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

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)

I think the length is fine. Whether 1 day or 30, when the block expires the editor will either realize we're serious about the request to stop... or not. Wikidemon (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess not.[1] Any point checking for socks? This is identical behavior to another editor from a few months back. Wikidemon (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly not because he's still at it can we get a topic ban and he can then decide if he wants to contribute somewhere else or leave... --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've given another warning that seems to have been heeded. I'm inclined to wait and see what happens. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Now seems to be socking

Was blocked by admin earlier today, now seems to be socking. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, you may need to consider blocking 166.135.220.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well. It appears to be the same guy. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:14, 1 May 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) [2], then reverts Quiddity's attempt to restore the material: [3].

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: [4] --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)

Whoever the ip user is, be wary of Viriditas' sockpuppetry accusation.--Caspian blue 14:10, 1 May 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)
        • Some quick research shows that you have met him much less than I have. You have a even willingness to revert for his sake even though you know those are wrong. However, I can agree with your last sentence, and my impression on you seems valid.--Caspian blue 14:10, 1 May 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)

How to proceed?

This issue is not resolved unless an active, uninvolved mediator steps in. I do not know whay LessHeard vanU considers himself involved; I had some hope he would continue. If there is no other, I will start a conduct RfC on Arcayne. — Edokter • Talk • 20:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be a very bad idea, a RfC on the content issue would be a better one. If there is a conduct RfC then all parties conduct will need be looked at - including those who may have used advanced permissions inappropriately, whereas a content RfC would look at the specific arguments and make a judgement that all parties should then adhere to (which then removes the antagonism).

I cannot mediate because I think Arcayne is correct, and I don't think his refusal to move from his interpretation of policy is uncivil or the manner in which he has addressed editors whose arguments is based on "willya just look at the goddam episode an' tell me it aint so" (none of the current parties has taken that route, I should add) is unjustified and I would likely participate to argue his case. I cannot divorce my interpretation of policy to mediate impartially, I'm afraid. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 1 May 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 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 attack and 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: [5] 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 [6] 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)

Personal attacks, vandalism, accusations

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).

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

• [8] poor grammar

• [9] poor grammar

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

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

• [12] removal of info, no justification

• [13] unsourced and poorly worded speculation

• [14] kind of a useless "word lego"

• [15] 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):

• [16] blast of personal attacks
• [17] [18] [19] 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

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

• [21] [22] [23] multiple attacks on (apparently) the same anonymous editor

• [24] 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.

When Keltie was informed of this discussion, this was his reply. In other words: "I feel no regret whatsoever, this anonymous IP is a douchebag and I won't even dignify his sorry ass with an answer." Great attitude...

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)

Let's WP:AGF a little here, Mr/Ms IP address. You opened an ANI filing, and THEN a WQA. You edit-warred on WQA where people politely tried to help you to understand that this needed to be dealt with in one forum. You have argued with me on my Talkpage as I tried to assist as your advicate in the situation.

I fully agree, a few of the diff's you provided regarding Keltie's insults on a wide variety of user pages show them as being complete violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but your continued aggressive actions are weakening your case, and indeed have become disruptive. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Bold" and "aggressive" are not the same, and this is all I am going to say at this point. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading the above and looking at your contribution history, I have some doubts about whether or not this is all you are going to say at this point. However, it's all disruptive. I can't see any further good that will come from this discussion, and in a larger light, you have been prone to theatrics, drama, and contentious editing for a long time. It's gotten to the point where even if you are right, no one is going to agree because you've been so argumentative, tendentious and prickly in the past. Tan | 39 14:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific, I really fail to understand how come after I have been doused with a bucket of excrement by an editor, whose edit history demonstrates very poor grammar, disrupting other editors, calling names, vandalizing talk pages, conducting extreme personal attacks and what not – I'm the one "on trial" here. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a peculiar incident. Please explain the difference between this diff and this diff. Is BWilkins allowed to make random jokes on an admin board while I am not? This is beyond me... 87.69.176.81 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You were unblocked on the condition you would not mess with others' comments. Did you forget that promise? Also, please address whether or not you have any relationship to the users Mexicomida. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not have a connection to that user at all, if this is what you are asking. As for removing comments – you are still ignoring the fact that my comment got reversed three times, which seems OK, but my reversal got instantly criticized. No double standards, please. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your unblock was on an unconditional promise by you not to mess with others' comments, which you quickly broke. You can complain about the apparent double standard, but messing with others' comments directly is a violation of your promise. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You just love wallowing in semantics, don't you? Please stop with this appalling display of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What "semantics"? You promised not to mess with others' comments, then you went ahead and did it anyway. That's as clear as a bell. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please address the issue as a whole, not only what's convenient for you. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Bringing us back on topic As much as the actions of the IP editor is distracting from the WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations, there remains the actions of User:KeltieMartinFan

• "So much for all of this narcistic “experienced integrity user” hoopla that you try to pull off. You don’t fool anybody. 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. We are not going to tolerate your B.S. on here" = bad
• "it’s clearly obvious that you have some sick obsession over the Today show host? There are places for people like you" = bad, as was the later multiple reverting of the removal of the comment from that page
• get that deluted stubborn thought out of your unintelligent brain of yours = bad, as was the multiple re-adds.

Can we focus on this activity first, and then deal with additional Plaxicoization later (if needed) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

While Keltie's comments have been pretty aggressive, he's also been dealing with this South Park garbage trashing Katie Couric for at least a year (example:[25]) from various sources, and he's probably fed up. I know I would be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

