Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Wikifan12345's personal attacks on Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009

There has been a ongoing discussion on this talk page between myself, Wikifan12345, O Fenian, GeorgeWilliamHerbert, SeanHoyland and Seb az86556 about whether classifying incidents as terrorist without a supporting source is orginal research or not. I'll be honest -- I proposed significant changes that have been met with criticism (and some support); however I have continued to discuss the matter civilly and refrained from editing the article while discussions continue.

Wikifan12345, on the other hand, is disruptively repeating personal attacks against me. He keeps bringing up "Jews", arguing that I am a "manic" anti-Semite. I don't thnk my character or mental health is really relevant to the discussion.

Here are some excerpts: "Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV "... "everything to do with his vendetta against Jews and Israel" ... "Or whether killing Jews in the Jewistan is justified under the ambiguous"..."Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews."

Nobody else on the talk page seems to agree with his attacks and he has been repeatedly warned by GeorgeWilliamHerbert to stop the personal attacks. I am tempted to just erase the personal attacks myself, but I know he would just edit war against me. I did remove some Israeli incidents from the article in ONE revert, but to interpret that as a vendetta against Jews is nonsensical. Factsontheground (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This unfortunately came to my attention after the HRW ordeal. I think Wikifan12345 is being extremely belligerent in the RfC on that talk page. But in some cases I don't think your behavior has been much better. I would suggest that both of you take a break for a little while as the "terrorist incidents" RfC looks completely useless for its designed purpose and more like a war zone. I am not an admin so I can take no action, but for the moment it seems that tempers are way too heated to be productive. Awickert (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not angry but I have no interest in edit-warring if that is what you are suggesting. I just hope FOTG won't follow me to the next article I edit. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Suggest speedy close. Moving legitimate content dispute to an ANI is dubious. FOTG has been following me around since last week, to BBC and HRW. I accused him of being "manically obsessed" with Jews and Israel because he edit-warred out almost all of the incidents in Israel without a single post in talk. 1 2, 3, 4, 5, and that is just a sample. History of edits at 2009.

• The summaries were lacking, with rationales like "Source does not categorize incident as a terrorist attack." In fact, more than half of the sources explicitly referred to the acts as terrorist incidents. I mean, he removed a incident that involved an Al-Qaeda cell. Can we all agree Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization? :D

• Then when I reverted the page back to a non-dispute state and ask that he explain his edits more thoroughly in discussion, he edit-warred again and accused me of original research.

• Even after I posted the source and copied/pasted direct text, he still denies the sources referred to the incidents as acts of terrorism. Then he whipped out the civility card when I called him on it.

Real mature. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The content dispute is a separate issue. This is about a behavioral dispute. Anger or no, comments like "real mature" are vindictive, and likely to score you negative brownie points here. Now if you are suggesting that FOTG is being very WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is wikistalking to push your buttons, that's another matter. The content dispute can stay on the RfC on the page, but I don't think I'll have any argument when I say it's going nowhere, so this is to handle the behavioral issues and get things back on track. Hopefully. Awickert (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As a number of people have agreed on the talk page and elsewhere, the article should only list incidents that are described as terrorism by a reliable source. Although it may appear obvious to you that an incident is terrrorism, that is not how Wikipedia works. Addition need to be supported by a source or justified on the discussion page. And I can't believe you are still complaining about edits I made a week ago! They have long since been reverted (by you and others) and the discusssion has moved on.

You seem to think that instead of participating in the discussion you can derail everything by continually attacking me.

Factsontheground (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Also the so-called "Al Qaeda" cell was actually belonging to the Janud Ansar Allah organization as the reference [states http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1244371116416]. Factsontheground (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They updated the posting, it originally referred to the group as belonging to a Al-Qaeda cell. Either way, it is still a terrorist attack as confirmed by the article. But when "Al-Qaeda" was painted all over the article last month, you still removed it. You simply did not read the article and deleted everything remotely Jewish.

Also, The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. Most of the edits you removed described the incident as acts of terrorism, and yet you continue to deny this. A couple hours ago I restored only some of the edits that were 100% confirmed and obvious, but there are a couple others but should be debated - not viciously warred out. It is rather odd for you to suddenly feel a sense of emotional distress when you've routinely cast me as a troll, pro-Israel warrior, POV-commander, etc...etc...Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to continue the content dispute here. It's not the place for it. All I want is for your personal attacks on the talk page to stop.

So far you haven't even admitted that your behaviour has been wrong in any way. I don't think you have any insight into why people find it offensive when you continually accuse them of being "obsessed with Jews". Factsontheground (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you for real? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for this issue. AN/I is not a part of the DR process. IronDuke 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

From looking at the RFC on the article talk page it seems that FOTG's complaints about personal attacks have some basis (though some of the quotes would need diffs to substantiate them); and Wikifan's response seems to be aggression, not regret or discussion or understanding. Besides those FOTG mentioned, Wikifan repeatedly calls him a vandal and claims he "manically removed" sources, even bolding "manically". And his general attitude on the page is confrontational, rather than seeking a resolution. Rd232 ^talk 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, in case there was any doubt about what Wikifan meant by those comments about FOTG in relation to Jews and Israel, a week ago in relation to the same dispute he wrote "It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda." (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Factsontheground removing terrorist attacks aimed at Jews and Israeli soldiers - List of terrorist incidents, 2009). Which WP:ANI let slide, despite the blatant violation of WP:NPA. Rd232 ^talk 19:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing new apparently

I don't know anything about this particular dispute but this is not the first time Wikifan12345 has engaged in unacceptable behavior as part of such a dispute. Not long ago I was having a hard time dealing with this editor myself and tried getting help on another board. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive67#User:Wikifan12345. Perhaps both editors need warnings but Wikifan12345 may need mentorship or something similar.PelleSmith (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

AN/I and similar are littered with reports about this user, as any regular viewer of these boards can attest. Perhaps it is about time to consider larger sanctions, as polite warnings do not seem to be getting through. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Pelle smith, like most of the users here, had a major content dispute and what warring CAIR beyond belief. He removed every single one of my edits, and then he accused me of being a troll for question his massive deletion of material with dubious summaries (OR, undue). I have since left the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment—Whether Wikifan was out of line or not, it is important not to give immunity to the editor who started this ANI, who has also been engaged in highly disruptive behavior, and has also tried to bring a content dispute into this ANI post (inappropriate). I suggest giving a more thorough examination of both users' editing patterns, instead of focusing on a single editor. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the content dispute - I wandered over there as an uninvolved admin and at this point, we have multiple uninvolved admins reviewing, pushing back on both sides and looking for a best policy / best content solution.

I will leave to other admins a review of both primary parties' behavior here and there (and recommend both be reviewed). I prefer to either deal with a content / policy problem or a user / policy problem, but not both aspects of the same incident, to avoid COI on either side. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its appropriate for a comparison to be made between these two users. Wikifan has a block log that is quite shockingly long for such a short time editing here and the use of personal attacks constitutes his primary mode of communication. Every time he is brought to the board, there are editors who try to deflect attention from his behaviour by calling for a more thorough examination of the complainant. Not right. Not right at all. Tiamut^talk 20:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost all the blocks are from edit-warring, and mostly came to be as a result of involved parties reporting me. It really cannot be applied here IMO. ChriO has his sysops removed because he had a major COI and was blocking several editors at Israel and the apartheid analogy with little warning. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are the one who steps over the line, it doesn't matter who reported you; you were at fault for violating editing guidelines. And I believe ChrisO resigned the admin the bit in the wake of the Macedonia2 ArbCom case. It had nothing to do with the article on Israeli apartheid. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support trying to do something about Wikifan. His editing and use of sources is poor, he reverts constantly, and filibusters on talk pages, making normal editing close to impossible on whatever page he's working on. When thwarted, he reverts to insults. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been suggested more than once that there should be an WP:RFC/U on Wikifan's conduct (including here, less than two weeks ago - Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive67#User:Wikifan12345). Based on the history at ANI, and his block log, and my personal interaction with him in a couple of places, I think that's certainly warranted. Rd232 ^talk 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They don't have grounds when FOTG mercilessly edit-wars out everything remotely Jewish/Israel exclusively with dubious summaries, then call me a POV warrior when I point out his summaries did not match the content of the source. FOTG has a serious issue with Jews and Israel and it is very very offensive. He's call me a troll, POV-warrior, and even implied I was member of the Israel lobby. Also, he is following me around to articles I've been editing and warring those additions too. Rd, I know you mean well but this is a COI because me and you have had serious content disputes before. Has anyone considered perhaps this is an an attempt to steamroll an unpopular user out of the List of terrorist incidents, 2009. The article has boiled down to me and FOTG, so if I'm gone he can once again remove all my edits at-will. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So, you think that: "if I'm gone he can once again remove all my edits at-will". But then, if he isn't the sole editor left if you are gone, how come not a single other editor will defend your edits? Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Uh?

• A) All the editors here have been involved in past disputes both content and personal.

• B) None of these users except for FOTG are involved in the List of terrorist incidents, 2009 except for R2 who came much later.

• C) You just dismissed everything else I wrote above.

• D) FOTG reported me for edit-warring without even notifying me, and that went no where here I just discovered that today..

• I also submitted an ANI on FOTG with similar complaints regarding his approach to the article. To say this ANI is genuinely about behavior is naive at best and dishonest at worst.

I suggest a speedy close and returning back to the content dispute at the original article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So all the editors commenting on your behavior here are just doing so in bad faith because they have been on the other side of a content dispute with you? Likewise any notion that the specific issue reported first above has anything to do with behavior is unfounded because really this is just a content dispute? If you truly believe that version I strongly suggest mentorship at the very least because you really don't seem to get what about your behavior is inappropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith? No, but this is not unique for ANI Pelle. And considering I lodged an edit-warring report against you (one of my first ever), then you posted an etiquette notice (after you called me a troll), and now you are here endorsing sanctions against a user you've had considerable differences with....certainly does not resonate faith-wise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I may have come into this too late to see the build-up. I consider this genuinely about behavior. Wikifan may think that this is naive, that I am somehow furthering a conspiracy against him. I do not see it that way. Right now, the amount of non-content-related material on the talk page at "terrorist incidents" is unproductive and therefore intolerable. In spite of not being an admin, I would be in favor of, for fairness sake, week-long topic bans for both Wikifan and FOTG on Israel-related content so that real work can actually be done. As I see it there is waste-of-time drama unfolding there and here. (As for previous contact, I have only been involved in mediating HRW recently, so I can say I am pretty uninvolved overall.) Awickert (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Did I say conspiracy? No, I did not. I don't understand why you would be personally comfortable with a week-long topic ban when you admit being "pretty uninvolved overall." This is my impression: "Yeah, I don't know these two users and can't say I've been very involved but clearly something's up so let's just ban em' both." :D I would never call for such a punishing act if I didn't have at least a general experience beyond "uninvolved." Maybe it's just me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, one of the main problems in the ANI has been that so many involved editors made comments about who should be blocked. We definitely need more uninvolved editors to comment, and whether or not you approve of Awickert's suggestion, it is a welcome step towards resolving this. Hopefully more uninvolved administrators comment here and give their opinions. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

True that. I interpreted Awicket's "uninvolved" description as unaware. As if he simply skimmed through the complaints and applied natural deductive reasoning that unfortunately was not consistent with objectivity. Or perhaps I'm downright guilty and this is a zealous game of mental gymnastics - an argument that is easily made and difficult to refute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Formal mentorship

I have talked to Wikifan12345 about this ANI and it appears that he supports, in principle, formal mentorship. I therefore recommend that, whatever decision is taken on this particular ANI, an uninvolved user/administrator takes it up to mentor Wikifan. Any volunteers? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

To be explicit, I strongly support mentorship as an alternative to sanctions or if need be, accompanying whatever potential "punishment" is applied. This, of course, assuming the punishment is not a totally unconditional topic-ban which would likely void the need for a mentor in the Israel/Palestine subject matter. Unless, of course, the mentor is simply for behavioral-improvements and not party to a specific genre of knowledge. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A 1RR restriction for a few months could also work. If you can revert only once, you have to argue more on the talk page to find support for your edits. Making other editors angry on the talk page would be counterproductive. Also, when editing in the article, your best strategy to get your edits stick shifts toward editing in texts that are likely to be acceptable to people with other POVs. Count Iblis (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well that'll work, but at least it's easy and doesn't involve finding a mentor and taking up their time (and Wikifan is hardly a weekend editor). Rd232 ^talk 16:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support mentorship if one is willing to take their time. My suggestion above was preventative, not punative, as such bans are supposed to be. I actually spent quite a bit of time reading (not skimming) in detail the various back-and-forths. I suggested the short topic ban for both parties because I saw next to 0 productivity in what seemed to be dominated by a giant brawl, and I thought one way to increase the signal/noise would be to take a break. My only feeling is that the talk pages should return to effectiveness. If mentorship is a more acceptable way to do so, then that should work well too. 1RR may also work, though I'm not sure that it will end the talk page mess. I think that what is needed is a commitment from Wikifan (and others) to WP:NPA and to not respond to personal attacks but rather to continue forging ahead on the content. (As a side note, Wikifan above disqualifies all editors from commenting; those involved are too involved, and those uninvolved are too unaware; someone has to do something!) Awickert (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively FOTG and Wikifan could collaborate to rewrite the lede for Julia Set so that it's less hopeless. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

1RR without other remedies will only worsen what SlimVirgin aptly called "filibustering" on talk pages. In my brief and recent experience with Wikifan this is the worst part. Repetitive arguments which usually amount to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If one doesn't respond on the talk page it seems like an unaware onlooker might think one is mindlessly reverting. Complete disruption and a total time drain.PelleSmith (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In my (limited) experience of Wikifan12345, he has come across more as an aggressive, tendentious crank rather than a useful editor. We've seen this editor being brought to AN/I repeatedly; the same kind of issues come up again and again. He seems to have learned nothing from these repeated AN/I discussions. His unwillingness or inability to change his approach makes me think that mentorship is unlikely to be effective. I would suggest blocking him and moving on - he's taken up far too much of other people's time already. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly constructive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh? -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan's thoughts here read like a buy-out: apologise so as not to get a punishment. Great. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean, more correct: here -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The thought of users who have a strong bias (outside of the one that is not "involved), users whom I have lodged complaints against and vice-versa, users who have taken part in bitter disputes involving teams of editors, and users who have demanded banishment before would no doubt express glee at the thought of removing an editor who they rountinly disagree with out of the equitation. Lest we forget, the fact that I submitted a similar ANI against FOTG not-so-long-ago about his wholesale removal of almost every Israel/Jewish incident at List of terrorist incidents, 2009 should raise suspicions over a counter-ANI. I have no problem with mentorship and collaborative process, but in my opinion this is nothing less than a bandwagon. Take me away I guess. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan wrote: Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews.". Why do ëven admins faal back to the "you-too" talk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DePiep (talk • contribs) 22:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, FOTG is manically obsessed with Israel and Jews. He unilaterally warred out almost every incident about Israel and Jews, even those that were clearly of terrorist-nature. And when I restored what I perceived to be vandalism or premature deletion, and ask that he provide a thorough reasoning for his wholesale deletion, he accused me of being troll, pov warrior, etc...etc...etc. This is consistent with his behavior in other articles. So fishing for diffs that users might interpret the wrong way if they aren't fully aware of the discussion is suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan: no one is to be accused of anti-Semitism freely. You wrote the offensife line. Go away. (To be clear: why do editors and even admins here always end up: second chance? After ten?) -DePiep (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Manically obsessed with Jews/Israel does not = antisemitism. Call a spade a spade. Viciously deleting everything Jewish/Israel with bogus summaries, then edit-warring to ensure that the content remains deleted, while continuing to deny wrong-doing in talk strikes me as a manic obsession that is not consistent with policy or reality. I'm sorry if that's "out of line." Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "manically obsessed" (with whatever). That's a disqualification beforehand. Then do not start reasoning afterwards. -DePiep (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if Wikifan wants/is willing to accept formal mentorship, the piling-on, especially by editors who have diametrically opposed POVs to Wikifan's, should stop now. IronDuke 22:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense IronDuke but this does not in any way sound like someone who "wants/is willing to accept formal mentorship." And then there is the fact that a fair amount of the commentators above also don't believe mentorship is going to solve the problem. Wikifan's own attitude only makes one wonder if they aren't correct.PelleSmith (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong with that post. I don't see how users who are active in on-going disputes (such as Pelle and R2), some of the disputes which have ended up pouring into noticeboards (OR noticeboard, edit-warring noticeboard, etiquette, etc...submitted by both Pelle and myself) should be allowed such a strong voice. I am very open to some kind of mentorship, but from my POV I'd say users like FOTG are in much dire need of assistance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"nothing inherently wrong" with your post??? You still don't get it. Your posts are wrong. Just stop insulting editors, and from there you may talk. Maybe other too -- but stop it yourself. Not a "strong voice", insulting is what I say. Stop it. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticizing an editors edits is not insulting. It is certainly that users can have a manic obsession with Israel and Jews, and unfortunately FOTG is one of those users. You aren't recognizing or even remotely addressing the actions of FOTG, for good reason perhaps.

No, criticizing is not insulting. Stating "manic obsession" is insulting, and personal only, and not relevant to the article at all. Drop it. -DePiep (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Coming from someone who believes that the Israel-Palestinian articles on wikipedia are dominated by a cabal of "organised, agendised Hasbara." FOTG has a manic obsession and whether or not you misconstrue that as "insulting" is of no importance. He has major issues and it is seen in his mindless reverting of everything remotely Israel. He follows me to articles I work on and reverts my edits, and then harasses me on those articles. So please, who is the victim here? I'm trying to be as cordial as I can be but FOTG has been given a free pass for far to long. And then posting an ANI to save face, well...that's not unique for wiipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No one can speak from experience about your behavior unless they have witnessed it. Isn't it odd that while many such editors think this behavior is a problem no one has come here to say that they are wrong and that you have been behaving as a reasonable Wikipedian? The closest thing to support from a third party here has been "be fair and look at the other guy's behavior too," or "OK already Wikifan says he's willing to accept mentorship." Despite this you continually act like the real problem is with the supposed "cabal" of editors whose are only related to each other because of their negative interactions with you. Meanwhile people become less and less inclined to believe you will be able to change your ways at all. Keep it up.PelleSmith (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Pelle, I lodged an edit-war report against you when you started owning CAIR (and ownership that has been confirmed by other users). I also posted a noticeboard incident requesting a fact-check on how you continually edited-out all my additions with "original research" when the content was thoroughly cited. I don't see why I should have to sit here and be lectured by editors who have a compromising history. I'm open to mentorship, but dismiss all of this bandwagoning as pure harassment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And your numerous disruptive reports at various noticeboards resulted in what exactly? Must be a cabal at work.PelleSmith (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OR inquire was never responded because you hijacked it, and the edit-warring ANI should have succeeded but as several users confirmed, its lack of response can be sourced from the personal feelings of the over-seeing admin. This ANI is the poster child for disruption. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, can I ask you, just for the next few posts, not to focus at all on other editors, but only on yourself? Is there anything you feel you have done inappropriately in the course of editing Wikipedia, either in terms of the way you handle content, or the way you interact with others? Where do you feel you could have done better? Which issues do you feel a mentor could usefully help you with? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, like every user on Wikipedia. A mentor could help me navigate through Wikipedia bureaucracy, as many editors are very skilled at doing. Avoiding blocks, relying on civil POV-pushing, moving content disputes to ANIs, etc..etc. SlimVirgin, remember when you edit-warred at 1948 Palestinian exodus, removed all my additions, and threatened to send me to ArbComb if I don't heed to your demands? Then I was blocked for a week after I unknowingly reversed your reverts when you submitted an edit-war report. That was a carefully crafted strategy and I've watched many users do it to each other, and it's rather depressing. But to answer your question with all sincerity, I would hope a mentor could help me cite policy in-talk more competently. Maybe carve a slightly better tactful approach to discussion, even in the midst of heated and hostile debate. Normal stuff I guess. It's difficult to assess myself under the current circumstances and what I consider to be an extremely bad faith ANI. If this were closed, I would feel a lot more comfortable discussion mentorship. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship won't work if you won't take responsibility for anything. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this thread increasingly illustrates why 1RR probably won't work, and why a WP:RFC/U is needed (that structure would discussion room to breathe, without Wikifan responding to every comment by attacking somebody (generally the author)). Rd232 ^talk 08:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you haven't noticed this ANI has nothing to do with edit-warring, so hats to ya. Second, this bandwagon, a bandwagon started by a certified-troll as demonstrated in his approach @ the pertinent article and wikihounding - started the ANI. I'm more than open to mentorship etc. but you are asking for blood in a bad-faith and unfair circumstances. If you dismiss my assessments of this forum as "attacking" well okay. Also, for accuracies sake, the title should be changed to, "Reasons why Wikifan needs to go." Otherwise, the current charter is, for the most part, largely false.

