formally for help in the Project Page. My crystal ball tells me that I will either get no answer, or just a few "can't be bothered" answers and possibly an abusive anwer by Opinoso. Donadio (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No further admin action is needed here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Extreme personal attack and generally intolerable behavior

Please check out this diff – enough said. I didn't come to Wikipedia to receive this kind of attitude; being unregistered has nothing to do with the constructiveness of my edits. In general, this kind of language cannot be tolerated – notice the following highlights:

• If we can figure that out, you bet we can figure out more. This is a direct threat to try and mess with my computer based on my WHOIS info.
• You have no authority whatsoever here on Wikipedia. Say what???
• You are nothing but a punk, a social reject who likes to stir up havoc and controversy... so much for all of this narcistic [sic] “experienced integrity user” hoopla that you try to pull off. One personal attack after another.
• So why don’t you do me, Captain Infinity (talk) and others you like to pick a bone on a favor...and go f’ yourself. The Grand finale was only expected.
  

To make a long story short, this is pure WP:WikiBullying and I'll appreciate immediate action. Thank you very much in advance. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor should have been left an ANI notice, which I will do now, but this sort of thing is so gross that I have left an NPA warning already. Rodhullandemu 13:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• Captain Infinity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• 87.69.176.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• Both of these editors display rather aggressive edit summaries, and obviously have different philosophies about what should be included and excluded. The difference is that, at least under the current ID's, KeltieMartinFan has been at it a lot longer. He's got one particularly outrageous comment (from a year ago) stating that a user with whom he disagrees "is under federal investigation", or at least that's how I read it: [25] Any user has the right to notify another user about rules violations like 3RR, and he's dead wrong that only admins can do that. However, an aggressive user is not likely to respond well to such a warning, and may well resort to this kind of bullying. In any case, if he actually has violated 3RR, you can post it at WP:3RR. If not, you could raise the content issue on the talk page of the article. If the item you're trying to add is not currently on the talk page as Keltie claims, then maybe it's in an archive. See if it's been discussed previously before you take further action. This seems to be mostly a content dispute, wrapped in fire by opposing users. The over-the-top remarks by Keltie justifies notification from an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

... and the IP editor needs to take a very close read of WP:BLP before they edit further. This was over the top, but not "extreme", and likely could have been dealt with in WP:WQA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's an oddity, and maybe my eyes are just not working right yet - but here's a warning from a rollbacker (not an admin) to the IP about an alleged frivolous WP:AIV report [26] except I can't find any WP:AIV report filed from that IP address. What's up with that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My main problem is with the bundle of over-the-top personal attacks directed at me. Please don't try and distract from the subject. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Once you post an entry here, your own activities come under scrutiny as well. Did you post an AIV about that guy? I'm not seeing it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No evidence to suggest thet they have.  rdunnPLIB  14:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Something caused the attacks, so we have to look at them as well - nothing occurs in a vacuum. It does not excuse incivility, but it explains it. Your actions at AIV, and editing contrary to WP:BLP are potential key events that of course require investigation. We need to know what happened, and why. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Complicating matters is that the Keltie saw those 3RR postings as the IP pretending to be an admin. I've explained to Keltie that anyone can post those warnings, not just admins. I also asked him to come here to comment, when he gets the chance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no AIV... iv'e just looked and i think the bad aiv warner meant here  rdunnPLIB  14:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe the IP didn't understand that exactly 3 reverts does not qualify for posting an entry in the 3RR page. It has to be 4 or more. And if the IP misunderstood that, then that's partly what evoked the outraged response from Keltie. I can tell you that I've received warnings sometimes when I'm at (not over) 3RR, and I don't much care for it. But it depends on how it's worded. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

personally (as I see it) they are both as bad as each other.  rdunnPLIB  14:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the users or to the warnings? Or both? P.S. I left a note at the page of the guy who made the misleading AIV comment. We'll see if this brouhaha mushrooms further. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

KeltieMartinFan and the IP  rdunnPLIB  14:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Roger. As I said earlier, they are both aggressive, and that naturally leads to clashes like this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, my concern is that User:KeltieMartinFan who has been here almost a year now has a history of aggressive comments against anonymous users like User talk:204.102.107.130, User talk:128.200.6.109, User talk:169.234.140.180, and User talk:204.102.107.184 among others. Does someone else think those talk pages should be rewritten in case the IP rotates and a new user comes by (like I saw here and here)? Those kinds of comments aren't appropriate at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Phew... where should I start?