He was previously dealing with other editors, not me. I do not have to serve as a sewer pipe for Keltie's frustration. His or her behavior was only short of a physical attack. As for "this South Park garbage trashing Katie Couric" – keep your POV to yourself please, this is Wikipedia. We must provide relevant information in an objective manner, not "shush" anything that might be considered offensive to some fans. This is not a fansite, no bias can be tolerated. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Curiously, the "fan page" complaint echoes what Smedpull said a few months back: [26] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I also happened to come across that comment just now and quite agree with it. Anything else, Sir Holmes? 87.69.176.81 (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Your earliest entry as your current ID was April 19th. Have you edited under different user ID's in the past? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor's actions may explain the incivility, but never excuse it. If Keltie needed help, there are proper forums for that, and reaching for the name-calling was not correct. Like I suggested, let's deal with the improper reactions first, and then do what Keltie should have done and deal with the IP edits. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Keltie is probably exasperated from dealing with these characters for over a year, but I agree that he needs to speak up here rather than sitting quietly and letting everyone talk about him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on This, I don't expect to see a response from them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things worth pointing are that (1) Keltie said the South Park stuff had already been settled in talk, which is true ([27]); and (2) neither editor brought to the talk page, the IP's attempt to re-insert that stuff; the "talk" was all done in the edit summaries and on each other's talk pages, as each of them flung various objects at each other. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also opine that the obvious anti-liberal bias shown by the IP is probably the reason his swine flu joke was deleted. Coming from a neutral party, it was probably harmless. Coming from someone with an anti-liberal agenda, it's easy to see why some would read racism into it. And any hint of racism has to go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Obvious anti-liberal bias???" Are you f@^king kidding me? This has nothing to do with my political beliefs (if anything, I'm somewhat of an Obama supporter). This is a joke I heard and liked because it's funny. To apply a quote by Seth MacFarlane (creator of Family Guy) to you in this case: "Being funny is something you're quite above, and for that I salute you." Stating that some racists said in the past that "there will be a black president when pigs fly" does not make me one! You might want to consider joining the Parents Television Council and conduct this ridiculous witch hunt against anything that might be funny, scraping for racism, slander and other types of offense. I see your latest comment as a personal attack against me and demand an apology. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment: yes, when I face such uncivil and outright ridiculous accusations, I react in a way that might be seen by some as "aggressive" but it's because I try and protect myself. To set the record straight: again, I am not a racist and never have I displayed the slightest hint of anti-liberal bias. "Why do Jews have long noses? Because the air is free." There you go, I'm an Israeli Jew. So much for my reparations for the day, I'm going out for a bit :-) 87.69.176.81 (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of this endless discussion? David D. (Talk) 18:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC)You demand an apology? Would anyone here (besides our would-be humorist) be shocked if I gave out a brief disruption block? This is getting out of hand. Tan | 39 18:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, I'm supposed to "shut the f@^k up"... no problem, no more "disruptions" but if anyone tries to pin imaginary blame on me again, I will react. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Raging switches people off. It appears you are your own worst enemy from this thread. David D. (Talk) 18:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Try getting a false accusation after another while keeping a straight face. I may have taken the bait but this does not justify the repeated attacks on me. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you're taking standard procedure personally. Relax, no one's "out to get you," they just want to make sure they have all the facts. Constantly leveling accusations and attacks just lead to escalation. Soxwon (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I took the continued attempts to trash the Katie Couric article, along with the "fan club" comment, to be indicative of anti-liberal bias. I, personally thought it was a funny joke and didn't see anything racist in it. I even repeated it to some co-workers, and of course they groaned. But others did see it as racist - not the jokester necessarily, but the joke itself, and that's why they (rightly) removed it. Regardless of any settlement here, though, the content issue (of which I believe this whole thread to be a distraction from) remains out there. But previous consensus said the South Park stuff does not belong in the Couric article. If the IP thinks otherwise, he should bring that to the Couric talk page rather than trying to debate it in edit summaries. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur about the article content issues. However, since there has been some significant NPA issues, let's deal with them, and then deal with content where it belongs is all I'm sayin' (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

• User:KeltieMartinFan will be given a personalized, non-template warning, linking to this, this and this, advising them that although frustration may explain incivility, it never excuses it based on WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. They will be advised that should a situation arise that requires hard action, WP:AIV, WP:ANI, WP:AN, or similar forums should be used, rather than lose their cool.

There's nothing inherently blockable, I believe. Agree/disagree/additions/changes? You'll then be free to follow the Plaxico route as needed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I want KeltieMartinFan to go back to the IP addresses he warned and rewrite them so they aren't so aggressive. At some point, those addresses will reset and some innocent anonymous user will get that vitriol for no reason at all. It's one thing to be nasty to logged-in users, but there's serious collateral damages concerns here. Following this warning in May 2008, a new user freaked out at my page which I explained. Imagine someone seeing his comments. Until I see some attempt to fix the problem, "suggestion taken to heart" isn't enough for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Katie Couric

87.69.176.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mexicomida (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Smedpull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Chingadiculous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This could be coincidental, but the day after Mexicomida stopped editing is the day the IP address started editing. The most obvious thing they have in common is a keen interest in trashing Katie Couric. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Trashing? Again with the personal attacks? (Not to mention the implied sockpuppetry accusation???) Were we the ones that invented the fictional measuring unit for weighing feces? No, it was South Park. Therefore, as a popular show watched by many, it deserves inclusion, regardless of all Katie Couric fans out there who might be hurt by the reference. If you have problems with this, you are welcome to address them to Trey Parker and Matt Stone. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you Mexicomida? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, no. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm listing a few more, who seem to be topically linked, though not necessarily the same user. Just as a matter of possible interest or reference. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am not any of these users. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 16:37, 1 May 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 [28]. 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 ([29], [30] 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 : [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] 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 [38] [39] [40] [41]. 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)

I agree with Avi and GWH above. If this doesn't stop, I am inclined to issue "bang their heads together" blocks of equal length to both parties. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:16, 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)

You might want to read beyond the pale. – ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 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

Resolved

 – Content dispute and a touchy subject for humor. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. For those who miss the concept: "he was angry/sad that his wife was sick and accidentally dropped his glass of wine"(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Science (yes, it was quite obvious to me before your explanation), but in what way is it relevant to this board? 87.69.176.81 (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

An image I posted to this thread several hours ago may have opened the door to a variety of humor which, regretfully, appeared exceedingly distasteful and unfunny. It was by no means intentional to move things in an inappropriate direction, so I have removed the image. Durova^Charge! 16:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with your image - there's simply a line that shouldn't be crossed, and it (according to WP:AGF) was accidentally crossed later and corrected much later. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