Cliffnotes: FOTG made a dubious claim of personal attacks, but sifting through the discussion you will find just the opposite. Anyways, commence banishment! :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If y'all need a totally uninvolved, experienced user for a mentorship, I'd be happy to help out. I only stumbled upon this conversation because I can't sleep and have no prior dealings with Israel related articles or any of the editors involved here. I do have experience dealing with conflict in my own areas of interest. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been on WP long enough to act as a mentor. However, if Wikifan needs an open ear he should know that he can call on me to provide a comment at any time and I will do my best to be as helpful as possible.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

More Uninvolved Admins

While I'm not sure it is necessary it might be nice to hear from an additional admin or two who have not had any run-ins with Wikifan yet.PelleSmith (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see this ANI be led by users who haven't expressed a personal dislike or have been the subject of ANIS/reports etc. submitted by myself. Pelle has taken an unusually strong interesting in keeping this alive, perhaps because of our on-going dispute at Council on American-Islamic Relations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is truly odd. I'm asking for your sake, because you keep on claiming that everyone commenting here has a vendetta against you.PelleSmith (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not claiming that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Pelle, I think it would be useful if you stopped antagonizing Wikifan here. You may not intend to, but it is obviously having that effect. You've had your say, more gasoline does not need to be poured on. IronDuke 03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A general comment

At the risk of straying from the immediate problem, I would like to point out that the kind of vicious conflicts we see here are inherent in the way the Wikipedia is edited and the way the Five Pillars are interpreted in conflict areas. This is a clear case of narrative war, with each side incapable of seeing neutrality as defined by the other side. In the Middle East, there is no neutral point of view.

What is more, the word "terrorism" is editorial wherever it appears. That a reliable source refers to an incident as terrorism does not make it so. Reliable sources have POVs just like everyone else.

Because of the way NPOV and RS are applied in Middle East articles, conflict of this type is inevitable. The warring parties are not to blame. The system is to blame.

To avoid these conflicts, then, requires a radical rethinking of how to apply the five pillars in conflict situations. I suggested such an approach in User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia, and would love to see a serious attempt to experiment with the ideas proposed there. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

All due respect Ravpapa, when the same user is having the same problems over and over it no longer is just "the system". Now Wikifan will likely say I am only here because of content disputes with him, but I do not plan on arguing for his banning. But a bit of history should be made clear. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive534#User:Wikifan12345, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive33#User:Wikifan12345_and_User:Brewcrewer, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532#User:Wikifan12345, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive515#Some_wikihounding_going_on. Above he pretty much says he would like a mentor to teach him how to wikilaywer more effectively, I think that would be a disaster. What he needs is to keep from writing anything about others motives or beliefs. It really is that simple, if he does not keep trying to call others "manically obsessed with Jews" or "antisemites" or other such insults he would not be here over and over. I have no idea about FOTG, I didnt look at the talkpage in question. But WF needs to do one of 2 things at this point. Either stop making such allegations to other users, or provide some actual evidence of racist editing. One of the two editors should be blocked, either for editing in an antisemitic manner or for making repeated false accusations of antisemitism. But wikifan cannot be allowed to continue saying these things without proving them. nableezy - 15:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

All due respect Nableezy, it is pretty obvious that most if not all the editors speaking up against Wikifan are very active pro-Palestinian editors. Ravpapa has a very good point about the system not working well when you have a content/narrative war like in IP. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have content/narrative disagreements/wars with a lot of people, but it doesn't lead to ANI. There is a pattern of consistent personal attacks and bad faith assumptions peppering most of Wikifan's talk page commentary, and an inability to acknowledge its problematic. People shouldn't be asked to overlook that because there's a raging ethnic conflict in the background. Tiamut^talk 21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Without talking about Wikifan specifically, it's pretty obvious that in this kind of dispute most of the people pushing for sanctions are those on the other side of the content/narrative war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually what's pretty obvious is that even those who share Wikifan's views can't defend his behaviour; and can only defend him by attacking the motives of others and generally deflect away from the issue of Wikifan's behaviour. Rd232 ^talk 04:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But this thread is "about Wikifan specifically" and not about some general IP narrative war (which I take no part in personally btw). So why are people incapable of speaking specifically in defense of Wikifan's behavior as opposed to simply trying to deflect the discussion? To reiterate Tiamut's point, major disagreements, some of which are very deep and very old, are an everyday reality here at Wikipedia but they usually don't end up at AN/I. When they do there is almost always a behavior problem that goes beyond content disputes -- whether the problem is with the person being grilled or conversely with the person abusing the noticeboards (or both). Either way, a discussion here signals something beyond a content dispute.PelleSmith (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't take part in IP but you didn't arrive here clean of prejudice, did you? Anyway, Ravpapa made a general comment (see section header) and I was addressing that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, this ANI was posted by a textbook troll who warred out every incident he didn't like and when I called him on it, he went on and on and on about how I'm an agent of Zion. Seriously? Now FOTG has been hounding me at BBC and Human Rights Watch, and a couple other articles warring out all my edits with little reasoning. And now an ANI? No editor has recognized this. I said FOTG was manically obsessed with Jews and Israel several times - I meant it and it wasn't an attack but simply an accurate assessment of his editing approach. He removed 9+ incidents exclusively about Jews, reverted anyone who dared touch his edits, and then started a nice long dispute about how we should re-define what is a terrorist incident to exclude Israel. Yes I'm obviously partial here but he came off extremely combative and very, very offensive. I posted an ANI but it was assessed as a content dispute and not a behavioral problem. It's not like FOTG has been the nicest editor to ever exist. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, you don't get to decide what is or isn't attack. Calling someone manically possessed is a comment on the editor, not the editing. If they have a problem with it, you have offended them. Of course, "textbook troll" is much more clean-cut. Like before, I'm not saying that FOTG's hands are clean either, but you are certainly digging yourself into a pit. If you can leave diffs below (I made a space), perhaps this can go ahead with more sanity, and we can stop being "unaware" and start dealing with the full issue. Awickert (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay? Have you read through the talk discussion and looked the page history? He raided the article, maliciously axed out almost everything Jewish/Israel, warred any further attempts to add similar incidents, created long disputes that had little to no relevance, and accused me of being a member of the pro-Israel lobby, POV-pusher, troll, etc. He has a major issue with Jews and it is very, very offensive. If I were to go into Islam and remove every mention of "Mohamed," I'd expect a similar, or perhaps even violent reaction. So I sincerely apologize if I was out of line and will make an effort to be more tactful. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my comments were not meant as a defense or excuse for Wikifan. People need to take responsibility for their actions. I was only pointing out that where there is a leaky pipe, there is wood rot. You can cut out and replace the wood, but if you want to really stop the rot, you need to fix the pipe. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think Wikipedia should recognize that regular sources are not so reliable when it comes to this conflict. So, one can impose a restriction on the type of sources that can be admitted. E.g. one could decide that only peer reviewed academic articles written by historians can be used as a source. Count Iblis (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins please comment

Uninvolved admins please comment on what sanctions may be appropriate.

OK, I've had enough. It's not enough that no-one is willing to defend Wikifan's behaviour, which encompasses comments such as "It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda." (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Factsontheground removing terrorist attacks aimed at Jews and Israeli soldiers - List of terrorist incidents, 2009). Now Wikifan's continuing attempt to derail this ANI discussion by attacking others and doing everything except discussing his own behaviour (eg insisting that this discussion I hatted is constructive) demonstrates such a WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behaviour that it makes me believe that a substantial sanction is required. I find it hard to believe that mentoring will be successful. I find it hard to believe that 1RR (which somebody proposed) will achieve anything either. Frankly, I'm rapidly reaching the view that Wikipedia - certainly on topics where Wikifan cannot play well with others - is simply better off without this particular 14-year old (User:Wikifan12345/About). Disclosure: I've had previous run-ins with Wikifan and we also have opposing views. Rd232 ^talk 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

We have to try mentorship or 1RR (or a combination) first. If that fails then we can raise that here again. If a 1RR or 0RR is imposed, then Wikifan will know that the only way he can edit wikipedia is by cooporating with other editors. If Wikifan insults someone, then he'll only hurt himself. So, there is no need to make a lot of fuss about that. Count Iblis (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive criticism. So I guess that settles it? This certainly isn't an attempt to remove an editor you are currently in a content dispute with at not 1, but 2 articles. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, I only reverted one edit to the BBC article by you a few days ago. I checked your recents edits to get an idea of the nature of the dispute and I saw an edit to the BBC article which had been vanadalized by an anon (not you). I also saw that your edit was problematic and I reverted that too because it gave far too much weight to a minor argument about Hamas.

Now, I don't care much about the wiki articles on Israel/Palestine anymore (I was involved there until 2 years ago), because they are not reliable anyway. So, I was not going to revert other edits by you that I found problematic. But I found to be BBC case to be different because I think the wiki article on BBC has more value than the Israeli/Palestinian articles. I stuck to one revert which more or less reverted to the consensus reached on the talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

CountIblis: The WP:NPA policy clearly states that nobody should have to put up with being insulted and vilified on Wikipedia. Wikifan12345's continual attacks against me have not only derailed discussions that I've been involved with, they have soured my whole experience of Wikipedia. So, no, Wikifan12345 _is_ hurting other people than himself as he continues his campaign of harassment. And, no, 1RR or mentorship is not nearly enough, particularly as he fails to admit he has done anything wrong and seems to think that being mentored is just an opportunity to improve his wikilawyering skills. Factsontheground (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Diffs

I would like to invite Wikifan and FOTG to place various annotated diffs that they find problematic in an orderly manner below. Having the two involved editors line up their complaints seems like the most straightforward way to comprehensively deal with the issue. Having the diffs lined up will also make it easier for uninvolved editors to comment comprehensively. Awickert (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, so we are supposed to sift through the bloated talk discussion and post questionable diffs like this is a courtroom? This is must be a trap. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, this is a way for us to actually come to a decision instead of being "unaware" or not seeing the big picture. This is me giving you the benefit of the doubt that there are things that FOTG did that were out of line before, that caused your uncivil reaction. Or, we can go the RfC route where the posting of diffs is formalized. Your choice. But for now, if the involved editors are not willing to put the work in to present their case, I don't see why anyone else should waste their time here. Awickert (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Okay I've just seen this before and competing editors end up enumerating every diff to demonstrate cause of action. Diff's themselves can take issues out of context. I'm not on trial here Awickert, and as I've said the motivations for this ANI were bad and the context was abhorrent. I won't be on wikipedia for the next 3-5 days for travel-reasons but I'll try to sneak in intermittently. thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks on User:Factsontheground by User:Wikifan12345 -- can an uninvolved admin please comment on this or take action

• [1] "all of his reverts revolved around Israel and Jews."..."The fact the FOTG edits were blatant vandalism and now he gets to dictate the rubric of terrorism is truly disturbing."

• [2] FOTG's wild deletion of every Jew/Israel incident under false summaries, and then refusing to concede after I copied and pasted the references that explicitly refer to the incidents as acts of terrorism. It was a gross abuse of editing privileges and to target all things Jewish is doubly offensive.

• [3] This is all totally irrelevant is avoiding the true fact that FOTG viciously and obsessively edited out ALL incidents on Israel and Jews with the same basic summary, 5 of which have proven to be false. The fact that he totally wiped out incidents because a source was dead instead of simply finding a new one proves this has little to do with terrorism and everything to do with his vendetta against Jews and Israel.

• [4] It is offensive that you targeted strictly Jewish-related incidents.

• [5] Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV

• [6] Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews.

• [7] FOTG aim was to remove everything Israel and Jewish, he doesn't give less of a #$#$@ about the terrorist rubric. Don't be an apologist for such a hateful user.

• [8] What FOTG has does defies logic

• [9] The discussion began because an obvious vandal decided to remove cited information and force a dispute.

• [10] So edit-warring out everything Jewish and Israel is totally cool and does not warrant administrator intervention. I guess antisemitism is protected then, sweet.

• [11] It is certainly that users can have a manic obsession with Israel and Jews, and unfortunately FOTG is one of those users.

• [12] Manically obsessed with Jews/Israel does not = antisemitism. Call a spade a spade. Viciously deleting everything Jewish/Israel with bogus summaries, then edit-warring to ensure that the content remains deleted, while continuing to deny wrong-doing in talk strikes me as a manic obsession that is not consistent with policy or reality

• [13] It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda.

another one on this noticeboard - "certified troll" [14] untwirl(talk) 23:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• [15] He has a major issue with Jews and it is very, very offensive.

Both blocked for a week

I invite uninvolved admin review, but I have just blocked both Wikifan12345 and Factsontheground for 1 week. The specific issues are:

• Mutual stalking and harrassment on multiple wiki pages
• Disruption on ANI
• Both accounts are single purpose accounts
• Miscellaneous incivility

I do not propose to include diffs; the thread above and the article talk pages referenced stand full of examples.

I would like to request independent review on 2 separate points:

1. Is the current block of each party appropriate.
2. Is the indefinite block penalty for disruptive SPAs appropriate, i.e. should we community ban these two at this point.

Thanks for any comments. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Factsontheground is asking for a block review. Uninvolved admin should take a look at this and his request... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why parity was applied to the sanctions here. I don't see parity in the community's complaints and levels of frustration with these two users. I also believe that someone other than Georgewilliamherbert should have done the blocking. George forshadowed FOTG's COI complaint himself during this very discussion. Don't get me wrong sanctions should have been applied to both of them (perhaps not blocks of equal lengths of time), but they should have been applied by someone else.PelleSmith (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Admins are not supposed to gain advantage in a content dispute by admin actions - I am opposed to one of Factsontheground's policy positions on the one article this is focused around, but I have left multiple behavioral warnings for Wikifan12345. I commented on the policy dispute as an uninvolved admin and have not taken any admin or content actions on the article, and won't now.

Having been tangled up in trying to unwrap a multiparty dispute does not disqualify one from blocking party or parties to that dispute... Often, admins have to get somewhat involved to try and untangle incidents. That doesn't mean that we can't issue warnings or block once we start to get involved. If it is a content issue, or someone we have a personal disagreement with, we should stand aside for more uninvolved admins, but neither of those is in play here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Following up PelleSmith's note about my comment above ( [16] ) more specifically - yes, I stood back from the behavioral issues over the weekend, because I had been involved in a content issue on a page with these two users. But there's a difference between "attempting to find a policy resolution for a content issue" and "trying to change content / edit a page with content specific point of view". Admins involved in the first don't have to recuse from admin enforcement - admins involved in the second have at least the apparent conflict of interest between neutrality and their content issues. I have not ever edited the article in question or related articles, and in the underlying issue (Israeli - Palestinean on-wiki conflicts) I remain an equal opportunity policy enforcer.

It's fair to ask about this - And I'm open to input if other admins strongly object - but I do not believe that I violated policy. Wikifan12345 is behaviorally a worse offender here and at least marginally worse on the article page. Both sides are clearly harrassing each other way in excess of policy, now. Factsontheground has been better at staying lower profile and more civil but has also poked in and provoked some responses; we have a more active interpretation of baiting behavior than we used to, and I believe that some of his actions fall under that.

Perhaps there's less than perfect symmetry to the provocations; if anyone wants to discuss reductions from the equal blocks, and believes that one side is significantly less at fault, feel free to propose it here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As another user who has had problems with Wikifan, I would note that a fair number of administrators who have problems with him were once 'uninvolved administrators'. For example, Rd232 replied on Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei as an uninvolved admin and another uninvolved mediator was chased off by Wikifan. As with most of Wikifan's editing, the article went through an RfC, noticeboards, a third opinion, and an informal mediation. The result was a deadlock with Wikifan dissenting. How many uninvolved administrators does it take, and what happens when there simply aren't any left? Why does he have a problem with so many editors, let alone administrators?

