Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Hounding by group of editors

Comments since filing ANI

(The following comments have been made since the ANI was filed. The desire for the initial comment to appear at the top is understandable, however since it's becoming unclear what the main filing was vs. the later additions, I have added section headers to make it clear. I've also removed most of the bulleting and changed it to normal indentation, to reduce the inordinate amount of vertical space taken up by the bullets.) --RobinHood70 (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The editors User:RobinHood70, User:Ward20, User:Sam Weller retaliate for this ANI and make RfC about me [1]. Rob does 100 edits on it in two days more then he usually does in months, Ward20 does 31 edits more then usually in a week. Most important thing on Wikipedia for them is hunting me and banning me. Why?? RetroS1mone talk 22:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Response: As can be seen from the edit summaries of both the initial ANI submission and the initial gathering of data for the RfC, the edits are a mere 7 minutes apart. The RfC was already underway when RetroS1mone submitted her ANI, and since the Sandbox now contained concerns specific to her editing, she was appropriately notified. The evidence will or will not speak for itself once the submission is made, but as stated in the Sandbox, it's my hope that this can be resolved by means well short of banning. --RobinHood70 (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Response: As can be seen from the edit history for RobinHood70 and Ward20, it is not surprise for me, Rob pastes RfC "data" onto a sandbox 7 minutes after I put up the ANI, some times i think he is watching me 24 hours a day. Where is the "data" from, I do not know but i do not doubt a certain banned user, is helping with the RfC and sending "data", this banned user sent me a threatening email last month and said they were talking with allies still at Wiki. It is not hard, to paste data in 7 minutes when you are monitoring a persons' edits real-time. RetroS1mone talk 04:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Response: Correction. So far, there are three users making the RfC, apparently because an earlier attempt to negotiate with Retro failed [2]:RobinHood70, Ward20 and Tekaphor (even though Retro has now deleted Tekaphor from the ANI). I'm listed merely as 'endorsing the cause for concern' in the RfC, because I have not been part of any previous dispute resolution process. However, Retro has alleged that I have hounded her, without a shred of evidence, so I fully endorse the RfC. I doubt the RfC is retaliation for the ANI, just the result of months of cumulative frustration and disbelief at the non-stop scattergun name-calling deployed by this editor. Sam Weller (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: I thank RetroS1mone for striking me off this ANI which deals only with a current issue, and I also acknowledge that RetroS1mone does occasionally apologize for these incidences. However, such accusations and disputes have been a long-term issue and it's still unclear to me whether apologies have usually been followed by an overall cessation of accusations or accompanying edits. Therefore I still endorse RobinHood70's "RfC" and would like to see how it pans out. - Tekaphor (TALK) 00:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Update Rob and Ward20 made the RfC a noticeboard for any person that ever had a problem with me to say what it is and make "unsubstantiated allegations" for example, User:Biggerpicture does not have to do with the Ward20 and Rob dispute but Rob recruited Biggerpicture who is saying in RfC I have a COI on a film-maker called Jamie Doran?? RetroS1mone talk 13:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The "recruiting" done was to place a {{ConductNotice}} on Biggerpicture's talk page since I knew he had recently been in a dispute with her on the Jamie Doran page and may have been interested in the RfC/U. --RobinHood70 (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Initial ANI and replies

A group of editors, my opinion, is harassing and hounding me. Most are editing mostly one topic chronic pain and fatigue conditions, and for months mostly are following me and taking out my edits. They have strong POV on chronic conditions, that is OK with me!!, and some from them use Wikipedia for social networking for patient activism, for example [3]. Group includes User:Ward20, User:RobinHood70, User:Sam Weller, and specially a IP editor User:71.212.10.108/User:66.244.69.1 that calls me "hey sexy lady" and talks about my weight "big sexy girl" [4] and puts things on my talk page [5] [6] and the IP talk page [7] and follows me around to articles I edit and they do not edit before [8]. The IP was blocked twice for these things and is not new on Wikipedia, i do not know all names this person is using, or when it is one from the named editors that is following me.

I do not care they call me names and fight about edits on their articles but now every edit i make, i need suspect, these people will follow me and delete me and argue with me also when it is not an article they edit before, it is like Wikipedia editing for them is hunting me, like the first thing they do on log in is, see what i am editing today to go there and confront me. I am also suspect, they try to provoke me BC some said before they want to ban me. It is making contribution very difficult. I do not say I am a perfect editor, i am learning alot but I am not all ways perfect and i can be very strong some times, but i do not think this treating of me is right.

Examples from hounding just in last weeks,

• I give a Wikilink in article i never did edit before, chest pain bc I learned from reliable sources that medically unexplained symptoms can be chest pain, same day Ward20, editor who in June calls me "it" and "this" [9] is there reverting [10], and calls my link "WP:EGG" all though "no definite cause" and "medically unexplained symptoms" are synonym with each other. Ward20 did never edit chest pain before and obvious, is just following me to delete my edits.

• I add a medical review on Malingering at Malingering, next editor who is there is Ward20 [11] and W20 does not suggest new words or change things, W20 deletes everything also the reference that is MEDRS and accuses me of POV when it is right from reference. Ward20 did never edit this article before [12]. Ward20 also tells other editors what pages i edit at the CFS talk page so they can follow me to [13].

• I add information to Culture-bound syndrome, next editor is Ward20 who never did edit that article before and Ward20 reverts [14], says it is unsourced and "inaccurate" but does not take any thing out from rest of section where every thing does not have source, is only deleting my stuff. On talk page, Ward20 uses words like "for pity sake" [15] and User:Tekaphor also comes to talk page to argue against me and another editor on the page. Tekaphor and Ward20 did never edit this article or talk before me.

• I link to article Medically unexplained symptoms from Chronic fatigue syndrome, that is a Medically unexplained syndrome. User:Sam Weller, User:RobinHood70, User:Ward20, User:71.212.10.108 who was blocked for 48 hours on disruptive editing and harassment of me, and User:Tekaphor start editing this article and talk page together but they did never edit it before.

• I did not edit Jamie Doran for near one year, on July 22 i edit. User:RobinHood70 is there same day [16] and did never edit the article before. This article is not a relation to chronic pain conditions, there is no godly reason to follow me there but RobinHood is monitoring me and following every thing I do. Then RobinHood says "I have no particular interest in this page—I just made some quick improvements to the article while I was here—so I'll leave it to you and the other editors of the page to figure out what's most appropriate." but when i edit again, RobinHood comes back and accuses me of things i did not say and says i am "biting newcomer" and warns me on my talk page.

• I ask User:Ward20 [17] pls stop following me around Wiki. Ward20 said they edited these pages before, that is not true. I ask User:RobinHood70 to explain why [18] user changes my comment title and says it is OK to follow me around, and next day they do the same thing again.

Do I over-react, please advise me how to resolve the problem, thank you very much. RetroS1mone talk 02:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As one of the many users accused by this ANI, I will respond to those edits for which I am responsible, and I invite commentary from others if there are things I should have done better. In point of fact, however, I am preparing my own RfC or ANI discussion towards RetroS1mone at this very moment. RetroS1mone has previously been warned by multiple editors, both on and off her talk page for behaviour (e.g., User_talk:RetroS1mone#Suggestion).

• There has been an anonymous IP harassing RetroS1mone at her talk page and elsewhere, and I and others have in fact been reverting these comments, for which she thanked me.

• The fact that RetroS1mone added links to medically unexplained physical symptoms in several articles should probably explain why this drew attention and people started editing that article as well. The article in and of itself is dubious in my mind (though that's under discussion on the appropriate talk page), and adding it into a wide variety of other controversial articles, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical sensitivity was seen by many as a POV fork to add weight to a pro-psychological POV. (At the time the additions were made, the MUPS article very much had a psychological tone to it, and still has a very lopsided view where one section is all about psychological causation and others maintain more of an even physical and/or psychological approach.)

• I explained my edits to the Jamie Doran page when RetroS1mone accused me of hounding/stalking her here. Rather than acknowledge that explanation, she has chosen to bring it up here. I was content to ignore the page up until she bit a newcomer, accusing him of a conflict of interest and implying that this brand-new account might be a single-purpose account [19], at which time I warned her on her talk page, which she reverted with the accusation of "i remove harassing by stalker" [20].

• The accusation of hounding was addressed by the above, but just to save people some reading: Due to recent communication, RetroS1mone's talk page was in my Watchlist. I read all diffs in my Watchlist, as I've indicated to RetroS1mone previously. When I saw a discussion about that article on her talk page, I was curious to see what was up. While there, I made non-controversial format changes, and verified one very minor fact readily apparent in the source available (the second source was dead and a {{dead link}} tag was added). [21] In no way did I make any changes or contribute to any discussion in a controversial or negative manner apart from the above-mentioned bite warning. --RobinHood70 (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In summary, I think what RetroS1mone perceives as harassment/hounding by a group of editors is in fact several individual editors who have concerns over an apparently unilateral editing style in which consensus is rarely ever sought or respected, and those editors are taking appropriate actions per Wikipedia policies and guidelines to address these issues. --RobinHood70 (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also mentioned, although it doesn't look like I'm one of the main editors in question (probably because most of my disputes with RetroS1mone have been limited to the talkpages). Some of the accusations made by RetroS1mone (R1 for short), now and in the past, appear somewhat distorted or jumping to conclusions:

• R1's first given example ([22]) is of a short conversation on RobinHood70's userpage about webhosting, but R1 labels it as "social networking for patient activism" despite that no actual activism was going on or that Ward20 never specified what the webhosting is for. Perhaps Ward20 should have emailed RobinHood70 instead, but so what? At first it might appear odd why R1 decided to begin with that example, until one considers that; (a) R1 believes Wikipedia is under attack from some anti-psych "cabal" of POV/COI patient activists, (b) R1 has occasionally reverted other peoples edits due to such mere speculation about motives, with a tendency to focus disproportionately on the editor rather than the edit.

• The next major point seems to involve two themes: (1) a "group of editors", (2) "hounding". I'm not mentioned specifically, but I will say that these accusations of "they" have been an ongoing problem. The first few following points about "hounding" seem to be about other editors (not me), so I'll let those editors speak for themselves, but perhaps what I say about my involvement will provide some perspective?

• When discussing the Culture-bound syndrome article, R1 claims that other editors and "User:Tekaphor also comes to talk page to argue against me and another editor on the page". However, all I did was post [23] a short sentence about an epidemiological study of CFS in Nigeria, there was no "arguing" by me or even any suggestion of how to interpret the cited study.

• When discussing the Medically unexplained symptoms article, R1 notes that other editors and "User:Tekaphor start editing this article and talk page together but they did never edit it before". I did indeed make one relatively minor edit [24] some time after posting ([25] 3 edits but for the same single comment) on the talkpage. However, it needs to be understood, as RobinHood70 already covered, that the issue of R1 embedding "medically unexplained symptoms" into a range of Wikipedia articles was spilling over from a debate at the Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome page, so obviously people started visiting the actual main article of the topic in question?

The Jamie Doran article has nothing to do with me, so I don't need to comment. Anyway, WP:HOUND states that "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." When considering R1's claims of being "followed", it needs to be kept in mind that R1 has a history of disputes where some of their edits were successfully reverted for being "original research" or not properly representing the sources. Also, as RobinHood70 explained above, it can be convenient to monitor other editors' contribution histories as a way to keep up to date. Another important note is that R1 does over-react and often makes false accusations against other editors, which is a whole topic of conversation in itself. Of course, this doesn't mean that all of R1's accusations are false, and occasionally there have also been apologies from R1.

_Tekaphor (TALK) 07:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I striked Tekaphor in my ANI bc Tekaphor has been the most fair. RetroS1mone talk 22:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not guilty, individually or collectively. I have nothing to add to my reply to R1 from earlier this year [26]. Sam Weller (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. I've checked my edit history, and found my first contact with R1 dates from October 2008. Reading Simon Wessely for the second time, I noticed that a tag requiring citations had been in place for a year, but had not been acted upon. So I tagged individual unreferenced statements as a reminder. Starting a new Talk section headed Crazy tag section, R1 accused me of being "some one who does not like Wessely and does not want any thing positive about him in article. Can we pls take this mean spirited stuff out?" All that in response to a repeat request for citations. I did not bother to react to R1's rudeness, false assumptions and accusations of bad faith. But since R1 is making accusations here, I'd like it on record as an instance of the multiple issues surrounding R1's editing that I have been aware of since October 2008. Sam Weller (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Out<RetroS1mone notified me I was being discussed. IMO the user's edit summaries and talk page edits are often accusatory of other editors or their motives if they have a differing opinion.[27][28] The editing of RetroS1mone is prolific and intelligent yet often tendentious and not verifiable to sources in articles, on talk pages, and edit summaries. Examples: RetroS1mone adds WP:OR about hypochondriasis to the Chronic Fatigue syndrome article,[29] in the Malingering article the "Category:Mental illness diagnosis" was wrongly re-added by Retro with an edit summary using a source that didn't support the edit.[30][31][32], removes against consensus a personal account by a researcher sourced by the NY Times because RetroS1mone disagreed with it.[33][34] I can give many more diffs like this. I trust that readers will examine the diffs carefully to determine the actual accounts.

RetroS1mone gave one example of using "Wikipedia for social networking for patient activism." Once I asked a computer savvy editor, "How much would you expect to pay for web hosting a website similar in size to PatientsLikeMe?"[35](not a patient activism site). Social networking and patient activism from one simple question? A bit of exaggeration I believe.

RetroS1mone believes the IP harassing them may be one of a group of editors that RetroS1mone has named (the IP should be check usered for sockpuppets and permanently blocked). So my name isn't further implicated, I give permission to check that I don't use sockpuppets.

On July 7th Retro linked Medically unexplained symptoms (MUPS) for symptoms in the lead of Chronic fatigue syndrome[36]. The MUPS article is mainly undeveloped. After researching I found Medically unexplained symptoms is sometimes just that medically unexplained. But in physiological literature some authors use MUPS to refer to somatization. [37] There appears to be no official DSM, ICD or MESH approval of the term, so its use to describe symptomatology is controversial. I started looking at other articles to see how it is used and found Retro had added it to Fibromyalgia, Gulf War Syndrome, Chest pain and other articles. Other editors also noted and discussed how the term was being spread throughout multiple articles.[38] When I found MUPS was piped as easter egg links I reverted them explaining with an edit summary.[39][40] After RetroS1mone corrected it I didn't revert. In the Malingering article I found the sources did not support and actually refuted the MUPS material. I removed it leaving a detailed reason with citations on Talk:Malingering#most commonly feigned. RetroS1mone reverted my edit and the material is under discussion. Culture-bound syndrome has been on my watch list for over a year. When I saw some of the illnesses added they appeared to not fit the category. I found sources that refuted the identification criteria for some. I removed those with reasons and citations on the talk page[41]. It wasn't a complete revert. RetroS1mone reverted and left citations which I am still reading. Two of the citations do not appear to support the material.[42] [43] As I told RetroS1mone I have an interest in these subjects, some of our editing overlaps and some are completely separate.[44] When RetroS1mone complained on my talk page no time frame was used and no diffs were used to specify articles[45]. Since we both edit articles in common I believed RetroS1mone was talking about those also.

"This" and "it" are explained here and here. Ward20 (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Mcjakeqcool

User:Mcjakeqcool was first brought to the community's attention through a thread in WP:VG where someone raised a concern about the number of articles he was creating. We then proceeded to deal with some of these articles, turning them to redirects of deleting them. Taking a look at the user's talk page quite well demonstrates the amount of controversy they has caused.

The user has been warned, but has vowed to continue, stating about "my project" and warning editors that he will challenge deletions (despite the fact that there has been few, if any, opposition to any deletion). User adoption was also suggested, but this idea was also refuted (or should I say "DENIED") by the user, stating that they would instead continue editing by their own accord.

Basically, this user has been a pain in the neck. They refuse to stop their editing, despite it breaching key policies, and have repeatedly stated what rights they have granted us editors. A block seems harsh, as the editor still seems to be acting in good faith, but as they evidently don't want to accept the rules, it may be the only way to get them to listen. What view do the community and administrators have on this situation, and what do they suggest we do to help this editor recognise the rules?

Apologies if this isn't the correct theatre for a discussion that doesn't immediately require an administrator's action. If so, please move this to the correct place and notify me on my talk page. Cheers. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at what you've written here (I haven't viewed any of the links or background info), it might be more appropriate to seek out some dispute resolution, especially if you feel he is acting in good faith. If he's not open to this, and his editing continues to be disruptive, then administrative action could probably be considered. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've informed Mcjake of this thread. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My bottom line is that is appears this user does not care what advice, suggestions, helpful hints, or outright warnings they receive. They will continue to do what they want. For more than a month they've been creating articles with one or two sentences. These articles have repeatedly been redirected or deleted. Yet the user continues to create more articles in the same vein. Several times, suggestions on how to create good articles has been posted to their talk page, yet there is no change. As noted above, the user has refused possible adoption so that they can be a better contributor to Wikipedia. Something needs to be done so that people aren't wasting their time with the articles they continue to create and expect others to cleanup, add content to, or otherwise deal with. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

McJakeQCool has been active since late 2008. He seems unable to comprehend advice given and equally unable to string together a sensical sentence. His article creations are copy-pastes, a sentence or two stating that it's a game for X system which at the bottom features the actual text displayed by stub templates and categories entered while editing normally (see this from a couple of days ago for example). Virtually all of them are on games which any editor would struggle to locate reliable sourcing on (a good reason for them not being here in the first place). Dispute resolution or anything involving.. y'know, communication, is going to be as effective as fighting a fire with petrol, since inability to communicate and respond to communication is the issue. I don't think there is any malice or intention to disrupt anything, but the result is the same. If the result of months of being here has not even instilled the knowledge of how to add categories, discern a reliable source or even write a proper stub then I fail to see who is gaining what from this. Please take another look at this, the problem isn't going to suddenly correct itself. Someoneanother 21:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My present statement is that I try my uttermost best to contibute postively to wikipedia, however I do comprehend all advice given to myself, I agree to colabarate with fellow wikipedians if nesersery as I already have with user Otumbu. mcjakeqcool 21:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcjakeqcool (talk • contribs)

You were offered adoption by one of the video game project's friendliest and most helpful members, despite him not having much time, and you turned it down. Just over a week ago you received a friendly note pointing you to Wikipedia:Starting an article. That guide contains pointers such as "Things to avoid - A single sentence or only a website link". Today you created this, which is now listed as an AFD in a note at the bottom of your talk page after a string of deletion notices and requests for you to edit more contructively. You aren't getting it, at all, repeated assurances that you are will not allow you to carry on like this forever and a day. I really really don't want to focus on you (or any other editor), make you feel bad or anything like that, but you're just creating messes for others to clean up and are point-blank refusing to do anything about it. Someoneanother 00:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to mention the possibility of an WP:RFC/U, but if admin action is not necessary at this point with other venues having been tried to salvage something useful from this user, (I have mentioned the idea of adoption or mentorship, but both were thrown back in the offerers' faces.) then I think we may have to do up one. MuZemike 07:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The ongoing disruption has already been observed and commented on by multiple contributors, yet there has been no sanctions brought or change in behaviour. Rather than tie up what is a simple case of obliviousness or ignorance in red tape there needs to be some kind of boundary. Either that or we forget the whole thing, nominate further abortive 'stubs' for speedy and revert unhelpful article additions on sight, there is no more point in trying to reason with McJakeQCool than having a slanging match with a bookcase. Someoneanother 13:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe admin action is necessary. The user has received friendly advice on creating and developing articles ([46] [47]), been offered to be adopted ([48]), and has received numerous pending deletion notices ([49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] this from just this month) on articles the user has created. The user's response is to deny adoption ([56]), states they will carry on and will challenge deletions on the article's talk page ([57]), incorrectly instructs Wikipedians on how to "wikify" an article ([58]), created articles with the edit summary of "DO NOT DELETE OR MERGE ARTICLE AS IT HAS BEEN WIKIFIED", and makes statements that appears they believe they are doing things correctly ([59]). All the while, the user continues to create new articles in the same unconstructive manner.