But an edit war resulted, both here and at my user talk page. Not worth it. Durova^Charge! 16:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Bingo ... I see that now. I guess someone never learned to not revert on someone's "personal" talkpage ... I can see (even with my attempts to assist) why support for their complaint is sinking fast. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you got it at all. Firstly, I was about to thank you as I have realized you are one of the few editors with constructive comments in my whole affair. Being assaulted, complaining and then seeing the whole situation reversed for ridiculous "reasons" can make you somewhat bitter and suspicious towards anything for a short while. I do apologize and hope we can start off on a clean slate.
Now, for Durova (talk · contribs): someone else (not Durova) kept removing my comment from his or her talk page; not only that, they were posting fake vandalism warnings on mine. How am I wrong here (again)? 87.69.176.81 (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why another editor should have been removing that comment from Durova's talkpage. I've left a note asking the user. --Onorem♠Dil 17:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've thanked the other editor for the reversions, which I noticed only while checking the history. Am on the verge of starting a separate thread regarding the 87 IP's conduct. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. When I present a legitimate query as for why you slander me on my talk page, you accuse me of vandalism... and think of starting a crusade against me. What's wrong with this picture, kids? 87.69.176.81 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably not needed ... they're showing their conduct quite well already on this page :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for not turning the other cheek quietly and submissively for some more can of whoop-ass... 87.69.176.81 (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously fine if you decide to remove the comments from your talkpage, but were the comments actually inappropriate to the point that someone else should? I didn't see anything wrong with the question. --Onorem♠Dil 17:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(after ecs) I warned 87 a while ago because they blanked Bwilkin's comment here (which I restored, the his wine flew one above)...which is probaby where the 'fake vandalism warnings' comes from. I can assure the 87 that it was not fake. Whether it is in bad taste or not, thats not the way to handle it. Syrthiss (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why my joke got reverted three times and I got blamed, but when I reverted BWilkins' joke once, I got blamed again? What gives? What is "the way to handle it?" 87.69.176.81 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, because I am not the arbiter of everything that goes on on en.wiki. My connection to this is a simple act and a simple response. To your other question, the correct way to handle it is to contact the person and tell them of your concern and ask that they themselves remove it. Syrthiss (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

87 IP, you claimed at my user talk that you came over to this thread to share humor. Clearly that effort at humor was ineffective. When Jay Leno tells a joke that falls flat he holds himself responsible for not being funny enough. He's very good at humor. There are individuals in this world who make statements that are offensive, and afterward if people object they claim that it was joking and blame the audience. That isn't actually humor in any legitimate sense; it's a form of masked aggression. If you wish to distinguish yourself from that type of individual, please withdraw your complaints. Durova^Charge! 18:10, 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 [42]. 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:

• [43] — "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!"
• [44] — "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!"
• [45] — "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)

At one level, there is a content dispute here. But I challenge anyone to look at VK's record in this area or at his behaviour today and stand by the notion that his aim here is to improve the content of wikipedia.::As stated on my talk page, I see no reason why I should be required to engage in discussion with an editor whose incivility is legendary, who has approached this issue with a series of threats and abuse which began even while he was still on probation. I have tried discussing these issues with Vk before, and it always involves a barrage of threats and abuse from him.

Essentially, this is matter of a long-term disruptive editor whose countdown to the expiry of his probation used threatening edit summaries, and who set to on expiry of the probation to reopen an old round of disruption.

Why on earth should other editors be required to engage with this sort of behaviour from an editor who has such a long history of threats, abuse and disruption? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that sounds great and cruxify me for me past deeds if you wish but the proof is in the pudding.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment First of all and to avoid any assumption, let me say that noone has alerted me; however some of the articles affected by the moves are on my watchlist and I believe some were even initially started by me. Vintagekits, while I agree that all of your moves were along the guideline you have stated above, I consider the intention to move 100s of articles [46] and the partly completion of it, only hours after your ban over this topic had expired, rather awkwardly then constructive. I think you won't deny that such big interventions should be discussed before or at least performed very carefully - especially if the performing User was involved in "skirmishs" regarding the topic before.
  ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• How many times has this issue been discussed? What is left to discuss? I suggest you have a word with BHG quickly because she is currently pouring petrol on a fire and I am trying hard to keep my lip bitten.
• Its amazing how Kitty has started all this (with a messege on here and one on BHG's page) and then moonwalked out of here. Well done Kitty!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This dispute demonstrates there is clearly something left to discuss. Chillum 13:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No it doesnt, this has purely been an attack from KB and BHG to try and avoid the MOS being applied to articles about Baronets.

This proves that. BHG and KB are not interested in discussing the issue they are interested in creating hassle. I have tried to discuss the substantive issue at hand but that has been ignored. Unless someone can come up with a very good reason then I am going to go back to ensuring that all articles on wikipedia adhere to name convention guidlelines.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Vk, your are amazingly persistent in your efforts to invert the blame.

There was no hassle whasoever until you saw the end of your probation looming, began your countdown clock with clear statements of your intent to cause trouble ("dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!", "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!", "unlucky for some!" ... and then as soon as your probation expired you set about a mass campaign of moves without regard to the needs for disambiguation.