In the interest of disclosure, I have interacted with Wikifan before, so my opinion may be completely tarnished.--76.214.144.81 (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Altoids Man

Resolved

 – Users are now willing to civilly the content issue. Firestorm ^Talk 05:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please suggest an appropriate course of action about User:Altoids Man's behaviour? I'm talking about an ongoing episode at Mark Weisbrot (see Talk:Mark Weisbrot as well as User talk:Rd232 and User talk:JRSP). Note that Altoids seems occasionally to edit as User:71.106.93.112 and User:156.80.10.182 (in a "haven't logged in" way, not a sockpuppety way). He has at least recently opened an Editor Assistance Request on the content issue, diff, which is something, but still, his comments and attitude have been problematic. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 08:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor notified about this discussion. Exxolon (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the discussion on the Weisbrot talk page speaks for itself. I have found Rd232 to be unreasonable, He/She has not offered a single compromise in the editing process, while I have provided voluminous justification for proposed changes. (including yes calling him a clown on one occasion). Having said that, I will continue to provide substantiation for my proposed changes on the talk page and I have requested assistance of other editors who are not possibly emotionally involved with defending the Weisbrot status quo. Other editors have said that RD232 can be reasonable, while I have seen little of that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and move forward. Thank you. --Altoids Man (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I'd hoped for something closer to an apology, but I guess that'll do if Altoids is now willing to discuss content, and do it civilly. Thank you to those who commented on Talk:Mark Weisbrot. Rd232 ^talk 08:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to restore the peace. Awickert (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientology edits

Resolved

 – indefinite block Toddst1 (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not up to speed on the situation with this, and these edits may be 'ok' technically, but there are two new editors, DianeticsBridgeToKnowingness (talk · contribs) and Scientologist Perspective (talk · contribs) busy turning Ron Hubbard into a philospher and apparently working together, see [17]. Whether this needs action or not I don't know, and I apologise if I'm wasting people's time or being unfair to newbies. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The latter was blocked under username policy, and I've left a comment here on the former name if anyone is interested. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

off topic musing

There is often a fine line between a philosopher and a salesman. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC) They both try to sell you something, but one doesn't throw in a free kitchen knife set. HalfShadow 16:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Are you sure? Didn't Confucius say, "And if you buy my all-time best-selling book, Confucius Sez, you'll get Confucius: Sez Who? for half price! And as a free bonus, we'll throw in this personally-autographed set of electric chopsticks! Not available in stores! Limited time only! Call now! Operators are waiting!" To fill out this scenario, try to picture the distinguished-looking Confucius talking with the appropriate Asian accent, and delivered in the same manner as Billy Mays. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Billy has been about as quiet as Confucius these days ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Those two appear to be the same editor. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's called a 'sense of humor'. Say it with me: Sennnnz uvvvv hee-yuuuuu-merrrrrrr. And now we've learned something. Isn't that special?HalfShadow 17:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked DianeticsBridgeToKnowingness (talk · contribs) for WP:TE and calling two different admins trolls. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'm filing an SPI report for good measure. I was skeptical about doing this at first, given the quacking. But this unblock request makes it pretty obvious those two accounts are somebody's sockpuppets. Blueboy96 17:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

When they help us out by admitting it, standard procedure is to reduce the indef block by a day. Maybe even two. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The unblock requests are clearly not serious, hopefully we will find out who this is. Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, after [18] and [19], Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scientologist Perspective has been merged with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71. – Luna Santin (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

Someone should restore the block on Bluemarine (talk · contribs) as he is quite confused that just because his block was lifted, he thinks so has his community ban, which is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Bluemarine. As the ban is still in place, he should only be editing his own talk page. Also a word on name calling would be appreciated. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 01:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting that Allstarecho recuse from further intervention in matters related to Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine. Matt Sanchez is not community banned but in limbo (which is why his account is unblocked). In May I attempted to normalize Bluemarine's editing status; Allstarecho's participation caused delays that prevented community consensus.[20] Allstarecho raised a red herring sockpuppetry concern about an account that has since been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of somebody else, and insisted upon unusual stipulations to Bluemarine's editing restriction, such as a stipulation about copyright even though Bluemarine has never violated copyright on this site, nor been blocked for it at any other WMF site. A few weeks afterward Allstarecho's extensive copyvios came to light and resulted in an indefinite block.[21] During the discussion about Allstarecho's conduct I refrained from mentioning his double standard about copyright, and Akhilleus unblocked without discussion.[22] A discussion about Bluemarine's status has been ongoing at my user talk for several days,[23] and has stalled because Allstarecho insists upon exactly the same stipulations as before. PastorTheo has attempted to mediate and I left a note for Akhilleus, but Akhilleus has not edited for a week and a half.[24] Allstarecho appears to be leveraging the ambiguous situation to prolong Bluemarine's limbo, then Allstarecho initiates a new noticeboard complaint whenever Bluemarine does edit in an attempt to get him reblocked.[25] I had delayed re-initiating a status clarification request on Bluemarine, in hopes that the complications with Allstarecho could be worked out amicably. This appears not to be possible; he keeps pushing the matter. So requesting impartial administrative review of both parties. Durova²⁸⁸ 01:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also relevant: Allstarecho was blocked by WJBscribe in June for edits to the Matt Sanchez biography.[26] Another thread started by Allstarecho about Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine in May.[27] Apologies for the less than ideal presentation here; this tends to catch me off guard during other endeavors. Will gladly answer questions as needed to clarify. Durova²⁸⁸ 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The contention that he is "unblocked but not unbanned" doesn't make much sense - if an admin is willing to unblock him, he isn't community banned. I think the unblock (and unban) is a horribly bad idea, though. --B (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the Arbcom discussion seems to have stalled (perhaps another shiney bauble caught their eye?) though as I read it the direction was towards affirming a cautious lifting of the ban per whatever editing restrictions the community deems appropriate. Would this be an appropriate time and venue to sort out what those restrictions should be? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2009 ([[UTC)
• Bluemarine's arbitration sanction has expired. So the logical thing is to clarify his status within the community. That was what PastorTheo and I were trying to work out with Allstarecho. Here's the sanction I proposed in May.

Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.

Discussion on that proposal got sidetracked and stalled until the thread archived. Durova²⁸⁸ 02:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think allowing him on talk pages would be okay? That seems the normal course of action in cases of COI. Also, I think the last sentence can be shortened to: If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction he may be reblocked at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator. Short and sweet. We're all subject to the no personal attack rule and harassment is an overly broad and oft abused kind of accusation. Best not to open a can of worms and to keep things as clear as possible. The other article mentioned previously was Scott Beauchamp controversy. I like specific restrictions as opposed to "broadly interpreted" which (like harassment accusations) can be open to interpretation. Gray areas leave things open for dispute and controversy. Are there other articles of concern? I trust Allstarecho will weigh in. Also, I would add a statement along the lines of "is encouraged to edit subjects that are not controversial and of emotional investment so as to avoid confrontation and gain experience editing Wikipedia." ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Your shortening of the last sentence sounds fine. I'm on the fence about talk page participation; not sure what's best with that. I think there were a couple of other specific pages where he got into difficulty before, mostly before I became aware of the dispute. The basic idea is that here's a fellow with an Ivy League education who speaks four languages fluently and travels to Europe, Afghanistan, and Iraq frequently. If we could cordon things away from the old areas of dispute, he's got a lot to offer the encyclopedia. He's sat out his arbitration ban; best to give him a fair shot. Durova²⁸⁸ 03:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually Durova, the WjBscribe block of me you raise above was in January 2008, not June of this year or any year. You conveniently left out that that block was also removed by WjBscribe as unwarranted. Aside from that, Sanchez is indeed under a community ban as it was never lifted by the community. He was unblocked because via stipulations by Arbcom that he can only upload files "for making the projects more accessible to handicap people". Even then, his community ban was still in effect. While Arbcom's ban has expired, his community ban has not nor has it been lifted by the community. IN fact, Arbcom members have stated that his community ban is separate from their ban and is still in effect. Therefore, he is still under community ban and should be blocked. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 02:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, here is what I proposed back in May (so saying I am stalling any attempts to resolve Matt's status is laughable at the least, ludicrous at the worst):

Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography and its talk page, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account:Bluemarine. He is not to upload any files of which he does not own. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he will be blocked indefinitely by any uninvolved administrator.

As one can see, this is essentially the same as your proposal except adding in the uploading of files, which he has violated copyvio at Commons before. And yes, I know Commons isn't Wikipedia but since Matt seems to always get "confused" about these matters, it doesn't hurt to include the notice. Nothing unusual about that at all. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec'd) Was that? Apologies for any inaccuracy. You caught me by surprise with this thread, so I scrambled to reply. Would really like to get back to Photoshop asap. Durova²⁸⁸ 03:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The ArbCom still appears to be considering the matter.[28] Are we seeking to supersede their effort? Either way, the user shouldn't edit until his status is resolved.   Will Beback  talk  03:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much indication they are moving toward a decision any time soon and what comments are there seem to indicate that the community should make a determination. I don't think anyone is trying to usurp Arbcom's role, just to help resolve the situation. As most everyone seems to agree that it's time the ban is lifted, the editing restrictions seem to be the main details that need to be worked out. I don't think continuing the current limbo is good for anyone concerned. Do you have an opinion on what editing restrictions would be appropriate? Or do you think we should anticipate something happening with the stalled Arbcom proceeding? When do you think that will happen? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The last vote came 24 hours ago, so it doens't seem entirely stalled. The ArbCom rarely moves quickly, and I don't see that there's any rush with this matter.   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• My revised restriction would read: Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a ban from the Matt Sanchez and Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article pages. He is prohibited from editing LGBT article topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. Bluemarine is encouraged to edit subjects that are not controversial or of personal and emotional investment so as to avoid dispute and confrontations and to gain experience editing Wikipedia collaboratively. As the community is extending good faith, please return it by limiting yourself to the one account and remember that personal attacks will not be tolerated. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction he may be reblocked for an appropriate increment of time at the discretion of an administrator. I also think a mentor would be helpful if someone is willing to volunteer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Durova is his mentor. Additionally, "advised to avoid" makes this whole thing pointless. It should say flat out "is to avoid" not "advised to". Also given the vile personal attacks in the past by him where he has referred to people as fags, gay jihadists, gay terrorists, etc., the part about personal attacks should not be removed. And finally, it's pointless to even discuss the stipulations of his unban here until the current discussion at Arbcom has ended. I didn't even start this thread to discuss stipulations but to request that while he still under a community ban, that he be blocked.. or at the least, told firmly not to edit anywhere except his talk page until he has been notified specifically that his community ban is no more. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec, to Child of Midnight)That proposal looks fine. Durova²⁸⁸ 03:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Additionally regarding Allstarecho's input (I repeat the request to him to recuse), I announced to the Committee my intention to resign from all mentorships in June. Am staying with Bluemarine only provisionally until his status is normalized and a new mentorship is underway. Durova²⁸⁸ 03:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I will not recuse. It's obvious above by your misrepresentation of facts - even if they were done in haste - that someone else familiar with the issue should be allowed to weigh in as well, not just you. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Three things are obvious: that a hasty reply to a developing situation may be imperfect even when made in good faith, that you take a persistent interest in Bluemarine (with a decidedly slanted tone), and that you apply wildly different interpretations of the copyright policy regarding yourself and Bluemarine. I did all I could to prevent that from reflecting poorly on you at the admin boards, but by continuing to press the issue you force that to come to light. Durova²⁸⁸ 03:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I take "persistent interest" in anyone that is community banned but not abiding by it, while being aided and abetted by others. Also, I have not applied any "wildly" different interpretations of copyright policy. In fact, as I stated at the discussion on your talk page, I am already under the same restrictions and the difference between Sanchez and I is that I know when to stop. He continues to violate copyright by uploading copyvio images at Commons. I have not requested anything for him that I am not under myself or woudln't accept myself. The only reason you keep bringing up my own transgressions is to deflect the attention away from Sanchez and to cast me as someone to be ignored in this matter. And I hold no grudge for that, but I won't let you or anyone else make false accusations and present blurry facts in this dispute. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 05:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get sidetracked. I have revised the editing restriction proposal per Allstar's comment. Are there other articles or topic areas that need to be included? Is it okay to let him edit the Matt Sanchez talk page? I'm not trying to rush things and I think we should leave the proposal up for a while to allow additional comments and to make sure it's agreeable and appropriate. I'm also okay with running whatever is agreed to by Arbcom to allay the concerns of anyone who thinks we are bypassing them? My understanding is that Durova would like to pass the torch of mentorship. She's served admirably in difficult circumstances and I think it's only fair to call for a new volunteer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me but again, I'd await the outcome of the current Arbcom discussion before actually putting this proposal before the community. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 05:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to, arbcom only gets involved where the community cant solve the problem. A community ban is void as soon as one admin is willing to unblock, because the ban, by definition, works like that. Well, he's unblcked. We've agreed on the editing restrictions to apply, we're done here. --M^ask? 08:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A community ban is set by the community. It can hardly be void by the whim of a single admin against community consensus, the community that set the ban in the first place. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A community ban has always, and I do mean since we coined the term, been simply a block that no other admin has been willing to undo. There have been, and I imagine will continue to be, cases where a normally defined consensus has emerged to ban a user, and single admins have overturned. This is not something to be done lightly, and should commence with only a well thought out plan for reform presented by the administrator who has chosen to look into Putin's eyes to see his soul. Durova is (seemingly, they may correct me if I'm wrong) taking on Matt's case. While I happen to be think that this is right, this brings you to the flip side of the coin. Matt's being vouched for here. If it turns out that this was the wrong course, it will reflect quite poorly on the judgment of the unblocking admin. People tend to remember acts like that where it turned out poorly.

I don't think it's that serious. It seems since there is no substantial consensus to block him, indeed that he wasn't IAR blocked after it came to light he could edit, that there is not in fact a community ban upon him. --M^ask? 05:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the ban has been lifted and that I could add information to the Matt Sanchez talk page. The "non-controversial" ban seems very vague as controversy is relative. I've added some information to my talk page none of which is controversial, it was on the definition of reporter versus blogging.

I've asked the editor Allstarecho to stop posting and taunting me on my own talk page. He hasn't complied, but I think this type of attention is exactly what he's looking for and unfortunately the editors on this board are giving it to him.

Wikipedia and its editors have categorically singled me out for abusive punishment. Every single issue gets overblown and it's very tiring. What makes it more complicated are the obviously biased editors whose labor is to defamate me through this article. The editor Allstarecho is one of those editors and his edits both at Wikipedia and Wikiquote are proof of this. If you were to ban All starecho from the Matt Sanchez--where he obviously has an agenda--the article could reach a semblance of stability and standard. Blue Marine (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Defamate"? That would sound like a legal threat, if it were an actual word. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

While his comment here should be removed, since he is under a community ban and shouldn't be editing anywhere but at his own talk page, I'll leave it to reply... He says his understanding is that his ban has been lifted. I don't know how he came to that understanding as I've told him numerous times that it hasn't been lifted. His own mentor has told him not to edit anywhere except his own talk page until this issue was resolved. Surely someone as smart as Sanchez couldn't misunderstand when it's been plainly told to him, as seen in the diffs below. He also says I should be banned from the Matt Sanchez article but I'll challenge anyone to view the article's history and see when my last edit was to that article. Having said all of that, his latest round of personal attacks calling me a pervert and an idiot only offer further proof that he hasn't learned anything from his year long Arbcom ban or his current over-a-year-long community ban. He accuses me of "taunting" on his talk page. All I've done was reply to him explaining his community ban - [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] - and other procedural matters - [34]. No attacks, no sarcasm, no "taunting". - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom seems to be directing the community to decide on the future course of action and any editing restrictions that may be needed. I see good consensus here for the proposed restrictions stated above. If any adjustments are needed please suggest them or if a more formal vote is needed please initiate one. Otherwise I think we can move forward with these restrictions and deal with any new issues as they arise. I would also like to suggest to Allstar that it would be helpful if you avoided Bluemarine's talk page as your interactions with him there haven't been constructive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

An IP has suddenly shown up at the article and my talk page. As a result, I've filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluemarine. FYI. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 06:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A clerk has declined the SPI request. Durova²⁸⁸ 21:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To give the full picture, only the Checkuser was declined - because of Sanchez's unclear status via the community ban - which I'll also note the clerk specifically stated, "Note that arbitrator comments at the pending clarification seem to indicate a community ban is still in effect, but the question remains unresolved." It wasn't declined because of proof in regards to the sockpuppetry. Further, from the actual closing admin, "The behaviour indicates the same person, and thus it is still a case of block evasion. As such, I have blocked the IP for 55 hours." - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 22:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said at the request for clarification page...

This user is not worth the trouble, in my view. Their past history is filled with disputes with all and sundry. The word "collegial" is not, in my view, in their vocabulary. Recommend putting or keeping a complete ban in place. Else we'll be here again soon enough ++Lar: t/c 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

One of 2 things need to happen here:

The current discussion at Arbcom needs to be sped up and come to a conclusion - Or

The current discussion at Arbcom needs to be closed and an official community discussion opened on whether or not to remove the community ban and if so, implement any restrictions.

I note that User:AKMask has only further confused the issue by going to Sanchez's talk page today and telling him the community ban is no more and that he's free to edit within the proposed above restrictions. This should not have been done until the community ban is resolved either through Arbcom, or the community that placed the ban in the first place. So right here an now, let's decide what to do.. get the Arbcom case closed and move forward with community discussion or try and speed up the Arbcom case. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 22:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above represents a rough consensus of the community. If you believe this consensus is in error, i invite you to try to establish a consensus to ban the user. --M^ask? 00:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The user is already banned. The consensus among Arbcom admins supports that the user is banned, as does the consensus in the recent sockpuppet case. Added with the others throughout Wikipedia, I'd say it's premature for you to say a consensus exists to remove the community ban. An official Rfc should be opened on the matter, which is my attempt by starting this "Moving forward" subsection. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 00:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why waste more time on an RfC? So far Lar is the only one who supports leaving the ban in place. The rest of us, including you, have suggested trying the editing restrictions agreed to above. If he proves unable to work collaboratively and needs to be blocked for any inappropriate behavior or banned again, then we can do that. But interminable limbo doesn't seem useful. If you're determined to have an RfC or a poll of some sort then please initiate it so we can get it over with. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm, yeah, I believe that's what I said basically.. let's get this over with. So the Arbcom discussion needs to be ruled on or closed. As it was the community that banned him, it should be the community to unban him, not 4,5 of us discussing it here. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 02:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Clerk note: - Please hold on before continuing this discussion. There are additional things that need to be worked out with the SPI case, and a Checkuser is still working with it. Thank you, NW (Talk) 03:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Clerk note: - The blocked IP is  Unrelated to Matt Sanchez per Checkuser evidence. NW (Talk) 03:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the update. Now, moving forward.. he's still under community ban.. await Arbcom discussion finale or get the Arbcom discussion closed so the community can decide. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A majority of Arbcoms have weighed in that it's up to the community to determine editing restrictions. We've done so. Let's stop drawing this out and take it from here. Another editor has already put the restrictions to Bluemarine. I think this thread is resolved as the new restrictions have been implemented consistent with Arbcom's suggestions on the matter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Tyciol's redirects

A couple of weeks ago I had confronted Tyciol (talk · contribs) about his redirects in which he took any red link he found on a page and redirected it to the article (as far as I can tell). This resulted in the names of real people ending up at articles that may or may not have anything to do with them. I advised him that this activity was not really helpful. Tonight, I just managed to find another such redirect and gave him another heads up. I've gone back a month through his edits, finding redirects made of common Japanese given names and surnames to the same locations as the articles for the combinations of these names. I've tagged as much as I could with {{db-r3}} as there is no way that people looking up these names will have any use in finding these articles (a redirect for the composer of a particular film was redirected to that film), and it also hinders new users or any user from making an actual article on the individual. This has made up my last 200 edits. I think some more indepth clean up will be needed, and I just want to make whoever is going through CAT:CSD doesn't think I'm crazy for tagging these pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've just cleaned up a load more, some of the redirects are ludicrous and more problematically he has recreated pages deleted for no notability as redirects. There are still more to do, which I'll look at later. Black Kite 10:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Deleted. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• 214 further redirects deleted so far, but I'm only back to 16 July on his contribs. Another problem is that he creates pairs of redirects for Western-style names, which are completely pointless and often misleading (i.e. for the person "Fred Bill Smith", he creates "Fred Bill" and "Bill Smith"). Anyone who wants to carry on is welcome :) Otherwise I'll finish them later. Black Kite 16:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Edit: I've just looked at the rest of his contribs - there are thousands more of these. This is going to be a huge cleanup operation, and I'm wondering if just rolling back all of his recent edits and deleting the redirects might be less time-consuming ... more eyes welcome. Black Kite 16:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Do you mean rollback as in undo? I think we can agree that Tyciol is generally a good contributor and rolling back his good edits would not be helping anyone. Unfortunately Toolserver is down now, but when it goes back up perhaps we could use Escaladix's tool to check out every redirect he's created and then delete the ones that need to be deleted. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Undo would be good but may not be possible. Problems that need to be fixed are to

• Delete all the redirects that are incorrect, misleading, problematic, or plain useless
• roll back all the edits where he's added said redirects to disambiguation pages
• roll back all the edits where he's done the same to article hatnotes
• roll back to their original state all the redirects that he's changed to useless dab pages, because his spurious redirects conflicted with something else (i.e. [35])
• roll back the circular redirects that he's created.