• I have done nothing that openly violates WP:BLP. I have brought up examples of satire/parody in contemporary media, with the respective episodes serving as undoubtedly reliable sources, in order to demonstrate cultural impact and alternative criticism. The fact that the way South Park chose to do it is pretty much pure slander does not change the fact that a popular show took a jab at Katie Couric, which makes the reference notable enough.
• If I'm being reverted with an empty edit summary, then request one and get another empty edit summary in return, I'm not the one asking for an edit war. My opinion matters just as much as KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs)'s or anyone else's. Wikipedia welcomes all editors, not just those who choose to decorate their user page with banners and flashing colors to "show they care." Why am I expected to "get reverted and shut the f@^k up?"
• Although you can technically call my edit summaries "aggressive" at times (because I'm forced to repeat my arguments when they keep being ignored), I still try very hard to assume good faith and act somewhat wp:civil. Never in my life, incognito or not, have I used a kind of language that comes even close to the tirade of jock-like intimidation and insults that were left on my page. I am not a vandal, nor am I trying to disrupt Wikipedia. I have my way of seeing things and KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs) has his/hers. I do not have to tolerate being called a "punk" and "social reject" who "seeks to stir up havoc." I have my shortcomings just as much as the next guy, but I know that I am a constructive editor, whose views might be seen as unorthodox by some.
• The {{3RR}} warning is a standard procedure on the way to reporting to the 3RR notice board. I didn't want to "rat out" that user and tried to engage them in a constructive dialogue, but I guess some editors cannot be conversed with at all. I never impersonated an admin and never intend doing so; it's so moronic and easily traceable that I couldn't think of any reason why one should even think of such ridiculous action. The reason I left the template after only three reverts is that I wanted to prevent an unpleasant situation for the other user (and potentially myself as well).
  

If I think of something to add to this, I'll be back. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You clearly have, from your edit history, made a bunch of positive contributions, so I will assume good faith.

That said - this particular incident, the information you kept readding to the Katie Couric article is, while correct, not notable (from her perspective) and undue weight. Appropriate on the article for the episode? Sure. Appropriate on Katie's article? No.

Could this be subject to a consensus decision to add it? Sure. But it's going to be controversial enough, and is pushing enough buttons, that anyone being WP:BOLD after multiple reverts, especially to the point that they are making other editors angry, is being disruptive.

AGF and the detailed history indicate that you probably felt this was reasonable and didn't do it to provoke an incident.

With that said - that's the effect that it had. We can slap everyone with a trout for bad behavior, if you like. But you need to stop inserting that information. The end result is controversial and disruptive. You should have seen that before now. You are responsible for having kept pushing, after there was clear evidence that what you were doing was controversial and upsetting people.

That is not good behavior. AGF gets you past the intent issue - but doesn't cover having continued to edit war over it.

If you keep it up, I'll block you for it.

If you take it to the talk page and get a consensus go right ahead. I doubt you'll get one, but I won't stand in the way of the normal process here.

Please calm down, back off, take it to talk if you feel that strongly about it, and try to avoid provoking people into being nasty to you in the future. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment 87.69.176.81 has now raised the same concerns at WQA. Tonywalton ^Talk 10:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am being accused of WP:FORUMSHOPPING without any grounds. The concerns I have raised on that board are about KeltieMartinFan's misconduct during edits. Please take a look everyone, I actually found many examples. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Georgewilliamherbert, please take a look at the sub-section below (and the examples brought up by Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) above, right before my reply) and tell me all these people provoked Keltie into reacting in such a way. Considering that I have been making edits to WP in an entirely good faith and never in my life tried to vandalize a page, I'd say that telling me to "try to avoid provoking people into being nasty to you in the future" is exactly what you don't do when confronted by a bully. Am I supposed to be as nasty towards Keltie after I have found out how many of his edits focus around merely rewriting the text while reducing the overall grammatical quality? No, I am assuming good faith and if I'll ever revert these, I'll explain nicely that his grammar level is sub-standard for Wikipedia by far. According to your theory, I should stop editing if anyone else is displeased because of supposed "controversy." Sorry, but Wikipedia gives an equal opportunity to all editors, be they registered or not, and if anyone disagrees with my edits – they are most welcome to take it to the talk page (I'm not the one who always has to do it first...) and I will be more than happy to discuss it in the appropriate manner. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright I got balls so here goes...that Keltie dude is a bully. Both Ricky (an admin) and the IP dude have proven this with far too many examples to ignore. Something's got to give here man. Can an admin block Keltie for repeated incivility and personal attacks? This guy needs to be set clear that his bully type of aggressive behavior will not be tolerated. If all else fails, you can send him my way and I'll kick his ass for free. Joking. Caden ^{is cool} 12:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks on others, methodically vandalizing at least two talk pages and engaging in multiple non-constructive edits while accusing me of the same

As you may see above, I have been recently accused by this user of being a non-constructive editor, a vandal, a "social reject", "punk"... you name it. I think reading the diff itself should cover it, at least as far as false accusations and personal attacks go. I have done some basic research about this user, and here is some of what I have learned.

I apologize in advance for the next couple of paragraphs being poorly formatted, as I have copied and pasted it from a text file I made. Below are some examples of KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs)'s contributions (note that most of them have empty edit summaries).

• [27] poor grammar (including a multiple disambiguous "she" instead of her name), highlight: "came to MSNBC in 2003 where she spent four years there"

• [28] poor grammar

• [29] poor grammar

• [30] non-constructive, reduced grammar quality + removed co-host name for no apparent reason

• [31] sub par grammar, highlight: "Hot only did he worked at the anchor desk, but he also reported..."