This is disruptive editing practices, in my opinion, and something should be done about it. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I must point out I did not refuse to collaborate with Guyinblack25, I simply refused to have him adopt my account, my ambition is to continue on with my project, until it is done, then I will think of another way to contribute to wikipeida, altough I accept my project is controversial, it is a landmark event not only for myself, but for wikipedia as a whole. mcjakeqcool 18:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For clarification of the unenlightened, what is your project? And whilst you say it is a "landmark event" for Wikipedia, does it follow policy? Because if not, it has no place on Wikipedia. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 20:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: mcjakeqcool has been blocked by an admin uninvolved in this discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully Mcjakeqcool will now recognize that the path he was taking wasn't so much controversial as plain wrong, and will reconsider the advice that has been given. Someoneanother 12:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Judging from their response to the block ([60]) I have my doubts that there will be much change. I suppose we'll find out next time Mcjakeqcool edits now that their block has expired. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User seems to imply they've changed, though I haven't a clue what they plan now. The post seems to be saying "I'll stop creating new articles and start creating stubs." 'Tis probably worth waiting to see what they do before we can make any assumptions. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Drag-5 at Kamen Rider Decade

When I signed on today, I found that Drag-5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had moved Kamen Rider Decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to the title "Masked Rider Decade". I had seen that there was discussion on the talk page, and as this article is in my area of interest, I moved it back and left a message on the talk page explaining why the title was chosen and then left a message to Drag-5 concerning my issues with his move. In the past half-hour he's moved it back three times, and every time I move it back to the original title. I've just left an edit at the redirect so that it now can't be moved again (I know, bad practice), but Drag-5 has ignored me and directly taunted me in his recent move summaries and his replies to me on his talk page. Even though I directly interfered with his ability to move the article again, I would like to see some action taken against Drag-5 to prevent further disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

ryulong left a message on my page in an intimidating manner making orders using false authority. he made me feel intimidated and threatened. he failed to assume good faith and reverted edits more than 3 times and used practices that are against wikipedia policy. he is taking a power trip and is not considering that my edits are for the good of wikipedia and has treated me with disrespect at first. I do not caqre if i get banned but this will only result in people like this gettig their power trip and continuing to stagnate sikipedia and keep bad editing practices and bad communication and intimidation of other members. Drag-5 (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this diff is proof that Drag-5 is not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopædia. jgpTC 03:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think my contributions page shows quite clearly that I am here to contribute. as a human being I reserve the right to get a little hot headed sometimes. Drag-5 (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not "hot headed". That is outright incivility.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Content relating to the dispute rather than resolving it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's just a small mistake. right? AlienX2009 (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC) further to this, Ryulong has now demonstrated clear personal bias towards me here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kamen_Rider_Decade#It.27s_.22Kamen.22 , which suggest to me that his motives for reverting my good faith edit may not be pure. Drag-5 (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC) My comments on Drag-5's activities elsewhere are inconsequential. Drag-5 should not have moved the page without discussing it in the first place, and he should not have moved it three additional times following my revert of the move, without a consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC) That's it this is getting stupid. we're fighting over a thing that has been done in the past and I am going to end it. like I said examples: 12796 Kamenrider, english relese of Kamen Rider and Kamen Rider V3, Kamen Rider Double and Kamen Rider Dragon Knight. face it Ryulong is right. AlienX2009 (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC) alienx2009, your statement does not follow wikipedia usage guidelines. the issue is not dealt with and is still going until the proper title is used.Drag-5 (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC) What?!. my statement does not follow wikipedia usage guidlines? for your information if I wasn't I wouldn't be here on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. and don't ever call me "alienx2009" call me Alien X or "AlienX2009". AlienX2009 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC) This content relating to the content dispute is getting off topic from the original purpose of this thread. Leave any and all commentary about the article content on the article talk page and not here where I intend for the actions taken to be investigated.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Ethelh, outing concerns, and WP:BLP violations at Sam Fuld

See also: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Sam Fuld

The above user is repeatedly inserting a definitive religion into the article in violation of our policies on such things. Additionally, she has been warned that what she is doing is wrong, and could lead to her being blocked. I also pointed her toward the discussion at the BLP noticeboard, where we worked out the BLP issues, when she approached me at my talkpage. Something needs to be done, as she is now hinting at outing me. Unitanode 04:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The article in question, Sam Fuld, was formerly stable. User:Unitanode has in the last 24 hours deleted three times (among other appropriate language) the statement that Fuld is Jewish. See [61]

I detailed the basis for that statement not only in my edit summaries, but also discussed it at some length on the article's talk page [62] and the talk page of the complaining editor (Unitanode) [63]. In my last edit summary, I had entreated Unitanode to "Please stop edit warring; please leave as is (and has it has been, in stable form, for a long time) and discuss on talk page where I have discussed."[64]) His response was ingnore my entreaty, and to revert yet again.

As to the substance of the dispute, the deleted language was as follows: "Fuld, who is Jewish, is the son of Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) and (New Hampshire State Senator) Amanda Merrill." In place of that, Unitanode insists on "Fuld's father Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) is Jewish, and his mother, New Hampshire State Senator Amanda Merrill, is Catholic."

The support for the deleted three words consists of three citations (emphasis added below; below, the number rises to nine), as follows:

Fuld, who is Jewish, is the son of Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) and (New Hampshire State Senator) Amanda Merrill.

The complaining editor here would delete the words "who is Jewish" (see [65]), and instead indicate the religions of Fuld's parents, as follows:

Fuld's father Kenneth Fuld (Chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of New Hampshire) is Jewish, and his mother, New Hampshire State Senator Amanda Merrill, is Catholic.

One article of the above three citations, written by Jonathan Mayo, a senior staff writer for MLB.com (the official publication of major league baseball), who has been writing for MLB.com on baseball and baseball players for a decade (after moving over from the New York Post), and who has been writing about Fuld since 2007, states: "Now, it just so happens that two of my favorites are also Members of the Tribe. Sam Fuld and Adam Greenberg .... ". ("Members of the Tribe", also known as "MOT" is slang for Jewish (Israelite or Member of the Tribe of Judah), as is reflected at [66] and [67]).

A second article says "And a “welcome back” to Chicago Cubs outfielder Sam Fuld... That elevates the total of MOT back to 13".

And a third citation clearly lists him on the "Jewish Sports Review" 2002 College Baseball All-American [The Jewish Sports Review is the only source for complete and up-to-date information about Jewish Athletes] First Team.)."

I would note that Jews are a nation and ethnicity, not just a religion. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates that a Jew is a member "of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group .... The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated". Jews therefore differ from many other religions, which are not ethnicities or nations.

According to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted, but inclusion must be justifiable by external references. Such is the case here. The article does not state what he believes in, just that he is a member of this ethnoreligious group, where ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly related. With three supporting citations, including one who is a senior writer for the official publication of the sport, and who has written on Fuld in both 2007 and 2009, I believe that the citations amply warrant the sentence as is.

WP:BLPCAT, which my colleague refers to, is limited to statements as to the subject's "religious beliefs and sexual orientation." Here, that is not the focus (we do not say "Fuld believes in Judaism ... for example, he could be a Jew for Jesus). We only say that he is part of the ethnoreligious nationality known as the Jewish people; what two of the authors above refer to as a "member of the tribe". I note, as well, that curiously while railing against the deletion of the heavily sourced reference to Fuld's religion, he insists on inserting references to Fuld's parents' religions -- which clearly don't meet the standard that my colleague (innappropriately, I would suggest) says apply. See [68], in which he again reverted my deletions of those references. I also note that the criteria for religion per se brings to mind the rhetorical question: "Is the Pope Catholic?" Apparently, by the criteria, not unless we can find a statement made by him to that effect; and, judging by my research, it is possible that none exists.

In addition, it should be noted that my colleague bases his deletions on a guidance as to category tags on wikipedia. But he was not deleting category tags at all -- he was deleting text within the article. Category tags, of course, raise different issues -- as the guidance says, "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers". While for the aforementioned reasons the category should also remain, it should be noted that the entire premise for his removal of this information was based on an innapplicable guideline.

I also think it a shame that my fellow editor would not agree to leave the article in the form that it has been in stable fashion for an extended period of time, and instead insisted on edit warring despite my entreaties to leave it as is and discuss on the talk pages.

As to my question as to User:Betty Logan, she has been wikistalking me and warned as recently as [69] ("Don't worry about Betty Logan, I have given her a warning. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:08, 21 July 2009"). I noted that the complaining editor did not have any history on this article or other baseball articles, but since Betty has been warned for wikistalking me just this week and "piling on", out of curiosity I asked if they were one and the same.--Ethelh (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – This is a content dispute, not a matter for ANI. User:Unitanode boldly removed various sourced facts on 25 July 09 (the dispute being about whether the sources support the facts, which in my estimate they do), has been reverted, and there should now be the discussion phase per WP:BRD. And User:Unitanode is edit-warring and ANIing, rather than discussing. Occuli (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Unitadone is not edit warring, but trying to enforce BLP. Before Unitadone arrived on the scene I raised the BLP/synthesis issue on the Fuld talk page, and was rebuffed. There was contradictory information about his religion, and in view of that, and no direct statement from Fuld one way or the other, BLP prevents us from saying that he was of one faith or the other. I posted on the BLP noticeboard and Unitadone responded by changing the article to reflect the sourcing. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The outing attempt is definitely an ANI matter, and some action is needed. As regards Fuld, unless he converted, he's not Jewish, since his mother is Catholic, and in Jewish tradition the religion of the mother is what matters. Right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
      • That's really up to Fuld. Unless he says so, I don't think we can. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
      • On the Jewish tradition thing: it depends on what part of Judaism I understand. That's why we need a statement from Fuld. Wikipedia should not be an arbiter of "who is a Jew" controversies. If Fuld doesn't identify his religion, given the state of facts, we should simply not say so.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• I brought the issue here because it felt like an "incident." I was attempting to clean up some BLP issues, when Ethelh began bald reverting me. Fixing BLP problems is an exception to WP:EDITWAR. Then she made the creepy outing-style post, which finally convinced me to bring it here, instead of WP:BLP/N. Perhaps this was a mistake, but it's what I thought was best. Unitanode 14:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

People, if you want to make this an administrator matter, here's what the administrator response will be: An administrator such as myself will come along, remove the disputed content from the article (in accordance with the BLP policy's strictures), and protect the article so that none of you can edit it. I suggest that you don't make this an administrator matter, and that you all instead voluntarily restrict yourselves to discussing this on the article talk page without the contested information in the article, rather than waiting for an administrator to force you to do so. Because that will be the outcome here if you make this an administrator matter. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh I'll make this my last post here, as I'm clearly not making myself understood. I came across this article only because of the BLP issues, which I fixed. Ethelh reverted to a BLP non-compliant version without comment. I don't have any particular interest in the subject of this article, except as it pertains to it being a BLP. My issues that need administrator attention are twofold: 1) Ethelh is reinserting BLP violations into the article; and 2) Her weird outing post was against policy as well. If these aren't big enough "incidents" to require administrator action to prevent her disruption (both on the BLP side, and the outing side), I guess that's fine. Unitanode 14:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That's right. I raised the issue on the BLP/N originally, a week or more ago, for the purpose of getting administrator (or BLP-sensitive) intervention. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, I know how you came here (I put the {{see also}} at the head of this section.), and I've seen your patrolling of BLP/N long since. But there is more than just you involved here, and the administrator action that will be taken will nonetheless be the above. It's how such issues are addressed.

    As to the "wierd post": That was explained above. It wasn't outing. It was a badly-phrased "are you a sockpuppet?" request. (Even a simple internal link would have clarified it.) The name was the name of an English Wikipedia account. Of course, sockpuppetry was a bad assumption to leap to straight off the bat. But it wasn't, at least according to the explanation above, an attempt to seek or to demonstrate an external identity. So far it's one badly phrased question based upon poor assumptions, and a follow-up explanation of that question. It isn't disruption. Don't make an issue of it that will turn it into disruption. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Ethelh accuses every editor who contradicts her/him of being Betty Logan. It's just a ploy to make a good editor look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.144.161 (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)::::I agree with Johnny B256. This attempting to name people's religion almost always seems to be about Jews, odd that. And Ethelh's version has, as the first few words in the section on this person's personal life, "Fuld, who is Jewish" -- is this typical I wonder? If I look at other articles on athletes will is see '"Joe Bloggs, who is Christian" as the typical intro to a Christian athlete's biography? Why in the world is this so important? The current version starts with a sentence saying his father is Catholic and mother Jewish, which I hope is also not typical of our biographies. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• The "father who is/mother who is" thing was simply an attempt to keep a version of the info that Ethelh liked in the article, while also keeping it BLP-compliant. I have no problem if it's removed, as it does feel a bit awkward, even though it's adequately sourced. The larger issues regard her outing and repeated BLP violations, though. Unitanode 15:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not just EthelH. If you go back through the edit history you can see that I was instantly reverted by another editor the two times I removed the religion and the categories, even before it was sourced at all. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm extraordinarily confused by all this. While I will accept the explanation of her post asking me if I was "Betty Logan", Ethelh is repeatedly inserting BLP violations into the article, yet the only thing actionable is page protection? I guess I don't understand. It would seem that blocking the BLP violator is a better solution, but if you feel that only page protection is acceptable, I can live with that, I guess. As long as there aren't any BLP violations in the protected article, it shouldn't be a problem. Unitanode 15:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Removing the editing privileges doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that some editors that think that there are sources to support the content and some editors think that the content is controversial and wholly unsupported (and possibly outright contradicted) by the actual sources cited. That's solved by talk page discussion. As I said, the administrator action taken will thus be the usual one: remove the content from the article, protect the article, and force the discussion to take place on the talk page, when it hasn't gone there voluntarily. Clearly, given the length of xyr posts on this noticeboard alone, at least one of the editors is willing to participate in such a discussion, and is holding xyr position in good faith. So stopping xem from editing, and thus from participating in such a discussion, is counterproductive. Uncle G (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the BLP issue is, but here's an interview with Sam Fuld from a couple of years ago, on the Cubs MLB page, in which he talks about celebrating both Hannukah and Christmas, while not saying which of the two (if either) he adheres to: [70] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

One interesting comment mentions "a couple of Jewish friends". Would someone who is fully Jewish refer to "Jewish friends"? I think only someone who is not Jewish (or not fully Jewish) would use an expression like that. As of 2 years ago, at least, it seems like he considers himself "a bit of both". The citations that Ethel lists seem to belong to the category of "claiming as their own", but they might be jumping to conclusions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just so you know, the particular policy issue can be found here. It's a relatively cut-and-dried violation, as his religion (whatever it is) has no bearing on his notability, nor has he made any claim regarding it. Unitanode 17:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for admin intervention here, except in the matter of a possible outing. The BLP issue is better handled on the relevant noticeboard. If it's still unresolved then the thread there should be continued.   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• We had resolved the issue at WP:BLP/N, when Ethelh came back and started reinserting the problematic BLP stuff, as well as asking me if I was Betty Logan. Those seemed like an "incidents" to me, so I brought it here, and linked this discussion at the BLP/N board. Anyways, if I was wrong to do so, I apologize. Unitanode 20:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Will, there have been no recent edits at Sam Fuld, but the issue does not appear to be resolved if I am interpreting correcting this post[71] on your talk page. I will note that at BLP/N. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

1) The test -- Unitanode reverted textual language (not a category reference) that I had inserted. He has in the past, and continues to above, assert incorrectly that the category tag criteria (which states that if we say "Fuld says he believes in the Jewish religion," we need a source that has him stating as much). That's simply not the test for deletions of textual information, which is what Unitanode engaged in. It is sufficient to reflect that Fuld is Jewish in the text of the article if one has reliable sources, which we have here.

Unitanode is certainly edit warring (he refused to leave the article as it was, and instead reverted, despite entreaties). And he is not trying to enforce BLP, as he is applying the patently BLP category tag standard to what is clearly a non-category-tag edit.

To make Unitanode's application of the wrong test even more peculiar, as another feature of his reverting he continued to insert the religions of Fuld's parents (which, per Unitanode's -- innapropriate -- test would not have warranted inclusion). Even though I kept deleting the references. And clearly the religion of Fuld's parents is less notable than Fuld's religion for Fuld's bio. This makes no sense, and is wholly inconsistent with Unitanode's explanations. [On July 28, well into this discussion, my colleague deleted those references at [72], but with jaw-dropping inconsistency wrote in his edit summary "it's really either no mention, or a brief, sourced mention of both parents' religions, by way of context", thereby continuing to insist that it is OK for him to reflect the religions of Fuld's parents -- despite the fact that we have absolutely no "self-identification" by the parents, who are living people. He doesn't even apply his own (incorrect) rule in a consistent fashion.]