• Now clearly some of his last 7,000 articlespace edits - stretching back a year - have been useful, but the vast majority of them are involved in redirect creation, and the majority of those are in one of the above categories. The problem is that going so far back, of ones that haven't been reverted by other editors (quite a lot have), many articles will have been edited since, making undo problematic.

• Note: you don't need a tool to look for his redirects, just do a articlespace-only contrib search - you get pages like this. Black Kite 21:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Tyciol had commented here, but it was overly confusing and flooded this thread with 5k worth of text. I've notified him to reformat his responses in a simple coherent manner.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusion is a matter of opinion. I don't think this is 'flooding' nor incoherent. The replies were all properly indented and addressing various comments made by people here. I did not submit any more replies than there were comments. If you feel it would be better to simply merge these all into a single post: do it yourself. I think it's better spread apart because it's more easily legible. Unfortunately sometimes discussions need to be lengthly. I have been abruptly confronted with various accusations and need to address each individually. By removing my reply you are impeding my ability to do this: please restore them, rearrange them if you like as to however you think is legible.

If you have some suggestions on how to summarize the points or how to remove any repeated statements: go ahead and tell me. I am simply not aware of how to make that any shorter. I realize you created this ANI but as I've replied to your talk, I feel since you're targeting me that I deserve an opportunity to defend myself against this. Clearly I need to speak more than others when nobody is speaking on my behalf and I arrive after people have already made many consecutive comments. Tyciol (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Day 2

I've gone back over a year in Tyciol's edits and have been tagging as many bad redirects as I can. And while I've been telling him how it's wrong, he's gone and made the redirect Kamen Ryuki (to Kamen Rider Ryuki), which is clearly an implausible typo.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I never implied it was a typo: it's a plausible omission or abbreviation. This is seriously ridiculous, I'm almost convinced you're using a bot to tag all these or something, how exactly are you able to properly check whether or not these are valid redirects at a rate of 10 per minute? You have simply copied and pasted the same exact thing on most of this, I see no individual attention and simply a mass attack against any edit which is a redirect. I, however, won't be guilty of generalizing: the edits at Bruckheimer, Yuuji & Yoji Matsuda were good. Everything else is clearly blatent deletionism without checking up on things. Lubdan is an excellent example. This is the name given to the Leprechaun (of the movies) in his new comic book series. What on earth was wrong with redirecting that to him?

Now, fair is fair, I contest all but mentioned: but how can I quickly go and add a 'holdon' tag to every single thing when you're rapid-firing like this? By the time I get to finding everything you and the others have secretly tagged it will probably already be deleted and I'll have no information left with which to make a case. I clearly need some representation here, as I'm obviously not as familiar with the mechanisms of dispute resolution as you are. Tyciol (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Putting a hold on tag to the 300+ pages I edited is not going to be worth anyone's time. All of my tags this round were to singular names that are common given or surnames, your portmanteaus that make no sense, and the "Kamen Ryuki" (which is an extremely implausible typo or omission).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would certainly be a lengthy endeavour. I'm not even sure I can get there in time, already dozens are being wiped out by User:Bettia and who knows who else? You are clearly abusing WP:CSD#R3, these are clearly NOT implausible typos or misnomers. How on earth is that equivalent to disputing the use of redirecting a single name (whether you think it's common or not... how many notable people are called 'Lubdan' exactly? Let's check. Oh look, on all of Wikipedia it only shows up once: on the article I directed it to. So clearly: this illustrates you are misusing it. It may take a while to find a moderator who will do something about this, but this needs to be accounted for. All I can think to do now is list all the articles you've had deleted (as suredly they will be, because the mods have good faith in your tags and may be too busy to check them all to see if they really are typos) and then track who has deleted them, and then speak to them about reconsidering this mass execution of information. Tyciol (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Several editors have told you that your redirects are not helpful. I am telling you that your redirects are not helpful. Please stop. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I agree that many of these redirects actually hamper the Wikipedia process, but I kept "Kamen Ryuki". A google search showed that it is used as shorthand for the show & the character at least sometimes, and it doesn't seem likely to divert attention from other articles that use the term. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern John, but telling someone something is not helpful without contradicting their reasons for why it is helpful or presenting reasons for why the alternative (deleting in this case) proposed is more helpful, is not very convincing. I am interested in your ideas and opinions, not your vote. Tyciol (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• It does seem that some of the redirects are at least not totally illegitimate on their face. For instance, redirects from character names to entries on List of Characters in X seem to, at the very least, merit RfD. I tried to keep those when going through the CSDs earlier, but I see at least one (Takeshi Asakura) that was deleted. I'm a bit worried that we may have deleted valid redirects in our haste. ÷seresin 11:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This has been my worry all along, just the tip of the iceberg, as I'm saying. If someone wants to flood somewhere then RfD not SpeeDel would be the place. Especially considering the sole-propelant and various mislabeling going on with RfD tags used. Tyciol (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Good redirects can always be recreated. The sheer volume of bad or unhelpful redirects (such as living people to fictional characters, living people to media projects they worked with, common given names and surnames to singular instances of the name being used) were problematic. Takeshi Asakura should very likely be recreated (and several other redirects be made for the other fictional characters that page is related to), but surely Asakura should not be a redirect to that page, nor should the name of the actor of the character (if the article on the actor had not yet been created) be redirected to this singular role he played.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, in theory a good article can always be recreated as well: so does it make sense to mark for speedy deletion without reviewing it first, any article created by someone who has made other edits you disagree with? I'm afraid your 'sheer volume' argument does not hold any water. This is like a scorched earth campaign, and it's utterly ridiculous. Wikipedia has no deadline, or some other phrase, may be appicable here.
      Your comment about Asakura is completely misleading to the readers here, and you are heavily mistaken in your implication. I may not have a perfect memory for all my contributions, but Asakura stands out in my mind. I know this because I did not redirect Asakura to that page: it's a disambiguation page, and Takeshi Asakura is listed there. Why on earth would I redirect such a notable name that people have already made observations over the years for (in particular, Yoh, who I know from Shaman King). Many actors only play a single role: we build information as I gather it. A redirect is not a declaration that someone has only ever played one role (or that they ever would). It's simply showing that the name means something, and that we can build on that. As such: that could be built by REDIRECT>DISAMBIG as per WP:RFD: " Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia". I am also encouraging this! Furthermore, these reasons you list are unusual and not agreed upon. Before using them to engage in mass deletion efforts why not introduce this reasoning to WP:RFD#DELETE. Try to get it accepted into policy, at that point you would have more support from others in enacting these changes. Tyciol (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Let me rephrase myself then. Useful redirects can be recreated. The sheer volume of the useless ones need not be recreated. Fictional characters are fine. Real people, given names, surnames, and the circular redirects are useless, and should all be deleted by this time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes: they can be recreated. But they shouldn't be deleted in the first place! Recreating the redirects you recklessly led others to delete does not excuse the destruction, especially when in half the cases they were ones that needed to be brought to both yours and others' attention in the first place. I resent the continued use of 'useless' pertaining to these redirects. It is inappropriate to say that because their uselessness has NOT been established. To assume by default that a redirect is useless is bad faith, and it is beyond that, unfair when you don't even search for a potential use for it. Not being able to see a use does not mean something is useless, nor does denying uses. If fictional characters were fine you wouldn't have marked them to begin with: but you did, because you were not investigating. This is why if someone is going to tell someone to stop doing something, it should be you, to stop that, not me to stop something I think is valuable which I've seen little evidence you're listening to the explanations for. Circular redirects will not be circular if the link is removed from the page it was listed on: that's what should be deleted, not the redirect. There was no evidence those were GOOD red links. I directed them because I thought they were bad, it's a preliminary step to removing a useless red link from a page. Not all red links are useful, nor are they necessarily used properly. If you want to debate the merit of red links on pages then do so on the page in question it is listed please. Redirecting real names and surnames are useful. You clearly have not been absorbing the multitudes of surname disambiguation pages which lie behind the scenes. You are clearly not interested in this as you are only picking on the ones I make, while leaving common surnames disambigs alone. Disambigs clearly do have a purpose, and picking off the easy pages is not an open way to make your statement against name pages. It's a proper use for disambiguation. Tyciol (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As I've said on Tyciol's talk page, if there's a section for a character in "List of ... characters" then that's usually not a problem, but he's been creating redirects for any names that are even mentioned in articles (people's parents, children and random other names that appears in the text). In one case I found a redirect to a murderer's article for the victim's ex-husband who was mentioned peripherally in the text. That's really not a good idea. Then there's redirecting surnames to one article when there's more than one person of that name. And circular redirects creating from random parts of text. The biggest problem though is not the redirects, but the messing about with dabs and hatnotes to wedge in these implausible redirects. That's messy, pointless and confusing. Black Kite 11:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Sometimes people share the same names and confusion happens: this is why I make efforts to fully research people's names as much as possible so that the full name is there and will be confused with as few people as possible. Unfortunately you can't always avoid that (and people can have trouble with that on Google and stuff too). Anyway, as these names are mentioned in the press in association with the criminal cases you have mentioned, they are considered somewhat notable to the case. They wouldn't be in the article if they weren't. If you believe they are not notable then please: just delete them from the article, or fact-tag it or something. If it's notable to list in the article, it's notable to redirect to. If the names have other signifance or if they are shared by other notable persons or people from notable events, then it can be disambiguated. I think calling my additions and cleaning of disambiguation pages and insertion of relevant hat notes 'messing around' is insulting and presumptuous. This generalizing should really cease so we can civilly discuss each isssue where each can be held accountable for their reasoning pertaining to the term. Tyciol (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Because something is mentioned in an article it's notable? No - no, its not, and if it's an article about a contentious subject, such as a criminal case, we really don't want to be creating unnecessary redirects. And you may think I'm being insulting, but utterly misleading hatnotes like this one on an article about a racehorse, directing people to the article Elton John (without mentioning Elton's name), via a double redirect, on a name by which Elton has never been known and utterly pointless dab page additions like this are, respectively, misleading and pointless. I actually had to look at the "Sir Hercules" one for a long time to work out what on earth it was for. Black Kite 12:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
        • There are differing degrees of notability. Something being mentioned on an article means it is notable enough to redirect to the article about. That's the whole purpose of wiki links in an encyclopedia, to direct people to information in the wiki pertaining to any word they might type into it. Conversely: being listed in an article does not mean something is notable enough to deserve its own article. It takes more notability to deserve an article title than the amount of notability it takes to deserve a redirect. Clearly the priorities of notability are being mixed up here: minor articles (small redirect pages) to information about people with information written about them on the page where the link leads to are being removed. Conversely, major articles (red links) are being proposed, with a link leading nowhere, where people can find no additional information about them. That's the total reverse of how things should be.
          I am thankful that you have actually given me examples to work with, because I can address them. First off, Elton John is knighted. He IS a sir. As for calling him Elton Hercules, what's wrong with that? Listing 'John' is irrelevant. I list in the hat only what is relevant to the disambiguation. He added the name 'Hercules' to his stage name for a reason, it may get overlooked in common reference but that doesn't mean he's never been called 'Elton Hercules' as you imply (you can't say Elton Hercules John without it) and by extension, does not indicate he's never been called Sir Elton Hercules. Someone can omit part of a title, if someone missed the John, one might mistakenly assume Hercules (his stage's middle name) was his last name, and think he is called 'Sir Hercules'. That's why that disambiguation was notable.
          As for your objection to listening David Charles Cunningham Watson under David Charles: what's the problem? The reason given is 'personal name'? Just because someone is known most by initials doesn't mean that their being called by their first and second names is unlikely. When there is a box for surname and a box for the given and other (middle) names, they are listed together, so he could even be called David Charles Cunningham. If there were someone else by the name that would be fine, but I'm adding the actual names of incredibly famous men to either disambiguation pages, or as a hat note on a relatively unnotable horse, so what exactly is the problem here? How does that inhibit Wikipedia? Rather, it helps stem potential confusing, and for those who wouldn't have been confused do to their greater knowledge of famous figures, they will at least notice interesting links. But that's a secondary benefit: I sincerely do believe this prevents potential misunderstanding. I have a very good imagination for misunderstandings, and I don't like how this is attacked as 'bad' or whatever just because others can't envision them. Tyciol (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reading through the morass) Tyciol: I don't think that your argument is solid enough or evidence-based. The idea is not to have a redirect to any possible permutation or combination of partial names. From a disambiguation point of view, it is simply neither how we handle nor encourage names to be added to lists, and from my POV it is simply confusing. We have a search engine that can be used to find combinations of more obscure words. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with the person would know that such a name is completely unknown. Here [36] is a Google search - no hits at all. Also, people with Western names are practically never known by first name + a middle name. People with knighthoods are almost never known as "Sir" + surname - Please stop re-creating these, it's getting disruptive. Black Kite 14:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone on the planet likely to refer to Elton John as "Sir Hercules"...or to mistake him for a racehorse?Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite all of this, Tyciol has recreated Sir John, Sir McCartney, Sir Paul, Elton Hercules and also created Ishii Leslie, Tsunehiko Kamijo, and Asakura Takeshi (the last is the only one that is feasibly useful).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've deleted the first four again, and left him a warning. Black Kite 14:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again. He must have created another 50 since you warned him.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And more, e.g.: [37]. Surely this needs a block to stop the disruption. Quantpole (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This takes the biscuit [38]. Dab page People named Kristian include:

   * Danish politician Kristian Jensen
   * Danish novelist Kristian Ditlev Jensen (redlink so doesn't need dab)
   * Singer Kristian Rex (did the introduction to Smart Guy) !!!You got it - link goes to redirect above ^^^
   * Strachkvas
   * Some people listed underChristian (name)

Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Have listed Kristian and Katie Howard (dab for two fictional characters that we don't have articles on, no mention of Catherine Howard who is the only Katie Howard that we do have an article on.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've fixed those two dab pages. We have two people with the surname Kristian, and the other one is plausible for Kate Howard, even if the others are NN. For future reference, please note that G8 is the CSD for redirects to non-existent targets; the CSD criteria for unlikely redirects is R3. Black Kite 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Much better outcome. I thought of Kathryn Howard, but by the time I figured Wikipedia spells her Catherine, you had added her anyway. I'll bear in mind if I ever need to tag another dab page.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Spanishboy2006

Resolved

Ruslik_Zero 19:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Spanishboy2006 is threatening me, stalking me, insulting me:

"You are being closely watched. [...] You are being watched, every change, move or reversion you will make which most of the time is violated will be reported. [...] Nice try, Cinema C, лажљивац.(google translator says so)" diff

(лажљивац means liar or shammer in Serbian [39])

User is already blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring on Kosovo related articles and received his warning to stop breaking Wikipedia rules. He seems to have not learned anything, so I advise the administrators to consider further action. --Cinéma C 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I prevented him from editing his talk page for the duration of the block. Ruslik_Zero 18:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

DanaUllman

• Courtesy link to recent discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#User:DanaUllman

DanaUllman (talk · contribs) is behaving exactly as he did before the arbcom ban. (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy)

I think that one set of edits will suffice: it demonstrates his WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behaviour very well, where he'll accept something one moment, then bring it up as if evidence hadn't been provided to refute it shortly thereafter.

On the 30th, another user - not Mr. Ullman - asked about whether a study was withdrawn. The withdrawal had been linked a couple times in the thread, but you had to scroll down a bit, so I thought it worth pointing out the relevant sections:

From http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001957/pdf_fs.html [Edited slightly to restore lost formatting; Emphasis mine.]

“ Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes

Andrew Vickers1, Claire Smith2

1Integrative Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2Weston Education Centre, King’s College, London, UK

Contact address: Andrew Vickers, Integrative Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10021, USA. vickersa@mskcc.org. (Editorial group: Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group.)

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3, 2009 (Status in this issue: Withdrawn)

Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub4

This version first published online: 8 July 2009 in Issue 3, 2009.

Last assessed as up-to-date: 19 May 2006. (Help document - Dates and Statuses explained)

This record should be cited as: Vickers A, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001957. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub4.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL
This review was withdrawn from The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2009 as the authors are currently unable to update it.

”

It's withdrawn. It says as much, three times. Sure, it's a little odd of a reason for withdrawing it, but it still makes it pretty impossible to include it here, when other, non-withdrawn papers exist. That people agreed with its inclusion before it was withdrawn three weeks ago is irrelevant now. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 183 FCs served} 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

On the 31st, DanaUllman responds to this, and a few intermittent comments:

We all seem to be a tad confused on the meaning of this "withdrawal," though the review is still listed at their website Ultimately, the homeopathy article states that there are no replications to homeopathic research, and this is now clearly inaccurate. We can cite the Cochrane Report from 2006 or 2009 or reference the Lancet's News and Notes that mentioned that the results of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology were clinically relevant. Whig suggested a good compromise on wording, and although I'd prefer saying something else, I can live with his suggestion. DanaUllman^Talk 00:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And then today he posts:

In due respect, the Oscillo research is still very much alive on the Cochrane site: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/106568753/CD001957_standard.pdf -- It seems to be the same body of information as in the 2006 article. I cannot find evidence at their website that it has been withdrawn. Can someone else? Further, if, by chance, someone finds such a reference, we need to understand what "withdrawn" means because there has not been any new research to disprove what their previous analysis provided. Unless someone provides this information, reversion to the original reference and description is in order. DanaUllman^Talk 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The withdrawal - with the link to the Cochrane website - was posted, he responded to this posting, and then - in the same thread where the withdrawal is posted, he claims no evidence of the withdrawal exists.

DanaUllman was banned for a year for his tendentious editing and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Further examples, perhaps requiring more quoting, can be found on Talk:Homeopathy, of him refusing to get a point, or trying to twist words into a concession that he can do whatever he wants.

Furthermore, this is exactly the same as behaviour that came up in the arbitration case, only worse: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#1c:_Part_i is a discussion of Ullman insisting that the findings of a study weren't retracted, even though the authors wrote of said study in 1999:

"The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis [7]. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials (e.g. [14,15]) have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy [16]), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis [7] at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments."