I am now engaged in the long process of repairing the damage caused by the resumption of your vendetta. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep showing those edit summaries as if it proves something or means something. They have nothing, zero, zip, nada, nil, nought, zilch to do with the issue here. Your actions here have shown that you are the root of the disruption. By continuing to change article titles of against MOS despite all that has gone on here to try and stop me from doing it then you are showing utter contempt for me, other editors, wikipedia and its guidelines and are editing in a highly disruptive manner and pouring petrol on flames. On the advice on an admin here I have tried to engage with you in a rational discussion which you have refused to do so prefering to continue to escalate the issue. I will let others judge your actions - suffice to say that if I pulled the same stunt then I would be banned. One rule for one and another from others!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!", "That is possibly the most moronic logic I have ever had laid before me!" and "Less of the bullshit, arm waving and drama" are your idea of "rational discussion", then the dictionaries need to be rewritten. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well you can take little snippets out of context and present this however you feel - however, I would prefer that other put it in context and mad their own minds up as to your behaviour today. See here and here.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly; lets look at more than just snippets. Take the first post you made to BHG's talkpage; exactly how can "Less of the bullshit, arm waving and drama. " be taken out of context? Ironholds (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read it I was not referring BHG directly but to everyone involed - including myself.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever the policy behind it, this has now progressed from a content dispute. Whether or not Vintagekit's changes were according to policy is a content dispute that has no place here is one thing. The fact that these changes came straight after getting off probation for the same sort of thing, and Vintagekit's persistent incivility when dealing with it, makes this sort of thing utterly inappropriate. Vintagekits: calm down, stop using rude language, start showing a bit of respect and the content section of this dispute can continue elsewhere. Ironholds (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not following that at all. VK stopped moving the articles when asked nicely, engaged in a spirited discussion with me and then agreed to seek a wider consensus before making further moves - even though their moves are backed by policy and apparently there is already an existing consensus on this supporting the moves. I believe they have already opened up the discussion. I don't condone the countdown but I do applaud VK's willingness to compromise their approach to reduce the tension. Bar their spirited responses VK has stopped moving articles and is seeking a consensus. Good for them I say as it shows lots of good faith in the collaborative principle. I personally don't think BHG is being helpful moving the articles back in the face of an ongoing discussion about their naming but the important thing here is the discussion. Everyone should now stop stoking the flames and just get back to discussing the proposed moves calmly or whatever else they were doing before this blew up. I started my involving convinced that VK was going to get blocked and/or topic banned very quickly over this (possibly even by me and I'm not a blocker or banner by preference) but I have been pleasantly surprised that they can adapt and listen. I actually think they are right here and the articles need to be moved per the MOS and local consensus by the local wikiproject but this is a matter for discussion and this is now taking place so can everyone please now drop this and move on since that's a content matter and not relevant to ANI Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Exactly; a content matter. The way Vintagekit conducted himself during this may be worthy of further discussion, however. Ironholds (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Let me give an example why the moves are/were very unconstructive, cause/d much unnecessary work and mess, and have/had to be considered before: basically justified by the guideline User:Vintagekits moved Sir Thomas Barrett-Lennard, 1st Baronet to Thomas Barrett-Lennard. However the location of the article had a reason, since the baronet had a son, a politician with the same name and as a MP notable on its own, but didn't inheritered the baronetcy. Caused by the aforementioned move all links thought to the son indicate now to the father - what could have been avoided. (On one side one can assume good faith, but on the other side User:Vintagekits is a experienced editor with sufficient knowledge of the topic to except such results.)
    ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Spartaz, I'm sorry, but it looks like you didn't read my comment above about the huge ambiguity problems involving baronets.

Vintagekits set about doing these moves because he hates titles, a sentiment he has expressed many times in the past. He appears to have gone about this by just making any moves that worked, without checking whether there was actually an issue of ambiguity, and ignoring the fact that using titles for disambiguation is explicitly approved by the MOS.

I am now trying to undo the damage, but it's important to note that all these disambiguation problems are covered by the MOS, that Vintagekits has had them punted out to him many times before, but that he still set off on this rampage.

Take for example this move of Sir William Acland, 2nd Baronet. There are scores of notable Aclands, and there were two William Acland baronets. It would only have taken a moment to check that, but Vk's splattergun renaming didn't involve any such checks.

Or take this edit, converting a dab page to a redirect, despite the fact that two of the redlinked articles refer to notable people, which I was able to unearth with a little googling.

I am going through the list of his contribs to unravel the rest of the damage, but those two examples illustrate neatly how VK isn't trying to uphold the MOS, he is trying to remove titles where technically possible.

Your suggestion to "get back to discusing the proposed moves" ignores the effect of this sort of rampage. It requires other editors to devote huge chunks of time to digging out the evidence of ambiguity for each article, because Vk set about this process without doing any checking of his own. Not just that, but when challenged he claimed that the dab pages were "created to merely circumvent MOS", and that the only way to demonstrate notability was to ""create an article about them".

Wikipdia is a work in progress, and there are many articles which could be created in notable people, and no doubt will be eventually. But in the meantime wikilinking avoids misleading links only by disambiguating redlinks. Many editors (including me) spend a lot of time unravelling these redlinks, and VK's efforts seem set to undermine those efforts rather than assist them.

Finally, the MOS is not, as you mistakenly say, a "policy". It is a guideline, and it explicitly says at the top "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." It also says "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that the Manual of Style is not binding, that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable"

Vk's threatening and aggressive use of the MOS as a justification for splattergun renaming without checking the consequences flies in the face of that Arbcom guidance. That's why this is a conduct issue, not a content dispute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for my "threatening and aggressive use of the MOS". You are a joker.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, the move of Sir Michael Culme-Seymour, 3rd Baronet to Michael Culme-Seymour was an issue. There have been three Michael Culme-Seymours whith distinguished naval careers in quick succession, but the renaming of the article meant that many old links meant for the son or grandson all pointed to the grandfather, which could have caused no end of confusion, since for example both held commands in the Mediterrenean. I moved it back, as it was a helpful prod to write Sir Michael Culme-Seymour, 4th Baronet and changed Michael Culme-Seymour into a list of the notable people who've had the name, but was very quickly questioned on this by VK, with the note that I ought not to do this (use the dabbed form) in case I was 'seen as being disruptive' (by himself I assume). I was rather put off by this threating approach to what I thought were some reasonable edits under the circumstances, and the lack of good faith he demonstrated. I can think of dozens of examples in the Royal Navy alone where fathers, sons and grandsons have had the same name and notable careers, and the baronetcy is a useful and recommended disambiguation until each member of the family has an article, to prevent confusion between them. Pre-emptive abandoning of the disambiguation is not really helpful. Benea (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And here is yet another example. Vintagekits moved [Sir Ralph Verney, 1st Baronet]] to Ralph Verney. A little quick checking (using the link from the article to Verney Baronets and thence to Earl Verney would have shown that there were in fact five Ralph Verneys, including two Earls, and peers have have automatic presumption of notability per WP:BIO. I have now reverted Vk's moved and created the dab page which was needed.