I've even added six new sources below. In one of them, in painstaking detailed fashion the author describes the process engaged in before Fuld was identified as Jewish. In short, Fuld's inclusion on the list of Jews in baseball required that Fuld either state that he was Jewish in an interview, or that he or his representative or very close family member indicate that Fuld had one or more Jewish parents, and that Fuld was not raised in a faith other than Judaism, and that Fuld does not adhere to a faith other than Judaism, and that Fuld does not have any objection to being identified as Jewish in the pages of the publication.

2) Sources -- I agree with Occuli (above) that the sources support the facts. I discuss below why, and in addition add six more sources.

a) One source was an article written by a 10-year-veteran and Senior Editor of the official publication of major league baseball (MLB.com), who had been writing on Fuld for at least two years. That source in and of itself more than adequately supports the statement, and is all that is needed.

b) The second source listed above is a blog; that is not reason, in and of itself, to disregard it. Per Wikipedia:Blogs as sources, blogs may be used as sources in Wikipedia articles, depending on the blog in question (specifically, the nature of its author and/or publication), and this author and the publication are just the sort countenanced by the guidance.

The author of that entry, Ron Kaplan, is a journalist. He is the sports and features editor for the newspaper in question, and he has been writing for that newspaper for five years. He is also the editor of the Bibliography Committee Newsletter for the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR). SABR, as its name suggests, is a serious baseball research organization, established in 1971 to foster the research and dissemination of the history and record of baseball. The author's work has also appeared in such publications as Baseball America, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Forward, January Magazine, and American Book Review among others.[73]

The newspaper in which his column appears has been publishing since 1946, is among the largest Jewish newspapers in America, and the largest-circulation weekly newspaper in New Jersey.[74] The column itself is entitled "On Jews and Sports" -- squarely the focus of the entry in question.

c) There are additional sources that indicate that Fuld is Jewish. For example, the book Day by Day in Jewish Sports History includes reference to Fuld Wechsler, Bob, Day by day in Jewish sports history, p. 175, Ktav Publishing House (2007), ISBN 0881259691, 9780881259698

d) In addition is the article in which Nate Bloom states: “Completing the roster of major league Hebrews … [is] outfielder Sam Fuld.”Bloom, Nate, “Interfaith Celebrities Play Ball and Dance the Merengue”, InterFaithFamily.com. Bloom writes a weekly column on Jewish celebrities that appears in the Atlanta Jewish Times, the Cleveland Jewish News, the American Israelite of Cincinnati, the Detroit Jewish News, the New Jersey Jewish Standard, and the Jewish News Weekly of Northern California.

e) A long explanation of the criteria that Fuld had to meet before he was identified as Jewish is set forth at Bloom, Nate, “Interfaith Celebrities: Play Ball! Specifically, it states:

“this season about half the active major leaguers identified as Jewish by Jewish Sports Review, a bimonthly newsletter, have interfaith backgrounds. Jewish Sports Review is the premiere source on "who is Jewish" in baseball ... on the ... pro level…virtually every good source on "who is Jewish" in baseball is built on the Review's hard work.... I thought readers might like to know the "inside scoop" on ... what their definition of "Jewish" entails. Every once in a while, the Review adds a player because he is clearly identified as Jewish in a very good news source like an interview. More often, they decide to contact a player (or a player's representative or very close family member... If they are told (by the player or his rep) that the player has one or more Jewish parents--they then inquire if the player was raised in and/or currently adheres to a faith other than Judaism. If the player answers "yes" to either of those questions--that ends the Review's inquiries and they don't cover the player. On the other hand, if they are told the player was raised Jewish or "nothing"--the Review then asks if the player has any objection to being identified as Jewish in the pages of the Review. If not, then they add him.”

f) See also Bloom, Nate, “Celebrities,” The Jewish News Weekly of Northern California, 4/4/08, accessed 7/27/09, “Completing the roster of 2008 major league Jews: ... Cubs outfielder Sam Fuld” (emphasis added)

g) In addition, Jewish Major Leaguers Inc., which produces cards of Jewish baseball players in association with the American Jewish Historical Society, and licensed by Major League Baseball, the Major League Baseball Players Association, and the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, lists Fuld as a Jewish baseball player.[75] Jewish Major Leaguers, Inc. is a not-for-profit organization with a mission to "document American Jews in America's Game." Its work builds on the research of the Jewish Sports Review, Total Baseball, the American Jewish Historical Society, and the National Baseball Hall of Fame."Documenting America's Jews in America's Game"

h) Furthermore, the September 11, 2008, article entitled "September yields small fall crop of Jewish Major Leaguers," by Ron Kaplan, Features Editor for New Jersey Jewish News, states: "there has been a steady minyan of Jews up in the Show throughout the 2008 season.... Here’s a brief look at some players who spent at least part of 2008 with their teams’ AAA affiliates.... A few — such as ... Sam Fuld — have already enjoyed the proverbial “cup of coffee”" (emphasis added).[76]

3) Notability. As to the issue of notability of the Jew/baseball intersection, which I see is now being raised, this has long been discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia, and the notability of the intersection is demonstrated by the fact that there are nine articles devoted to it (in Fuld's case) and countless articles, books, a baseball card set of Jewish major leaguers endorsed by Cooperstown, Major League Baseball "Jewish ballplayers" day at Cooperstown, etc.. It's not a subjective test ("Do I think it notable"), but an objective one ("Do others write about it?"; "Is it treated as notable by major league baseball?"). And just as major league baseball treats the intersection as notable (see "Jewish players celebrated at Hall", MLB.com, and "Jewish baseball players have their day(s) at Cooperstown", USA Today), and the American Jewish Historical Society licensed by Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association, and with the support of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum joined in the production of a set of baseball cards of Jewish ballplayers"Tribute is in the cards for Jewish ballplayers: Set documents their contribution", The Boston Globe, and books have been written about the Jewish ballplayers "The big book of Jewish baseball" By Joachim Horvitz, Jews and Baseball: Entering the American mainstream, 1871-1948,” By Burton Alan Boxerman, Benita W. Boxerman, Martin Abramowitz and Ellis Island to Ebbets Field By Peter Levine, all manner of recognition by major league baseball, the hall of fame, article writers, and book authors point to the notability of the intersection.

4) My wikistalker -- As I've explained, I have my own wikistalker, and as the above url shows I've had problems with her as recently as this week. Not having ever seen my new friend Unitanode, and because neither he nor my other new friend Johnny had mentioned that there had been a notice on this matter which Johnny had made (and Unitanode was prompted by) that brought Unitanode to my doorstep, the thought crossed my mind that it could be my wikistalker once again. I thought that asking Unitanode the question was the Wiki way -- discussion -- and now that I've been apprised as to how he came to join this cheery discussion I totally understand and accept that he is not she, and I apologize if the question raised any hackles on his part. In any event, had his answer been yes, that of course would not in and of itself even have been sockpuppetry, since my wikistalker I understand is allowed more than one identity here, and of course further facts must be present for it to be a sock violation, so I had not thought my simple question would so upset Unitanode. But, seeing that it has, I apologize.--Ethelh (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Unilateral revision of the Wiki guidance at issue by Unitanode. I'm more that a little surpised: Unitanode has just now unilaterally revised the Wiki guidance at issue, with a heavy-handed, self-important, no-discussion-needed approach, so that the language would support his postion (as the guidance clearly did not support it). I've reverted, with an explanation in the edit summary. See [77] Excuse me, but it strikes me his actions may not be at all "kosher".

Who unilaterally changes the rule being interpreted at an ANI, in the middle of a discussion of the application of the rule itself, so that it says something it did not say before, supporting their position where it did not support it previously?

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines states clearly that "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits." Can someone please address this?

There are very good reasons for the fact that there are different Wiki standards for text and category tags in this regard. A simple perusing of the language of the two different standards, and the discussions between the draftspeople, makes that clear. The fact that with category tags there are no citations indicating why a person is in the category led the draftpeople to create a higher standard for the category tags (even that standard began only as an effort to avoid upsetting people who were said to be gay while they were not ... and the rule was then extended to religion ... though the line was drawn when it was considered that perhaps it should be extended to ethnicity and race (e.g., do Tiger Woods, Obama, or Ali have to self-identify as being African American to be categorized as such). Text, in contrast, has citations (when people do their job), which indicate the basis of the support for the statement, and the reader can read and put a value on those citations -- hence the clearly stated different standard for text entries (reliable source). Different standards exist for category tags and for text, and in this case there was a thought-through reason for establishing different standards for the two. For the seasoned editor on the other side of the issue to seek to wriggle out of the fact that the guideline only applies to category tags (not text, which has a different standard) by unilaterally changing the guideline is not the best behaviour that I've seen on Wikipedia.--Ethelh (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Where, in any of the cited sources, does Fuld himself assert that he is Jewish? Someone else claiming him as "one of their own" is not sufficient. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

None of them do so. FYI, pretty much this identical discussion, with similarly lengthy and irrelevant citations and references, is droning on and on and on and on at BLP/N. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Baseball Bugs -- I apologize, but I gather from your question that I have not been sufficiently clear.

a) The test for textual references. There simply is no requirement that Fuld himself assert that he is Jewish, for there to be a textual reference in the article to that effect. That's simply not the test for textual references. And what is at issue here, at the moment, is Unitanode's deletions of textual references (not category tags).

The test for references other than category tags is that the information be supported by reliable third-party sources. That test is met here by one source who is a senior editor for the official publication of Major League Baseball. It is met as well by an organization licensed by Major League Baseball, the Major League Baseball Players Association, and the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum (Cooperstown) to identify and recognize Jewish major league baseball players. Finally, a third source described the process used by it to identify Fuld as Jewish; the process required that Fuld himself not have any objection to being identified as Jewish.

b) The test for category tags. Category tags fall under a different rule, specifically "WP:BLPCAT". As its very name suggests, that rule applies specifically to category tags.

I discuss above the rationale that supports category tags coming under a different rule (they cannot carry the citations to the supporting third-party article, unlike the text of the article, which itself can/should have appended to it the footnote citation to the third party source that supports the statement).

c) History of the category tag rule. In addition to the manifest words of the guideline, which clearly indicate that it refers to Wikipedia Categories (and in no place references application to article text), the history of the discussion of the rule reflects the recognition that the rule applies only to Wikipedia Category Tags (and not to text).

Interestingly, when this guideline was first proposed in September 2007 it was originally meant to cover only sexual preference (where someone might be embarassed by Wikipedia getting it wrong). Other category tags, including birthplace, ethnicity, political stands, and medical issues were discussed but not included. But at Will's suggestion a second segment of category tag-- religious beliefs -- was included. Will clarified his suggestion by saying: "We aren't forbidding inclusion of any discussion of ... religious beliefs, just the flat declaration that a subject has a certain ... religion unless there's been a statement by the subject on the topic." (So, presumably, one could say the clunkier "x, a senior reporter for major league baseball, reports that Fuld is Jewish.")

In January 2008 an editor in fact suggested that the guideline be expanded, so that it would not cover category tags only, but also any claims in the bio text regarding the person's sexual preference or religion. After considerable discussion, the proposal to expand the guideline beyond "category tags" was not accepted. See [78]

So, not only does the guideline not apply to anything other than category tags, a proposal that it be expanded beyond category tags was not accepted.--Ethelh (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, the change I made was simply a change to state the obvious. 99.9% of people reading that policy will probably consider it redundant, but for the 0.1% that don't, it's helpful. And to Uncle G: posting walls of text does not mean she's actually participating in a discussion. The BLP issue is pretty straightforward; she just doesn't want to abide by the policy in question, and seems to be convinced that if she can just browbeat us with post after post denying it, we'll quit enforcing that policy. Unitanode 12:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• It is beyond cavil that a main focus of this entire discussion here has been interpretation of the Wiki guideline WP:BLPCAT. That is the very guideline, and indeed the very aspect of the guideline, that Unitanode quietly and unilaterally changed, in the middle of this active discussion. His action falls squarely within -- indeed, could be a poster child for, a violation of the above Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines mandate against: "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion."--Ethelh (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but we don't have to go back and reinvent the wheel on every conceivable issue that may arise in a discussion. There was no need to post a lengthy essay on why the religion of ballplayers is sometimes notable. In this particular instance the religion of the ballplayer is in doubt. The issue here is the adequacy of sourcing of Fuld's religion, a straightforward BLP issue involving a total of three contradictory sources. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of 'wikistalking'

I think we need to clear up this accusation of wikihounding, I'll notify the person accused (user:Betty Logan and the editor who Ethelh says warned her of this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I just looked through BL's contribution list, and it appears to be more issues with Ethelh, not BL. From what I can tell, the two main issues were with Ethelh edit-warring at a different baseball player article, and attempting to insert unreferenced or poorly referenced names onto a list. Unitanode 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was notified of this discussion, but I have nothing to add. I am not involved in this dispute, I just happened to be dealing with an AN3 report with which Ethelh was involved when BettyLogan appeared out of nowhere to harrass him with an unnecessary 3rr warning (after the edit warring had already stopped and the report been dealt with). I have a poor impression of BettyLogan, but that is all; I made no accusations of behavior problems that need intervention or whatever, and I'm not really part of this argument. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say on my behalf that I felt Rjanag handled the situation poorly. This "harrassment" amounted to me posting a single warning on Ethel's page for edit-warring after I felt the other party in the dispute was unfairly treated by Rjanag. Ethel was repeatedly trying to add challenged information to an article from what I recall and reverted the article a few times. The other party was reported by Ethelh for "edit warring" and received a warning from Rjanag in due course despite the fact he hadn't violated 3RR, and Ethel hadn't followed any of the procedures for adding challenged information to teh article. I felt this was unsatisfactory given Ethel's forceful nature and the fact she hadn't taken it to the talk page nor requested a 3rd opinion as should have been par for course in such a situation. Rjanag has a poor opinion of me simply because I expressed my dissastisfaction with how he handled the situation. If he had handled it properly maybe this current situation probably wouldn't have blown up. This is documented on my talk page for anyone who wishes to look into it further. Betty Logan (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't "express your dissatisfaction", you went and unnecessarily harrassed another user. Expressing your dissatisfaction would have been going to the edit warring noticeboard and commenting on the discussion (to say "I disagree with Rjanag's handling of this"), not leaving a redundant and unexplained {{subst:uw-3rr}} on one user's page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness you "harrassed" an innocent editor by threatening to temporarily ban him simply because another editor was throwing a strop, rather than resolving the issue with the editor who was clearly ignoring Wikipedia protocol. Pretty much like the situation above. If leaving a single warning for edit warring on an editor's page who has been edit warring is "harrassment" then in fact half of Wikipedean editors have waged harrassment at one stage. Harrassment in my view is a sustained campaign of unwanted attention, which is actually what I have been receiving from Ethel with numerous messages on my talk page, and numerous accusations of being other editors. I did respond to your comments on my page but you had obviously made up your mind and weren't interested in why I felt you had wrongly taken action against another editor, since you didn't afford me the courtesy of a response. The above dispute is a prime example of you failing to nip something in the bud. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't respond on your talk page because your message was picking a fight and didn't need a response—for the exact reason I pointed out above, it was not the right forum for bringing up a complaint about the AN3 report. If you really wanted to issue a complaint, there are ways to do it. Anyway, for the same reasons, I will not be responding to you anymore here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason you didn't respond was because I legitimately challenged your course of action. Yes I was annoyed with you because I thought the other editor was treated unfairly and the dispute from above indicates my concerns weren't exactly unfounded. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Rjanag. I should also mention that Betty's comments above are a mischaracterization, as I did seek to contact the editor in question on their talk page. Specifically, I wrote on the editor's talk page "... The inline references are appropriate, support the text, and comport with Wikipedia guidelines.--Ethelh (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC) --Ethelh (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)" The last time that Betty made the same misstatement, I brought it to her attention at [79], but perhaps she has forgotten.--Ethelh (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the first step here would be to require Ethel to provide evidence of my wiki-stalking her and a list of all the sockpuppets I supposedly use. First of all we have only crossed swords on one article, and that was an article I was already working on before she joined in. I have never edited an article she was already working on, at least to my knowledge. I have left three or four messages on her talk page, most of them in relation to our original dispute. The only message since then was the aformentioned edit-warring warning. She has left considerably more messages on my talk page which I just ignore these days. This is just a lot of silliness and I think the more pertinant problem is the dispute above. Betty Logan (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is of any assistance, as to why I think may well be followed by a Wikistalker from Connecticut (I have no knowledge as to whether it is Betty or not). In short, the approach of the stalker has been to parachute into discussions between me and a user or admin, taking the other side or "piling on". Often, it was a "single purpose" user. Such was the case in the first instance, on May 27: [80], where a user that was created and its only edit ever was to parachute into my initial discussion with Betty. That seemed odd. When I could geolocate the third party parachuter, it was often a Connecticut user (e.g., from Cromwell, Waterbury, or Milford). On July 21, an IP from Connecticut that made only a handful of revisions seemed to focus (critically) especially on articles I was editing ... see [81] ... and again the IP was from Connecticut. That same day, just a few days ago, Betty parachuted into a discussion that I was having that did not concern her, and was warned by the third party as mentioned above. See [82] Most recently, on this very talkpage, the same thing happened 00 see [83] -- again, an IP that traces to Connecticut, and again a single-purpose user. I of course don't know for sure if one or more of these IPs and accounts are related, but this is some of the circumstantial evidence that I have to report (I didn't keep a record of all such incidents).--Ethelh (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I can assure doug I only edit from this account, and if Ethel is being wikistalked it doesn't seem there is a shortage of suspects. I imagine it is easy enough to check whether I post from Winnipeg or not. While we are on the subject though, during mine and Ethel's original dispute it was not me who worked through another editor's entire contribution history contacting everyone that person had an altercation with to drum up a lynch mob! Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If Betty (and I have no reason to believe she is not telling the truth) was not behind the Connecticut wikistalking incidents (which do appear to me, subjectively, to likely be the same party), then as she says I may have a separate party stalking me. That only leaves (as to her) the questions of: a) the recent incident discussed above (where she parachuted in, as an uninvolved party, and was warned by Rjanag that her behavior was innappropriate); and b) as I do not know the geolocation of "Smiley 589" whose only entry ever was one made on May 27 in the middle of my conversation with Betty -- a question as to where Smiley 589 is from.--Ethelh (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if Ethel is being stalked or not - if she is I do hope you get to the bottom of it, especially if her work is being damaged. I think she's given you enough information now for you to verify it's not me. I haven't edited any of the articles she works on simply because I don't want her returning the favour! If she wants to leave messages on my talk page I don't necessarily have a problem with that, I don't feel harrassed by it and I don't wish for any action to be taken against her on my account. If you look at her contributions many of them are valid, and when she gets into these disputes it's because she thinks her contributions are valid. Unfortunately these disputes are an ongoing problem, but I think it is resolvable and the only reason it hasn't been resolved is because admins simply refuse to step up to the problem. I mean if you read the dispute above they simply don't want to know. Ethel needs someone to take her by the hand and walk her through the 'consensus' process for when her contributions are challenged i.e. taking it to the talk page/directing the other parties there/3o/rfc etc. If she sees the process arrive at a conclusion she can live with then it will reduce these blow-ups which seem to be a weekly occurrence for her. Betty Logan (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Numerous problems caused by User:Pedro thy master

Relevant links

• Pedro thy master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pedro thy master/Archive
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pedro thy master

User talk page before deletions with all the warnings (notice TOC and all the redlinks)

• Note that user NEVER discusses, only blanks his talk page.