Ullman claimed this wasn't a retraction as that word didn't appear. In this new situation, Ullman is claiming that the statement on the Cochrane site saying the paper is withdrawn three times doesn't mean that it's withdrawn by the Cochrane Collaboration.

Furthermore, in the middle of the Arbitration case, Ullman was topicbanned by Vassyana for insisting that Scientizzle agreed with him, despite Scientizzle telling Ullman he did not: [40].

Dana Ullman caused massive disruption for months with his tendentious editing last time. He has promptly returned to his past behaviour.

I would ask that he be community indef banned. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I've checked his contribtutions and I endorse an indef community ban. Behavior like this is totally unacceptable. --Tenant23 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse indef ban as one of the editors that has to untangle all the misrepresentations of sources, and who helped in getting the first ban. At least topic ban him from anything homepathy-related, because of his huge COI as a full-time homeopath who writes books and articles saying that homeopathy is scientifically proven. Notice that all Homeopathy-related articles are under probation, so please some uninvolved admin review Talk:Homeopathy and issue a topic ban so at least we can work in peace. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Temporary action and note. Under the discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom, I am imposing a two-week ban from the homeopathy topic area across all namespaces, broadly construed, including userspace and user talk pages. This should not be construed to prohibit Dana Ullman from responding to conduct reports and complaints regarding him. Additionally, I have advised Shoemaker's Holiday about short-term repeated complaints about the same issue (the last ANI closed barely a week ago) and about his failure to inform Dana Ullman of either thread. The apparent battlefield mentality on both sides is highly disruptive to the project. The topic ban is meant to be a temporary measure, thus its short duration. If Dana Ullman cannot accept the problematic nature of his approach and/or is unwilling to focus on other areas where he does not get carried away, I regretfully endorse a community ban. I would consider this his last chance to reconsider and reflect on his conduct. I do not expect endless last chances to be extended, as we have seen so many other times (including for this editor). If necessary, I will utilize the discretionary sanctions to impose the maximum one year block in order to prevent further disruption to the wiki. --Vassyana (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• As far as my current understanding goes, this is a substantially different situation from the previous one involving the word "retraction". Take the following with a grain of salt because I am simply repeating what came out in the discussion on the homeopathy talk page and have not tried to confirm it independently (I'm a bit handicapped by traveling): The old case was about the authors of a study later saying that the study was probably wrong. Whether they used the word "retract" or not, that's clearly a valid reason not to use the study. The present case is about a study that appeared in the "Cochrane library". Apparently this is a repository for up-to-date, high-quality medical studies. If the authors are unable to publish a new version of their study every X years, then it is removed from the library. This is what happened here. The authors "withdrew" the study because they cannot keep up with the literature. This is something that would not have happened if the study had simply been published in a prestigious journal of the normal kind. Note the wording "Status in this issue: Withdrawn" etc.

The lead of Homeopathy currently claims that (not: almost all of) the few positive findings of effects beyond placebo have not been replicated. If I understand things correctly that's not technically true because the study from 2006 that was removed from the Cochrane libraryin 2009 for a purely technical reason indicates that one of the positive findings is replicable. In my opinion the relevant language in the lead is still OK. That's because I am generally fine with little white lies in the lead, so long as they are explained further down. But here Dana's opponents insist on both leaving the lead as it is and not even mentioning the caveat in the body. That's at least borderline disingenuous, and it seems odd to take Dana's ineffective attempts to get the situation changed as a reason for a ban.

If you want to ban Dana because he is an undiplomatic, ineffective advocate of homeopathy who, instead of causing the changes to the article that he desires, merely brings out the worst in his opponents, then by all means do so. But don't pretend it's for a different reason that makes no sense. Hans Adler 05:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)To be explicit, my imposition of the ban is simply based on recurring patterns. It is not based on any particular argument about content violations or related concerns. The plain fact of the matter is that DanaUllman's current mode of interaction, including misrepresentation and statements ignoring ignoring valid discussion points (popularly referred to as "IDIDNTHEARTHAT"), is the same scheme of conduct that lead to previous sanctions. I am saddened that he is returning to these old patterns, as his expertise and topic knowledge could be valuable. However, in order for that value to be realized, he needs to accept the impact of his conduct and make a serious course correction. --Vassyana (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe Vassyana could be more specific. Please tell us what we should avoid in the discussion - exactly. Which behavior is disruptive so we can avoid it. Give us 2 diffs. There is a content dispute in Homeopathy -Thanks.--JeanandJane (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• This appears to be straightforward advocacy which is discouraged by our basic conflict of interest and discussion rules. The following sections are similarly informative, with DanaUllman being obtuse (requiring another editor to puzzle out what exactly he was referring to) and appearing to represent his concerns misleadingly as a new point (the Cochrane Collaboration material has been discussed ad naseum and indeed prior to his ban DanaUlmman was involved in those discussions including about the very points he recently raised again). I know from observation that he is capable is expressing his points directly in a forthright fashion without such vague references and maquillage. Another sign that time has not changed the situation is his continual misuse of the phrase "NPOV" (such as referring to "NPOV sources"). If my point is unclear, there is no such thing as a "NPOV source". NPOV is an article measure based on the predominance of information in reliable sources, not some subjective/personal measure of objectivity or neutrality. With DanaUllman returning after such a harsh arbitration sanction, I would expect that he would take special care to familiarize himself with the expectations of our principles and practices, and especially to avoid the same patterns of conduct that lead to a ban from Wikipedia. Instead, he immediately soapboxed and engaged in tendentious debate. I hope this helps clarify why I have imposed the temporary topic ban while the community discusses how to move forward. --Vassyana (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Replying a bit more directly to the subject of your concern, it is not that difficult to avoid problematic behavior. Do not engage in general (forum-like) discussion and advocacy on Wikipedia. Do not misrepresent the content of reliable sources or the statements of other editors. Do not beat dead horses or mislead editors regarding the nature of discussions (such as whether they are novel or revisited). Be forthright in discussions and do not belabor discussion with vague points coupled with strong assertions of specific evidence. Follow these simple points and you will avoid the pitfalls that DanaUllman has experienced at this project. --Vassyana (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana: 1. The diff you gave shows that Dana referred to his point of view on BBC Horizon but very soon he moved to another subject and did not edit the article. Nothing else.I saw nothing else which could be problematic. Instead Ullman offered many reliable sources to discuss. 2. Lets give to Ullman some tiny credit.[[41]]

"The Cochrane Collaboration material has been discussed ad naseum" is incorrect. Just few days ago or so when Dana Ullman he was proposing to add a comment from the Lancet supporting the efficasy of OSCILL., the editors -they want him now banned, they were saying that the Cochrane review on OSC was a better source . Few hours later they discovered that it was withdrawn. That created confusion since it is still appearing in the Cochrane Library website.

You imposed the ban when we were discussing another issue : whether or not several papers and info from exceptional reliable sources (which express different views on the Homeopathy effectiveness and meta analyses) should be included in the article as you already have seen in the talk page.

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. It does not say to exclude the minority view especially in an article on the specific minority view (which according to the policy must be described in detail).4 editors dispute the neutrality of the article and you chose to ban Ullman ban upon request. The editors asked they same question : Is appropriate to exclude minority views on Homeopathy since they are published in many decent RS? Some editors say yes. You agree with this ? Is it appropriate to take a side in a content dispute and ban an editor? --JeanandJane (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we will have the agree to disagree on the impact and nature of DanaUllman's talk page contributions, as we obviously have very distinct perceptions of the circumstances. Moving on, if you review the history of talk page discussions in the homeopathy topic area, you will find that the Cochrane Collaboration material (including the findings in particular that DanaUllman is asserting) has been discussed on many occasions. Part of my concern is this is the same material DanaUllman was discussing (in the same tone and fashion) in the weeks leading up to the arbitration case where a full ban was imposed on him for homeopathy advocacy. Regardless, the topic ban of DanaUllman is short-term and considered a temporary measure. Discussion may lead to other uninvolved editors supporting stronger restrictions, a set of alternate editing restrictions, a full ban, or even no sanctions at all. Let us give a chance for other uninvolved admins to review the situation and comment. I'll gladly follow whatever consensus emerges. --Vassyana (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I rightfully have said and still assert (and Shoemaker’s quote helps to verify!) that the findings of Linde 1997 study were NOT retracted. Shoemaker even quotes directly in Linde’s 1999 article that the new evidence “weakens” his previous findings, but he clearly doesn’t “retract” his results…he simply found that they were less strong. The quote that Shoemaker provides is: “The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis.” The fact that Shoemaker asserts that this quote proves the Linde “retracted” his previous findings is evidence of poor scholarship or purposeful antagonism to the subject that clouds his normally rational mind.

Further evidence of Linde’s viewpoint on this subject was his strong critique of the Shang review of research.

Shoemaker is also upset that I did not see the link that he provided that “proved” that this article was withdrawn. http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001957/pdf_fs.html -- However (!), to me, this article is not available without subscription. I could NOT make certain that this article was “withdrawn” with certainty, and further, I provided solid evidence that the 2006 article was still posted at the Cochrane site…and further, that this article was also posted in 2009, issue #2.

Since my return to wikipedia, I have not done a single “edit” of an article. I have only participated in Talk pages…and obviously, my bringing up studies in major medical journals and other RS sources is disconcerting to him. Although I know that we can all sympathize with him and his POV, we all need to make an effort toward NPOV.

The other people here who are recommending sanctions against me are the usual suspects…people who are extremely active on the homeopathy article who have a long history of blocking many even mildly positive facts or information on homeopathy. Then, there are some wiki editors who are claimly to be “uninvolved” but it just so happens that they are seemingly “new” wiki editors, despite many obvious editing contributions to complex wikipedia issues (is someone a sock here?): [[42]]

I have been shown to be a civilized editor. I have been shown to provide important contributions to this discussion; however, just because I seem to provide RS references and facts that differ from Shoemaker, he makes the above complaint.

I believe strongly that my recent “topic ban” has been unfairly bestowed upon me, and instead, I urge Admins to evaluate those editors in the homeopathy article who are showing clear antagonism and bias to the subject and are blocking NPOV information in it. DanaUllman^Talk 05:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban of any length, re-applied as needed. My recent experiences with him give me no confidence at all that he can be neutral about his pet subject. He'll go on indefinitely, wasting the time of other editors, if he's allowed to do so. Friday (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban from Homeopathy and related pages. Homeopathy had stabilised and was improving, but Dana has turned it into a battlefield, promoting his own work, or trying to get wikipedia articles to agree with his published work. Doesn't seem to have learned anything from his block. Verbal chat 16:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• endorse ban Clearly doesn't understand WP:BATTLE. Having him edit these pahes is detrimental to the construction of an encyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, all of this antimosity against me despite the fact that I have not edited a single article, have a history of being a civil editor, and have a history of referencing high-impact medical and scientific journals. I have no intent to have wikipedia repeat anything that I've written elsewhere, even various peer-review articles and book chapters. I only have a desire to submit information that seems accurate, reliable, and up-to-date. It seems that most of the above people who want me banned have content issues with me or are friends of those who do... It is not my intention to battle (at all). My intent is to collaborate...I hope that some admins look at my recent short contributions to the Talk pages and see for yourself (and please see context too). Humbly... DanaUllman^Talk 22:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please do something. After a year's ban, Mr. Ullman started right back up with the identical issues (the efficacy of oscillococcinum and the 20/20 episode) that he left off with in 2008. He is unequivocally engaging in advocacy, for which he was blocked for a year by arbcom. It is clear by his statement directly above that he sees nothing at all wrong with this. Sources that he presents invariably have to be double and triple checked to be sure they say what he says they do, which they usually don't. Furthermore, dormant user (User:JeanandJane) and a new user (User:Dbrisinda), both pro-homeopathy SPAs, jumped in immediately to support Mr. Ullman and make his suggested edits to the main article. Edit warring, gross source misrepresentation, talk page filibustering, and IDIDNTHEARTHAT have ensued. The situation before his re-arrival was one of incremental and agreeable collaboration. The final straw, for me, is continuing to argue for the inclusion of a withdrawn paper, after it has been made clear that a withdrawn journal article is unusable. Topic ban him, indef him, whatever, just keep him far away from anything related to homeopathy, please. Skinwalker (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to revoke sanction

Because of an edit war between me and User:William Allen Simpson , User:Aervanath imposed a certain sanction upon both of us. I think this sanction is unfair to me. User:Aervanath seems to be unavailable. At the end of that Wikipedia:AN3 discussion it says that this is the place to appeal. I have outlaid all my arguments there a week ago. (I was offline this last week because I moved.) Debresser (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That does seem like a little extreme of a restriction. Have you tried discussing it with William Allen Simpson to see if the two of you can come up with a mutual agreement? I think it should probably be reduced to "no reverts of each other's edits, widely construed". In other words, mandating that you review each other's contributions to make sure that the other hasn't edited a page within the last month is a bit extreme. But I don't see a reason to remove the restriction completely unless/until the two of you have an agreement that the disruption will not happen again. --B (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, although the idea of discussion with William Allen Simpson sounds unlikely, as it is not his way... On the other hand, it ignores my arguments in Wikipedia:AN3 that I have behaved a lot better than William Allen Simpson, and don't think I deserve to be treated the same way as he. Please note that other editors there have stated their agreement with this assessment of mine. In short, I feel that the sanction is an unjustice and should be lifted from me regardless. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User: CanOfWorms : Bulk use of "Citation needed" tags and incivility

I have come across a number of occasions when CanOfWorms (talk · contribs · logs) added "Citation needed" tags to pages on my Watchlist. Despite the fact that it seemed that there was no need to tag these pages in this way, I tried to add links as requested. I informed CanOfWorms that I had done this and noted that his sole activity seemed to be adding these tags and he responded rudely [43]. I have noted where he has done this on a number of other occasions: see, for example [44]. When constructive suggestions are added to his talk page, he either insults the user, or deletes the suggestions: [45]. It seems to me that he is not following the Wikipedia guidelines on citing but continues with his bulk tagging by a combination of high activity and incivility. Others have noted the same: [46]. I'm not really an expert on this, but his approach seems unconstructive and antagonistic to those trying to improve Wikipedia. Can anything be done to prevent this actvity? --Phil Holmes (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think telling another user to "get lost" is totally uncivil behaviour on Wikipedia. CanOfWorms needs to learn some manors and listen to other user's advice. Jolly Ω Janner 21:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have notified CanOfWorms of this section -- this should have been done at the start. Looking over the contribs, I see an editor who has been Wikignoming for a couple of years, but started on a binge of massive "citation needed" tagging a couple of months ago, and responds to complaints with brusque incivility. A bit of behavior mod is clearly needed. Looie496 (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing his contributions, I reminded CanOfWorms of the necessity to maintain a positive, collaborative environment, and that he needs to address concerns. I think that's all that can be done for now. If the tagging continues without attempts at civil explanation, bring back here. Tan | 39 22:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

He's not disrupted the encyclopedia, all he's done is give a handful of curt responses. I don't particularly like it, but even if it continues I don't think more than what you've done should be attempted. CanOfWorms sometimes puts tags in the wrong place or where they are unnecessary. The thing is, he's probably only going to get it wrong on articles with a decent number of references, which are usually maintained. So the mistakes can easily be rectified. Therefore, the only real problem is CanOfWorms slightly abbrasive attitude. It hasn't harmed anyone and if someone gets upset by being told to get lost, they're probably going to get very upset later on on wikipedia when they run into a genuinely rude editor. Nev1 (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more with your opinions. While I am certainly not the civility police, WP:CIVIL is policy here, not a guideline. In particular, this policy requires editors to "participate in a respectful and considerate way," and also reminds them to "... not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." I agree that nothing has been done so far that requires anything further than a gentle reminder. However, your stance that this attitude must be tolerated if necessary is, frankly, wrong. Tan | 39 23:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assertion. Please try to be dynamic in your use of policy, rigidly following does more harm than good. Telling someone to get lost is harmless, and CanOfWorms does no harm. Nev1 (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I am very dynamic in my use - but the policy exists, and you seem to want to completely ignore it. Telling someone to "get lost" in response to concerns certainly is not harmless. It trashes the collaborative, collegial nature of the project. No one is talking about blocking anybody yet, but I reserve the right in all situations to close the door on editors who cannot abide by our policies. I suppose we can disagree here and it's really not a big deal; nothing yet has happened to invoke any further action. Tan | 39 23:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely support Tan's assessment here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Not taking sides in this perticular case, but I have no problem with editors who mainly add citation request tags and don't do much else. I know there is more than that here, i.e. civilty, very mild case here imho, but I do get annoyed when editors are like "dude, rather than add a fact tag, go find a citation and help out". The idea of "drive by tagging" without explaination, ect is not helpful or collegial(I hate that word around here) or whatever, I diagree with. Again, no offense directed at the others who have commented, just my one cent. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding tags in this way goes against Wikipedia policy. To summarise, it's as follows:

Citation required tags should be added:

2.1 When adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged

2.2 When quoting someone

2.3 When adding material to the biography of a living person

2.4 When checking content added by others (You can also add sources for material you did not write. Adding citations is an excellent way to contribute to Wikipedia)

2.5 When uploading an image

2.6 Qualifying sources

In the case I cited, none of these apply. It may be a fact without a source, but there are millions of those on Wiki. The question is generally, is the fact likely to be challenged? Reviewing the tags this contributor has added, that's rarely the case, and it simply makes the entries harder to read. --Phil Holmes (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that many editors take offence at maintenance tags being placed on "their" articles (as much as we are against it, its rare that an editor doesn't show some form of ownership towards an article). They believe their article is perfect, and if anyone disagrees with them then all hell breaks loose. This causes conflict between those who tag, and those who don't. Its inevitable in this, users get "grouchy" and end up snapping at other people. I'm not defending incivility, but its always a good idea to look at the bigger picture, and look into the possible reasons why a certian user has got to a point where they start snapping at other users. In this case, a simple warning should suffice, and that could have probably been delt with at WP:WQA. Jeni ^(talk) 01:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No question the user in question is being kind of a jerk about it. But are the tags legitimate, or are they frivolous? The poster of this thread was lecturing the editor in question about the specific way he's doing the tags. If the tags are legitimate, the original posters' focus should be on resolving the citations, not on pedantry about whether they go before or after a period. If the tags are not legitimate, they should be reverted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW (and it probably isn't worth much now) it wasn't me who questioned where the tags should go - rather the number of them and the response by the individual to any comment. --Phil Holmes (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that these tags are placed in good faith, and he's not trying to disrupt Wikipedia, because in some sections of these articles, a citation really is needed for verifiability. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 02:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I will wait and see if this user takes advice from others. Hopefully CanOfWorms will stop adding the tags to the leads of articles. My main problem with the user's incivility is that it indicates CanOfWorms is not going to listen to anything else anyone says. Hopefully CanOfWorms will change as a result of this incident and no more action is to be taken. Jolly Ω Janner 03:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I add quite a few tags while gnoming around (although i add more cites than tags overall), and see the adding of a cite needed tag as a challenge in itself. If a long-standing editor adds a tag, it means he considers it to be challengable, imo. A grouchy response to editors' comments is unfortunnate, but as others have said, the tags should be replaced with cites as needed, or removed. I see many articles aiming for GA status that need more citations, but the main editor cannot see where they are needed, as the claims are obvious to an expert - citation needed tags are a helpful contribution to the encylopedia. I expect most editors would be grouchy if people complained aobut their contributions, instead of seeing them as helpful. There is no need for an admin here (and this report seems to have pushed CanofWorms to retirement anyway).YobMod 12:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Its worth pointing out that the person who filed this dispute appears to have issues against tags in general, and isn't known for giving the most civil messages in this regard. [47][48] Jeni ^(talk) 13:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, well, well! Well, as has been pointed out to me from time to time, any editor has the right to apply a "citation needed" tag to statements of fact that he questions. To call those tags "pointless" or whatever, is a matter of opinion. Rather than calling them "pointless", he should try to find citations that will nullify the need for the tag. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue at all with adding tags based upon a review of whether they are needed. What I do have an issue with is bulk tagging where it would appear that either there has been no consideration of whether they are needed, or it would appear that they have been done by automatic means. User sfan has had his bulk tagging criticised here recently as it appeared to be done by a bot. He also has caused problems with the loss of source data with uploaded files. User CanOfWorms seemed to spend a great deal of time adding tags to facts that were not in dispute. I have added citations to facts tagged by CanOfWorms and informed him of that - he asked me "whether I wanted a medal".