• [32] removal of info, no justification

• [33] unsourced and poorly worded speculation

• [34] kind of a useless "word lego"

• [35] another useless "word lego" - no constructiveness in the latter two by a long shot

Notice that all the diffs above are from the latest page in this user's contribution history. I am positive that had I gone deeper, I would fill this page, which is not exactly what would have helped the case :-)

Now we have come to the really interesting part. According to this diff, KeltieMartinFan claims that "[i]t is never in [their] nature to be uncivil here on wikipedia"... please take a look at the following (again, my apologies for the crude formatting):

• [36] blast of personal attacks
• [37] [38] [39] restoring unwanted attack on another user's talk page THREE TIMES in spite of those being repeatedly deleted by the owner of the talk page

• [40] another referral to user as "obnoxious"

• [41] [42] [43] multiple attacks on (apparently) the same anonymous editor

• [44] deleting someone else's contribution from someone else's talk page, in other words - vandalism

I have found all these in the first couple of pages in this user's contribution history. If the case will require me to "dig deeper" I will.

P.S. Considering the heavy insults I had to put up with last time I tried to place a civil warning on that user's page, I am not going to do it this time, even though this is technically against regulations. Due to the special situation that has been created here, I am asking that an admin do that. Thank you very much in advance. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Send Keltie my way and I'll kick his ass for you. Just joking. No, but seriously this dude has behavior issues and an admin needs to look into this asap. Caden ^{is cool} 07:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As you were advised, PLEASE leave the "bad grammar" portions out - they do not help to build a case, and are irrelavent. You also make your posting WP:TLDNR for many. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the whole text, not just assorted portions of your selective choice, and understand my case in depth instead of focusing on keywords (again, of your choice). 87.69.176.81 (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks by IP editor

An IP editor say "stupid dog" on my user talk page. You may check this out on User talk:Antonytse#Template in Kedah FA. --Antonytse (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I gave the IP a 4im personal attack warning. – ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Tlmader

Resolved

Tlmader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made the this edit[45]. Probably just simple vandalism, but I thought I'd bring it here to see if anyone thought something should be done (besides a block).--Cube lurker (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Account blocked indefinitely. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User: PAGEADDER

PAGEADDER keeps adding dumb pages like this[46], and still hasn't learned his lesson, he might need a short-term block —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomGuy666 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted his gabba gabba page, warned PAGEADDER. Syrthiss (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if user persists, then take to WP:AIV. MuZemike 18:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:NoCal100

Stop it, everyone just please STOP this. This is worse than a kindergarten sandbox. On the one hand, people who are highly involved in contentious areas, such as the I/P arena, are going to have the same articles watchlisted, and talk pages of editors with whom they interact watchlisted. It is very easy to see when something new that piques your interest pops up on the screen, and if you happen to strongly disagree with the editor, you may make your opinions known quickly. That is not wikihounding; that is the natural result of differing editors having overlapping areas of interest. On the other hand, popping in and tagging a brand new article without trying to engage in discourse on the talk page isn't the most civil thing either. You all have to take four steps back, realize that the other party may, just may, have a point, and learn to work together instead of continuing the vicious cycle of having contentious articles posted, reverted, protected, blocked, and then having everyone run to AN, ANI, AE, RfC, and RfAR on a regular basis. At this point, it is becoming a tempting thought to topic ban about 25 people from the I/P arena for six months or so and see if the rest of the project can bring some level-headedness back.

In a nutshell, no one in the conversation below is either as clean as the driven snow or guilty as sin. Stop wasting your own efforts quid-pro-quoing with each other, apply even HALF of that energy into some form of RESPECTFUL collaboration, and wikipedia would be a MUCH better place. -- Avi (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Bickering collapsed