• [84]
• [85]
• [86]
• [87]
• [88]
• [89]

AfDs

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Lemuel
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puss in Boots: Story of an Ogre Killer

We need MANY eyes to follow this editor closely:

• His English is terrible, so nearly all his edits need copy editing.
• He's used socks to preserve his work, been blocked for it, and then threatened that he'd do anything to protect his edits.
• He should be followed by CU clerks, since he's likely used many socks that haven't been discovered.
• He has created an article about an unnotable chiropractor just because he thought he was great.[90]
• He then created a list of chiropractors for the purpose of promoting them.[91]
• Some of his work has already been deleted and/or nominated for deletion, but more should likely get AFDed.
• Instead of heeding the many warnings he has received, he deletes them from his talk page. His talk page history is a story in itself.
• He doesn't understand the need for consensus.
• He uses terrible sources, including Wikipedia itself.
• He engages in OR and crystal ball.
• He removes redirects without discussion, and those redirects sometimes actually point to sourced content. He then replaces them with stubs with no sources, and they are about future events whose notability has obviously not been established.
• He rarely discusses his edits on talk pages.
• He even made some very weird vandalism of the subpage that controls my user page after I had complained about him.
• He doesn't understand our policies much at all.
• I suspect he is very young, very immature, and/or is incapable of adapting to our environment as a useful editor.

I first noticed his problematic edits about July 22, but he likely has a long history before that. Just since July 22 he's caused enough problems to keep a cleanup crew busy full time.

His edit history is a rich mine of problems, so please start following his work. You will be quickly and richly rewarded with many finds. Maybe he'd manage better if he edited his own language Wikipedia, but I suspect he'd cause problems there as well. To stop the disruption, he needs a whole gaggle of mentors as nannys to hold his hands 6" ABOVE HIS KEYBOARD. He needs their advice and permission before he touches it! Right now he's a big liability for the project. Brangifer (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Have any diffs to back up all those accusations? I would like ti see some evidence of this behavior.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I understand the need for diffs, but this case is so consistent and all pervasive that a 5 minute check of his edit history since July 22 will quickly reveal the problems I'm mentioning. Brangifer (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Still, it would be helpful to provide, say, 3 to 5 diffs of specific things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thy Master... isn't that the product Suzanne Somers used to advertise? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• LMAO! (Or perhaps I am laughing my thighs off? :-) -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 00:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just look at his talk page history. The many warnings there will give you an obvious clue to the problems. Just fix the ones you discover. Brangifer (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• A vage handwave isn't enough. Since the account's editing privileges were suspended in April 2009 there have been 19 edits to User talk:Pedro thy master. (I get more than 19 edits in 3 months on my talk page.) 11 of those are simple courtesy notices of deletion nominations, created automatically by Twinkle, sometimes multiple notices about the same article. A further 1 is a notice of this very discussion. And 1 is a notice of a editing privileges being revoked for using sockpuppetry in an attempt to defraud. Please provide specific diffs of edits by this account that are cause for action and that haven't, moreover, already been addressed with administrator action. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

He blanks his talkpage regularly, so you may not be seeing a full view [92]. Having said that, his behaviour does seem more like juvenile over-enthusiasm than maliciousness.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not implying maliciousness, but a disruption nonetheless. Brangifer (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yea, ok - I can see that a lot of edits are problematic - but they appear to be mostly good faith mistakes more than a deliberate attempt to vandalize or disrupt. Perhaps English isn't the native language, perhaps the age is young, perhaps they just need to learn the ropes. The last time I looked, we don't over-react to things like that here (or at least we're not supposed to). If the editor makes mistakes, talk to him/her - if they continue without heeding advice - warn. Removing edits from one's own talk pages is perfectly acceptable. (See: WP:BLANKING) I suspect that someone good at the "mentor" thing could work wonders here. I just don't see anything actionable at this point. — Ched :  ?  18:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not implied any lack of good faith or deliberate vandalism or such like. I am not even asking for a block or ban. I'm just asking for more eyes on the situation. I thought this was the place to go for that. Unfortunately many warnings have been given, deleted, and obviously ignored. Mistakes are things that just happen and get corrected when pointed out, but these are continuous problems caused by ignoring direct warnings and advice.

Sysop ESkog is probably the admin who knows this user's problematic behaviors best. He has issued numerous warnings with little if any effect. Normally I would provide diffs with each point I have mentioned. If this had been a situation with very specific and limited problems, I would have done so. In this case the problems are so all-pervasive that the user's edit history and talk page history are very adequate as diffs. Seriously, just close your eyes and click. You will likely find some form of policy or guideline violation, or other problem that has been created for others to fix, or very often totally delete. Just try it for two minutes. You'll be surprised. Then come back and tell what you find. Very little of what this user does exists very long, but it often involves various deletion processes and formalities involving many users and much wasted time. I just want more eyes on this situation. That's all. I hope that's okay. Brangifer (talk)

Fair enough - and I agree that ESkog is doing an exceptional job in watching this. I'll look in when I have the chance, and if communication and improvements are not forthcoming, then we'll have to pursue alternate measures. I just noticed some Tina Fey edits, so I won't be surprised if ESkog isn't forced to do something here before too long. — Ched :  ?  06:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• At this time, I don't support any kind of long-term block, but might apply more short-term blocks as necessary. In general, "Pedro" doesn't seem malicious, and he doesn't tend to make the same mistake multiple times. Take, for instance, his correct uploading today of a non-free image, complete with licensing tag and rationale. Yes, it's frustrating to deal with folks who don't get our policies and practices right away, and yes, it's better when people look around to see how things are done before just diving in, but I don't think we're close to ban territory on this one. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. I have never demanded a ban or block. Of course the use of short-term blocks, as you suggest, is an option when the user refuses to comply with warnings. Warnings aren't working, so something else needs to be done. What about enforced mentorship? Otherwise we'll need someone using most of their time preventing his blunders from causing AfDs, which then waste lots of other user's time. More eyes are needed, IOW place this user on your watchlists. Brangifer (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

ChrisG's block of BullRangifer

I've blocked BullRangifer for 12 hours for spamming me (via email) about this. It would be understandable if the email was something like "Please help, blablabla is being disruptive he did x to article [[Foo]] (diff) and is now breaking civil (diff2,diff3)". However this is not an urgent situation in need of a block and I personally think he was spamming to try and influence the outcome of the discussion. --Chris 08:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that you're known to be biased or that the email asked you to do something inappropriate? I'm a bit confused about why a block was called for here. Shell ^babelfish 20:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Strike that, I'm completely confused - above Brangifer clearly states there is no need for a block but that the editor doesn't appear to be learning from warnings. This leaves open avenues for mentorship or other interventions. Perhaps this didn't need urgent admin attention, but where else would you put this kind of request? I guess the question that I feel needs explained here is what could have possibly been in a single email that would deserve a 12 hour block? Shell ^babelfish 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that my block has expired, and my honor permanently besmirched, here's the (highly offensive and obviously improper canvassing - NOT) content:

• "Please take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Numerous_problems_caused_by_User:Pedro_thy_master"

That's ALL of it. I only wanted more eyes on the situation. I had no idea if he would do anything, and no way of knowing what type of advice he might provide. He might have agreed with me or scolded me. I couldn't know. I just hoped that an experienced admin like him might provide some words of wisdom. I guess I assumed he would AGF, but I was sadly disapointed. He shot first, without knowing what was going on, and hasn't even asked later.

I have asked Chris G to explain on my talk page. That is a subsection and the whole section should be read. I invite anyone to comment there. I hope that this invitation isn't considered a blockable offense. I'm really unsure what to do now for fear of getting blocked without warning for common practices here. I have never been warned that this or the type of email I sent might be improper. Brangifer (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved editor who came here via seeing the cited AfD's (and who rarely visits and has never before commented at WP:AN/I) I have to say that IMHO blocking Brangifer for that seemed awfully previous, Chris. The bloke was only looking for help. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to see some further discussion of the 12-hour block on Brangifer, even though an unblock request was denied and the block has expired by time. Unless I am missing an aspect of the situation, which certainly is quite possible, I do not see a good basis for this block. (For the avoidance of doubt, I'm commenting here as one editor and not in any other kind of capacity whatsoever. This I hope is obvious, but the question has come up before when I chime in on ANI.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. I would like to understand the situation. For one thing my honor has been besmirched, and that means a lot to me. The first and only semi-legitimate block I've ever had (before now) was also on a very questionable basis which the blocking admin never did satisfactorily explain. The second was an April Fool's joke and nothing happened to that admin. This one is also of a questionable nature. I'd like to understand the current situation so as to avoid having this happen again. I try to follow policy and have been acting in good faith. If I screwed up, I'd like to understand in what way I did so. Then I can do better in the future. It's all about our learning curve here, and I try to have a positive one. Yes, a discussion would be enlightening for everyone. Wouldn't it be a good idea to create a subsection heading for this discussion? Brangifer (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• per NYB - Yes, I agree - that one did kind of catch me off-guard. I'm not familiar with what the email contained, obviously. It just did seem to be overly harsh however. I'll freely admit that I may be missing some background, history, or another thread somewhere - but at this point, I don't understand the reasoning for it.

BullRangifer, I do commend you for asking for extra eyes on this, as well as not over-reacting in the "He needs to be blocked" sense in this thread. — Ched :  ?  06:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• A quick look at the Dana Ullman discussion above should convince everybody that I am not exactly a friend of BullRangifer. But I also suspect that this block was a mistake. I notice that Chris G stopped editing after blocking BullRangifer and leaving a message here (but not on BullRangifer's talk page). This looks a bit like a typical late night or just before going home from work block. And Chris G hasn't edited in the more than 24 hours since the event. So it looks like the typical bad judgement when someone is tired and feels under time pressure. Perhaps we shouldn't start dramatising this before Chris is back and has had a chance to make up his mind. Hans Adler 13:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hans, I suspect you're right. We can all make mistakes, and that's what I suspect here. I'm just interested in clearing my name and block log. I'm also interested in learning, so as not to make mistakes in the future. I know we don't always agree, so I very much appreciate your fairness and obvious sense of justice in this situation. Thanks again. Brangifer (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I too would really like to see a fuller explanation of why BullRangifer needed to be blocked; he posted above the content of the e-mail, is that really all there was? Did he send it more than once? I'm at a loss to understand, given the lack of a detailed rationale, why sending a one line e-mail one time to one person merits any sort of block. Chris_G really needs to explain this action, and it does not reflect well that he hasn't done so yet either here or on the blocked editors talkpage. I'm also disappointed in the review of the unblock request - "canvassing is naughty." Honestly? Is this the level of "review" we should expect on unblock requests? Nathan ^T 13:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think that the reason why both the block and the review happened as they did may have to do with the messages posted by J Milburn and Sandstein in the 18 hours preceding it. Each came from an admin who was irritated to get an email from BullRangifer, and each was immediately deleted by him. So the block seems to have happened after irritating, though probably good faith, emails to at least three admins. As it seems they were not all about the same topic and since there wasn't a clear warning, I am just trying to explain, not justify, what happened. Hans Adler 14:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't recall that there was actual irritation, so much as wonderment, as I hadn't required an answer or action in those messages which were on other topics. They were just FYI-type emails. Brangifer (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• On re-reading the relevant thread, together with subsequent comments, I will concede that it would have been better had I not declined the unblock request. I would like to apologise to Brangifer. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Apology accepted. Thanks Anthony. You are a gentleman. Brangifer (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem at AfD

Resolved

 – everyone is playing nicely at AfD

Hello. I've recently nominated the article List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK) for deletion and, at its deletion page there appears to be alot of WP:ILIKEIT occuring, with fans of the programme wanting to keep the article for the sake of it. I was wondering if some editors could voice their views on this AfD, whether debating to keep or delete, just so we could clear establish a fair concensous without bias? Thanks, DJ 16:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC).

I see you already mentioned at that page that it is a debate, not a vote. The closer should take into account when opinions are rendered without policy-based rationale. That page sure is in a bit of a state, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. However, I have known in the past for AfD closers to purely do a quick count and make an irrational decision without reading the argument fully. That's why I raised the issue here to bring it to the attention of contributors who aren't fans of the programme, and can therefore approach the AfD with a level head. DJ 17:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be getting perilously close to WP:CANVASS here. The main reason for keeping the article is nothing to do with the fans. I have voted keep (and cleaned up Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates) I hate the programme, never watch it, and have no idea who the housemates are, but two articles make a better format for handling the information.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That is purely your opinion, and I reverted your edit. DJ 17:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and templated me for vandalism. Really, that is NOT the way to win friends and influence people - or look good in this venue.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest a block on User:Dalejenkins for disruptive editing? Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 17:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Dalejenkins is taking this AfD rather too seriously; and that templating you for vandalism was rather petty. However, I'm pretty sure we've not reached the point where blocks are necessary, and I'd encourage all parties to focus on the article rather than on each other. The AfD can and will resolve itself, and most participation does seem to be in good faith. ~ mazca ^talk 17:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

He does seem a bit hot under the collar, but I can put up with being templated. Listing me at WP:AN/I for what is clearly an editing dispute is getting a little OTT though. Perhaps a nice cup of tea will help.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nagging people to change their vote on their talk pages as you did with me is also inappropriate. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 17:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. So, to review, the concern is that (a) people are voting incorrectly; (b) the closing admin may close it improperly and (c) I'm guessing but DRV won't be productive either? For (a), state it once and move on. For (b), wait until it's at least closed before debating whether a hypothetical admin could screw it up. And I suspect no matter the close, the admin will have "screwed it up." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You got it, with the added bonus that anyone from here who doesn't like the programme but doesn't agree with the AfD is clearly a vandal. You have to commend him on his consistency at least.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that User:Darrenhusted is still harrassing every user who votes Keep at the AfD. I feel the need to say something to him, but don't want to turn the discussion over there into a slanging match. Is he actually overstepping the mark - unlike User:DJ he's not actually trailing people back to their talk pages and arguing with them there as well. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Xe isn't "harrassing". Xe is talking to people about the arguments that they present, and asking (for example) for clarifications of three-word rationales. This is very much allowed at AFD. It isn't a vote, and discussion is a good thing. Try discussing back. (And don't resort to poor tactics such as calling the discussion contributions of those whose positions you disagree with harrassment.) You never know, you might change xyr mind, or xe might change yours. This is one of the reasons that we have discussions. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong Uncle G - I'm all for discussion. However, a couple of editors now have commented at the AfD on the tone and manner of Darrenhusted's responses to their !votes, so it's not just me. I note your opinion that he is not overstepping the mark though, and will refrain from commenting further. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) I just scrolled through the AfD and don't see anything like "ILIKEIT". Lots of "per X" or "notable, sourced", but that's not ILIKEIT, and assuming that editors are lying about their keep rationales is not very nice. I see nothing to discuss here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban threats at WT:TOKU

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu#Search soon to begin

Ryulong and JPG-GR have stated that they will seek me topic banned from Power Rangers and tokusatsu articles should I put up another page in those categories for deletion for verification issues. As many of you know, there was previously an AN discussion about Ryulong warning him against his past "if you do it, I will seek that you get blocked" statements. Now, these two editors are stating things like "if you do it, we will seek that you get topic-banned". Ryulong is stating that he will do it through community discussion, while JPG-GR is apparently doing it due to the conduct probation on me, which I don't see how this applies. There is also currently a request for clarification here regarding it. I am not asking anyone to do anything about JPG-GR, but I am about Ryulong. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I do however have to apologize for my tone in the late part of the discussion. Please forgive me. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon has done absolutely nothing to contribute constructively in the topic area that Wikipedia:WikiProject Tokusatsu covers. All he has done is request sourcing, and then send articles to AFD for which he personally cannot find any sources for. This was last evident in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mondo, where reliable sources were found, but he dismissed them anyway. He has most recently decided to search for reliable sources on the five remaining articles on individual episodes of Power Rangers and will send them to AFD because he will inevitably never find what he considers reliable sources for the pilot episode, as well as a few other major episodes to the series as a whole. JPG-GR (talk · contribs), an administrator who primarily edits in the topic area (or had), plainly stated that if Mythdon went through with his plan, he would begin a discussion to ban Mythdon from editing any and all pages that are within the scope of WikiProject Tokusatsu.