So - tagging - absolutely fine with me. Bulk, semi-automated tagging of this sort - I have a problem with that. --Phil Holmes (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

CanOfWorms added perfectly valid tags, it is irrelevant as to the quantity of tags added. Any unsourced content may be challenged and/or removed. He is challenging said content, as he is entitled to do so. Now you have pushed a perfectly good editor away from Wikipedia, and have asked another one that his edits are pointless. Do you really feel you are assuming good faith and staying perfectly within the confines of civility? I think not. Please read up on Wikipedia policies, it may help. Jeni ^(talk) 18:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The rule that any unsourced content may be removed, no matter how positively worded, nonetheless requires judgement. Human editors are supposed to exhibit judgement. Otherwise we could have a bot adding a tag after every sentence in Wikipedia not followed by a reference, and deleting it a week later. We refused overwhelmingly to adopt the rule that even an entire article being unsourced, regardless of the length of time, was by itself a reason for deletion unless it was shown to be unsourceable. There are hundreds of thousands of truly questionable or outdated statements in Wikipedia that we really need to address. Judgement requires dealing with the most important problems first. Diverting energies to dealing with non-problems that are only technical violations is not cooperative editing. When carried too far, it becomes actually disruptive. DGG (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fisticuffs by three editors at Talk:Shell account

• Hm2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yworo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shell account (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All three of these editors have been, for no better of a term, slinging mud at each other non-stop for the past two days at least regarding three external links at the Shell account article. It doesn't seem like any user involved here wish to pursue dispute resolution. I have tried to initiate an RFC on the matter and warned everyone to lay off the attacks, edit-warring, and incivility, but I have failed. Can somebody please separate these three before we have to resort to tanks and planes? MuZemike 00:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

MuZemike may have overlooked a few things here, so I will clarify. This issue has been on going for about 2 months. I have been trying to pursue a DR, but Tothwolf will not accept my proposal, and refuses to propose his own. Yworo has only made 1 comment on the article talk page and has little relevance here. Tothwolf has been disruptive throughout, and shown little sign of working towards a resolution. I hope this clarifies the situation a little. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Just a quick clarification so someone doesn't have to dig through the contribs quite as much...User:Yworo has not been active on Shell account but left a personal attack directed at me on the article's talk page today. They've been wikistalking me after a disagreement over some images on Linux and several related articles. Issues with User:Hm2k and disruption on Shell account have been going on since June 17 and involve a lot more editors than myself. I finally said something on July 1st [49] after seeing User:Hm2k's edit warring over Shell account on my watchlist. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I also feel I should point out this little gem of a refactored talk page comment on User talk:Hm2k. [50] Removing one ':' in an attempt to make it look like the warning was directed at me instead of Hm2k... --Tothwolf (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Should the page be temporarily protected in order to prevent continuous arguing? -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 01:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. However I suspect arguments would only resume once the protection is removed. I would propose to work towards a resolution but as you can see Tothwolf only seems to have interest in discrediting other users and is impossible to reason with. Your suggestions for a resolution are welcomed. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there would really be much point in protecting the article because there isn't any active edit warring going on. Looking at the edit history, it's clear other editors have largely stopped trying to make any edits since User:Hm2k seems to edit war with everybody. I've tried to contain it to the article's talk page (I believe I was successful in that endeavour until User:Yworo came along and made a personal attack on that talk page). I've personally done very little editing to the article since it was apparent to me that any changes I could possibly make User:Hm2k would undo or try to start an edit war over. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I was about to post this to WP:WQA, but seeing as how it's been escalated to ANI, I'll throw my two cents in. I think what we're looking at here is escalating tensions between Tothwolf and Yworo. Tothwolf contacted me on IRC a few days ago (I responded to his "!admin" ping) because he felt that Yworo was stalking his edits and harassing him by making edits to pages which he had watchlisted. I went through both user's edits, and found some minor evidence of edit warring on Yworo's part, but he had stopped after being warned by Betacommand; his edits past that point didn't indicate anything that required admin action. I noted to Tothwolf that chances were that both users had many of the same pages watchlisted.

A couple of days later, Tothwolf contacted me again, this time over an edit that Yworo had made (more specifically, the edit summary), and cited that he saw it as a personal attack. He also sent me a list of diff links to back up his stalking claims (which I prefer not to post without Tothwolf's permission). I left a warning on Yworo's talk page about the personal attack claim; Yworo responded back citing this post -- essentially, "he started it". At this point, I suggested that Tothwolf try to patch things up with Yworo, and I responded with this, trying to get the two of them to make up. Yworo responded saying "I'd prefer he just leave me alone."

Finally, Tothwolf conacted me again today, again claiming stalking and personal attacks, citing this edit. I didn't see it as a personal attack, and at least one other admin I talked to on IRC didn't see it as an attack either, so again, I declined to take any action on it. After making it clear to Tothwolf that I wasn't going to do anything, it appears that he took matters into his own hands, and here we are. Personally, I think that Tothwolf is seeing stalking where there is none, but I'll leave it to others to decide. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 04:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

tothwolf has a history of claiming stalking and then forum/irc shopping until an admin will do something. he did the same thing to me about a month or two ago and had an admin threaten to ban me forever. i suggest tothwolf's interactions with other editors is scrutinized more heavily. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I see this discussion has started to centralise around Tothwolf. Rather than start ganging up on Tothwolf, can we focus on a resolution? I've no idea why I'm even mentioned here, apart from to give Tothwolf a soapbox to try and discredit me further. I'd appreciate it if MuZemike would retract his claim against me and allow me to continue to focus on working towards a resolution on the article, rather than engaging in this disruptive discussion. --Hm2k (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if someone would deal with User:Hm2k's ongoing disruption. He does not want his actions on Shell account under scrutiny and continues to remove material documenting his disruption from the talk page. [51] He wanted me to write a neutral RFC but now that I've done so, he tries to remove that as well. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Case in point. If I'm being disruptive, will someone kindly deal with me so I can be excluded from this discussion otherwise, please retract your claim. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Secondary issue, but probably more important: do we decide administrative matters on iRC? or use advice given at IRC as a basis for action? Is it correct to even discuss it here, since what is said there cannot be proven? DGG (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Only if the actions decided could stand on their own merits, without any further on-wiki discussion. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 01:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I think it might be prudent to bring up a bigger issue -- longstanding behavioral problems with Tothwolf. I took some time this morning to go through some of his contributions, and I've compiled a summary of a few encounters that he had with other users. The summary is here. There's other encounters that he has had, but I haven't had the time/energy to document them. However, the common patterns that I'm seeing here are incivility, gaming the system, and manipulation, and these encounters went mostly unchecked. This run-in with Yworo and Hm2k is just the latest episode. I believe it's time for that to stop, and I suggest that some sort of action be taken.

As an aside, one thing I found rather interesting was a couple of edits that he made which would seem to suggest that he has edited under another account ([52] [53]), but I can't figure out what other account that might be. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 02:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

National Federation of Republican Assemblies

I'd like to request administrator intervention with a dispute on the above page. The article in question was the subject of an ongoing dispute between a number of editors and an IP editor which spans the article talk page as well as Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-19 National Federation of Republican Assemblies and now my talk page.

The wording that the IP editor continues to insert fails NPOV and is a BLP issue in my opinion, and the alternative wording agreed by the other other parties at the mediation cabal is the text I am reverting to. I don't see any real desire for discussion on the part of the IP editor since, the wording they wish to insert has remained consistent throughout the dispute.

It would be good to get some assistance before either party violates 3RR. --Deadly∀ssassin 02:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP edit isn't appropriate, but, if good sources exist, some criticism of the organisation would be appropriate to include, which may include a more neutrally-written mention of the problems the IP points out. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 02:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a frustrating situation to be in for several reasons. 1. DA is arguing that I have no desire for discussion because my suggested edit has remained consistent throughout the dispute. This is false. I have provided alternate suggestions for resolution and invited others to suggest alternatives, but DA has resolutely ignored these and drawn a false conclusion about my intentions based on a false premise about my conduct. 2. Instead of suggesting an alternative, DA continues to revert my edits without discussion. This violates Wikipedia rules. I have made reasonable efforts to follow Wikipedia rules. DA ignores those attempts and refuses to discuss the substantive issue.

However, I commend him for taking the issue to this board. Perhaps at some point we can actually get a fair hearing on the substantive issue. What I have seen so far is the Wikipedia version of the heckler's veto -- i.e., to summarize, I know of somebody who doesn't like the edit, therefore I must revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.254.47 (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, your proposed changes violate NPOV and BLP. The discussion happened last year as far as I'm concerned and the wording that's there is the result of that. I will continue to ignore your attempts to make the discussion about me, or accusations that I'm either ignoring "the substantive issue", or "violating Wikipedia rules". Some admin intervention at this point would be appreciated. --Deadly∀ssassin 06:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The items appear to be cited, so where's the BLP violation? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest taking the content dispute to the article content noticeboard or maybe an RfC to get broader input. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Kosova2008

User:Kosova2008 made personal attacks on myself:

"You are nobody, therefore don't try to act all ape shit. Frankly we're all getting sick of your povness and edits. If you wanna troll these parts of WP then I can play tit for tat. Buh Bye little boy. :)" diff

He has done so after reverting an edit I made, according to the discussion on the talk page and Wikipedia consensus, on the Kosovo article diff. Please take some action. Thanks, --Cinéma C 02:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Warned user. If behavior persists, please report them to AIV. TNXMan 02:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Academic Challenger blocked him for 24 hr, but I'll leave this not-marked-resolved yet because I suspect we'll be indef'ing him in 24+epsilon hours per [54] DMacks (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Huw4beynon

From its edit history, User:Huw4beynon appears to be essentially a vandalism-only account, with the possible (but unhelpful) exception of creating an article “Huw Beynon”. Additionally, the edit history of User:Chaliepenn looks rather like that of a sock-puppet of the same editor. —SlamDiego_←T 03:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: [55]. The edit history of this IP number suggests that it is used by the very same editor. —SlamDiego_←T 09:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Further Update: Chaliepenn has now vandalized my user page with a personal attack. —SlamDiego_←T 01:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please delete a revision for me.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – Nja²⁴⁷ 08:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

On this page [56] , my IP address is shown in the revision history because I accidentally forgot to log in before editing something and signing it.

For security reasons, I'd like to keep my IP anonymous. Could somebody please delete the revision history containing my IP address? Thanks. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You do not want to reveal your IP address, but why do you come here to inform it in detail to the public place? Unless you say it, we could never know. I'm not sure Oversighter would delete the revision that has nothing to do with primacy concerns or inappropriate BLP.--Caspian blue 03:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall exactly when this was changed, but Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy now states (in part): "This includes hiding revisions made by editors who were accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses." That used to be handled quite differently, as Caspian alludes to. There is a bit of wiggle room, as not all cases of that sort are clear-cut. I'm not entirely sure about the practice, personally, but my understanding of current policy and practice suggests it's the thing to do.  Done – Luna Santin (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Requests for oversight can be a little more discrete (this might have been a minute or two faster, for me, but also attracts more attention). Just for future reference. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been oversighted for you. In the future, I suggest you simply contact oversight directly, to avoid bringing attention to it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we delete the thread since it is resolved.--Caspian blue 04:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, oversighting accidentally revealed IPs has been a relatively common use of the tool for a long time (although not all oversighters do it, or agree with it, and much of its past occurrence has been to help admins and long time users who were aware that it could be done for that reason). Nathan ^T 04:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Advertising a mistake like this shows roughly the same level of judgment as how the editor got into this spot in the first place. If he had said nothing, it's unlikely anyone would have noticed. If you start wikipedia on your watch list, there is no chance of starting it in a "logged out" condition, since it will tell you you're logged out and won't show you your watch list! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

My suggestion is to change the edit box background colour, mine is a peach colour and it is very obvious if editting while not logged in!. In your own monobook.css put something like:

    textarea {
        width: 100%;
	padding: .1em;
        background: #fff0d1;
    }

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 2009-08-03T10:03:41 (UTC)

Movie/anime vandal has struck again...

It seems that the vandal guy operating from Indonesia has been going around vandalizing various articles by inserting various misinformation for several months with vandalizing articles related to the following: MGM (and related articles), TMS Entertainment, CBS Television Distribution, Sony Pictures Television, related Disney articles, articles related to the Digimon franchise, etc.

Below are the IP address that the guy has vandalized from for the past 30 days alone (there may be more that I don't know of). The latest two in this list (shown in bold) did so in the last three days, were caught in action, and subsequently blocked:

• 125.165.94.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.20.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.68.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.68.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.148.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.158.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.180.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 125.161.49.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.48.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 118.137.48.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I don't think any action was done against this vandal the first time I posted this list. Now that he has struck again, what can be done now in the long term against this user? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 04:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This kinda sounds like MascotGuy, has a Checkuser confirmed/denied this? --Mr. Lefty (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's MascotGuy. The IPs are in Indonesia, and I know some users have already known of his modus operandi and have dealt with this vandal for about the past year and a half. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 04:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The obvious first step would be to ask a checkuser about the efficacy of a potential rangeblock and how much collateral damage such a rangeblock would cause. I'm not sure how many IP addresses would have to be blocked here. Enigma^msg 06:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think this vandal never had a username. He just uses the anonymous IPs. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

IIPM

Hi. i am editing a page on wikipedia called IIPM. i have a dispute with an editor about the factuality of the article and its relevance. as much as i have read up, whenever there is a dispute, one should try and resolve the dipute on teh talk pages and then if nothing is done, try the dispute resolution forum.

therefore i put up a 'third party' tag on the page and also a tag that said the factuality of the article was disputed. i find that some editors [57] [58] [59] are continiously removing the tag saying that i cannot put the tag. i do not understand why are they doing this. if they are right, please tell me and i'll not put the 'disputed' note tag and the 'third party' tag. if i can, please advise them to be supporting in resolving the disputed facts. thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think their main point is that you haven't made it clear what exactly it is that you are disputing. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As an editor of the article, I see conflict of interest here. The article has long history of edit warring against any material that speaks against the IIPM. In this particular case, a WP:RS is being disputed by raising points not backed up by any Wikipedia guideline. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved observer looking over the discussion now, it seems that Wifione's complaint is that he doesn't believe the sources "JAM" and "Careers360" are reliable, and everyone else is saying they are reliable but (at least in the case of the latter) not doing a particularly stellar job at laying out why or responding to Wifione's objections or referring to any specific part of WP:RS (which, looking at it now, really seems to me to be surprisingly vague). I think the sources probably are okay, and maybe it's true that Wifione has a COI or maybe not, but could the issue be resolved by asking about the two sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and hopefully getting some consensus there about whether they're acceptable? Propaniac (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Izzac56

Resolved

 – User blocked to steer their attention to the issue Nja²⁴⁷ 12:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We're having persistent trouble with this user at List of Freemasons. He keeps removing the same name from the list, due to his personal opinion that the said person was not a Freemason. However, the individual's masonic membership is a well-documented fact, for which multiple external references are provided. He received a final warning from another editor earlier, but I have just had to revert him yet again. We'd be grateful if he could be warned/blocked. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 08:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have placed a 31 hour block in the hope of getting his attention as he doesn't appear to be reading his talk page. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Small Victory and original research

Small Victory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Though we have a content dispute on Genetic History of Europe, there is one specific issue that there is a consensus on. That is analyzing and interpreting charts in ways not done by the creators of the charts, constitutes original research. A thread was posted on the No original research noticeboard, in which at least 3 independent editors [60],[61],[62], [63], who have nothing to with the article, stated that analysis of a chart by a wikipedia editor constitutes original research as it is an unpublished syntheses of previously published material.

User:Small Victory has analyzed a chart with a novel conclusion not published in the article that published the chart. However despite the advice of other editors, he continues to edit war inserting his original research. [64], [65], [66]. This analysis of Charts is long standing issue that started on the now deleted article Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe, and has now spilled over into Genetic history of Europe. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem editor

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hrs.