If this should go to AE, I apologize, but I think this is a more general issue and not just about ARBPIA. NoCal100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been following around a few editors to articles for apparently no reason other then to annoy them. He has followed Lapsed Pacifist to a few articles, you can see in the histories of Willie Corduff, Corrib gas controversy, Integrated Risk Management Services and Pobal Chill Chomáin following a dispute at Ramot. Last night he also followed Tiamut to a new article she has been working on, Lydda Death March (history) following her asking NoCal to refrain from warring on Ramot. He has been warned about this in the past, and the latest warning at an AE complaint was "if any further edit warring and/or disruption occurs which can be linked to following contrib histories, then we can safely assume that such behaviour will be blockable." Will somebody do something about this repeated harassment? Nableezy (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC) If I had to put my money somewhere I would bet that Nocal is concerned that the same POV violations are occurring over a number of related articles, something that is excluded from WP:HOUND. I don't know if NoCal's POV concerns are valid, but the validity of his concerns should be discussed at the article's talkpages, where he has joined or initiated discussions. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I thought BlackKite was very clear in his admonition though "if any further edit warring and/or disruption occurs which can be linked to following contrib histories, then we can safely assume that such behaviour will be blockable." Can you explain where you are reading an exemption in that for what NoCal100 has been doing? Tiamuttalk 19:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Beyond that, what exactly are the articles he followed Lapsed Pacifist to related to that he has edited before? Nableezy (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Having mentioned BlackKite by name, I informed him of this post on his talk page. If he's in, perhaps he'll pop by to clarify. Tiamuttalk 19:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC) The original post has some factual mistakes. From the relevant histories it looks like it was Lapsed Pacifist (who has quite a solid resume) who followed Nocal to Ramot after Nocal made an edit to Integrated Risk Management Services that LP did not like. Prior to NoCal's edit to Integrated Risk Management Services, Nocal and LP did not interact. There might be a wp:hound problem here, but the focus is on the wrong editor. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC) If NoCal can explain how he got to any of those articles I would be interested in seeing it. All of these are articles that NoCal had never edited before, may not have even known of their existence, but LP makes an edit and he shows up. Tiamut starts a new article, he shows up. I am going to keep quiet now, as I really am interested in seeing whether or not he can explain how he got to any one of these articles besides by following those two. Nableezy (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, even if true, NoCal100 still followed me to Lydda Death March (an article I had created hours earlier) after I asked him not to edit war at Ramot, which has been on my watchlist for about a year I think. Anyway, that was certainly wikihounding. So the charge still stands. And he's the one with the final warning from Black Kite. Whether Lapsed Pacifist has ever received such a warning is beyond my ken. Tiamuttalk 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC) But Brew is correct, Ramot and LP happened after IRMS, my mistake. Doesnt explain any of the other articles. Nableezy (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I also see that NoCal edited Ramot before Tiamut. Tiamut's first edit to Ramot was to revert NoCal's edit. I'm not saying that Tiamut is hounding NoCal, but considering that Nocal was first to Ramot and Tiamut was first to Lydda Death March they both seem to have the same hounding probability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I've had Ramot and the other Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem watchlisted for about a year now and been involved in centralized discussion about how to characterize them here for about as long and since it started. Long before NoCal100 ever touched one of those articles or even starting editing here. Note too, he doesn't bother participating in the talk about it, just reverting to his preferred version over and over. When I warned him not to edit war at Ramot on his talk page, he immediately showed up at Lydda Death March which I had created hours earlier and slapped it with a POV tag. There's not only wikihounding going on here, but edit-warring and disruptive editing without sufficient participation in talk until after people warn him that he is pushing it. Note he's already been warned by Elonka against edit-warring without discussion on his talk page as well. Its odd to me that no one sees this behaviour as disruptive. Tiamuttalk 21:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I fully believe you that you had Ramot on your watchlist. After all you are heavily involved in I-P articles. To that end, I would similarly fully believe that Nocal had Lydda Death March on his watchlist. The incident was notable and controversial and NoCal is also heavily involved in I-P articles. I currently have 1,700 articles on my watchlist and a substantial number of them are redlinks. They're on my watchlist so that I can see them whey they are created.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC) He watchlisted Lydda Death March before it was created? I've had redlinks in my watchlist, but as a result of an article having been deleted. Seems an odd set of words to put together to add to ones watchlist. Nableezy (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I have a bunch of uncreated articles on my watchlist (including my name which might get created any day (I'm just kidding, I'm a big loser)). Gaza War for one. The "March" was a notable incident; nothing weird about an I-P editor having it on his or her watchlist.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Comment: The 3 articles that Nableezy mentioned are indeed related and it was one topic, I have been working through some issues with LP and have engaged extensively on talk pages. If anyone cares to note, these pages are in fact pending mediation Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Corrib Gas. Looking at this situation, it would seem that none of the involved parties are without some guilt, LP & NoCal following each other to different pages or vice versa and Nableezy brings his dispute with NoCal to LP. GainLine ♠♥ 20:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC) They are related to each other, but not to what NoCal had been editing prior to this. And I dont have a dispute with NoCal, matter of fact his antics amuse me more than anything. Nableezy (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Comment: It seems to me that this is essentially par for the course on I-P articles, and maybe contentious articles elsewhere on WP. Someone starts, or heavily edits, an article about Israel-Palestine or related issues, and a swarm of detractors and supporters arise. "Wikihounding?" Sure, on all sides. But nothing is done, because it simply isn't considered that great a "wikicrime." I'd love it if it were, but it isn't. IronDuke 21:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry Duke, read my comment above. Its a bit more than that. Tiamuttalk 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I reread them, still not quite sure what you are referring to. More than that in what sense? IronDuke 21:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Come one Iron Duke. Elonka warned him under ARBPIA not to edit war without discussing months ago, she said if he continued in the future he would be blocked. Well, he did it at Ramot over the last two days, and he did not participate in talk until after I warned him about edit-warring. Right after that, he follows me to Lydda Death March created just hours earlier by me and edited only by me, slaps it with a POV tag and begins making WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments on the talk page that have little to do with policy, sources, etc., and everything to do with what he doesn't like. This is ust plain tiresome, unproductive and it amounts to disruptive editing. He was also warned by Black Kite specifically not to follow editors under any circumstances anywhere the last time such a complaint was brought to WP:AE (which wasn't the first time either). When are the ARBPIA sanctions going to be taken seriously around here? Tiamuttalk 21:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Nocal edited that article before you did, and before LP did. LP clearly followed NC to that article, and made 2 reverts w/o any talk page discussion - as did you. To come here and complain of hounding after such behavior takes a bit of chutzpah, which is exceeded only by the behavior of the editor filing this complaint. This editor has apparently been following NC for weeks now, after the 2 have edit warred on an a number of articles [47]. He followed NC to Lydda Death March and reverted him there /w/index.php?title=Exodus_from_Lydda&diff=prev&oldid=287065277 today], and went as far as to urge LP to complain about NC at an admin board. One has to wonder how he even saw NC's edits to Willie Corduff, Corrib gas controversy, Integrated Risk Management Services and Pobal Chill Chomáin, or NC's 3rr filings against him ([48], [49] if he wasn't following NC's contribs himself. In short, no shortage of blame to go around here, as User:GainLine says. The old adage "people who live in glass houses..." certainly applies here. Canadian Monkey (talk)