I know that I am only a few editors in the WikiProject who are tired of Mythdon's strict applications of policy and the constant drain on our resources to make every single page comply with his demands. I've wanted to have him banned from the topic area long before the arbitration case that made it fairly clear that he should not do as he is planning without input from other users. We gave him input, he simply does not like it. He is such a pain in the ass to editors who are involved in the WikiProject and who actually contribute. I've written up articles. JPG-GR has written up articles. Other editors have written up articles or worked on already existing articles. Mythdon has done none of this. All he does is randomly question when IP users add information to the article about things that happened in a recent episode of a TV show that Mythdon does not watch, yet he still undoes or reverts their edits. I know that if I had enough time, I could give diffs and whatnot, and I am sure that JPG-GR, once he is notified of this debacle, will provide enough information to further elaborate his and my case against Mythdon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did watch Power Rangers, and yes, JPG-GR already has been notified. See their talk page. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I see this thread as a direct violation of your probation: 1) Mythdon is placed under conduct probation for one year, in relation to WikiProject Tokusatsu and Ryulong, broadly construed. This includes, but is not limited to, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution and to show better communication skills. 2) Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation. 3) 6) Mythdon is strongly urged: (A) To take his specific concerns about the verifiability of the articles to a wider venue such as Wikipedia:Village Pump, other sister WikiProjects or the Verifiability policy talk page itself and consult his views with others. He is then advised to report the views of others to WikiProject Tokusatsu for discussions; (B) To enhance his level of communication with editors.

This is not the first time I've seen you be disruptive in the past few days. As far as I'm concerned, you are socially incompetent to be a member of this project. Tan | 39 02:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(Considering the project in question involves shows with people in rubber costumes beating the crap out of each other, I'm not entirely certain that's a bad thing...) HalfShadow 02:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This belongs over at RFAR. I can't read the case result to mean that Myth can't start AfDs or work on the project, but someone else might rightfully do so. The arbs can clarify and then myth can be topic banned or not topic banned. If the case is found to cover this behavior, then the topic ban should hold and myth should find some other area to edit. If the case is not found to hold, then these pretty bold threats should be retracted. Also, tan, I'm not sure "As far as I'm concerned, you are socially incompetent to be a member of this project." is a terribly productive comment for this discussion. Protonk (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they clarify that AfD is not covered by the probation, then further threats would be even worse than threats now. provided that community discussion supports my AfD procedures. Until anything is clarified, I will not put another article in the subject area up for deletion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Protonk: Whether or not Mythdon can or will be topic banned is up to the community, not the arbitration committee. He is under arbitration restrictions, but a topic ban proposal should definitely not be forbidden from taking place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the enforcement of the probation, topic bans are an enforcement by administrators. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban can be proposed by a user and then confirmed by the community and enforced by the administrators.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I know. You should also know that administrators can, if they choose, topic ban me if I am inconsistent in terms of conduct at WikiProject Tokusatsu, but as far as I know, I am consistent in terms of conduct, but ArbCom will clarify whether the AfD thing is part of the probation. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been well-aware of Mythdon's habitual disruption for some time now, even before the arbitration case. During the period when I was either editing anonymously or not editing at all, I occasionally checked WT:TOKU and found it consisted largely of highly-disruptive edits by Mythdon. His behavior has not improved one bit since the arbitration case. Further, I'm not sure if a topic-ban from pages under WP:TOKU will be sufficient to curb his disruption; after the arbitration case, he took his disruption to other pages, such as Common Era. There was a long discussion on his talk page about that fracas, where he proves that he is incapable of understanding the rudiments of WP:V and WP:CITE. One arbitrator, FayssalF, has censured Mythdon over his behavior well after the arbitration case was closed. You may view the discussion; I agree with FayssalF's statement that "Mythdon is not here to work collaboratively according to Wikipedia rules, guidelines and ArbCom's rulings". Mythdon doesn't just need topic-banned from pages under WP:TOKU; he needs to be restricted solely to contributing new content to Wikipedia. This means he should be banned from the entire Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces and banned from deleting content for any reason or advocating deletion of content on talk pages. jgpTC 04:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Jgp, FayssalF did not say that. He said that was apparently the case. To restrict me from removing content for any reason is not anything anyone can support. You seem to be unaware of the consequences of not citing sources, or having articles that you can't reliably source. Just because I don't actually add content doesn't make me disruptive. I remove unsourced information that needs a source per WP:V and WP:RS. I am not habitually disrupting Wikipedia in any way. These AfD's needed to happen, whether or not the result would be in my favor, or other editors favor. I can assure you that I am here to help, not disrupt. My efforts are to motivate sourcing content, not motivate nonsense demands. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that 'the community' can topic ban people. But it is totally inappropriate for a wikiproject to topic ban a person simply because that person is afding their articles. We have to ensure that we aren't using the topic ban tool to enforce opinions about content. And frankly when I read the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu#Search soon to begin thread I don't see a 'community' topic ban. I see an ultimatum: "stop sending articles to AfD or we will topic ban you". Protonk (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Now somebody's getting it. You phrased it well. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Protonk - I understand why I probably should have used different words there, but really, what I said wasn't any different than straight-up blocking someone - "you are not competent to edit here" isn't meant as an insult so much as a statement of fact. For whatever reason, I feel that Mythdon does not have the proper skills - i.e., he is incompetent - to be a productive member of Wikipedia's collegiate and collaborative community. Some people use the term "incompetent" as a pejorative term; I meant it in its literal sense. Tan | 39 05:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You're capable and willing to parse the multiple connotations of the word competent. That's why I didn't accuse you of engaging in a personal attack (you didn't) and I didn't demand that you rephrase the comment. But there are less adversarial ways to suggest that someone isn't getting the point or that they are being more of a bother than a help. "Competence", especially in the online world, is a word fraught with import and emotion--as you note, since competence is required accusing someone of incompetence disinvites them from the social world. That's critical and I don't think it is to be tossed around lightly. Protonk (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Protonk: The AFDs are not the only issue. It is the fact that Mythdon has not shown in any way shape or form that he can contribute collaboratively with other members of the WikiProject. Mythdon has been shown to be inable to apply sourcing and verifiability policies to the extent that he sends articles to AFD when he personally cannot find anything that he personally believes is a reliable source. He does not contribute to any articles in the scope of the WikiProject, and does not improve the coverage of any articles in the scope of the WikiProject. Instead, he goes "This has no sources" or "This doesn't have enough sources" which to him means "This is not notable" or "This information is not verifiable" when there is more than enough on the internet and in the real world to prove him wrong.

And this sourcing shit goes beyond articles about people in rubber suits beating the crap out of each other. He was told off for his edits at Common Era and a whole bunch of other articles. This thread is wikilawyering to get his way, as he states towards the end of the discussion at WT:TOKU. I have not seen Mythdon contribute constructively anywhere on Wikipedia in more than a year of being up my ass (and not in the good way) on the articles I edit and on other articles I see him editing. There was no "community topic ban" produced yet. It was a statement that if he proceeded to edit the way he claimed he was going to, we would discuss the fact that he be topic banned from articles in the scope of WP:TOKU. His actions tonight in starting up this thread have abbreviated the need for this, because he went forward to wikilawyer his way out of getting topic banned by saying JPG-GR and I were acting improperly. I've yet to see a positive contribution come from him. And that is more than enough to get banned from any website.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

sure. But pretend you are me. Look at the TOKU section devoid of context (I know that we are supposed to contextualize these disputes, but bear with me). That conversation has three participants, you, myth and jpg (with some other minor comments from different users). Between the three of you all that gets exchanged is an intent to continue sending articles to AfD, a broad warning that sending said articles will result in a ban, and escalation of rhetoric on either side. I hesitate to call myth's actions wikilawyering because frankly, in the absence of a RFAR allowing a unilateral topic ban for myth, I would be ashamed of jpg's threats. First the sort of officious 'intent to seek a topic ban' statement: "If you attempt to do as you are threatening using your past-documented misinterpretations of policy, I will seek that you are topic banned from all matters Tokusatsu-related. If you are not willing to edit within Wikipedia policy, then perhaps you do not need to edit Wikipedia." This is followed up a veiled threat, "I'm not trying to persuade you. If you want to edit and follow policy, you will. If you don't, you won't. I'll let your actions, both in general and in relation to your edit restrictions, speak for themselves." Later, you and myth exchange words to the effect that you will seek to topic ban him and then make some vague assertion that his present actions will be proscribed under some future topic ban. This is the opposite of a community forum discussing the ban of a pernicious troublemaker. This is two people in a dispute arguing in an infrequently traveled part of the wiki. I don't mean to say that myth is right. I don't mean to say that he is helpful or that a topic ban, rightly constituted, would be illegitimate. I do mean to say that he shouldn't be considered topic banned now and he isn't wrong to seek some outside input on a process that he clearly has no input on. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon is following policies and guidelines and Ryulong is not following policies and guidelines e.g. i added a reference to the Power Rangers article to show that Haim Saban created Power Rangers per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research then Ryulong starts a discussion on my talk page saying "Do Power Rangers and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers really need references to show that the series was created by Haim Saban? Something like that is so freaking obvious that any statement with that fact in it does not need to be cited." and when i add a fact tag to the Kamen Rider Double article per WP:No original research, Ryulong again starts a discussion on my talk page saying "This is also common sense. Shinkenger is on at 7:30, which is followed by Decade at 8:00, both of which make up the Super Hero Time block. If Double will be airing at 8:00 too, then it will also be part of the Super Hero Time block". Mythdon is not the only user to disagree with Ryulong as me and Drag-5 disagree with Ryulong because he is not following the policies and guidelines. Powergate92Talk 06:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92, as usual, you don't really add anything to the discussion. Both of those items you bring up are examples of using common sense over requesting that every single sentence on Wikipedia be referenced. Bringing up two different instances of where you and I communicated is pointless and helps no one case.

Protonk, I can understand that the page is in no way frequented and it is simply a discussion between Mythdon, myself, and JPG-GR, but this is in all reality just a way for Mythdon to avoid being put under any other restrictions. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the discussion would be taking place in a low-traffic page such as WT:TOKU. Mythdon is by all means in his right to defend himself from being topic banned. However no discussion has taken place, and the arbitration committee does not need to place the restrictions on him. This is instead, as I've been saying, Mythdon wikilawyering his way out of getting banned by throwing aspersions on me for arguing against him. If the arbitration committee needs to place the topic ban, then fine. I just thought that given enough evidence, the community as a whole can see how his activities are deleterious to the topic area, and the project as a whole. If FayssalF saw this, I don't see why the rest of community cannot either.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For the arbcom thing, we should be clear. IF the arbcom restriction against myth means he must avoid only a narrow set of behaviors, then it cannot (as I see it) apply to sending articles to AfD. If the restriction blocks myth from being nettlesome to the project more generally, then his behavior may be subject to a topic ban at the discretion of someone like jpg. That's the RFAR question. If his past RFAR does not proscribe his current behavior, than you can still start a thread to topic ban him (I would prefer you start an RFC/U or take the discussion to a more active page), but it would be inappropriate for just two editors to act as though a topic ban was imminent. If the RFAR does apply, then the committee should clarify their case and say as much, rendering a community ban discussion moot. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The items i bring up are examples of you not following WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research as Mythdon puts articles up for AfD per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. Powergate92Talk 18:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a few questions. I hope someone can answer them USING AS FEW WORDS AS POSSIBLE.
i) Is it disrutive for someone to ask for a verifiable reliable source for, eg, "creator of mighty morphing power rangers"?
ii) Is it disruptive for someone to use the production company (and did they actually 'create' it, or just pay money for it? as a reference?
iii) Imagine it is disruptive: What happens? It goes to RFAR, or someone just says "that's it, you're topic banned" or what?
Thanks. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92's statements have nothing to do with the issue concerning Mythdon. Powergate92 is just as bad in interpreting sourcing policies as Mythdon. It is pointless to ask for references for things which exist elsewhere on Wikipedia or elsewhere in the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the rights/wrongs of Mythdon's attitude or behaviour. However I AM going to draw people's attention to the King Mondo article that's been mentioned. Unless I'm missing something there are ZERO reliable and verifiable secondary sources. Out of the 21 references, 18 are to the TV show - a primary source, 1 to a comic - a primary source, 1 to IMDB - a user submitted resource and not reliable and 1 linking to an interview with an artist that doesn't even appear to mention the character in question. There are NO reliable secondary sources at all. Could someone tell me how the hell this article was not deleted at it's recent AFD? I see a bunch of keep votes which don't address the reliable sources question AT ALL and a non-admin closure. I'm very tempted to DRV this as a blatantly incorrect AFD. Exxolon (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, I think topic bans are very poor solutions for people who are not violating the rules, no matter how much they might annoy people by asking for citations for things that are obvious to others. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • DRV filed, all participants in original AFD plus the wikiproject notified. Exxolon (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Toku wikipedians, Whatever is happening here for the King Mondo article, is definitely applicable "ad nauseam" to every character under the Tokusatu project. I would suggest that you redirect your collective energies to reaching a consensus of what would constitute a valid referencing standard for all the individual articles that fall under project Toku. There must surely be an article that could be determined the standard by which all other articles will be measured. Don't perpetuate drama!! --76.66.199.118 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What the hell does any of this have to directly do with the King Mondo AFD and now DRV? This is a discussion started by Mythdon in defense of a topic ban discussion that has not happened yet, and Protonk's saying that the topic ban should not happen due to there being other RFAR restrictions on Mythdon. RFC/U is a pointless step as it just serves to pick and choose at every bad or questionable thing a user has done. If someone needs to be topicbanned for being unable to contribute constructively, then that person should get topic banned.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I should not be topic banned. I have helped the articles by removing unsourced information, but you dismiss my removals. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm not being clear. I'm sorry. You can start a topic ban discussion. I would prefer you use a venue like RFC/U, but you don't have to. The fact that there was a past RFAR case against myth strengthens your topic ban case, not weakens it. What you can't do is say "we are going to have a topic ban discussion in the future, so consider yourself banned from starting AfDs on subject XYZ". All I am saying WRT the arb case is that if the arbs say "yes, we meant that myth can't act this way" then jpg can topic ban him unilaterally. I commented that myth seemed in the right to bring up this question because the discussion linked above looked a lot like a threat of a unilateral topic ban couched in terms of a community ban. I'll try and be crystal clear here. If you can get support for a topic ban from a broad cross section of wikipedians, then you can ban myth from a set of articles. It shouldn't be a discussion held within the confines of a single project because frankly (see the Gavin Collins debate and EnC 1/2) a wikiproject shouldn't have the power to unilaterally shoo away folks looking for sourcing/notability concerns. Is that clear as to my position? Protonk (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • lol episodes and characters
  • Very well then. There is nothing anywhere that said that the discussion was solely going to take place in the wikiproject. That's just where the discussion of it going to happen started (that and my statement at Mythdon's last clarification request). The issue isn't his sourcing and notability requests. The issue is that he has been shown to be unable to work constructively with other (active) users in the WikiProject. The arbcom appears to be listening to this at the moment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD list

Just to make all of you aware, here is a list of AfD's I've started on Power Rangers articles:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers episodes (result: keep)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (result: keep)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers planets (result: delete)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Rangers (result: delete)
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers foot soldiers (result: delete)
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers monsters (2nd nomination) (result: delete)
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (2nd nomination) (result: keep)
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers cast members (result: keep)
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Power Rangers characters (result: keep/merge)
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost and Found in Translation (result: redirect)
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Power Rangers: Mystic Force (result: delete)
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Chamber (result: keep)
13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Tate (result: delete)
14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Morphers in Power Rangers (result: delete)
15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green with Evil (result: delete)
16. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mondo (result: keep)

Hopefully, this will clarify that they're not disruptive, but just sometimes hard to agree with. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Update

<I've just found more AfD's of mine and will re-make the list by next week> —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The list above only lists most of the AfD's. It does not list all of them. I missed some. I'll be creating the new list in my sandbox. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's the updated list with additional AfD's:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers episodes (Result; keep)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (Result; keep)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers planets (Result; delete)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Rangers (Result; delete)
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Rangers foot soldiers (Result; delete)
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninja Quest (Result; redirect)
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers monsters (2nd nomination) (Result; delete)
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marah and Kapri (Result; delete)
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies (2nd nomination) (Result; keep)
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers cast members (Result; keep/merge)
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Power Rangers characters (Result; keep)
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost and Found in Translation (Result; redirect)
13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Power Rangers: Mystic Force (Result; delete)
14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Chamber (Result; keep)
15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Tate (Result; delete)
16. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Morphers in Power Rangers (Result; delete)
17. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green with Evil (Result; delete)
18. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mondo (Result; keep)

—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem here? Mythdon (talk · contribs) is sending fiction spinoff articles to AfD, and most of them get deleted. That's entirely in line with policy. Even the main Power Rangers article is weakly cited. Only two of the 45 footnotes are to reliable sources. This looks more like typical grumbling from fans when their fancruft articles are held to Wikipedia's general standards. --John Nagle (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet Ryulong and JPG-GR are threatening to seek me topic-banned. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if your edits are considered no problem, then you have nothing to worry about, do you? I don't see why you felt it was necessary to report Ryulong's and JPG's intention to get you topic banned. What administrator action are you seeking? Some kind of injunction?--Atlan (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though this discussion is going nowhere. But, as for your question, I am seeking administrative action that administrators see fit. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's really vague. Of course this discussion is going nowhere, because nothing actionable actually ocurred. If you don't have any kind of desired resolution this should lead to, this is just needless drama mongering.--Atlan (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And the issue isn't that he is sending pages to AFD. The issue is that he is sending pages to AFD because he cannot personally find sources for the articles for either major fictional characters who in their right can be considered notable because of his strict interpretations of sourcing and verifiability policies. He only goes out to delete whatever pages he can without bringing them to the attention of WP:TOKU so they can be improved before he sends them to AFD. In the last AFD he made, there were several reliable sources found by an uninvolved editor and he dismissed all of them. There is possibly going to be a discussion concerning topic banning Mythdon from articles in the scope of WP:TOKU because he cannot work constructively with other editors in the scope of the project, of which the AFDs are only a part.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If I search for sources for an article, and if I cannot find any reliable sources, it would be pointless to consult my search to WikiProject Tokusatsu before taking the articles to AfD. All Wikipedia content has to be verifiable, or it cannot be included on Wikipedia. Everything has to be notable before it gets an article on Wikipedia. I am pretty sure now that when I create my next Power Rangers AfD, that you and JPG-GR will, as you both stated, seek me topic-banned. I am sure of this regardless of the result of the AfD. And, one question: Do you think my AfD list above is a good summary of my nominations? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't give a shit if it's a good summary of your nominations. You cannot work with other users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

How can't I work with other users? Nominating pages for deletion in my ways? Removing unsourced information absent of discussion? How? You should know by now that saying things like "if you put theses pages up for deletion, I will seek that you get topic-banned" is uncalled for, further evidenced by the results of my AfD's. Please know this: The next time I look for sources, and if I don't find sources for an article, that article goes straight to AfD, without question. I'm even planning on nominating other pages for deletion if I can't find sources, within this subject area. I'm sorry, but sometimes, some articles just have to go. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has proven that you strictly interpret the verifiability and reliable source policies and cannot be trusted in determining things on your own. You absolutely should not nominate any pages in the topic area for deletion without consulting WP:TOKU, WP:TV, WP:JAPAN, etc. because it is extremely likely that where you cannot find reliable sources, other users will.