(ec)And what of Sir George Collier, distinguished naval commander of the Napoleonic Wars, and Sir George Collier, 1st Baronet, distinguished naval commander of the Napoleonic Wars? They are not even related to each other, and would be very easily confused. Had the George Collier article not been written, VK would presumably have attempted to move Sir George Collier, 1st Baronet to that name, and any links intended for one naval commander would then have linked to the other. I'm not opposed to using the simplest name, but if there is a need for disambiguation then the form needs to be used. And each case should be studied beforehand and the appropriatness or not of a move be determined. The articles should not be all moved in this sudden and unexpected way until this has taken place with the oversight of the relevant wikiproject, into whose hands this matter should now be placed. Benea (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that we have been over all this with Vk many many times before, and he persists in calling disambiguation "disruptive". Given all the evidence here of how many of his moves today have created the same problems as his previous vendettas, why is he walking away from this episode with a pat on the back rather than at the very least a warning? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I havent been at all disruptive today, even if you keep saying it over and over and over again doesnt make it true you know. Its been shown that you are the one that has been deliberately disrutpive and provokative. I changed the Article titles in accordance with the guideance outlined in both the Peerage Project and in the naming conventions. If some of the dozen and dozens that I changed could have been handled better then fair enough I take that on board but the vast majority of the ones that I changed the article to where either direct redirects to the article or the more simple name of the article was never even created ever! You came here to try and get me to stop and after an administrator asked me to stop and engage in discussion I did do. When I trying to rationally discuss the issue with you you refused to do so and enflamed the situation by changing the article titles back and used misleading and provokative edit summaries to try and get a reaction from me - that failed and will continue to fail. You are a disgrace to your adminship and should be stripped of it today. Your actions with regards this issue have been nothing short of bullying and disgust me.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? You've been rude, foul-mouthed and uncooperative. When people brought up your behaviour, rather than seeking an attempt at resolution you accused them of being disruptive and seem to be treating this as a big joke. Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

rude, foul-mouthed and uncooperative?? Thats my last post on the subject the judge me (and others) on the facts rather than the hyerbole!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's back to the old vintage of Vintagekits, isn't it? As soon as your probation is over, the gloves are off again.

You post a series of threats, then you engage in a splurge of edits which you knew would be disruptibe because ypou made no effort to check for the disambiguation issues which had been explained you at great length in one of your previous such vendettas. When your failure to consider ambiuguity was pointed out, you respoinded with more threats and abuse and accused others (me and Benea) of being disruptive for picking up on the disambiguation issues which you had ignored made no effort to check for before your page moves.

And now you continue to play the victim by claiming that you are being bullied. This is an old, old trick of yours, Vk, one that I have see many times: you plan a wikidrama, hurl abuse, accuse everyone else of being disruptive, ignore all the disruption caused to content by your antics, and then say that you only want rational discussion and how disgusted you are that others recognise the game. Four editors have posted here with ecxamples of how disruptive your scattergun renaming has been. How many more do you want?

For a year on probation, you demonstrated that you are quite capable of editing constructively, and avoiding dramas, if you want to. You not only chose to instantly resume your old ways when the probation ended, your even started your aggressive intent quite clearly in the edit summaries of the counrdown on your talk page. You knew what you were doing, and you clearly planned this.

Your final blast of chutzpah is that after "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!", "That is possibly the most moronic logic I have ever had laid before me!" and "Less of the bullshit, arm waving and drama" you then complain that you are the victim of "bullying". Pull the other one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Since this editor obviously can't edit this area collaboratively and constructively with other editors simply reapply the injunction and and make it PERMANENT. Problem solved. Exxolon (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

VK, revisiting this area in this rather ham-fisted way is just not productive either to this particular project or wikipedia in general. You've done good work elsewhere but here you keep jumping in with no reference to the damage you may do in telling who the heck is who, which in turn knocks on to several thousand other pages even with just a few edits. Making work for others to sort out the subsequent mess is not good in any way shape or form and needs to be avoided in future. - Galloglass 21:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree; an editor whose probation has expired should be more than normally sensitive to the issues that led to the imposition of probation in the first place. The countdown to the end of probation appears to me to be unduly pointy; there is no "free ride" once a community-based sanction has expired, and any assumption that this is that case should be quickly dispelled. Ideally, VK should find some other area in which to edit; but to return to the scene of the crime, as it were, to continue the same conduct, seems ham-fisted indeed. Time to move on, I would counsel. Rodhullandemu 23:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

republic

Francis Schonken [[47]] 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)

This is not a content dispute: Francis has not made any suggestions regarding content or commented on the suggestions of others, except to say that "it needs to be put in the re-write version". For unspecified and inscrutable reasons, the good-faith contributions of half-a-dozen editors does not amount to "consensus" for him.

If you view the talk page, you will see that I and Simon have repeatedly attempted to engage him on what content should be in this article. It seems that we will wait for others to "improve" the article to his particular and obscure satisfaction, and then he will pronounce judgment on whether it is "ok". I agree with CIreland that this is most certainly a conduct dispute, and it will not be resolved until an admin recognises that or Francis actually discusses the content of the article. BillMasen (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Okay, upon looking further, I agree with that. Apparently Francis has a bit of an ownership issue of this article and appears unwilling to concede that there is a consensus to rework the article other than his "/rewrite", which should probably be ignored altogether at this point. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I warned Francis (albeit a templated warning) about ownership. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I was just about to say that - I agree with Jauerback that Francis has not helped this article and has been a broken record with his views. There's no real simple solution here (or, I'm failing to see one). I think that Bill and Simon should continue to edit the article as they see fit, and if we get more reversion from Francis, we will deal with it at that point. Tan | 39 14:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good suggestion. If Francis has a problem with the specific change that other users are making, he needs to discuss it on the talk page and not do a revert. If he can build a consensus on the page that agrees his problem, then it can be changed, but not until then. Wholesale reverts are not going to work anymore. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic states