WebHamster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor w long history blocks, incivility, trolling reverts reliable sourced edits wo discussing on a Medical article, Fibromyalgia to promote a point of view and puts back in sources which are not RS for medical articles. The editor i think is not familiar w guideline WP:MEDRS so i explain them about it politely and say they can ask me questions User_talk:WebHamster#WP:MEDRS. Editor answers "Don't be so bloody patronising, I have no questions to ask you, I know the rules round here having been around a lot longer than you." and Editor reverts my edits again (fibromyalgia history) wo discussion with suspect Meatpuppet Dr. Anymouse, puppetmaster from many IP vandalism attacks in last month. RetroS1mone talk 12:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have given him a 24 hour block. This user has been told many times not to abuse people here, and "Yet another anonymous fuckwit" is pretty abusive. This user has already had multiple personal attack warnings in the past so is well aware of our policies on the matter. This block is to prevent further abuse to our volunteers. Chillum 13:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Another ridiculous block from the ridiculous block meister. The comment "Yet another anonymous fuckwit" was made to the anonymous IP who posted this: "You have spent years blocking other people for no other reason than they may have offended you and now you are blocked. Do us all a favour and leave wikipedia alone."[67] So what we've descended to now is a system in which anonymous IPs are allowed the freedom to abuse anyone they choose, fully protected and sanctioned by the civility police. A sad indictment of a corrupt and failing system. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the block isn't rediculous at all, considering the personal attacks and incivility, such as excessive swearing. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 16:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And telling him to '...just sit in your cage for your block and be a good little hamster is helping things how, exactly, Polynomial? HalfShadow 16:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

he has been abusive for years. This is an example of how he treats an academic who studies at university .. "The chances are it'll still be there when you've left Uni and gone on to bigger and better things. meanwhile I suggest you concentrate on things that are far more important, like avoiding being a graduate working at the Spud-U-Like you despise so much. ---- WebHamster 15:42, 31 October 2007" [68]

How long have you been abusive Polynomial? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps everyone in this thread can stop flinging abuse at each other for an hour or so and go find an article to improve?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if administrators stopped making ill-considered blocks, and sycophants stopped coming along to encourage them in their poor judgement, then this whole noticeboard could be shut down. Until then ... --Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Chillum's last 50 edits:[69]

Your last 50 edits Fabrictramp:[70]

My last 50 edits:[71]

See any difference? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not making my point clear enough. None of the mudslinging in this thread is productive in any way. Not yours, not Polynomial's, and not Webhamster's. Was Polynomial's edit summary ill-advised? Sure. But there are more productive ways to get your point across, such as saying "hey, I know it felt good to get your frustrations out in the edit summary, but it might have slipped your mind that everyone can see it and it certainly won't encourage Webhamster to be more civil." This gives Polynomial a graceful exit and doesn't throw more gasoline on the fire, just as Polynomial could have done with Webhamster, and Webhamster and the IP editor could have done with each other. If people would stop using the "well he started it!" excuse for fanning the flames, this whole noticeboard would quickly die out for lack of interest.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

While I hesitate to post here for fear Malleus will look at my last 50 edits and be even more horrified, I can't resist noting my opinion that people who descend on a blocked editor's talk page to gloat and cause trouble would, if I were GodKing, be blocked for twice as long as the owner of the talk page. I'm thinking in particular of Noloop, Polynomial123, and someone who's username I forget but which starts with Y (and his cavalcade of IP socks). Assuming no one is actually going to warn and block, they should at least be banned from WebHamster's talk page for the duration of the block. unless WebHamster is actually enjoying arguing with them, in which case, carry on I suppose.--Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yiwentang. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, a wave of ennui swept over me and I couldn't bring myself to find the name again. That SPI looked blindingly obvious to me, by the way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem! That terse comment, by the way, was intended more as a "an SPI is in hand" rather than "it's Yiwentang: how could you possibly not know that!!!1!" ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the baiting was completely uncalled-for. I've warned Polynomial123 and am quite prepared to block if it happens again. If we're to encourage civility, mutual respect, and a collegial editing environment, the rules must apply equally to all editors. EyeSerene^talk 19:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Can one of you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MachoPsycho since it was relisted twice and there is a concensus now? 15:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, deleted. Tan | 39 16:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

modifying AfDs after closure

Having an issue with an AfD and Dems on the move editing the closing template to point to the DRV he brought (AfD edit history). I've always been under the impression that, outside of perhaps needing to remove personal attacks or a courtesy blanking for BLP concerns, that the "Please do not modify it" tag means just that; no alterations, period. My last edit has a less-than-stellar tone, and I'd strike if I could. So, otherwise, input appreciated on if editing an AfD closure template to point to a specific DRV is acceptable. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the editor in question for 24 hours for violating 3RR. There is a long and unwarranted history of edit warring here.--agr (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As an outsider, perhaps not having a full background, it looks like DOTM's edits were a helpful navigation aid. I'm not sure why it required being reverted in the first place. Was there a reason besides "the rules must be followed".--Cube lurker (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This user was one of the main contributors to the deleted article, a persistent voice opposing deletion during the AfD, and the initiator of the deletion review. The template that closes an AfD points to the main DRV page, I've never seen the template altered to point to a specific entry, and saw it as a somewhat disruptive method of calling attention to what he believes to be a wrongly decided deletion. For the record, I wasn't angling for a block, just a clarification on if this was proper or not. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Delrevafd}} was created for just this sort of situation. Where an AfD is currently under appeal, I don't see how linking to that appeal could ever be considered a malicious move. Why didn't anyone look for a compromise, here? If it's really that bad to edit the template, just pop a notice in above it. Seriously, who cares? Why are we blocking users for linking to ongoing discussion? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the link in itself wasn't problematic, but the edit-warring over it was. In reviewing their first unblock request I spent some time going over their history; they have quite a record of tendentious editing and gaming 3RR, so I guess if it hadn't been this it would have been something else in the near future. However, with their unblock request declined twice, they've now apparently retired. EyeSerene^talk 19:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[EC]I'm with Luna Santin. This is innane. The changes were a bit out of the norm, but not the least bit harmful. Reverting with "go be a vandal somewhere else, pls? Thanks." was out of line, Tarc...and came on Tarc's 4th revert. — Scientizzle 19:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think Tarc was perhaps fortunate to avoid a block; the edits to the template were not obvious vandalism. EyeSerene^talk 19:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I indicated that that last edit msg was out of line in the initial report here, but unlike normal edits that can be reverted or stricken on 2nd thought, what's done is done. And I didn't even consider blocking on anyone's part here, as this was spread out over 2 days. The 3 hrs should be long expired by now though. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I've dialed back the block to 3 hours. My concern was the revert warring. At least Tarc eventually brought the matter here instead of continuing.--agr (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Three hours from when? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the complaining editor said he wasn't seeking a block and others expressed support for the disputed edit, I felt a shorter block would suffice as a message to change behavior, without overly discouraging an editor who seems to be trying to contribute. I went to the change block page and selected the lowest option from the drop down list, which was 3 hours. I thought that selection meant change from 24 to 3 hours. Sorry for the confusion, but I don't use these tools very often. --agr (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess the answer should have been yes, it is perfectly legitimate to add navigation to the closed AfD, but the proper way to do it is by adding {{Delrevafd}}. This block was completely unjustified. Dems on the move (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And now the user is indefinately blocked with talk page protection[72], because of a "compromised account", by User:Steve Smith, what is that about? --Reinoutr (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring and WP:OWN problems with User:AdjustShift

An edit war has been brewing at the article Thomas Henry Barry, where a group of editors have decided that quotations must be removed from footnotes. After a lengthy discussion at Talk:Thomas Henry Barry, there is no consensus for their removal, yet User:AdjustShift has been repeatedly making blind reverts to push his position. I have left repeated pleas to all involved to explain why this is unnecessary and to encourage an end to the edit war on the article's talk page. I had left a user talk page message on July 31 for both AdjustShift (see here) and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (here). RAN has respected this request and has refrained from editing the article since the request was left on his talk page. Despite multiple pleas to end his pointless edit war, User:AdjustShift has jumped back in, making another blind revert to the article here), insisting that he and another editor WP:OWN the article (here), while acknowledging here that he has been involved in an edit war (and helpfully listing all of his blind reverts) but blaming the other party for being the problem. As an administrator, we need to expect the highest standards in dealing with such disputes, but AdjustShift appears to insist on perpetuating a needless edit war. Restoring the content before the blind revert, locking the article for a few weeks and imposing a brief block on User:AdjustShift, will help ensure that this violation of policy will not be perpetuated. 17:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs)

This thread is not proper. Admin should review the talkpage discussion here. I've not engaged in any edit warring. This is a false accusation. AdjustShift (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never suggested that I own any article. The block log of Alansohn strongly indicates that he has a problem assuming good faith and he has a history of falesly accusing people. I'll bring more evidence. AdjustShift (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Below are my points:
• A quick look at Alansohn's block log will indicate that he is a disruptive editor.[73] Now let me explain how this all started.
• The bio of Thomas Henry Barry was created by Rlevse.[74] I expanded the bio and it qualified for DYK. The problem started when Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) started inserting quotes on the biography. Three people, Rlevse, JGHowes, and I opposed inserting the quotes. But, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) continued edit warring. From 26 July 2009 to 31 July 2009 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has reverted five times.[75][76][77][78][79] From 28 July 2009 to 3 August 2009, I have reverted only three times.[80][81][82] So who is edit warring? I've never claimed that I own the bio; I'm willing to discuss with fellow editors. If there is a clear consensus to insert quotes, they can be inserted. Alansohn, because he supports Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s position, is accusing me of edit warring. This is nothing but an attempt to gain an upper hand in a content dispute.
• Before Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) started inserting quotes, Alanshon did nothing to the biography, but after Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) started inserting quotes, Alanshon has been busy defending Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). In fact, Alansohn didn't even know that the bio of Thomas Henry Barry was started by Rlevse. Please read this comment of Alanshon. He wrote I thank you [me, AdjustShift] for creating the article, but I will remind you that when ...". He thought that the bio was created by me!
• This is not the first time that Alanshon and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) supported each other in content disputes. Alansohn and Richard Arthur Norton often work as a team for each other, one appearing at an article to do tag-team reverts when the other is in an edit conflict. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Evidence#User:Alansohn_and_User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29_supporting_each_other_in_content_disputes.
• I think Alanshon should be blocked for a short time to prevent disruption.
• I also believe that the heading "Edit Warring and WP:OWN problems with User:AdjustShift" is misleading; it should be changed. AdjustShift (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Admins should also analyze past problematic behavior of Alansohn. He has used misleading edit summaries, twisted the words of others, and needlessly accused multiple admins. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Evidence#User:Alansohn_has_a_long_history_of_problematic_editing_and_ignoring_concerns_of_other_users. AdjustShift (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I do admire the effort to shift attention away from AdjustShift and his edit warring, first blaming User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for adding sources and now blaming me for causing his problems. I have a strong opinion on the issue of using quotations in footnotes and have added them in a few thousand edits to several hundred articles. Despite efforts to argue the issue, Arbcom has refused to take on the issue of "footnoted quotes" and it is a built-in design feature of our citation templates. Just as I will not force any editor to add quotations to sources, I have expressed my opinion in discussion on the article and user talk pages asking for an end to a rather needless (and pathetically WP:LAME) edit war and asked that other editors not impose their arbitrary preference on the subject by blindly reverting such quotations. While User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has complied with the request to refrain from edit warring, User:AdjustShift has persisted in a string of retaliatory blind reverts, which he brazenly acknowledges. While I'm sure that any editor can find something to take issue with among my 220,000 edits, I have played no role in AdjustShift's edit war and have not taken his bait to jump in and exacerbate the disruption he has caused here. It is disappointing that, as an administrator, AdjustShit has refused to respect the opportunity for other editors to participate in a article he claims to WP:OWN by perpetuating a rather needless edit war. Alansohn (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that AdjustShift lied when he said that he has made only three reverts on that article in the past week? Yes or no, please. And if the answer is yes, I think we all expect diffs as proof. In fact, diffs proving he has been edit warring are basically required at this point. → ROUX ₪ 19:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Roux, you can check the history of that article. I've made only three reverts on that article in the past week. AdjustShift (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not long ago, on 30 July 2009, Alansohn accused User:Rlevse and User:JGHowes of "meatpuppetry" and "edit warring".[83] It should be noted that both Rlevse and JGHowes are good-faith editors, and respect members of the community. This was JGHowes' response to Alansohn's outrageous accusation. After analyzing Alansohn's behavior, it is absolutely clear that he makes outrageous accusations to good-faith editors to gain an upper hand in content disputes. Alansohn makes good edits, and tries to ameliorate the encyclopedia, but this sort of behavior is unacceptable. Alansohn also has a history of pursuing vendetta against editors he doesn't like. He has repeatedly targeted Rlevse. He opposed both Rlevse's RFB [84] and ArbCom candidacy.[85] During Rlevse's RFB, Animum even warned Alansohn.[86] Wikipedia is a collaborative project; here we have to respect other editors and view-points we don't necessarily agree with. If one is +10 as an editor, but he/she demoralizes 5 other editors, he/she is a net negative to the project. Making outrageous accusations to gain an upper hand in a content dispute is unacceptable. Pursuing vendetta against fellow editors is also unacceptable. I think Alansohn should be blocked for sometime, and he should be warned that such behavior will lead to an indef block.

The heading "Edit Warring and WP:OWN problems with User:AdjustShift" should be changed because it is misleading. I've not engaged in any edit war, and I don't believe that I "own" any article here on en.wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where I've stated that User:AdjustShift lied, he's simply refused to respect other editors and repeatedly edit warred to remove material without a policy or consensus argument to perpetuate an edit war. My original report of AdjustShift's edit warring included his own link to a list of his blind revert edits, but I will include all of them here for reference:

  10:30, 28 July 2009 "erase needless quotes"

  09:46, 31 July 2009 "There still is no consensus on the talk page to insert the quotes"

  11:47, 3 August 2009 "please don't insert quotes without any strong reason"

• Contrary to AdjustShift's repeated assertion, there is no policy that requires other editors to ask permission to edit articles, even ones AdjustShift appears to believe he owns. Nor is there any policy that permission must be obtained on the article's talk page to edit an article. There is a rather simple solution here: Editors either use or don't use the built-in quotation feature, while other editors respect that choice. In addition to discussing the reason why they make perfect sense here given that the sources are not publicly available, I have made that suggestion on the article's talk page offering this rather simple solution on the article's talk page on July 29, on July 31, again on July 31 after a blind revert by AdjustShift and on August 1. This was in addition to requests to cease from edit warring left on July 31 on the respective user talk pages for both AdjustShift (see here) and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (here). RAN respected this request and refrained from editing the article since the request was left on his talk page. AdjustShift has brazenly tried to impose his arbitrary position despite these rather clear requests to cease from edit warring. In the lack of policy requring their removal or consensus that they cannot be used here under any circumstances, we are left with admin AdjustShift abusing process to impose his arbitrary view and perpetuate one of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars ever. As User talk:JGHowes aptly pointed out in response to efforts by AdjustShift to canvass and drum up support, "Repeated reversions will not resolve the dispute over footnoted quotes, nor has Talk page discussion helped. Consensus of the wider community is needed, one way or the other." (see here). Continued edit warring by an admin is not going to help AdjustShift "resolve the dispute", nor should the community condone these tactics. Alansohn (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Three reverts over seven days is not edit-warring. Can you please provide evidence that an editwar has been occurring? → ROUX ₪ 21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the first two paragraphs of Wikipedia:Edit war, which state that "An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion... Policy forbids edit warring generally, and editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR." While I agree that there is no WP:3RR violation by User:AdjustShift, repeated blind reverts of content to impose an arbitrary position is the textbook definition edit warring, certainly not the example we want our admins to set for the community. Alansohn (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My reverts are not "blind reverts". I was one of the editors who contributed to the article. I was not forced by anyone to revert. I reverted because I felt that inserting the quotes will not benefit the article. Three reverted in seven days is not edit warring. I've never indicated that I "own" the article. I've never abused the process to impose any "arbitrary view"; multiple editors have opposed the idea of inserting quotes in that article. AdjustShift (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I object to bringing up an editor's block log and using it as a cudgel. Editor's who work on contentious material are often blocked and some of our best contributors are rather frequently blocked (which is probably good cause for concern). This is a dispute over quotes in footnotes. Perhaps a discussion at the Article content noticeboard would be the best place to to try to get broader input? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

An editor's block log is quite a valid point to make in any discussion of transgressions, as it can show a pattern of behavior that has crossed the line. A "good editor" with a long block log is a contradiction in terms. It would be nice to have a better visual indicator of blocks that are reduced or overturned, tough. Tarc (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There are many ways someone can get mistakenly or improperly blocked. Just last week, an administrator blocked someone for canvassing because they sent the admin an email with a link to an AN or ANI thread. The block log is nothing more than a log of when an editor was blocked; it is not to be used as an indication in any way of how good an editor is. --NE2 21:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I would hope that when someone drops "look at User X's" block log" into a discussion, other users will actually look at it and note what the individual entries are about. Not do a "OMG it scrolls the page == TEH GUILTY!" shtick. Tarc (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, all it says in the log is "canvassing", so there's no way to know it was a bad block. Either way, it's poisoning the well. --NE2 22:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that some editors have been unjustly blocked, an editor's block log may indicate the problematic behavior of the editor. In Alansohn's case, he was blocked three times in 2009. Below are the three blocks:

22:12, 29 April 2009 Good Olfactory (talk | contribs | block) blocked Alansohn (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 55 hours ‎ (persistent assumptions of bad faith; incivility; personal attacks in violation of editing restrictions) (unblock | change block)

01:04, 15 April 2009 Good Olfactory (talk | contribs | block) blocked Alansohn (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (incivility; violation of editing restrictions at several recent CfDs) (unblock | change block)

21:46, 22 January 2009 Postdlf (talk | contribs | block) blocked Alansohn (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (incivility, violation of editing restrictions) (unblock | change block)

Please analyze the rationale behind each of the three blocks. In some cases, editors are blocked unjustly by a single admin. But, in Alansohn's case, he was blocked twice by Good Olfactory and once by Postdlf. None of those three blocks were reversed. The block log of Alansohn strongly indicates that he has been uncivil towards other editors, and he has a habit of assuming bad-faith. AdjustShift (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• In addition to edit warring, User:AdjustShift has been actively violating WP:CANVASS, inviting several other editors he presumes would be supportive of his actions to participate in these proceedings here, here, here and here. While none have taken the bait so far, it is unfortunate that an admin would be working so actively to poison the well here. Even after multiple pleas to AdjustShift to refrain from edit warring, he still appears unable to recognize that his actions are a textbook violation of Wikipedia:Edit war policy, while blaming others for the issues he has created. AdjustShift appears now to have convinced himself that his edit warring here is somehow related to my edit history from months and years in the past. As I've said before, there has been a very simple solution all along: Do nothing. If editors would respect editing preferences of other editors, without imposing their arbitrary preferences, there would be no issue here. An admin who understands how to resolve these issues, rather than escalate them, could have solved this problem over a week ago by simply refraining from doing anything. The choice is still here if AdjustShift is willing to finally accept it and learn a rather simple lesson. Alansohn (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't this dispute really about quotations in footnotes? I've indicated my opinion, but I think the topic is worth a good faith discussion at the article content noticeboard. As far as civility goes, there's probably room for improvement on both sides. I still think rehashing prior blocks is often an inappropriate way to win a dispute by tarring a fellow editor and making them out to be the "bad guy". I will concede that in this case there have been prior disputes involving this editor, so maybe you have a point, but Alansohn also does an enormous amount of excellent article work so it would be good to try to work with him despite whatever challenges there may be personality wise. It looks to me like an editing dispute, there are other ways to work it out. Would a third opinion help? Is there an editor you both respect whose opinion you could solicit? I suspect the opinions on this particular issue may vary, so you could also try to work out a compromise on which quotes are essential and which aren't really needed. And again, the content noticeboard is a good venue for getting some experienced opinion on the core issue. Anyway, good luck and happy editing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks and Damaging Statements

Resolved

 – Frivolous complaint Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The user user:Jgp made some statements in this diff that are highly defaming and damaging to my character. please can somebody do something about this. Drag-5 (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a legitimate argument from Jgp to me. COI is COI. You can't use your own personal spelling as justification. HalfShadow 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you are anonymous, how can comments here possibly damage your character? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not frivolous, the statement "He responded to this by claiming that no name a Japanese person comes up with should be used in English and that the name "Hurricaneger" is racist" is untrue, and actually brands me as a racist. also, I am not anonymous here since i use the same screenname on here and on my user page i make it clear what part of the web community I come from and represent Drag-5 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to be "reasonably identifiable". You're not, and a web alias cannot sustain a cause of action in real life, hence you cannot be defamed. Daniel (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say that in no way does that statement brand you as a racist. Your inability to parse a relatively-simple English sentence is nobody's responsibility but your own. Badger Drink (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm dyslexic. Drag-5 (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Need a quick, short IP block

Resolved

Dewan357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't taken well to his block. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357 details last nights antics. Now, he discovered the library next to his school, and is using 209.212.23.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to repeat his edits. Could someone hardblock the IP for about an hour?—Kww(talk) 21:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite 21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Jza84

A consensus was reached at Talk:Bradford#City_of_Bradford and implemented on 5 May 2009. This was subsequently reverted by Jza84 on 13 June 2009 without discussion. I mentioned this at User_talk:Jza84#Bradford as soon as I noticed, where I was promptly threatened with a block "if [I] assume bad faith again." Needless to say, I think this is a clear abuse of administrative powers. Any suggestions on how to proceed? Chrisieboy (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I notified Jza84. You should have done so yourself. DGG (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You just beat me to it. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Jet Blaster5000

talk to me 22:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

 – all edits have been deleted or reverted, user is indef'd--Fabrictramp

Jet Blaster5000 (talk · contribs) This user is repeatedly creating hoax pages on elections. The number of votes is entirely made up as, the percentages don't even add up to 100 (50% + 57%) and everything on the page is pretty much fictional. Example United states presidential election in Iowa 1960 Iowa's population does not even exceed 4 million today. This user continues to vandalize after creating more blatant hoaxes like "United States Senate election in Texas, 2014", can someone take care of this? Triplestop x3 21:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Every last bit of this crap has been speedied by myself and other admins. I was going to indef him myself, but Friday beat me to it. Blueboy96 22:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

He also has created a bunch of hoax pages in his user space, would someone delete those as well? Triplestop x3 22:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got a WIKISTALKER - HELP!