To other readers of this thread, this last statement of Mythdon's is exactly what I have been saying regarding Mythdon's inability to work with other users. He is acting as judge and jury, getting rid of whatever he can't prove.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I trust that my strict AfD's are beneficial to the project, and I also trust myself in my searches. It would be useless to go through a process that will just get nowhere. The village pump discussion I linked on WT:TOKU only proves that I am right, mostly. Sure, I didn't link to which articles, but it's still the same. And please let me say it again: I will nominate another article for deletion just as soon as sources aren't found, no questions asked, period. I will, at the risk that you'll try to get me topic-banned, do it, if I can't find reliable sources. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck don't you get about the fact that the arbitration committee has advised you to contact other people before sending articles to AFD?

Still, other people reading this, this is why users at WP:TOKU want Mythdon banned. Because he refuses to work with other users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked editor using multiple open proxies

User:Chidel was blocked a while ago as the account was editing from an open proxy. Since then, the editor has used (at least) three further open proxies, namely 85.249.33.2 (talk · contribs), 190.146.244.52 (talk · contribs), and currently 207.61.241.100 (talk · contribs). Each set of IP edits would pass the WP:DUCK test with respect to them clearly being Chidel, indeed in one case admitted to being Chidel. I'm no expert on open proxies and have listed those that I believe I've found at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, for each of them to be blocked. My question here is if the edits pass WP:DUCK and if a search (e.g. on Google?) reveals each of these IPs to be open proxies, should we just block them on sight? The turnaround at the Wikiproject is pretty slow (I think only one user is active there - User:OverlordQ). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

All three IPs have been confirmed and blocked as open proxies. Sockpuppets can be blocked on sight. When formulating the block, as always you must make a judgment about how long the user/computer will remain on its current IP address. Google searches, DNSBLs, portscans, etc, can be used to provide clues about open proxies, but should not be relied on for confirmation. There is practically no reliable way to confirm an open proxy other than attempting to use it, and there is no way to determine its longevity other than guessing through experience. These three IPs have been blocked for a combination of six months, one year, and two years. If in doubt about whether future IPs are open proxies then just block them for a short time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, very informative answer. I note the user has already switched to 98.222.42.233 (talk · contribs) - any chance you could once more use your experience to judge this one? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also appreciate a view on how to deal with the edits of this particular editor. He has now used five or six open proxies today, all of whom have been blocked, but should his edits be allowed to stand, or is it a case of judging it on a case-by-case basis? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The open proxy policy says, "Open or anonymising proxies ... may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." There is nothing in the policy about reverting edits based purely on open proxy usage and, in fact, reverting would be inconsistent with the "may freely use proxies until ... blocked" language. 212.191.67.2 (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

True, though evading an indefinite block causes the user and their proxies to become block-evading sockpuppets of a sockpuppet on open proxies, until such a time as the original block is resolved. This means the user's "legitimate user" status is somewhat diminished. Technically you could argue that since no one has lifted the original block, these are now ban-evading sockpuppets and so should be reverted. I won't go that far, but whether the original block was justified or not, the unblock request should come before the edits. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Technically, you could argue" combined with "I won't go that far" is Wikilawyering and isn't useful. Aside from that, YellowMonkey's block on Chidel was solely because of open proxy usage, and there was no evidence whatsoever of illegitimate alternate account usage, i.e., "socking" per policy. As he has admitted, the block was initiated privately by The Rambling Man by email in an end-run around WP:SPI and Wikipedia's privacy policy. Note YellowMonkey's shocking response of "could be this, could be that, I'm blocking regardless" and then his deletion of the thread (omitting it from his archive). A cover-up? After that, The Rambling Man made blocking Chidel somewhat of a crusade, partly because of their involvement in a pending featured article nomination that the former favored/nurtured/schemed to get approved and that the latter opposed. Where is a block on a registered account authorized in the absence of any kind of disruption? Chidel's edits were entirely constructive. 195.7.100.44 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I simply asked for YellowMonkey's advice, nothing more. I didn't request a checkuser either. It was determined that Chidel was using an open proxy, which was subsequently blocked. Mostly what I've done since is report open proxies at the appropriate Wikiproject. I did make a reversion of one the proxy's edits this afternoon which was swiftly reverted by another proxy - I've left it since then. I have also encouraged the nominator of the featured list to verify the factual concerns of the various Chidel proxies. It seems strange that we have so many different editors all suddenly editing from open proxies. I wonder why they can't simply register an account and edit that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you reverted three edits by that user. But who's counting? And note your subsequent contacts of YellowMonkey, presumably to prompt him to perform more blocks of Chidel. None of this would have happened had the IP been blocked per policy (instead of the constructive registered user) and had you, as an administrator, actually studied the open proxy policy when your error was brought to your attention. 69.114.251.90 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to "presume" whatever you like. I didn't block you. YellowMonkey was the blocking admin. Please take it up with him. In the meantime, you really should stop using open proxies. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A mere technicality and pure Wikilawyering. "Hey, YellowMonkey, you blocked Chidel previously after I contacted you. Would you do it again?" "Yeah, sure." "Thanks!" That's the essence of your discussions with him: (1), (2). The only difference between you and him is that he pressed the block button. You've since broadened the "let's block Chidel crusade" to include Don Lope and Fyunck(click). Who will you add next to the list? 68.105.41.151 (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You really should stop editing from open proxies. You could always request an unblock for your Chidel account. And all open proxies should be listed at the appropriate place, awaiting further investigation from other admins. Thanks. Finally, I am disengaging from this discussion. I don't understand why you wouldn't register an account and stop using open proxies, but I guess that's your choice. For what it's worth, I have also disengaged from the tennis FLC you and the other accounts have been contributing to, I've informed both directors as such, and have left a note at the FLC encouraging reviewers to consider factual concerns. Also for what it's worth, I wasn't the first to suggest the FLC be restarted. And thirdly, for what it's worth, I personally encouraged Don to pay heed to any factual concerns raised. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Note YellowMonkey's sad and shocking contempt for the checkuser process. He said on 21 July to The Rambling Man, "Each time I ask a CU they just tell that google will answer me.... all rather perplexing, I know one CU likes to proclaim their tech expertise and tells the rest of us that he is willing to help them but he never responds (or says he is adding the data into his smart data analysis program and never responds afterwards) and never does any CUs except in some famous cases when he can get famous and tell everyone about his incisive sharpeye nonsense...." This is a rogue administrator attitude that resulted in his taking the checkuser process and Wikipedia privacy policy into his own hands, in secret, without oversight, and in contravention of the open proxy policy. But what did The Rambling Man, an administrator that some have suggested should once again become a bureaucrat, do about it? Nothing. 69.13.197.160 (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion, copyright violations, and threats of vandalism

Admin Dougweller suggested I request a rangeblock to deal with persistent block evasion and copyright violations by Rock5410. Dougweller has already blocked the sockpuppet Jeet698 and multiple related IP addresses, but this user changes IP addresses several times a day and blocking is getting to be an exercise in futility. (Mymac007 is another likely sock.) Most of the edits include content copyrighted elsewhere, and attempts at discussion about the persistent copyright violations have been ignored. This user has threatened to vandalize twice, once on July 16 and again today. A rangeblock for 122.161.xx.xxx to 122.163.xx.xxx would be much more effective than the current piecemeal blocking. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

196,608 IP addresses - not going to happen, especially when in order to be effective, it would have to be for a week or longer. Best to protect the individual pages; perhaps request at WP:RFPP? Tan | 39 16:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not possible anyway; sysops can only block a /16 range or smaller (for example 122.161.xx.xx). Stifle (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Three different /16 blocks? Tan | 39 18:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This would be an unusually large block... We can do that, but it's probably not a great solution.

WeisheitSuchen - can you please provide us with a detailed list of the specific IP addresses in use? I see a bunch of smaller subnets we can deal with, on first inspection, and i'm going to do one small rangeblock. We can also try a edit filter. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Following myself up - 122.163.79.0/24 is now blocked for 48 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I mentioned above it was "not going to happen". I was musing about three different blocks as a theoretical solution. I still think page protection is by far the best solution. Tan | 39 20:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Small blocks are good, but a large block is unreasonable for all the users living in that region. By doing so is like closing down a shop just because there's one shoplifter. -- 科学高爾夫迷 21:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

NIIT was semi-protected on July 10; it did provide a few days of respite from the cleanup, but it didn't really have any long-term effect. Here's a list of all the IP addresses that have made changes in the last 10 days or so on NIIT, Kuvempu University, and National Institute of Open Schooling, the three major places where copyright violations have occurred. Maybe this will give you some more reasonable ranges to block. Sorry about my original request being so big; I hadn't really thought through how many that was. Hopefully this will give you some better patterns to look for. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

122.161.164.138
122.161.164.221
122.161.165.211
122.161.165.218
122.161.165.238
122.161.165.71
122.161.62.100
122.161.62.71
122.161.63.109
122.161.63.162
122.161.63.174
122.161.63.9
122.161.63.92
122.162.42.41
122.163.3.212
122.163.3.235
122.163.3.246
122.163.3.41
122.163.77.31
122.163.79.111
122.163.79.152
122.163.79.238
122.163.79.36
122.163.79.95

I have rangeblocked 122.161.164.0/23 in addition to the earlier block. I am reviewing 122.161.62.0/23 and 122.163.3.0/24. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think these rangeblocks are ineffective and probably have too much collatoral damage for little to no effect. It's clear that the user is able to hop around the entire 122.16x.xxx.xxx range at will; just because there are several repeated ones does not mean rangeblocks are called for. Shutting down 62.0/23, for example, will just make him skip to another one. If the larger range is too big to be blocked, smaller ones are ineffective - this is akin to locking one of the four doors of your car to prevent theft. If you can't lock them all, it just doesn't matter - and in this case, you are possibly preventing productive editors from contributing. Tan | 39 22:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocking the better part of a /15 isn't a good solution unless it is our last resort against an especially pernicious user. I do agree in some sense w/ Tan: rangeblocks are ineffective if they aren't likely to prevent substantively more than single IP blocks. If an ISP will renew an IP lease across a broad range than blocking a narrow range offers no solace. However if the ISP renews within a relatively narrow range, then I think the collateral damage is worth it (generally speaking). Protonk (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. If we're at the point of cherry-picking smaller ranges to block, then I think semi-protting might be a better way to go. MuZemike 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

They don't appear to have complete freedom of IPs; they've landed in a limited set of netblocks so far, which tends to indicate it's somewhat contained.

That said - anyone who wants to impose a week's semiprotection on all the articles is welcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have rangeblocked 122.163.3.0/24 for 48 hrs as there was another one of these edits from that range after the first block. Let's see what happens overnight. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

+ 122.161.62.0/23 for 48 hrs as they picked up from there. I have a working theory that they have a lot less IP choices in the /15 than you all think - and that we're close to nailing them. If this is not the case (3-4 more IP ranges pop up after this) then we should semiprotect the articles for a month or some such (may be a good idea anyways, but I'm not going to do it tonight and then walk away). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected the three pages for three days apiece. I agree with Tanthalas about the rangeblocks. Worth a shot, I guess, but unlikely to stop the user. Enigma^msg 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We need to convince them to go away, and either one or both of these methods could work. We may need to extend either or both. But we have plenty of options. I don't see much collateral damage in a few /23 /24 sized blocks in there - but the articles won't be hurt by even semi-permanent semi-protect, if it comes to that.

Splat. Please flag here if there are more incidents, if they sign up for more named accounts, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help--your work is greatly appreciated, both with the semi-protection and the rangeblocks. Hopefully this will squash the problems! WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dewan357

Being abusive and racist on the Talk:Pakistan page [93], constantly disruptive and continous POV in numerous articles, asking politely and warned on numerous occasions, still persistant, user's talk page full of warnings and complaints. Has now become racially abusive. Khokhar (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was about to raise this here myself as an escalation from WQA. The worst one I've seen so far is this one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Note - this user is currently blocked for 24 hours and was not notified about this thread. I have notified them but of course they will not be able to respond for another 22 hours unless unblocked or a talk page section is transcluded here. Exxolon (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel sorry for the College of New Jersey if the history course there is so bad that he thinks India is one unified racial group, nevermind Pakistan as well. User is a nationalist. User is bushing this nationalist POV and being disruptive and racist while doing so. The key bit about nationalism is that the user is going to be convinced he knows The Truth (tm) and everyone else is wrong, and is unlikely to change. My suggestion - a topic ban from India/Pakistan related articles and a complete ban on any further ad hominem attacks or racial comments. Violating this rule gets blocks of increasing length. Ironholds (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a ban from articles relating to India or Pakistan, in addition to civility parole. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Australia-India relations

Against my better judgement (and I should know better) I have been drawn into an edit war with Ankitsingh83 (talk · contribs) at the above article. The situation has deteriorated so badly that he/she has made a complaint that I have been acting in a racist manner towards Indians. "curry-bashing". "Curry bashing" is a slang term for this phenomenon.

Given my edit warring has been unacceptable and a serious complaint has been made about my actions as an admin, I feel it is best that someone else attempts to straighten the matter out and take whatever action they feel appropriate against myself and the other party. Regards, Mattinbgn\^talk 21:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And again, I've notified the editor in question about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've protected the page. Unless this escalates I don't see the need to block anyone or demand that folks disengage or apologize. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrators, I would like to present this case before you. I am the editor ankitsingh83 mentioned. The person who has been responsible for creating an edit war is Mattinbgn. He has used bigotic statements against me. Apparently he is the only editor from Australia editing this page. Other administrators like YellowMonkey have been useful editors. I have not used bad language or blamed anyone personally. Mattinbgn started using comments like "your false assumptions of superiority", "you should look into the mirror", he even tried to lecture me into leaving wikipedia and starting a blog. I think he has overstepped the line as an administrator. I want to even push for blocking him from wikipedia. His bigotic actions and comments are hurtful as well POV pushing. I am beginning to feel that he is being paid to do his POV war. Because I don't see anyone else editing this page. Administrators help is urged. ankit 22:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsingh83 (talk • contribs)

(ec) Agree with Protonk (was heading that way myself, but Protonk pipped me to the post). With the page protected there would be little mileage in a punitive block, as it would quash the talk-page discussion that will hopefully now follow.

Looking through the edit history, I think, Ankitsingh83, you must realise that racist imputations of the sort you've raised have a chilling effect; they're utterly unacceptable, counter-productive, and won't be tolerated. I hope you can retain a sufficient detachment from the subject - upsetting though it is - to edit in a neutral way. If not, it may be best to find other articles to work on. Can you provide diffs to back up your allegations?

Mattinbgn... you're right, you should know better. Consider yourself trouted. EyeSerene^talk 22:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No I am not calling mattinbgn racist, though I did use the term curry bashing, as is common in Australia. It was only because he was calling his administrator friends from Australia to help him out. Although others were neutral unlike him. So I had to ask for help somewhere. But I do believe he has an agenda, he is paid by someone or something. I don't have an agenda, I am a private editor. I was just editing based on facts and media reports. Mattinbgn unnecessarily clashed with me even when I was being impersonal. He started getting personal as he realized he wasn't the only one editing the page. The he started claiming superiority. Saying I cannot proceed against him for blocking him, and told me to "look into the mirror" whatever that was supposed to mean. I was frustrated that I even stopped discussing this on his page. His attitude was aggressive and delimiting. I think administrators should check into the page's entire history to see what was being said while editing. I wasn't even paying any attention to him when he started getting personal and unnecessarily angry. I didn't have an agenda while editing the page. I was just trying to update. He definitely does have an agenda with the page. ankit 22:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ankitsingh83, you do realize that accusing someone of an agenda, or being paid to make specific comments in this manner can be considered to be an attack? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No I am not attacking him, he did attack me. I do believe mattinbgn has an agenda. That is a firm belief. If you guys just look into his comments on my page or the history of pages involved you will know what I mean. As per EyeSerene's suggestion I am looking away from this page for sometime. But it would be highly disruptive if mattinbgn is allowed to edit that page again. Currently the status quo of the page reflects the reality so I am happy with it. Mattinbgn's aggressive attitude doesn't befit an administrator or an editor. But I am ok with the fact that he doesn't create an edit war with me again. That would be all. ankit 23:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsingh83 (talk • contribs)

Antkitsingh83, did you even read Bwilkins's comment above? If you did, and still don't get it, let me be more blunt: stop accusing other editors of having agendas. It is considered an attack. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above Ankitsingh83 - whether or not you have a disagreement with an editor, your painting of editors, and Australians generally with such a broad brush that escalates any perceived tension by by introduction of the derogatory phrase "curry-bashing" is unfair and looks to be poisoning the well. I am very concerned by these edits and your continued suggestions about Mattinbgn having an agenda. This sort of behaviour by you must stop!--VS ^talk 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd add that while accusing an editor of having an agenda is considered an attack, so to is repeated claims that the editor is "curry bashing" ([94] [95]). I'd like to reinforce VirtualSteve's comment above, and strongly suggest toning down the language. - Bilby (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey I am done with whoever that person was? Now are you guys up here trying to change my belief? The whole world cannot change a person's belief. Or are you accusing me of retrospective racism? Since I am trying to put this matter to rest and since you guys want the same, might I suggest "Leave me alone". I have left the person responsible alone as well. As to the supposed derogatory term that I used. Did any administrator take any action before I urged for it? It is not a derogatory term, if you have lived in Australia, it is just an acknowledment of a certain type of action. ankit 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsingh83 (talk • contribs)