• Right. As mentioned in the collapsed section, I did issue a warning to NoCal100 that any further editing that could be defined under hounding as following certain editors to articles where they had not edited before would clearly qualify for a block. If anyone can make sense of the above conversation and show me clearly that such has happened, then I will issue a block. However, the situation appears somewhat confused at the moment. Black Kite 22:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

  is that limited to evidence against NoCal100, or applicable to editors in general? Because there's some very clear evidence that the editor who filed this complaint has himself been hounding NoCal100 : [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56] Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're actually going to present that 'evidence', Exodus from Lydda was brought up on both brewcrewers and NoCals talkpage by Tiamut, both of which are in my watchlist, Charities has been discussed already in a previous thread, Mt Hebron was brought up in a 3RR complaint by NoCal against Nickhh who was rather furious at the gaming displayed to add nonsense to articles, so I corrected an issue there, and NoCal's delusions on my talk page mean exactly what? Care to say how you got to the Lydda page? But as to the request from BlackKite, which I was going to leave alone as Avi requested until I saw this, it seems pretty simple to me. Tiamut makes a series of edits to Ramot from 3:57 to 4:07 this past morning [57] [58] [59] [60]. NoCal then edits a newly created article, which if you look at Tiamut's contribution history at the time of these edits had been what she had primarily been working on. He then shows up at that article at 4:12. The Lapsed Pacifist edits you could look at the histories, but I dont know if he had some other reason for finding those articles. Here, his whole purpose was to follow another editor to antagonize her. Nableezy (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So you admit to having my talk page on your watchlist (for what purpose, exactly?), to following my contributions to 3RR in order to go to the article in question and revert me there, , and still have the gall to complain about other people? You seem to be under the illusion that its not hounding if you have some way of following another editor's edits that does not involve looking directly at their contribution history - which is simply not the case. As BlackKite notes above - hounding is "following certain editors to articles where they had not edited before" you have done that to at least 4 articles where I have edited, and this behavior has been going on for several weeks now. The real kicker in your "evidence" above is that you start it with listing Tiamut's series of edits to Ramot from 3:57 to 4:07, somehow forgetting that this series of edits started here, with a revert of my edit within 10 minutes of me making it, on an article she had never edited before. NoCal100 (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, please, stop trying to throw each other under the wiki bus. Having groups of editors, from different perspectives, involved in closely overlapping areas, all making use of watchlists, is going to result in the same editors editing the same articles in close chronology. Of COURSE somebody is first, that doesn't make the second person necessarily hounding. I think blocks here of any kind would be overkill. I'd rather see a "time-out" anyway. A nice two-week vacation from I/P articles to let the emotions and adrenalin run down a bit. -- Avi (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me emphasize that a bit more. When a bunch of people on two sides all start pushing buttons, uninvolved admins may step in and block everyone involved to prevent the dispute from continuing to escalate.

Knock it off and assume good faith about each other's contributions. Community patience is about to expire, after which the recommended short voluntarily holidays to relax the situation will become mandatory. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

user:Retracted and user:Uga Man

I noticed Retracted (talk · contribs) was changing/adding sockpuppet tags (check contribs) relating to Uga Man (talk · contribs). I asked them what was up, and I got this reply. As I wasn't really sure what to do about the issue, I reverted the edits, and explained why to the user. I have no idea if I did the right thing, or if something else needs to be done. I hate this stuff. Feel free to shout at me if I've done something stupid, and definitely feel free to remedy anything that needs remedying. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. My friend is now upset at me for getting "caught". He's begging me to reveal the list so that his sockpuppets can be listed. In exchange he says he'll stop vandalizing. Personally, I don't think he will but he doesn't want WP:DENY. After reading it however, it may end his gloating and the ego boost he gets from his sockpuppet page.--Retracted (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can a checkuser help us out here? Retracted, I really doubt people are going to take your word that your friend is suddenly concerned about which people are and are not sockpuppets. Let the people who have been dealing with this deal with it. Can you just drop it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is stupid. Your "friend" is vandalising an online encyclopedia. He can keep going for as long as he wants, he'll just end up being blocked for sockpuppetting and vandalism. He's in no position of power to make a deal - if he wants to come back and start contributing constructively then he's more than welcome to once his block expires. If not, we really don't care. Your friend has been blocked. If he wants to come and debate about his block then he can come on here himself. Matty (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks from a blocked user

Hello. An anon user suspected of being a sockpuppet of the indef blocked user Harvardlaw has been making attacks & threats against me and another user. Can anything more be done to prevent this? Also, please consider creating a 1-month anon block on Dennis DeConcini, the page of a former U.S. Senator, for incremental & inappropriate edits from this same user. Thank you. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 23:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits like this are way beyond the pale. I've blocked the IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the article history I've semi-protected it for awhile owing to wanton and wholly unsourced soapbox spamming by what looks like an indef blocked user. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I blocked User:68.106.19.120 one month per WP:QUACK, also on DeConcini. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of a range block, say, 68.106.XX.XXX, for a week or so? Also, hoping I get thrown overboard was a little over the top. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 23:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It was all way over the edge. Following up, having looked at the contrib histories, I can say this was indeed User:Harvardlaw, let's see if he shows up on another IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Technically, it was over the side. Or "beyond the rail". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