Resolved

 – Thread degenerated into nationalistic argument Tan | 39 16:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hatted because it's spawning meta-badness. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has the plague
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) One quick note, and somewhat backing up my reason for move protecting the pages. One editor is simply reverting Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II to include everything from the original Occupation of the Baltic states. This makes difficult to understand what I did, and rather than just get in an edit war, I would point out that the moved article that I created actually looks like this. The reason for me acting within the parameters of WP:BOLD on this is that the nature of the dispute largely echoes what is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2. It isn't exactly the same, but the central issue is the appearance of consensus by a group of editors out shouting anyone they disagree with. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I would also like to request aticle protection to this or an approximate version of Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II while this thread is active, simply because it makes it difficult to see what I did. Not required by any means, and I won't do it myself, but it might help. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Actually the article Occupation of the Baltic states was stable without any content disputation through 2008 until a couple of days ago, when User:Hiberniantears arrived and started editing the article. His claims of it being a "nationalist battleground" simply has no veracity. His use of admin tools to entrench his particular viewpoint against consensus, let alone any discussion or even warning is a gross abuse of his admin privileges. I won't be discussing this any further here, as I will be drafting an ArbCom case to have User:Hiberniantears de-sysoped. Martintg (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Well, that seems like a waste of time, but you do what you want to do. Looking at the page history, it's hard to form a concrete opinion on this matter. However, I find myself starting to skew towards "probably not a good idea", simply because you have been an involved editor. Splits like this really do need consensus of interested editors, and probably shouldn't be done unilaterally. Tan | 39 14:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Agreed, which is why I need others to look at this. I'm involved only in the sense that I tried to move things with edits, rather than the mop initially, but I don't actually have any real POV on the topic. John Carter could probably give some good insight into my actions as I asked him to enter the article after I was drawn in. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Well, it seems like you might have strayed into the "shoot first, ask for consensus later" territory. You've probably made some enemies on that page now, but in the interest of collaboration, I would probably restore the original article and then pitch your idea on the talk page. Also, wait for a couple other opinions here, as I've been known to be ridiculously wrong. Tan | 39 14:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC) LOL! I for one tend to value your opinion on things, so no worries. :-) I would like to get the opinion of as many admins or uninvolved editors as possible on this. So far, the only others weighing in are involved in some way with the pages in question. I'll reverse course if other uninvolved editors echo your view. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Restoring article to the state before the move and protection is good idea. And then starting discussion about rename and move. M.K. (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC) If Martintg decides to start an arbcom to desysop Hibernian, I will be introducing evidence of Martintg's own, and others, egregious WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:POV violations in relation to treating WP as a battleground in this area of editing. Details of which are found at User_talk:Hiberniantears#Baltics_required_reading. For example, Martintg would in no way want Talk:Soviet_War_Memorial_(Treptower_Park)#Request_for_cites_from_3_sources and Talk:Soviet_War_Memorial_(Treptower_Park)#Case_Closed to be seen by the Arbcom. As for my opinion, Hibernian's actions have my support, for the split to Baltic states and the Soviet Union is WP:NPOV; it doesn't portray one POV as "the truth", which if one reads what I posted on Hibernians talkpage, these editors have been warned in a previous Arbcom that this is not on, and there is a massive stonewalling which makes it impossible to get consensus on such issues. Which considering the editors involved, this should come as no surprise if one reads what I wrote at User_talk:Hiberniantears#Baltics_required_reading. --Russavia Dialogue 14:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC) This is not a Dispute resolution page, also please do not engage in battleground creation. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Actually, User:Martintg himself seemed to at least indicate he had no objections to the idea here. I wonder what made him change his mind so quickly. Also, it should be noted that I was the one who proposed the splitting of the article, on the basis that (1) the article at 110kB already gets the tag that it may be too long and could be broken into separate articles, and (2) by splitting it, the article would be allowed to go into greater details of the issues involved. Since I proposed it, Hiberniantears himself and Dojarca have both seemingly agreed to that, as, apparently, possibly did Martintg himself in the statement linked to above. I can see what might be called a perhaps quick move, but I would think that would be covered until WP:BOLD. If that is accurate, I can't see any real objections to the move. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Well, summary of protection indicates [48] otherwise. Why to protect article if there is an consensus then? I don't want to create drama here, the simple solution was proposed - make version before the move/protection and discuss that parts of article should be moved and there. Simple, M.K. (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I'm guessing because as he indicated in the summary he was anticipating a move war. Considering all the material he had split into a separate article has since been restored, I guess I really have no clue why he might have thought that there might be an edit war. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I don't think the split is the issue, or the reversion, and this should all be discussed on the applicable talk page. The salient issue here is Hiberiantears's protection of the article after his split was reverted. Tan | 39 14:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Splitting the article may or may not be a good idea, but having worked with similar contentious topics, I agree with Tan and M.K. that splitting against a consensus is not a good idea. Not only does it split the contentious discussions among multiple sites, sometimes the only achievable consensus can be arrived at by covering the issue(s) at dispute comprehensively. Askari Mark (Talk) 14:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Actually, as noted above, I see no evidence that this was against consensus. Also, it should be noted that there seems to me anyway to have been only one protection, at 13:10 1 May 2009, which was over moving the page, and I don't see any evidence that there was any sort of split reversion before then. Perhaps Tan can indicate where he sees that? John Carter (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I did do this to the original article, but only after I made the move and another editor changed the redirect. The two new articles are not edit protected, just move protected for three days to avoid having this discussion while the articles themselves are moving around. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC) And considering you did that to keep someone from turning a redirect to a redirect to itself, as per here, which is both bizarre and pointless, I have to say that was a fairly reasonable move. John Carter (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I don't know, but this looks like blackmail to me and it's quite disturbing. "Do start an ArbCom and I WILL s*rew your case with different allegations against yourself!" If there should be real concern about Martintg previous behaviour, it should be addressed, with or without this ArbCom, but for some reason Russavia hasn't taken that path, all we have seen lately are threats what will be happening, if somebody should do something that Russavia seems not to like. Bad spirit, IMHO. Põhja Konn (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC) One should also take note that Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Occupation of the Baltic states is basically a non-starter due to refusal to participate by several editor. This is obviously the continuation of stonewalling on the part of several editors. What Hibernian has done is to help enforce, in a way, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia#Principles which states: Neutral point of view as defined on Wikipedia contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives that have been published by a reliable source. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates. Whether this article would be covered that Arbcom, given its nature, is only a matter of seeking clarification, but the general principles cover ALL articles. Occupation of the Baltic States is a POV-title; Baltic states and the Soviet Union is an NPOV title which allows for the writing of prose which covers all sides of the argument for and against annexation/incorporation/occupation/etc, whereas the former did not as its very title was POV. Such WP:BOLD moves should be encouraged I believe. --Russavia Dialogue 15:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC) It seems that a number of editors in the article from Baltic states do not agree with basic Wikipedia's rules such as neutrality and try to push their agenda and protect their 'holy cow' article from third-party editors. It is impossible to reach a neutral consensus in this article. The hard-core propaganda in this article persists for years and nothing changes. Contradicting sources removed and edits reverted. Any meditation is either rejected or ignored. In such circumstates the administator's intervention is inevitable to protect the basic rules of Wikipedia.--Dojarca (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC) A fresh example of attempt to remove sources which contradict the article's agenda:[49].--Dojarca (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I remember I had edited the article a few months ago, introducing some Russian historians' opinions, I think the views of Oleg Platonov and also Mikhail Semiryaga. The article had remained stable for many months and seemed generally well-written and sourced. Basically Dojarca started with his apparently years old dispute again and asked an admin, too, the very sysop who now has started a rather sudden moving - splitting process + used his sysop tools, in order to cement his changes. This is not what I would call understandable behaviour, and hence second to M.K's suggestion that those unilateral decisions be undone for the time being. --Miacek (t) 16:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Dojarca, you may want to look at Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states_during_World_War_II#Discrepancy_in_lead and how I have followed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia#Neutral_point_of_view, only to have it removed, and things being presented as fact. You have also followed that, and attributed opinion to its proponents, only to have it reverted yet again, and with the most laughable edit summary; for the statements have clearly been presented as required. It is perhaps time that editors realise that "the Western world" does not equal "the world". And what you say at Talk:Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states_during_World_War_II#Whitlam is spot-on-the-mark. So long as perspectives are attributed to their advocates, there is zero reason that information should be removed. It is now clearly obvious why you asked for outside intervention from an uninvolved party, and such things clearly need to stop. Given the refusal of some of these editors to even participate in a request for mediation, if you are so inclined, you may want to see how things progress and if need be pursue it at WP:RFAR, or perhaps ask for WP:AE or the like, for you now have two pieces of clear evidence to use. Russavia Dialogue 16:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC) As for Russavia's opinion Occupation of the Baltic States is a POV-title; Baltic states and the Soviet Union is an NPOV title which allows for the writing of prose which covers all sides of the argument for and against annexation/incorporation/occupation/etc, whereas the former did not as its very title was POV You are not correct here, I think. E.g. the title Armenian genocide also doesn't 'sound' neutral for many a user, yet renaming it into ostensibly 'npov' title like Armenian-Turkish relations during First World War would not necessarily be an improvement in neutrality, would it?. --Miacek (t) 16:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC) This is not the place to argue this. Russavia, your comments are inflammatory and frankly, nationalistic. Take this to the relevant talk pages. Apparently no one has any real issue with the true issue brought up here of the move protection. Marking resolved. Tan | 39 16:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Nationalistic? I always have a barrel laugh when I am called nationalistic, because I'm an Australian. We are one, and we are many, and from all the lands on earth come...we share a dream, and sing with one voice, but hold on...Russavia's a nationalistic Russ-i-an. Thanks for the laugh Tanthala39. Russavia Dialogue 16:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Despite your sarcasm and obvious condescension, I should probably apologize for that - I had saw that you were Australian, and I didn't mean to imply you are Russian or even pro-Russian. What I did mean to say is that your comments (note that I judged your comments, not yourself) - "...most laughable edit summary...", "It is perhaps time that editors realise that "the Western world" does not equal 'the world'" appear to be designed to be inflammatory. Whenever an editor brings out the "perhaps you westerners need to start to realize", things go south quickly. At any rate, sorry for the nationalistic comment, and really, please take further article comments to the relevant talk pages. Tan | 39 17:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Just to weigh in, the unilateral split and protection move appears to be a truly horrible idea. I'm not aware whether this is a gross misappropriation of admin powers, but it appears to be highly counterproductive from a substantive viewpoint regardless. The article has existed for quite some time without serious conflict until this administrator took unilateral action. Moreover, the creation by the same editor of Baltic states and the Soviet Union was flatly nonsensical. As simply one example, the article seriously purports to begin four years after the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States, yet it is bizarrely titled "Baltic states and the Soviet Union". This is not just silly, but frankly embarrassing for Wikipedia for an article titled as such beginning in 1944 to exist. I do not view as productive these unilateral actions by an administrator clearly taking a side in a dispute (and a somewhat amusingly historical baffling side at that), and actually a dispute he himself appeared to start a few days ago, coupled with a protection of his own actions.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I left the same message to Hiberniantears. This probably belongs to WP:AE. His action seems to fall under this ArbCom ruling. The ruling was not about admins, but protection of a redirection page without a preliminary discussion and consensus is basically the same. Now the "opposite side" can request an arbitration enforcement without any further discussion. Another problem: Hiberniantears effectively deleted an article without AfD discussion.Biophys (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Nothing was deleted, the article was simply split, and I protected the original article only after someone messed up the redirect. There will be an AE for this, but out of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC) There clearly was no consensus sought for this unilateral split, I may have suggested the creation of some related articles, but my particular view doesn't override the views of others, i.e. there was no consensus, as User:Hiberniantears admits right at the beginning of this discussion "This morning I split, against consensus on the article's talk page". Not only did he then use his admin privileges protect the resultant move as he knew it was against consensus, he salted the redirect, contrary to this ArbCom ruling as Biophys states. I don't think this is case is resolved by any stretch of the imagination. The article needs to be reinstated to its original condition and User:Hiberniantears sanctioned for abusing his admin tools in a content dispute in which he is clearly a party too. Martintg (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