ARticle should not have been locked in a POV state supported by one SPA against 3 regular editors. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons.. There are a few ways to interpret the protection policy. One favors the first sentence, the next favors "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." I prefer the former. Protonk (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that. I just hope they wait until it is in the non-silly version, YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 08:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that you can use {{editprotected}} to request a consensus edit on the talk-page. EyeSerene^talk 08:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Can the page be unprotected now, with a stern warning that continued edit-warring will lead to blocks ? I am hopeful that with enough eyes on it the edit-warring won't resume. The page needs much work to overcome "recentism", and edit-protected requests are not an efficient means for overhauling the article. Abecedare (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Otty Sanchez

This article has been created (and deleted as an unreferenced negative BLP) a couple of times. It relates to a breaking news story (example [96] - warning not for the faint hearted) and an article that does not meet the speedy delete criteria may be possible. It strikes me that given the nature of the topic a few people keeping their eyes on it wouldn't be a bad idea. Guest9999 (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right about that. You're definitely right that the story is, um, unpleasant. There may also be an effort to have the content added to Infanticide, Early infanticidal childrearing, postpartum psychosis, or a similar article. At this point, it would probably fail BLP to be included there as well, pending a decision or statement from the lady herself. I've got the page itself watched, and may occasionally check to see if it links anywhere. More eyes would be useful as well. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Resolved

 – Moved to WP:RFPP. Remove this tag and comment below if this doesn't resolve the issue. Protonk (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm in the right place for this, and I don't know the strict procedure on protection of articles, but the article for Physical Education has been being (for years) consistently defaced by IPs (some of the edits are good faith, but completely and flagrantly against Wikipolicy). Many bad edits are made my people who obviously aren't knowledgeable in Wikipedia standards. I looked back through a good chunk of the last 1000 edits, and there are multiple occasions where it has been damaged by a series of IPs in a row, then had a reversion back to one of the vandal-state edits, to a severely blanked version (eg, several sections taken out). On multiple occasions it has had to redevelop from there (as I guess there are no consistent contributors to notice the "faulty" reversion to a damaged version). This has been going on for years, if you check the last 500 [[97]] and the 500 before that it is blatantly apparent that the article has been in trouble for years. I think that if this article is semi-protected so that only users with accounts can edit it, it would give it the chance to develop in a much "healthier" way, making it a much better article. Peace and Passion (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

PS Its talk page is even a frequent victim. Peace and Passion (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Go to WP:RFPP and ask for permanent semi-protection, which should keep the IP's and redlinks away. If you still have trouble, from regular editors, you need to talk with them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible Hacked Account

Resolved

 – User blocked by Nakon as a vandalism only account. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

After almost a year away, User:Greenblobo9 has returned and vandalized three pages (1, 2, 3). I am a little concerned that this may be an account that has been hacked and not in the control of its owner. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:98.248.32.178 conducts excessive section blanking

Resolved

The user User:98.248.32.178 is relentless in removing an Economy section from the Silver Spring, Maryland page with a description and list of companies. He/She will not discuss any disagreements and reason on the Silver Spring talk page and has escalated to an editing war. Only one response on their own personal page notes "Poor placement, lack of context, redlinks galore, etc... " I even went as far as to address these issues, by removing dead links and adding more description but like I have said it is a work in progress and that certainly defines the core of Wikipedia as a whole... a work in progress.

I am not aware of any rules defining the placement of sections after the intro on an article page. Please let me know, but if so, rather than do this the User: 98.248.32.178 is section blanking and this I believe is a form of vandalism.

It should be noted that his/her page has numerous complaints in particular, the excessive section blanking and the user has not resorted to a real user name to easily be identifiable. Waveshi (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Both Waveshi and 98.248.32.178 blocked for 3RR violation. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism at Barney Frank

Resolved

 – The page was protected Harlem675 08:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it needs protection, or maybe someone can just keep an eye on it. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Looks like frequent IP vandalism, I think an admin should semi-protect it for a short period of time. Harlem675 08:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I gave it 3-days semi. DMacks (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Carlos Loyzaga Article

I would like to report, this Anonymous IP user User:122.104.194.58 keeps editing and removing the proper terms of an Individual Award in the article Carlos Loyzaga. My argument is that the individual award he received in the 1954 FIBA World Championship was called "1954 FIBA World Championship Mythical Team", means the five best players of the tournament. But the said user, keep re-editing the article and change to "1954 FIBA World Championship All-Star" and its gives people the wrong idea that the World Championship has an "All-Star" game. I even provided a source but he deleted that source as well. The guy also uses this IP address User:122.104.185.193.. So I'm guessing he is using an Internet Cafe--peads (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollback needed

Brutaldeluxe (talk · contribs) has probably made an experiment with TW, and removed quite a bunch of valid wikilinks to Nicholas I of Montenegro, all with summary "Removing backlinks to Nicholas I of Montenegro because "Test edit, rv if necessary"; using TW". He's apparently offline now, so can someone please rollback those ~100 edits? Thanks in advance. No such user (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. (correctly I hope)--ClubOranje^T 11:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Review requested of administrative actions

I've recently become involved as an admin in a couple of disputes on Aircraft of the Battle of Britain and Battle of Britain. These have involved most of the regular editors there, but the flies in the ointment appear to be Hiens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kurfürst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both of whom have been conducting campaigns for edits that do not appear to be supported by consensus. These content issues have been discussed, some at great length (see Talk:Aircraft of the Battle of Britain and associated archive), to the point where in my judgement further contention is becoming disruptive.

As a result, when a complaint was made on my talkpage that Kurfürst was unilaterally changing content on Aircraft of the Battle of Britain while it was under discussion I blocked him for two weeks (following warnings from myself and other admins that further disruption would lead to sanctions). The relevant talk-page thread is here. Because I previously intervened to unblock another editor that had become frustrated with Kurfürst to the point of edit-warring, Kurfürst is now convinced that I'm supporting one version of content over another and giving a free ride to certain editors. The dispute revolves around the extent to which the RAF used a type of aircraft fuel; the only possible explanation for my actions is that, being British, I feel so strongly about 100 octane that I'm prepared to abuse the admin tools.

Hiens I have only warned to date about flogging dead horses, because he resurrected an apparently settled content dispute on Talk:Battle of Britain. However, he too seems to have reached the conclusion that I'm abusing the admin tools and preferring one set of editors (and one version of content) over another. On a procedural note, I have not edited either article or commented on the content itself.

In my view the regular editors on those articles have been dealing for some time now with some extremely persistent, stubborn, and opinionated users. There has been a detrimental effect on both the articles and other editors who've chosen to work there, to the point where some good editors have begun to react badly and others have dropped off the radar. I believe our established article-writers are our most valuable resource and must be protected, but dealing with these type of situations is never straightforward... so finally I come to the point of this long post :) I'm requesting an independent review of my actions, and if possible another set or two of eyes on the above articles and editors. Thanks! EyeSerene^talk 09:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
"Stop it EyeSerene , it won't do you any good Stop falsely accusing others of things you guilty of yourself All sorts of historians give all sorts of figures. Murray uses secondary sources You are a liar and you know it ; I have no issue no case I am done with you EyeSerene The community should deal with you now ; your defense is completely distorted and piece of crap up ala I can understand you're upset about losing the argument, but you are just going to have to be grown up about it and accept it "

Hey sorry Gentlemen I got carried away ! this is a true example and the exact phrases of User Dapi89 and his colleague EnigmaMcmxc , and he always find some other one colleagues to praise him – like User Jacurek - and say thank you Dapi89 I understand your frustration ! Simply it is amazing and pitifully this time the Wiki Admin justify this level of discussion by saying
" There has been a detrimental effect on both the articles and other editors who've chosen to work there, to the point where some good editors have begun to react badly and others have dropped off the radar " really …..
You are making a political maneuverability to free them ; people can disagree and moderator can interfere to ask them to get back to the subject or place his knowledge on a source or analysis .. But not this way Mr. EyeSerene where u deleted part of the discussion which have absolutely no bad words no insult , no attacking on other , no personnel attack ….

But you said  - the majority against it     probably ratio of  5:3.

And it is “ extremely persistent, stubborn, and opinionated users. “ really ..

If another administrator frees you from the charges of concealing your identity and protecting, the cursing and personnel insult, then I am sure you will not be quited from one charge!
Simply the lack of knowledge skill and been incompetent to mastering a hot discussion Didn't ever came to your knowledge that - The results of Battle of Britain - Dowding quoted about one phrase from the Official documentation as a myth and it would be dangerous for the futre ... The outcome of the battle is a long controversial subject and the debate still going on till these days .. It is not a problem for users to trade POV and sources and also not a problem for Administrator to interfere and ask users to calm down, press them to provide sources or criticize the validity of some sources or analysis .... etc Something you didn't do it!!!! you simply remained in silence and only interfered to attack or punish !

There were long discussions with Dapi98 before on discussion page for Battle of Britain
it was simply deleted and some good Administrator answered Dapi89 - when he said all historian agreed this understanding and the Administrator in nice way tried to stop him ( by saying have you cited R.Overy or "I forgot his name"....) ; I wish you can restore this deleted discussion which demonstrate Dapi89 calling R. Ovary contradicted while now he is using his book as a source!
Please restore this discussion and see the Administrator ... he was totally different from you and I wish you will follow his style where as he said about the BoB  ; it is a national Myth and I wouldn’t touch that hot subject, he was fair and straight in his comments. I wonder why this discussion was maliciously deleted

--Hiens (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just looked at Talk:Battle of Britain, and I can only conclude that EyeSerene did what every admin should have done, and that Hiens is coming very close to being blocked as well. Discussions are good, but endless "I can"t hear you" arguments where consensus and WP:NPOV is attacked by stamina, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE should be stopped, and in some cases blocks and/or topic bans are the only method left to achieve this. Fram (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Banned user Celebration1981 using multiple IPs

Hiya... Banned user Celebration1981 has been using multiple IPs to evade block and continue to create problems -- see User_talk:VirtualSteve#History_of_television. So far the following have been used:

IP 94.44.11.255

IP 94.44.4.235

IP 77.111.185.144

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad Language and Personal Attacks

Resolved

 – No admin action warranted. --Smashville^talk 14:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I write in regard to Maelin, and his comment on this page. I wrote a frindly and polite reply to a thread but then some users appreared out of the blue and began to insult me. I tried to explain to them, but they didn't seem interested. Then, in reply to my defence/explanations, Maelin left this message: "Declan, I don't know if you are just oblivious to it, but you really are coming across as an insufferable, pompous wanker. I'm not saying you are, but that is really how your posts are being interpreted. Please try to allay the apparent self-righteousness and maybe we will be able to have some more mathematical discussion and less of this tiresome bickering. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 10:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)" Whether or not I am "an insufferable, pompous wanker" - which I don't think I am, is there any reason to resort to personal attacks and vulgar language?  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  12:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• This would go better at Wikiquette Alerts as telling someone they are coming across as 'an insufferable, pompous wanker' on a talk page rates no more than mildly uncivil in my view - particularly in that discussion where you aren't really coming off that well (counterproof was a poor place to start MHO). And anyway, no-one is supposed to be giving maths lectures on the talk pages of maths articles (didn't we just have this argument already?), and you deliberately restarted it after a wiser editor tried to say "We're done here." I'd just give the page - and the argument - a rest if I was you.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you are doing the same as some of the other users: you are judging me by posts a year ago. Can't a guy try again? My conduct in that thread was most civil. I was then subjected to insults and abuse by user carrying a grudge. The theme of the thread is, given the chronology, this:

• I make a comment about counter-proof, and how people should reply in good faith.
• COVIZAPIBETEFOKY insults me.
• I show COVIZAPIBETEFOKY that his behaviour is indicative of my previous comment. I try to reason with user.
• COVIZAPIBETEFOKY mocks me.
• I ask COVIZAPIBETEFOKY how abuse help the page.
• COVIZAPIBETEFOKY carries on to abuse me.
• I further try to explain how unreasonable COVIZAPIBETEFOKY is being.
• Page is archive by Tango.
• I remove archive and ask that we all move on.
• I make comment about counter-proof.
• Maelin replies to my mathematical writings with vulgar insults.

You say that "wanker" is at most uncivil; I'm amazed that you could draw that conclussion. In the UK the word "wanker" is most vulgar, and in fact if you were to use it towards a police officer you would find yourself under arrest. If you think that that's not worth of reprimand then I'm amazed. So the basic message is this: insult people as much as you like, and don't bother trying to defend yourself.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, he didn't say you were a pompous wanker...he said you were coming off that way. There's a huge difference. --Smashville^talk 13:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on, it's clear he's being rude and offensive. The formula to insult people is: "You are coming off as a INSERT GIVEN INSULT"?  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that was a bit more than "mildly" uncivil (memo: decline any invitations to drinks at Elen's house!) at least to a Brit, though in Australia it might be intended as frank advice rather than a deliberate insult. I'd let it go anyway, though, even if it was slightly over the top. Life's too short to worry about that sort of thing for long. All the best - Pointillist (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

but...but...! I make a killer Old Fashioned.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh alright then, if you're going to twist my arm. Shall I bring some nibbles? - Pointillist (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A byte or two would be good. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

aaaarrghhh! 17:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What exact admin action are you looking for here? I don't see that you've tried to discuss this with him or, for that matter, notified him of this thread. --Smashville^talk 14:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ah, the rough-and-tumble of academic debate :) I realise that page survived a previous XfD, but it sits uneasily with WP:NOTFORUM. I suppose one of the consequences of allowing such exceptions is that we encourage (or at least appear to condone) forum-like behaviour. In short, Declan, if you are going to engage with other editors on a page that's clearly outside Wikipedia norms, you may need to be prepared for a certain amount of laxity (and it's really not that bad - I've been called worse by my wife!). If it upsets you, it might be best to avoid the page in the future. EyeSerene^talk 14:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Smashville, I wasn't looking for an action, I was hoping that someone might be able to ask him to calm down, and to tell him that his conduct is not acceptable. I didn't realise that I had to inform him of this thread. Pointillist, you're right: I won't accept any such invitations. EyeSerene, you make a good point. I didn't realise that it was such a lawless backwater. I'll stay clear next time.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  14:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I also note that you asked him to "give it a rest" and he made no further comments. So...seeing as you have not discussed this with him, have not notified him of this thread and that the pattern has not continued after your request for him to stop, I am marking this as resolved. --Smashville^talk 14:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What if he's just not been at his computer for the last few hours, and the abuse continues when he does get back to a computer?  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  14:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What if he was struck by lightning while editing and has been moved into a cryogenic chamber? We don't take admin action based on hypothetical future situations. --Smashville^talk 14:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to be sarcastic; it's not very helpful. I was enquiring as to which course of action I should take. I guess speak to a different admin would be a good start.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  15:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Well, as noted ... your first forum for incivility is WP:WQA. If you can establish a pattern of actual abuse, then here or WP:RFC/U is where you go next. Having family in the UK (and having been there a lot), "wanker" has many levels ... friends call each other a wanker when they're being an idiot, and sisters call their brother a wanker when they've been caught in the bathroom - it's not necessarily vulgar. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's like talking to brick wall; I give up! Let Wikipedia slide into the gutter if you wish.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  15:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no sarcasm. We don't take admin action based on hypothetical future actions. --Smashville^talk 15:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting to re-open this, but why do Mathematicians seem to get a free ride on the NOR stuff? Why is a talk page, for a non-existent article, where (on a quick look) not one single person has referenced a reliable source and some editors are bickering, allowed to stay? How's it helping build the encyclopedia? before they say it: yes, I know maths is true and provably so and thus you only need confirm the obvious, but that talk page is an elegant example of the flaw of that argument. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The page is the arguments sub-directory of Talk:0.999..., made specifically so that people who have no understanding of mathematics and refuse to believe the article (despite the fact that it is well-referenced) can splatter their misunderstandings all over it. It is not standard practice, even among mathematics articles, to have a page like this one, but this page has survived several attempts at deletion, so I think it's there to stay. --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. 1) Subpages of talk pages of an article are standard. Their most common use is for talk page archives, and sometimes they are used for FAQs. In this case the subpage seems to be a pragmatic solution in order to canalise the endless discussions with crackpots and people misled by them in such a way that improvements to the article can still be discussed in the proper place. 2) Original research is about what gets into the article, not about talk page discussions. E.g. sometimes we have two formally reliable sources and need to decide whether to believe one or the other, or report a disagreement. Then with some OR we may find that one is by a crackpot who for some reason got a post at a university but is not taken seriously by any of his colleagues. So we simply ignore what he writes. This is proper, even though it's probably improper OR to say in an article that that person is wrong, because mathematicians are usually too polite to publish personal comments of this nature. Hans Adler 16:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

When I said that it's not standard practice, I was referring to the fact that it is a page made for OR arguments by "crackpots and people misled by them", not to the fact that it's a subpage of a talk page. --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course. We were both writing at the same time, and chose to respond to different aspects of "talk page of a non-existent article". There is no contradiction. Hans Adler 16:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh! I'm sorry! I thought you were responding to me when you said "Subpages of talk pages of an article are standard". Never mind, then. --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Trolling

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet contributions struck out from discussion. Uncle G (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patriotic Nigras (3rd nomination) appears to be being trolled by the very group that the article is about. Notice the multiple single-purpose accounts. (I have my doubts about Bannable (talk · contribs).) Even the nomination appears to be trolling. Note the word-for-word duplication in Da Killa Wabbit's edit here of JzG's edit here. Uncle G (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• The nominator and many of the participants of that AfD are sockpuppets, possibly of banned user. The newest account might also be the same banned user, but I'm not certain. Certainly looks like a troll account. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User: Shmayo and his Assyrian struggle

In the article Syria, i filled out text in the section "Etymology", text about from where the name "Syria" derives and to which people the term "Syrians" were approved. I also came up with academic sources prooving that the name "Syria" is NOT derived from "Assyria". Earlier, scholarship confirmed that Syria was derived from Assyria, but this has in later time been disproved, confirming that Syria does NOT derive from Assyria. I came up with 15 sources, that was backing up what i wrote. But this does not "fit" for User:Shmayo, who dont want to believe that the term has been proved wrong about being derived from "Assyria". Wikipedia should stand for the latest information, and this is the latest informarmation. The name "Syria" is synonym with "Aram", "Syrians" with "Arameans" and "Syrian language" with "Aramean language". In the first translation of the Bible, the Septuagint, 'Aram' were translated into 'Syria', 'Arameans' into 'Syrians' and 'Aramaic' into 'Syrian'. Everything is also backed up with sources. He reverted my edits, [98] and then i reverted back his edits, but i know that he will continue reverting my edits. What can we do about this? SyrianskaFC (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• You can go to Talk:Syria (which I note you haven't edited at all) per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and as Shmayo's edit summary ("discussion time") even said to do. What you should not be doing is what you are currently doing, which is edit warring without discussion, when you were even invited to discuss. Uncle G (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

SolvedSyrianskaFC (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous editor adding unencyclopedic content about stray dogs in Sofia

An anonymous editor keeps adding unencyclopedic (non-notable, unsourced, POV) content about dog population management in Sofia to Boyko Borisov (recently) and Sofia (earlier), violating WP:ADVOCACY (explained here). Still earlier, the editor was adding links about the subject to these articles, which violate WP:ELNO, no. 13, explained here. The editor is using IP addresses 194.141.6.93, 93.152.170.207, 78.90.8.81, 195.214.255.253, a.o., all located in Sofia, Bulgaria. Preslav (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by IP

Having just encountered the following IP user, I am surprised to see a talk page with so many warnings on it (not made by me, I hasten to add, but by numerous other editors) - and, apparently, no action taken.