After I hit save, I was afraid someone would catch the happenstance pun :O Gwen Gale (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And your fears were right-justified. You got decked. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for a current event tag for Swine influenza

Hi. As it is described in article Swine influenza, swine influenza is also referred to as Swine flue. This article is the result of major key word searches, like "Swine flue". This article is the main information source for Swine flue. Although there is another artilce linked to this article as 2009 swine flu outbreak, but this article is still a current event, as the source of Swine flue. If there are any changes, any new vaccines or etc., to this flue, it must be mentioned and tracked in this article as it is right now and this is why it should be marked as current event. I added this tag earlier but it was removed by another user with out any explanation. Although I asked the user for explanation, he did not respond. I would like to request for a current event tag for this article. Thanks--Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• This is basically a content issue over which admins have little influence. I note that 2009 swine flu outbreak is marked with the current template, and usually we don't mark every subsidiary or background article with the current tag; like every bombing in Iraq doesn't get the Iraq war article or US foreign policy articles tagged "current", just that particular event. I see nothing here for us to do, even were I inclined to. Am I missing something? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Swine influenza is the main article for this ourbreak. I give you an example. It is like we divide this ourbreak by month and we make different articles. It does not make sense to jump from one article to another and loose the main article. What if there is another ourbreak in 2010? If there are other artilces out there, that is fine, but this is the main article about Swine flue. If we fail to keep it current, then I don't know what to say.--Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Still a content issue. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No matter what issue it is, administrator's help can prevent edit warring when users are ignorant and revert with out explanation and do not even respond to messages.--Parvazbato59 (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, admins can only step in once the edit-warring or disruptive reverts start. We cannot interfere with legitimate content issues or hypothesized conduct issues; only current conduct issues. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 00:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing for an admin to do, let consensus have sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The real reason swine flu spreads internationally.

For the record, the main article for the outbreak is 2009 swine flu outbreak. Despite the similar page name, Swine influenza is not a current event, nor particularly relevant to this outbreak. --Una Smith (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I see a dab at the top of Swine influenza to 2009 swine flu outbreak. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A "swine flue" might be part of a fireplace used for roasting pork. "Swine flew" would mean that pigs could fly. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

and "'s wine flew" (=his wine flew) is what happened when he found out his wife had the H1N1 virus. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It was said that we'd see the day of a black president in the US when pigs fly. 100 days into Obama's presidency - swine flu... 87.69.176.81 (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits

This editor was injuncted for one year from editing Baronets, Arbuthnot articles and Ireland and UK political articles. There has been particular history between him and me. Presumably his time is up today because (1) he has been doing a countdown using road signs and (2) he is back to his old irritating tricks. For example renaming articles created by me such as Sir Benjamin Slade, 7th Baronet Benjamin Slade. Sir Ben is actually known as Ben, but Ben Slade already exists. I request that all today’s edits be reverted and that the articles ban / injunction be extended. It worked very well. For good measure I would add this edit [61]. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• If by "irritating tricks" (nice personal attack btw) you mean following wikipedia guidelines then yeah! Please read the MOS with respect to this issue - you have been purposefully ignoring the MOS to suit your own ends to add honourifics. I have simply corrected the titles in line with MOS. Not only are my edits in line with MOS (see point #4) but the Peerage Project (of which you are a member) also outline how these articles should be titled! Isnt there a bit of a Conflict of Interest here - especially as you yourself are a Baronet.
• If Benjamin Slade's common name is Ben Slade then why is there no mention of that in the article - Nor is there any link to the other article for the other Ben Slade are editors supposed to be mindreaders?
• Any comment on the 50 or so other article titles I have changed today?
• If anyone needs an eye keeping on them its you - you have purposefully flauted the rules to suit your own end for a long time. It ends today!--Vintagekits (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oh please, give it a rest - both of you. Vintagekits, I'd suggest, if there is not already a consensus for the naming of these articles then you need to get one before mass moving all these articles and if there is one, I'd personally suggest that a note on the article talk page citing this and suggesting a central discussion if there is opposition before making the moves would be a useful way to avoid unnecessary tensions. Although this a clear content dispute, there is more then a little appearance (if nothing else) of your edits targeting Kittybrewster's contributions and, if this is going to spiral into boring drama and disruption, it will be a matter of hours or at most days before the restrictions are reimposed on you by community consensus. I strongly urge you to show common sense and restraint because I'm sure I'm not the only admin who is bored rigid by your petty squabbling and I don't think we will be tolerant of any intentionally disruptive or belligerent actions on your part. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Have you even read what I wrote? There are plenty of centralised discussions going back years and there is a specific note in the naming conventions with respect to this (I've linked to this in my reply) - I see no reason to open yet another when the criteria is quite clear with respect the to the issue. --Vintagekits (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(side note: have some concern about when you added the link - it was not there when some people read the original reply) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It was added well before the reply (approximately 10 minutes).--Vintagekits (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, you must have known that the moves would cause tension and you acted in the full knowledge that you would be stirring up trouble with an editor who you had previously been banned from interacting with. While I saw that you indicated that there was a consensus, I didn't check that this was the case and have long taken the view that one editors consensus is another editors open discussion - remember that consensus can change. Even when there is a clear consensus and you are doing the right thing the sensible thing to do in a case like this would be to cite the consensus on the article talk page and invite discussion of the proposed moves before the moves take place. This is called working collaboratively and is what we do round here. You know exactly what you are doing and you now know that your actions have been noted. You should now have a clear understanding of what will happen if you continue to act in a way that exacerbates the tensions round here and that leads to avoidable drama. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"you acted in the full knowledge that you would be stirring up trouble" - so you are now a mind reader are you? Tell me if I am editing in accordance with wikipedia guidelines or not? Why would you suggest that I ignore name conventions to appease any potential editors? Are you trying to trap me into some suprious block by saying "you should now have a clear understanding of what will happen if you continue to act in a way that exacerbates the tensions round here". Unless you can tell me exactly what I am doing wrong then I fail to see why I should stop editing in line with wikipedia guidelines - that seems an extremely strange request.