long term petty vandal

Resolved

 – One year schoolblock given Tan | 39 17:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I just warned 64.135.12.34 (talk) for a piece of petty vandalism, and noticed that the account has been adding nothing but cruft since 2007. the only thing the user seems to have learned in all that time is to stop after three warnings. I tend towards generous in these matters, but even I'm willing to admit this user is unlikely to contribute anything meaningful in the near future. might be time for a long-term block - something that will at least ensure that he's graduated from high school before he can edit again. --Ludwigs2 17:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Dangerous flu advice

Could some uninvolved admins please keep and eye on this editor. They are advising a course of action that could get people killed. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be good to guide him to WP:RD/S where similar questions have been raised and addressed (sadly, without explicit sources). Abecedare (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

More on swine flu, need some eyes, watchlist request

Can we get some eyes here on this dicussion? This is an ongoing debate mainly pursued by this one user, who is clearly good faith, but we could use some more opinions for a firm consensus as these articles are so important at the moment and visible.

Also, please consider watchlisting these to help out for a while: [50] The main outbreak tracking table] and the [51] main swine flu outbreak article]. Thanks. rootology (C)(T) 20:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Tor block

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-27/Technology_report: I was blocked though I don't use Tor and I'm registered. Please update MediaWiki:Torblock-blocked. Thanks, Nemo bis (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling all who can read French

There is currently a discussion regarding the possible deletion of User:Rachiddebbagh, in which the editor boasts about murdering several people. The editor in question has made a number of "unique" statements which can be seen on the MFD page and on the editor's talk page. Such interesting statements as "Rain occurs when humans dies and also when a fetus is killed, following the thunder phenomenon that occurs immediately at the death of a human or a human fetus." Um, are there any ideas of what to do with people whose, shall we say, judgement is impaired? It should also be noted that among the editors few real "contributions" to the encyclopedia are to the page NAMIRI S.A., which has few if any English words in it. I have no idea what it says, because I can't read French. Does anyone else, and can they tell us what they think of the content of the article? John Carter (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be about a company based in Morroco that invests in property, business and so on. It is innocuous. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC) P.S. Deleted (CSD A7) as I write ...