User talk:194.60.38.198#July 2009

Could an admin please take a look at this user history and consider a block? Setwisohi (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's the proxy server for the British House of Parliament. I, for one, think I'm going to stray from creating an international incident. --Smashville^talk 15:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wanker Wimp ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a sensitive IP address. According to SIP, whoever's going to block this address is going to need to noticy the Communications_committee about it. (X! · talk)  · @707  ·  15:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I see no need for a block. Problems every couple of weeks (skimming recent contribs) for an IP covering a major institution doesn't really seem a problem. Rd232 ^talk 16:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Blocked for 1 year.
        • Calm down, I'm kidding... I agree with Rd232, it's not persistent vandalism/disruption. It comes and goes and it very well may not be the same person. On the other hand, if warranted, I would have no problems blocking, sensitive or not. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Hmmm. The United States Congress whitewashes Congressional biographies, and we get an entire article. The United Kingdom Parliament whitewashes M.P. biographies (example, example example example) to remove information relating to the United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal, whitewashes the biography of Patrick Mercer to play down a resignation (edits), vandalizes the article on Eric Clapton (edit), and calls an MEP an "ambitious" "snob" (edit), and we don't want to create an incident? That seems a little skewed. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • (also ec) Not necessarily - the edit history for the account has plenty of decent contributions from multiple editors, so we can probably live with the occasional POV edit/vandalism. If the problem becomes current, persistent and ongoing, blocking for a few hours would be useful. Re the articles, if some of the edits from this IP are picked up by the press, we might have the sources to write something. Until then... EyeSerene^talk 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't suggest that we write an article. I did point out the skewedness of not even wanting to create an incident. We were not only willing to create an incident for the U.S. Congressional staffer edits, we created a lengthy RFC.

      And this is a current problem. Look at the timestamps on those diffs. They are all, bar one, within the past week. And that one is within the past fortnight. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

      • I agree it's borderline - the number of recent warnings would justify a block in my eyes, if not for the amount of good edits as well (hence the resultant collateral damage). Creating an incident doesn't come into it; I'd hope we would treat all shared IPs the same way. EyeSerene^talk 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Not we. Just me. Call me an insufferable, pompous wanker if you would...but I will straight up admit that I don't have the testicular fortitude to block Parliament...unless it's Parliament Funkadelic...but they would never vandalize Wikipedia. --Smashville^talk 16:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Lady Gaga recently played the "Parliament Ultraclub" in Ottawa. Gonna block her? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I should block her just for being Lady Gaga. --Smashville^talk 16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • ((super duper ec) We could have an article on it, once / if the press picks it up. Otherwise it is OR. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Incident! Incident! It's the title of this page. Incident! Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I read these alternatively as indent (which I failed to do) and indecent. And my apologies, I was extrapolating it to what I saw as the next step in parallel with the article you linked. Syrthiss (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• How about semi-protecting whatever articles the IP is messing with? That will fix his lorry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, it won't. If you go and look at the history of Edward McMillan-Scott‎, you'll see one of the reasons that Setwisohi is here in the first place, and you'll also see (by the fact that they reinstate one anothers' edits) that the person making these problematic BLP edits to this particular article has at least two accounts in addition to the IP address, both of which are almost certainly autoconfirmed by now: Yorkshire Bumblebee (talk · contribs) and EPP fanatic (talk · contribs). And then there's Saer1957 (talk · contribs) writing content (edit) about how "honourable" and "selfless" the person is. Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Huh. British Parliament: Bad teeth and ignorant. Who knew? Just because they're a government IP doesn't get them a 'Get Out of Trouble Free' card. Treat them like any other random idiot. HalfShadow 16:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think WP:NPA extends to all our editors, HalfShadow, IP or not ;) EyeSerene^talk 16:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If I were in charge, I would issue a block and make it very clear why it was blocked - that one of their own was the culprit. Let them fix the problem themselves if they want to use wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• I think one major point we are missing is that the IP hasn't actually vandalized anything since Setwisohi warned him. All the blocking talk is kind of moot at the moment. --Smashville^talk 17:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Um, whilst the userpage claims the IP address to be the British Parliament, both WP:SIP and Special:BlockIP claim the range to be 194.60.0.0/20 (i.e. 194.60.0.0 - 194.60.15.255), which doesn't include this address. Which is correct? Black Kite 18:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• As per RIPE:
  • inetnum: 194.60.0.0 - 194.60.63.255
  • netname: HOP
  • descr: Houses of Parliament
  • country: GB
• (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yup, was just about to post this myself - should be 194.60.0.0/18. I've fixed WP:SIP but it'll take someone with more rights to fix Special:BlockIP, and I wonder if the AIV Helperbots have the correct ranges as well?. Black Kite 18:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You should have ample rights to edit MediaWiki:Blockiptext. Uncle G (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Eh, didn't realise that was transcluded. Thanks :) (and done). Black Kite 20:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• No need to block - although, as a British taxpayer, I will be more than willing to do so; fart around with my money of WP? - just send all the publicly availabe information on these HOP resolving addresses to the Daily Telegraph (who broke the MP expenses story earlier this year), the Guardian newspaper, The Times, or The Independent. I think our UK MP's should be a little wary at being exposed as whitewashers/smearers, and might take steps to resolve this. A word directly to the abuse contact, ruminating on the consequences of placing this before Fleet Street, may also do the trick. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any qualms in the slightest about blocking anons from this IP address. Remember that MPs have more-or-less unpaid interns who might be more enthusiastic than their brief permits, and are completely unaccountable- and dispensible, and deniable. I think what matters here is disruption to Wikipedia, and whereas I don't see it being a functional problem as things are, my view may change. After all, our Government is under considerable pressure at present, facing, as it does, a General Election within twelve months in the face of appalling opinion polls. If I see any sign of manipulation of Wikipedia to counter that from that direction, I will act. Rodhullandemu 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous Wikistalking may be resuming

An anonymous wikistalker previously dealt with [99]] appears to have resumed his hijinx once the block ran out: [100] -Legitimus (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This page needs protection, looks like frequent IP vandalism

This page needs protection: Mark Holiday Looks like frequent IP vandalism: 14:26, 18 July 2009 173.57.43.240 (talk) (2,804 bytes) (undo) 04:03, 17 July 2009 173.57.43.240 (talk) (2,774 bytes) (undo) 04:03, 17 July 2009 173.57.43.240 (talk) (2,805 bytes) (undo) 02:16, 16 July 2009 173.57.43.240 (talk) (2,774 bytes) (undo) 02:14, 16 July 2009 173.57.43.240 (talk) (2,772 bytes) (undo) 01:48, 16 July 2009 173.57.43.240 (talk) (2,709 bytes) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electronicmusicprofessor (talk • contribs)

• It looks like one batch of vandalism that you have already reverted. And Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is across the quad. Uncle G (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Drmargi - Disruptive editing

Drmargi's manner in editing is directly stalling a resolution to the discussion at Talk:Robin Hood (2006 TV series)#"Fates" of Isabella, Sheriff. He continues to ignore the messages I have posted on his talk page (even blanking one without responding) and the article's talk page, yet persistently reverts the article back to his preferred version ([101][102][103][104][105]), the latter time responding to my backing up my action with policy with "Nice try". I have no doubt that had I been as immeditate in reverting we would both have greatly exceeded WP:3RR. The only explanation I can see for this behaviour is an attempt to force his change onto the article by repeatedly re-adding it yet refusing to participate in discussion. U-Mos (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You two are seriously edit-warring over the words "are caught" and "die"?? After all, "are caught" often refers to "die", in theory. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no fanwars!! Auntie BBC has cancelled the series, so it makes no odds to anyone except writers of fanfiction whether you say "got caught in the blast", "died in the explosion" or whatever - they aren't appearing on another season anytime soon.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bah, lame edit war. I've told them to stop it, or I'll block 'em both. Should be handled. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring. I've tried every way I know of to reach a resolution, only changing the article due to a lack of response from Drmargi or anyone else, which clearly indicated a lack of consensus for the change, let alone any opposition at all. I'm well aware that they mean very similar things, but that doesn't mean one isn't preferable, it doesn't mean one doesn't employ subjectivity, and it doesn't mean Drmargi hasn't been very obstructive in his edits. U-Mos (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Potentially Compromised Account Block Review

RHB100 (talk · contribs) has been on Wikipedia for over a year without causing any major trouble. However, in the last few hours, he has created a pointy AfD, reverted my close 3 times (1, 2, 3) and then vandalized my userpage. Since these activities are drastically atypical of the user and go in-line, I have blocked the account indefinitely as being potentially compromised. Thoughts? Suggestions? --Smashville^talk 20:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalised? No.. accidentally left a message there instead of your talk page. I agree the AFD is misguided, and warring over the closure was stupid. But I've not seen enough to make me believe the account is compromised. Friday (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. He needs a short block to cool off and an explanation why his behaviour was not on; no more unless he re-offends. I'd say he acted under misguided good faith here. U-Mos (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I should add that if anyone wants to change my block, go ahead and do it. I did a quick sweep of his editing history and it all seemed out of character to me, hence the block. --Smashville^talk 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

After a quick review myself of the editing history, I'm not seeing evidence the account is compromised, just perhaps a frustrated editor. I'll boldy undo the block. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You go be "boldy" :) --Smashville^talk 21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I may just do that. ;-P No one ever asked about my typing skilz at my RfA. Good thing, too.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

He;s appealing his block. I think you may have flubbed.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done a search for autoblocks and didn't find any. However, I welcome anyone else taking a look, because I don't often unblock. (It's also possible he stopped reading at the block notice and didn't go further...)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Image pushing

Resolved

Four times over the last 24 hours an IP and a logged in user (presumed to be the same person) have been pushing File:Logoforcbs.PNG onto CBS [106][107][108][109]. File:CBS.svg is a superior quality image. Myself and another user have attempted to discuss this with the user in question, but the user has been unresponsive and chosen to edit war instead. Help? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I just deleted it instead. It's never going to be used as it's clearly inferior to the other image, so however much the user edit-wars over it then WP:CSD#F5 is going to apply in the end, I merely hastened the process. Black Kite 20:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad Moves

Resolved

Newer editor User:Divod just did a ton of page moves against Wikipedia naming conventions to cap the words in the names and shorten them because he thought they were too long. Can some revert all of those please (as well as his subsequent changing of links to those pages). I've already left a note at his talk page asking him to stop now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Goddess!! It's every flaming tv station listing article. And I bet he hasn't touched all the what links heres!! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

He has agreed to stop, so "just" a question of putting everything back, which it looks like User:Bearcat has done. Black Kite 21:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of his talkpage, does User_talk:Davodd#I_need_your_help_to_write_a_thesis. concern anyone, or should I WP:AGF? I know it's a couple of months ago, but... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It does a bit...I got something similar from a new user not to long ago that wanted to email me some survey questions. When I reactivated the "email this user", instead I got hit with some 20-30 disgusting messages from Grawp. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned up some of these, but I screwed up one of them. Need an admin to move List of Adult Swim programs back to List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim and fix any resulting double redirects. Deor (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian and FT2

Resolved

 – Does not seem to be a need for further admin action on this, further discussion would likely do more harm than good.

--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned with Peter Damian (talk · contribs)'s latest edits. They seem to be tagging FT2's userpage in a disruptive manner, and an apparent sock of FT2's labelling it as a sockpuppet. This is apparently to make some sort of point (WP:POINT as it were) due to Geogre's ongoing RFAR. Peter Damian and FT2 have quite a history, and I really don't believe Peter Damian should be the one to tag pages, if anyone should be at all. These edits, which look fairly harmless at a glance, are from three years ago, before FT2 held any adminship or arbitrator role. What should be done about this? Majorly talk 22:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page. Those edits were purely provocative and I can't see any need to add those tags. When FT2 is around, he can decide when to remove the protection. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on PD's talk page, as well. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an obvious case of Getting Attention by Provoking Drama. May I suggest we don't let it succeed? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The relevant pages have now been fully protected, Peter Damian has been advised on how to deal with this issue, so I agree it is probably as resolved as it could be. Hopefully Peter Damian will drop this business from over three years ago. Majorly talk 22:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Especially, as Peter is under the following terms for his unblock. directed not to interact with or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other on any page in Wikipedia""

""Should Peter Damian interact with or make any comment concerning FT2, or make any other comment reasonably regarded as harassment or a personal attack, he may be blocked". Peter, we get it. You and FT2 will never be on each other's christmas card lists. But please, drop it. It does you no good, and it does the encyclopedia no good either. SirFozzie (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:IllaZilla

This user won't stop reverting my edits. I was just making some very small and harmless edits, but this user is just being rude and intentionally reverting them without the slightest reason, besides those stupid sources, which was not really necessary. This user is just being continuously rude! Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like IllaZilla explained their actions at User talk:IllaZilla#Terminator 2: Judgment Day -- is that what you're referring to, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes! Yes i am referring to that! I came here for help! This user is seriously trying to abuse me by reverting my edits on purpose! Again, i came here for help! What if you're hurt and alone and you dial 911, but no one answers? Huh? That's what it's like by your above response! Better help me solve this dispute! Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well... if you're so sure the information you're posting is correct, then you must have a source, right? If you don't have a source, how can you be so sure? I'm sorry to repeat something you've already heard, but the question seems quite relevant. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's made the most money, been seen by the most people or whatever, just point us to where you read it. That'll do.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Some dumb clown must have made up the rule about sources and verification, and that clown didn't know what he was thinking. If User:IllaZilla or anyone tries to revert any of my edits again, there WILL be severe penalties. Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Dumb clown"? Next to perhaps neutral point of view, verifiability is one of our most important content policies. Please calm down. These are not hard questions we're asking you. Where did you get this information? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I got the term "dumb clown" from what you assholes are doing, things like "respecting your god damned beloved sources", which i sure as HELL don't respect at all! I never did agree with sources. Now you will pay the penalty, and it will not be good. Ryanbstevens (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

RPP Backlog

There is somewhat of a backlog on RPP, if an admin could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban?

I need a ruling on this, from an expert. I was under the impression that certain editors, including User:ChildofMidnight, were under a topic ban from Obama-related articles. If I'm wrong about that, I will revert my reversion, mark this "Resolved" and be done with it. In any case, Henry Louis Gates and Arrest of Henry Louis Gates have become Obama-related, due to the President speaking out on the matter (whether he should have or not, he did). So I just want to know if I'm right about the topic ban in general, and if so, should it also extend to this pair of articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not closely familiar with this; a quick look on my part found Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#ChildofMidnight topic banned. This might be a better fit at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I've also notified CoM of this thread. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I had notified him just a little bit before you did. I just want to know what the rules are. If I'm right, he (and Grundle was well) must stay away. If I'm wrong, I'll revert him back and stop watching the pages. I'll take it to that other page if that's appropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

C of M obviously is under a topic ban from Obama-related articles per this. Such bans are generally broadly defined, so in my view articles relating to Gates would currently fall under that scope. However that was not obvious from the beginning of this arrest issue, as Obama was not initially intimately implicated in it, as he is now. I doubt C of M was thinking of this in terms of violating his topic ban (and from what I can gather he has not actually discussed Obama on the article talk pages), so I see no major problem here. However I think he should err on the side of caution and leave off editing those articles, particularly Arrest of Henry Louis Gates. It would be good if someone could make a suggestion to that effect on his talk page.

I am not ChildofMidnight's favorite admin and as such the comment should probably not come from me, so I would appreciate it if another admin could drop a note on his page (assuming others agree with my interpretation of the situation here). I think he'll likely be amenable to avoiding Gates-related articles, and if he disagrees we could get ArbCom to clarify, but ideally this can be taken care of without bother the Arbs. Again, I don't see a problem behavior here on C of M's part and I'm sure he was editing in good faith, but probably he should leave off those articles for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

He was engaging in subtle pro-police (and implicitly anti-Obama) slanting of the article, but that's more of a content dispute, which others are also on top of. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I really don't think good faith can be assumed here, as this is not the first time CoM has tested the waters re: the topic ban. #1 and #2. Tarc (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — Aitias // discussion 23:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that was not a good block in my view. I'm as familiar as anyone with the background here, and I have been strongly critical of C of M in the past. I do not see a reason to assume that he was acting in bad faith and knowingly circumventing his topic ban. It would have been far more advisable to leave a note on his talk page first asking him to leave off editing those articles. Only one admin had commented directly on the matter at hand before you blocked (me) and that was to recommend not blocking. The other editors who have commented (excepting Luna) have in the past been in disputes with C of M. I strongly recommend you unblock pending further discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The diff I have provided in my block summary resp. in my block notice, which you might whish to read, shows that this was indeed a violation of the topic ban. If one adds “Obama stated” to an article they clearly do know that the article they are editing is Obama related. — Aitias // discussion 00:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)