Havent you considered that it is Kitty that is causing the diruption? What exactly have I done? Why is he upset with what I am doing? Havent you noticed that he has just lobbed a grenade into a fox hole and done a runner - thats what I call distruption.

I can clearly see what side you are on!--Vintagekits (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You are having a laugh aren't you? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly am not.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it certainly looks that way to me but since we are having a much more useful discussion on your talk page why don't we keep the discussion between us there for the moment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. I really had thought that VK had taken on board the spirit of his final-final-final chance, and that having edited without trouble for a year, he would continue to stay out of trouble when his probation expired.

However, when my attention was drawn to this, I checked the revision history of his talk page and found that for over a fortnight he has been running set of a countdown signs to the end of his probation, and that edit summaries are explicit about his disruptive intent:

• [62] — "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!"
• [63] — "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!"
• [64] — "unlucky for some!"

That sort of threatening and aggressive approach is completely at odds with the principle of collaborative editing. In the discussions a year ago leading up to his unblocking, Vk explicitly disavowed an interest in this area, and stressed how he wanted to concentrate of non-contentious subjects. Those promises seem to have been set aside now. :(

The substantive issue here is simple. Yes, the MOS (at WP:NCNT) specifies that the names of articles on baronets should include the title only when necessary for disambiguation. However, the MOS is a guideline, not a cudgel, and naming articles on baronets takes some care because many of these families of baronets recycled first names through several generations and often through several branches of the same family, and how in many cases these families held positions of power and influence for hundreds of years: the Acland family is one good example of that, with dozens of notable people of similar names, but there are plenty of others. The notability of these people arises through their wealth and power: many of them controlling parliamentary seats for generations (and per WP:BIO members of national parliaments are automatically presumed notable), and othrs of the same family had notable positions in the military, in finance, or in other area. My interest is in MPs, and I have long since lost count of the number of such families where one notable person turns out to be similarly named to many others. In some cases, a 1st baronet may merely the first title-holder after several generations of notability (these families often controlled parliamentary seats for generations before gaining a baronetcy).

For those reasons, a lot of care is needed in article naming to disambiguate these people, and using the title is an unambiguous way of naming a particular member of that family. A look at the 19th century parliamentary constituencies shows dozens of cases like this, and I and others put a lot of time into disambiguating them all.

Vintagekits has never had any substantive interest in developing this are of wikipedia, which is fine: we can all work on the areas which interest us. The problem is that he has now resumed his old habit of aggressively and threateningly wading into this field and using a narrow interpretation of the MOS to cause disruption by sabotaging these disambiguation efforts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

PS Here is the Terms of VK's probation, which explicitly excluded him from this area. Since he has resumed disrupting this area immediately on its expiration, I suggest that the probation should be reapplied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Long on waffle - short on substance! The only reason you got invloved here is because Kitty canvased you - now if that is not a case of disruption then I dont know what is.

Those diffs that you listed as being "threatening and aggressive" - what exactly are they threatening to

"Vintagekits has never had any substantive interest in developing this are (sic) of wikipedia" - you mean except for creating this!!!

The probation is over BHG, The editing restrictions are over! - deal with it and deal with me. Your bullying and distruptive approach wont work anymore. I've wised up to your tricks and I wont be rising to the bait. I have no intesion causing distruption - you and Kitty are causing the distruption here not me.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I currently oppose this option as I am trying to talk this through with VK on their talk page. They stopped the moves when I asked nicely and we are having a very constructive conversation on their user talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose to the suggestion by BHG. VK has edited in line with the MOS, surprise surprise KB is not happy with VK tell us something we don't know this is a major storm in a teacup. BigDunc^Talk 12:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you BD, I am raging that I am the one that has edited within guidelines yet there is an attempt to focus of the "distruption" on me. I am supposed to get concensus for something which is already in the MOS instead of the other way around. This is Majorly Bonkers!--Vintagekits (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No its called working collaboratively and it means that sometimes you need to go the long way round a problem to promote harmony rather then just bulldozering stuff through because you happen to be right. Right is a very movable feast on wikipedia so its always worthwhile taking a little extra time to smooth the path - especially when you are a high profile editor of whom there are strong contrasting opinions held by multiple factions. Since I think we now have a non-disruptive way forward I'm going to close this discussion and mark it as resolved. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This section was marked as resolved, but I don't think it is.