It was about a small private investment fund, including information like its alleged bank account number and what types of securities it holds.

I deleted it - completely not notable, probably contains information which should be private, etc.

This account seems to be here for reasons completely unrelated to building an encyclopedia and is doing things we outright prohibit in userspace. I am going to indefblock and delete the userpage. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say NAMIRI S.A. is entirely non-notable. The organization was the investment holding company of a highly notable former Moroccan financier, industrialist, government minister and ambassador, Driss Debbagh. Through NAMIRI he controlled the Banque Commerciale du Maroc until his death in 1986. I’m not sure, though, that NAMIRI’s notability is other than inherited. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You should try using Google translate; it's quite good. HalfShadow 23:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Issue of abuse of admin tools by Hiberniantears in a content dispute he is party too

I disagree with the closure of the ANI report regarding Hiberniantears actions. One side shouldn't be allowed to derail attention from the core issue here by using nationalistic polemic designed to muddy the waters. There clearly was no consensus sought for this unilateral split, I may have suggested the creation of some related articles, but my particular view doesn't override the views of others, i.e. there was no consensus, as User:Hiberniantears admits right at the beginning of this discussion "This morning I split, against consensus on the article's talk page". Not only did he then abuse his admin privileges to protect the resultant move as he knew it was against consensus, he salted the redirect, contrary to this ArbCom ruling as Biophys states. I don't think this is case is resolved by any stretch of the imagination. The article needs to be reinstated to its original condition and User:Hiberniantears sanctioned for abusing his admin tools in a content dispute in which he is clearly a party too. Martintg (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the editor above himself seemingly agreed to the separation of the article as it was proposed before it took place. The fact that there has been fairly regular recent vandalism to the articles is why the redirect and article are now locked. I myself think that the move was perfectly in line with WP:BOLD, and note that there were parties who agreed to it in advance. At this point, considering the above editor has himself already declined the mediation Hiberniantears offered, all I can say is that the only remaining option would be ArbCom, who in every case look into the behavior of all individuals involved in any discussion. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My particular viewpoint is of a single editor which may or may not be the consensus view. Hiberniantears knew his actions were against concensus, he admits this, thus WP:BOLD doesn't apply, nor is it true that regular recent vandalism to the articles occurred. Martintg (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, material was moved without discussion into the article from the daughter article which it had been moved to. And as I know from another ArbCom I am currently involved in consensus does not trump policy. Again, all I can say at this point is to try to arrange that Mediation is accepted or go to ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, to clarify, no articles were salted, or deleted. Likewise, I removed zero content. I did, however, move content. Everything that was in Occupation of the Baltic states was moved to either Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II or Baltic states and the Soviet Union. As it stands right now, the original article is currently a protected redirect, while Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II was move protected by me, and eventually ended up having all of the content from the original article restored to it before SoWhy edit protected it in that state, while Baltic states and the Soviet Union has been left relatively alone with the exception of receiving a bad faith AFD nomination. More importantly, I don't actually have a POV on this. I think that Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II should be reverted to a version approximately the same as it was in when I created it this morning, but I don't think that because of the POV of the article, but because I split the content of the Occupation of the Baltic states so that one article was about the World War II period when control of the territory was contested, and the other article was about the period of post-war Soviet control of the territory. I made no changes to the content itself, and have expressed throughout that there appears to be legitimate POV's that need a balanced treatment in the article. At one point I even tried making some changes to create that balance, as can be seen in this dif. However, that was not my editing as an interested party. I've never edited any of these or related articles previously, and I generally have disagreed with User:Dojarca (the editor who asked me to take a look at this in the first place) on most of our interactions, to the point of losing my temper.

I have also made a note at the Arbcom enforcement talk page asking for advice on enforcing Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia, and self-reported myself this morning for review. I'm not opposed to a review of my actions, and have been openly soliciting the involvement of uninvolved parties all week. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Levineps splitting articles

I have just blocked Levineps (talk · contribs) for a week for splitting articles without consulting their talk pages. It appears he has been doing this for a while. He caught my attention when he split the last two sections from Harvey Milk (an FA) into a Legacy of Harvey Milk article that had no lead and no coherence and was subsequently deleted after an AfD process.

After several other complaints on his talk page, and a warning by User:Avruch and User:Rodhullandemu, I threatened to block him if he did it again.

Slow on the uptake, I was contacted about the fact that he split every NFL article and created Logos and uniforms of...

• Logos and uniforms of the Jacksonville Jaguars created on April 21. No lead, no link to the parent article, no communication on the Jacksonville Jaguars talk page.
• A look at his most recent history shows similar activity at the Carolina Panthers, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Minnesota Vikings, and on and on.

A peek at this user's talk page makes it clear he has been approached about this before. Any suggestions for mentoring or someone else to explain why this is a bad idea?

Is there a quicker way to revert all these Logos of articles rather than merge discussions and AfDs for all? --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite removing and distorting Talk page discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop

Perhaps this should be left to the clerks, but I'm putting up a notice here. Hipocrite made some fairly outrageous proposed decisions at the Workshop for this arbitration, and apparently decided to remove them. But he removed the whole proposal section, including comment by others. So I reverted. He then altered his prior edits, removing his name from the proposal section, etc. I have not warned him, because I'm sure it wouldn't be useful, it's up to the rest of the community what to do about this, I'm done with it now. --Abd (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just report it to the clerk assigned to the case. It's their job to take care of this kind of stuff. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite removed the text, on the face because he wasn't getting support, but then filed an AE request over the same dead horse: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Viridae. Okay, I'll ping the clerk. --Abd (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done See here. Ronnotel (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronnotel. I pinged Talk for both clerks. --Abd (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked for comment on the associated talk page about this. Nothing administratively urgent to do here Fritzpoll (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)