I appear to have gained a stalker in the form of User:Jeni. She has voted opposite to me in 38 seperate AfDs, each time criticising my actions as a nominatior (1, 2, 3, 4-38), has accused me of WP:ILIKEIT in non-deletion-related discussions ([87]) and has blankly disagreed with everything I say on article talk pages, even going as far to say that users who agree with me are sock puppets ([88], [89], [90]). She has also sent me warnings for sending people warning templates when she feels it to be "improper" ([91]) and other editors have noticed her actions ([92][93]). When confronted about her actions by this user, she replied that Wiki is a service that anyone can use, implying that the issue is a coincidence. ([94]). Now I know that sometimes disagreements happen on Wikipedia, and it's clear that she's not the only person who doesn't share my opinion, but this vast disagreement is getting out of control. It's no coincidence that she keeps cropping up on all of these seperate issues. A warning or more would be greatly appreciated. DJ 01:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how you define stalking since I have the Big Brother article on my watchlist and I watch the AfD logs (and always have done). Meh, that's all I have to say on the subject really. I notice this user has started to canvas other users of this discussion before even telling me. Its a good thing I keep an eye on places like this or I'd probably never know about this! Jeni ^(talk) 01:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't alerted the user (I was on my way to), yet she came to comment. That surely says it all? And she claims that its yet ANOTHER coincidence that she came across this. Hrm... DJ

You may wish to check a few topics above, I semi regularly comment here. Jeni ^(talk) 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that this is all a big coinscidence! And if you read WP:CANVASS, you'll notice that I've only alerted users who are involved with the issues related to the discussion and have therefore broken no rules. DJ 01:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Not exactly seeing how User:MegaPedant (no offence to him/her) is involved, but hey. Jeni ^(talk) 01:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

He/she was the other user who has noticed this pattern in your edits. DJ 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Anywhere in particular? Jeni ^(talk) 01:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The links are provided in my opening argument, which you clearly haven't read. DJ 01:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Those links are about the WP:SPAs, not Jeni. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No they are not. Ask MegaPedant and he will tell you so. DJ 02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

DJ, ANI is one of the most watched pages on Wikipedia for editors. And I suggest you read up on what being a "stalker" actually means; voting against you on multiple AFDs and therefore opposing your mission to rid WP of American Idol bios is far from stalking. Shappy ^talk 01:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So of all the 1000000s of Wikipedians, she just happened to be here? If you'd have cared to read my initial comment properly, you'd have noticed that there are seperate issues to the AFDs and that I am not the only user to notice this. DJ 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my reply, check various threads above, you'll find responses by me, it logically follows that I'm watching this space. I haven't seen anyone else "notice" anything. When you were forum shopping on here last time for the Big Bro AfD, you were bound to attract opinions. Jeni ^(talk) 01:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

False accusations of "forum shopping" - another one to add to the list... DJ 01:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that your situation doesn't qualify as wikistalking. Wikistalking is following around another user for deliberate disruptive purposes, and voting against your opinions isn't really disruptive, because she didn't make any personal attacks or harassment or something like that. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 01:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't poke each other more... DJ - I understand your concerns, but this appears to be normal behavior so far. Will review in more detail, but let's calm down here, ok? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I need to go and get some beauty sleep anyway :) I'll catch up on this when I get up. Jeni ^(talk) 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight editing restriction violations

Resolved

 – Thanks to the Arbcom amendment, it has been demonstrated that this is not a violation of editing restrictions. Firestorm ^Talk 04:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting action or please advise on this editing restriction of one revert per week and a requirement of using the talk page. ChildofMidnight's the only editor reverting on the Paul Krugman BLP article without using the talk page. Recent reverts here and here. Thanks in advance. Scribner (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a thing call ignore all rules, but I'm not sure if it would help or not.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 02:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Without making any comment on the specific issue here, invoking IAR when it comes to ArbCom- or community-imposed sanctions is the single fastest way to ensure those sanctions become even more useless than they currently are. → ROUX ₪ 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Krugman qualifies as Obama related? Just asking. I guess Kevin Bacon is Obama related as well? --Tom (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Krugman is more related to Obama than Kevin Bacon given Krugman's political leanings. But I don't think that the ArbCom intended for the restriction to be on any modern liberal(never mind how ill-defined that term is) figure. It seems pretty clear that this isn't Obama related. And 2 reverts simply isn't that big a deal. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The first edit seems innocent enough, the second a touch more inflammatory. The interpretation of "Obama-related" to anything or anyone left-wing seems to be unfair to the original ruling, and frankly to ChildofMidnight who was never given such a warning. Should there be a problem with persistent edit-warring, and should community consensus exist for this, then a clarification from Arbcom would seem in order. But until then, two reverts are not a problem. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I thought the restrictions applied to all articles: They are limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Scribner (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a classic example of what's wrong with Wikipedia and why the civility guideline is broken.

• Here we have Scribner who is outraged that anyone dare revert his edit. So he immediately seeks out administrative intervention to win the content dispute and tries to have an editor blocked (or at least intimidated and hasseled) instead of communicating with them respectfully and politely. He's the one trying to change the article, so it's not really much to ask, but perhaps he's an only child and used to getting his way?

• And as far as abiding by the rules himself, he neglects to notify me of the ANI discussion and posts a harassing and uncivil message about how he "would have banned me a long time ago." All this because he didn't get his way and is unwilling to discuss collegially the best way to improve the Paul Krugman article. I don't think a ban is necessary, but perhaps a week or two off for him to reflect on what collegiality and cooperation mean would do him some good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

ChildofMidnight, judging from your past behavior I think your time on wiki could probably be measured in your number of contributions to political BLP articles.

Here's my response from your talk page that you deleted:

Krugman's ideology is already mentioned in the lead. Other than a continuation of your hellbent POV edits on political BLPs, I don't see the need for a second mention in Krugman's lead, particularly if it qualifies his practice of economics. Scribner (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

At any rate, thanks to the other editors for the information. Scribner (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Scribner's rudeness

Thank you for posting that example of your improper behavior and failure to assume good faith. I'm sure a conscientious Admin will want to warn you against further incivility and on the need to be more collegial with your fellow editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That conscientious administrator should also read ChildofMidnight's comments here [95]. Mathsci (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, you don't think trying to find administrative mechanisms to attack editors is an act of cowardice and intellectual weakness? That explains a lot. It seems obvious to me that the civil and collegial approach would be through respectful discourse. Maybe give it a try some time! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Conscientious administrators please also note [96]. Mathsci (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sensible admins, please note Mathsci' this edit right after CoM's. Mathsci never edited the article before. And there have some WMC-Mathsci-CoM triangle incidents.--Caspian blue 06:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A compromise edit that solved an impasse and was explained on the talk page. Please stop drama-mongering as Georgewilliamherbert requested. Mathsci (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is making drama-mongering here? Mathsci, you've been warned by various admins 8 times in just one months for your harassment and personal attacks, so should be more careful. Thanks.--Caspian blue 06:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Liberal" was used separately, not as an adjective to qualify "economist". Mathsci (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And Caspian's personal attack here Scribner (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Scribner's harassment and forum shopping to other place are recorded in the below thread. Thanks--Caspian blue 05:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What is a "blow thread"? Is that an accusation of drug use? Are editors on drugs? How do we put a stop to this? Just say no people! The drunks are bad enough. We don't need drugs. Remember what Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch had to say on the matter.ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The obvious typo fixed by a user who typically produces such clumsiness because he uses English as a foreign language. (well, he can speak at least more than two languages. :D)--Caspian blue 05:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making that important clarification. I've heard it said that "cocaine is a hell of a drug", so I'm relieved that you weren't referring to blow in that context. I still think we should all keep in mind the great wisdom espoused on the song Good Vibration by Marky Mark's brother "Donnie D":

Donnie D's on the back up

Drug free, so put the crack up

No need for speed

I'm the anti- D-R-U-G-G-I-E

My body is healthy

My rhymes make me wealthy

And the Funky Bunch helps me

To bring you a show with no intoxication

So come on and feel the vibration!

ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Scribner's harassment and forum shopping

Scribner (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

Scribner said he would permanently block CoM[97] which sounds like WP:Harassment and unfounded threats. This whole forum shopping is a result of the fact that he does not catch up with the latest news on the ArbCom's amended remedy.remedy

Sceptre/ChildofMidnight/Scjessey/Grundle2600 is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations) 21 June 2009 (UTC) ↓ Sceptre/ChildofMidnight/Scjessey/Grundle2600 is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, since Scribner is interested in the CoM's restriction and edits, the update should have been checked before making a smearing ANI file.--Caspian blue 03:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That matter should be end early since with the kind reminder, it is obvious that Scribner carelessly raised the ANI report to harass CoM after he threaten him. So all Scribner has to do is that he admits his mistake and apologize to CoM, but well.. he even attacked me and then continues the forum shopping to Talk:Jimmy Wales.[98] (not even User talk:Jimbo Wales). I think the user seems to have a serious WP:OWN issue given the user was blocked on the article in question just one month ago. Any neural admin should take a look at how poorly Scribner behaves.--Caspian blue 04:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please AGF. There is no way that every administrator can be expected to be aware of every minutae of policy change or arbcom finding adjustment in precise real time.

That clarification is perfect justification to file the specific report away as "No violation of ammended restrictions", but there's no sign Scribner acted with malice rather than a reasonable and entirely understandable lack of knowledge.

CoM and CB - please calm down and stop dramatizing the situation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to calm down, but his continued forum shopping to Talk:Jimmy Wales and personal attacks are unbearable.--Caspian blue 05:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's obvious I filed this request in good faith. More guidance could have been offered to me as to where to file the report and or how to check for ArbCom amended remedies, etc. Scribner (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Seems pretty cut and dry to me. I'd banned you permanently long ago.", yes, that is your good faith comment if you insist so. As for the guidance, WP:AE or WT:ARBCOM, or arbitrators or ArbCom clerks are the venue that you're looking for.--Caspian blue 06:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Resolved

 – All clear, nothing to see here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Could do with an Admin user here, the page is full with reports that need taking care of, has already been backlogged for an hour and a half. Jeff M | Talk2Me | BNosey - 02:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It must have been cleared impressively quickly... looks empty to me. – ClockworkSoul 02:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho

Allstarecho was indefinitely blocked in June when Moonriddengirl found long term copyright violation problems in his contributions.[99] The next week Allstarecho requested an unblock and Akhilleus unblocked without discussion.[100] Additional issues have emerged since that time. Akhilleus has not edited since July 23 and has not replied to a query I left at his user talk page on July 28.[101] Also see above at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Matt_Sanchez (tangentially related). Submitting to the community:

WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:EDITWAR, WP:RS, WP:COPYRIGHT problems

• Steve Porter (producer) July 30: sources a BLP to an open Web forum.[102]
• Chip Pickering: U.S. Republican congressman from Mississippi. July 30-August 2: Allstarecho edit wars against three people to keep an image in the article[103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115] until the image gets speedy deleted as G10: File that serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject.[116][117] Two administrators also agree it has a possible copyright problem and would need additional sourcing to demonstrate public domain status.[118][119] Allstarecho responds by calling the opinions of four experienced people "utter ridiculousness" and tries argue that the image's appearance at a .gov site is demonstration of public domain status.[120] (Allstarecho's public domain rationale is not sufficient). Prior to that image edit war, Allstarecho had also added a BLP violation to the article on July 16.[121]
• Thio Li-ann:Singaporean law professor. July 11: Allstarecho adds a long quote from abovethelaw.com,[122] which describes itself as a gossip site.[123]
• Mike Duke: CEO of Wal-Mart; one paragraph substub biography. May 5 - July 28: Allstarecho creates a 'controversies' section to state that Mike Duke signed a petition[124] and restores the section after another editor removes it per BLP.[125] The result of Allstarecho's addition is a long discussion at the article talk[126] and then a longer discussion at the BLP noticeboard.[127] Consensus agrees to remove Allstarecho's addition.

This amounts to pattern behavior of BLP violation, most of which aligns with a political agenda. Also edit warring, bad sourcing, IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and possible return of his copyvio problem. Seeking independent review and appropriate action. Durova²⁹² 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is nothing more than retaliation for me having started Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Matt_Sanchez and I won't even bother addressing it any further after this post. No copyright has been violated and no BLP has been violated, everything validly and reliably sourced and nothing even paraphrasing.

• Regarding Steve Porter (producer). No BLP vio or copyvio here. I sourced to the actual video being described in the article. Yes, it's TMZ but it's for the video, not any kind of BLP content.
• Chip Pickering - Free image was repeatedly removed without any of the removers addressing the BLP vio caption. I removed that caption. The image itself, there was no reason to remove it except, as I later saw, the actual name of it was disparaging (Chickpickering.jpg but looking at it quickly it looked like CHIPpickering) and when I noticed that, I left the matter as it was. I also did not add a BLP violation to the article, as Durova says about this It's sourced to a newspaper for pete's sake.
• Thio Li-ann - regardless of the type of site, it reported word for word the press statement.
• Mike Duke - No issue here. The source is an official government document signed by the subject proving his age and that he signed the document.

That's all I have to say on the matter and won't say anything else. It's obvious this is pure retaliation based on Durova's own comments here and here days ago where she all but threatened to bring up my own past transgressions if I didn't stop insisting on Matt Sanchez being held to the same standards that I was held to. Cheers. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 05:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• I want to ask two questions to Durova, don't want to start a "thing" over this, just want to ask. First, how is a potential copyvio problem related to the Matt Sanchez situation? Second, since you are involved in the Matt Sanchez conversation, should you be the one to bring this matter to ANI? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, Matt Sanchez is another BLP subject and Allstarecho's interest carries some of the same political overtones across all five BLPs. Durova²⁹² 05:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • That answers (barely) my first question, how about the second? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Matters of content policies--especially BLP--are weighed upon their merits. Please focus on the evidence, not personalities. Durova²⁹² 05:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
        • My questions have been swapped over to Durova's talk page. Carry on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Hmmmm, I have a hard time interpreting these as a return to prior bad behaviours which I think were seen in hindsight as only some attributed to ASE. In a brief looking through these the sourcing could be better. The Chip Pickering "BLP violation" actually looks to be reliably sourced and presented NPOV. The Thio Li-ann quote was sourced to a wobby source when it should have been attributed to where that source got it, My preference would be both on purely a quick look so we have the primary source as well as how it was seen. To me this does seem to be tied only to ongoing tension caused by Bluemarine (talk · contribs)'s connection; with Allstar generally trying to keep that user (and apparently some socks) in check while Durova bravely attempted mentoring the same who sadly seems rather unrepentant and unable to reform. As a bit of advice to both that user really seems unable to reform their ways so you can step away and let them dig their own hole. Durova is an image specialist IMHO, and ASE tends to get a bit heated and means well but errs on some image usage. In any case the image has been deleted so we can move on from there, ASE should chill a bit and each should likely step away from the whole drama of the former editor who now seems to have earned another block. You're both valuable to the project so ... please don't let some man come between you ;) -- Banjeboi 05:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No comment on the BLP issue, I'm not going to comment on ASE for i don't want to look like I have any sort of vendetta against him, but the 'and apparently some socks' comment deserves a response. The CU was negative, as was the previous run of IP's believed to be Bluemarine. Sanchez has attracted a lot of media attention that makes him a high profile target, and I firmly believe that these anonymous users are trying to get Sanchez into hot water here, as well as provoke him into rather unsavory behavior. Sanchez has, so far, been rather quick and blunt to respond to those he feels have wronged him, I believe partly out of frustration with this whole things. The editing restrictions and mentorship settled upon in the Matt Sanchez thread are an attempt to address that. If Sanchez/Bluemarine proves unable to hold himself in check, we can of course address it, but your comment about socking, making it seem like some sort of ongoing, current problem does not accurately reflect the current situation. --M^ask? 07:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reynoboy

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

A while back, I brought up this user's edits adding unverified and speculative information to Wikipedia articles that I edit. Despite the repeated warnings and two threads I've made (one of which was hijacked by Mythdon and nothing happened), this user continues to perform questionable edits adding speculative and unverified information to articles. He does not appear to be listening to anyone, he edits inconsistently, and does not seem to be editing constructively.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User:YellowMonkey and User:Daniel

Resolved

 – now referenced

YellowMonkey is adding numerous unsourced WP:BLP's to WP, and admin Daniel - through mistaken assumptions on YM's talk page, seems to be backing him up. If anyone here thinks unsourced BLP's are OK, then let's spell that out. If not, restore the redirect that YellowMonkey's sockpuppet undid to the articles Álvaro Crespi, Vittorio Algeri, and Rik van Slycke. It's late and I'm not getting into an edit war and would like an univolved admin to look this over. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

They appear to be sourced to me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are stubs with a valid source. I fail to see the BLP issue here. One liners that can be built into an article, why the edit war? Am I missing something? Keegan (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confident enough in my own experience regarding biographies of living persons to disregard this as frivolous postulating. I encourage everyone else to do the same; I won't be replying any further to Carlos on this matter given the contents and tone of the above. Daniel (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not partial to the term "sockpuppet" for an account that is clearly labeled as an alternate account, but to the matter at hand. It does appear that the "reference" wasn't added until after a minor 2RR edit conflict. While not exactly the MOS standard for reference format, hopefully it puts to bed any further disagreements. Tune in tomorrow, for another chapter of ... "As the wiki turns". — Ched :  ?  07:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)