Spartaz, please take a again look at Vk's edit summaries ("dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!", "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!", "unlucky for some!") as he ran his countdown clock. What was all that about if not a clear intention to threaten and disrupt?

Is this really acceptable conduct for an editor facing the expiry of their probation? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as you and Spartaz were asking me to stop moving the titles and to discuss it I do. Then I try and discuss it with BHG and she ignores it and moves that pages back. Remind me who is supposed to be being distruption.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes I saw that, I feel VK has approached this a bit like a bull in a china shop but I have noticed in the past that they do tend to listen to reasonable arguments and VK did have strong policy based reasons for their actions. I realise that you disagree with my position but VK has agreed to hold fire with the moves and discuss, so I really don't see the point of immediately bringing down the ban hammer again. I'm not a banner and blocker and prefer to find ways to get editors working together rather then working at cross purposes and I had hoped that that was what we had now. My understanding is that VK is going to seek a consensus on moving the articles according to the MOS and a local consensus at some wikiproject at that wikiproject's talk page and I urge you to concentrate on debating the issue there rather then prolonging the drama by reverting all of VKs edits. IIRC we have no deadline and there will shortly be a consensus either confirming your position or VK's so what is the point of moving them all back when they will all shortly have fixed locations or be moved through consensus. I can see that you are frustrated and unhappy but now that VK has stopped moving and has raised a discussion just moving the articles back is a bit like throwing petrol on the flames. Wouldn't it be better to just discuss the merits of the naming rather then prolonging the needless drama? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well since you stopped moving and agreed to discuss there is no disruption on your part right now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd also point Spartaz towards his talk page, where he's been making lovely comments like "god, this is what I'm working with?" in regards to other editors. Ironholds (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah come on BHG you really are trying to stir things up. What happend to WP:BRD is it now be bold and then moan to ani. You really are very sensitive souls if any of VK's comments are annoying you. BigDunc^Talk 13:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? Have you seen MHG's talkpage? She is "sensitive" for being annoyed by comments referring to her "bullshit" and "moronic logic"? Ironholds (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

meh!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. I agree that the behavior of involved parties warrants observation. Usage of intimidate or just plain rude comments damages neural point of view in a content dispute, and as such should not be allowed. I suggest a handful of admins keep an eye on this situation(sorry not me, I have to work) and that it be handled on the appropriate talk page through debate. I don't think anything actionable has occurred yet, but I get the feeling it may. Chillum 13:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile BHG continues to move articles and refuses to discuss the issue - is someone going to do anything about this now. This truely is disruption!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

republic

Francis Schonken [[65]] continues to revert my edits without stipulating any reason whatsoever, merely repeating the same phrase over and over again. I have repeatedly tried to engage with him over why he thinks my edits are wrong. He will only direct me to talk page comments that he made before my contribution was made. The most generous interpretation I can put on his actions is that he thinks the article has to be complete before being changed at all, which is a fundamental misunderstading of WP. I'd appreciate it if someone would enlighten him about WP policy. BillMasen (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I second these concerns. Francis tends to revert any change made to his prose at the republic article, an article that is something of a mess. In the last month four users, including Bill and myself, have made good faith changes, and all have been immediately reverted. I've been trying to overhaul this article for a couple weeks now, but getting even tiny changes in is impossible. Most recent discussion is at Talk:Republic#Working_on_the_rewrite - SimonP (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please let's agree on method first, before throwing around all sorts of empty accusations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the problem: you are simply commanding us to agree with you and calling it "consensus". I have reviewed the extremely paltry arguments you have made, and I find them utterly wanting. If you want agreement, come up with some better reasons for what you are doing. BillMasen (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This looks like content dispute and I don't really see how admin intervention is required at this point. Discuss this on article's talk page and come to a new consensus. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely agree Jauerback. Whilst it is primarily a content issue, I see some conduct issues on the talk page too. In particular, I think Francis Schonken could modify his approach to communicating his perspective. CIreland (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic states

I just used the mop somewhat against policy, and invite the eyes of as many uninvolved admins to weigh in.

This morning I split, against consensus on the article's talk page, Occupation of the Baltic states, by moving the article to Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II, and then splitting the post war content to create Baltic states and the Soviet Union. This was done because the article had simply become a nationalist battleground. By splitting the article, I have reduced the scope, and hopefully the contentious nature of the overarching topic. Additionally, earlier this week I opened This case at Medcom and it rapidly became clear that there existed no desire to discuss from one group of editors. A look at the talk page, my talk page, and the talk page for Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II should give a clear (or not clear, which is what makes it clear) view of what I did and why. Additionally, I move protected the pages for three days to force people to view the split without blindly reverting me.

I was invited to the article by User:Dojarca, who represents one side of the editors in the article dispute. I don't share Dojarca's views, and used my tools not to enforce a content dispute, but to give more space to work to several groups of editors who would rather just bash each other over the head.

Once again, if this looks like an egregious abuse of power, I invite any admins to reverse my actions following a discussion here. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)