Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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)

Just to be clear I am not saying you violated policy. I simply think after making the comment I linked to above you should have stepped back. It also looks like your block only accounts for their incivility towards one another on the talk page of the entry you involved yourself in and not the volumes of text about Wikifan produced once discussion started. You could have blocked them both prior to this discussion for been incivil to one another on the talk page and spared us all this discussion. But now that we've spent days discussing Wikifan's history of problems, and several editors are calling for much harsher remedies this doesn't seem like a very appropriate solution anymore. That's just my opinion.PelleSmith (talk) 11:42, 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)

• My one interaction with Wikifan [17] indicated that he had problems at working collegially. I'd say that his block should be longer than FOTGs here purely for the volume and quantity of incivility, but others may disagree (and no doubt will). I would suggest unblocking FOTG at this point; however I am not going to do it myself as I am going on holiday now and it wouldn't be the best idea to reverse another admin's block and then run away. Black Kite 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

i have avoided adding my two cents here, but seeing the repeated personal attacks by wikifan on this noticeboard (with no provocation or response in kind by fotg) forced my hand. when i saw that he called fotg a "certified troll" and no one batted an eye, i looked at the article talk page in question. not only did i not see more incivility by wikifan, i noted that fotg backed out of that conversation early on. unless the blocking admin provides diffs of fotg's offenses, i agree that he should be unblocked.
as for wikifan, his baiting, personal attacks, and tendentious wikilawyering were unacceptable. as a shining example, view this diff posted while this ani was in progress,where he responds to seanhoyland with drama-inducing hyperbole: "Whether you think the standard for terrorism is pioneer UAVs blowin up Taliban hideouts in West Pakistan or Jew Nazis blowin up Palestinians fetus's is of little relevance." sean wisely ignored it, but this editor should probably be topic banned at least if he cant keep his emotions under control. untwirl(talk) 18:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikifan12345 at or near the threshold for a community ban at this point? Does anyone feel that he or she would be productive in other areas with a topic ban on Israeli / Palestinean topics? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

At or near? Well beyond, IMHO. However, a topicban from I/P issues would, given Wikifan's ...narrow... focus, essentially be a community ban anyway. That being said, it would give him a chance to redeem himself. I think we'd be on a hiding to nothing there, and the community would best be served by giving him a permanent invitation to the world, but people around here tend to prefer endless last chances. I guess basically a topicban would show whether this is a problem with Wikifan, or a problem with Wikifan+I/P. → ROUX ₪ 19:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support a 6 month topic ban from Israel/Palestine related articles. I think Wikifan might be more amenable to collaboration on articles not so close to heart. Kevin (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the diffs presented in this dispute, it's clear this was a conflict over a well-known point (for the fun of it, I typed in WP:TERRORIST, & guess what I found!) that spiraled out of control. I can understand why FOTG was removing the word, & why Wikifan was insisting on restoring it -- but "terrorist" is one of those words that should only be used in very clear situations: as part of a quotation, or only where all parties concerned have agreed on a clear definition of the word. But to do this all parties have to talk to each other, not at each other or past each other. If you can't talk to someone you disagree with (& is otherwise an editor in good standing) about an issue, then walk away from that issue for a while; if you can't walk away either, then you're taking those first steps towards getting banned from Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Although I agree with much of the foregoing, the policing and sanctions for breach of WP:CIVIL by individuals is inconsistent at best and unenforceable at worst. You sysops' inability to arrive at the same conclusion on two very similar cases (see below) perpetuates the perceived problems in the system. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban for User:Wikifan12345

I propose that we enact the following, note on Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions and enforce as a community ban:

User:Wikifan12345 is prohibited from editing any article or article talk page related to Israel, the Palestinean territories, or nearby Arab countries, broadly construed, for the remainder of the 2009 calendar year. If violations occur any administrator may block immediately for a month, with escalating blocks for repeat offenses.

• Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Community sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, per my comments above and with a caveat. Namely that this will amount to a de facto community ban given his specific focus, but hopefully this will give him a chance to change. The caveat being if the same behaviour continues at non-I/P articles, this topicban be immediately changed to a permanent community ban that can be revisited in one year by appeal to ArbCom or its designate (if the Appeal Committee thing takes off). → ROUX ₪ 03:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Question Would it be possible to amend the language to say something like "related to Israeli political interests broadly construed" or something else of that nature. I ask this because my own run-ins with this editor were at two entries related to the Council for American-Islamic Relations which I am not sure are directly covered by the above language. To Wikifan these entries do relate to the problem area of editing since he (and others) consider CAIR to be part of the "Anti-Israel lobby of the United States". If people think the existing language would cover entries such as these then that works for me. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Anything related to Israel, includes Israeli political interests (and if they existed, Anti-Israeli articles). Ncmvocalist (talk)`
    • Thanks for the answer and for inserting "broadly construed". This seems like a fair remedy at this point.PelleSmith (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Kevin (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support This proposal, unfortunately, does not surprise me at all. Wikifan seems quite prone to make inappropriate slights about Arabs and accuse others of anti-semitism to support his points (e.g. [18], [19],[20]). Add the information from his recent Wikiquette alert and it's quite clear this area of Wikipedia would be better off without Wikifan's involvement. -- tariqabjotu 06:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Wikifan12345 has sometimes behaved clumsily, no doubt. However, note that there are editors with an anti-Israel agenda who try to insert the most outrageous tendentious things into articles. They are very careful to stay clear of the bounds of WP's silly civility rules but beaver away tirelessly with apparently limitless time on their hands. Then when an editor blows up at them they immediately run to an admin asking for sanctions to be imposed. Please keep this in mind also. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I know there are people who edit in this area with an agenda, but that's really not the issue at hand here. Wikifan is, regardless, responsible for his actions, but in basically all of the situations mentioned here, he wasn't even provoked. -- tariqabjotu 08:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Wikifan has much to learn about following the spirit and letter of WP policy, which he is much more likely to on less difficult subjects less close to his heart. If nothing else, it'll give him a chance to live up to his username. Rd232 ^talk 08:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support I've held my tongue (actually finger I guess) for too long. It's not really his edits that I'm particularly worried about, but the very uncivil talk page interactions he undertakes and his general behavior on Wikipedia, despite numerous warnings. I think only a topic ban could finally settle this issue which is constantly(and annoyingly) surfacing on this noticeboard. Maybe after its expiration, he will change his attitude here. However, I prefer the topic ban to be limited to I-P issues versus anything that has to do with Israel (he might be able to contribute positively there). --Al Ameer son (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think that would be helpful, shifting focus from I/P to Israel. In fact it would probably be better if he stayed away from political topics altogether, at least for a while, but that's up to him. Rd232 ^talk 10:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Alternative. I have read over the debate. Wikifan blew up pretty quickly. IMO editing Wikipedia is a privilege that anyone should be able to have, but if one can't treat others with respect and instead causes drama, granting that privilege is counterproductive to the primary task of creating an encyclopedia. I would support a topic ban, not of a year, but indefinitely, until Wikifan decides to behave civilly. I would then support any re-ban if after declaring he will behave civilly, Wikifan behaves in an obviously uncivil way. Awickert (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  If Wikifan shows that he can't play well with others on other topics, the topic ban should just become a general indef ban. The topic ban is his chance to learn and if it seems that he's learned, then it's fair he gets another chance. A simple declaration under duress is worth little. Rd232 ^talk 10:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  If you're saying that if he plays well with others, his year-long topic ban may be reviewed and removed, then it is close enough to what I'm thinking that I will support. As for the "simple declaration": yes, I am the optimist, but I understand. Awickert (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - battleground mentality. PhilKnight (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - prying yet another warrior from the battlefield of the I-P topic area can only be a good thing. Let's see if he can find an area of interest to devote legitimate editing to. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - everybody does realize that any uninvolved admin can impose this sanction, per WP:ARBPIA, right? This straw poll really is not needed. As somebody who has had heated arguments with Wikifan I wont comment on the proposal, but this (the poll) seems like a waste of time. nableezy - 13:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Nableezy, there's a possibility the scope of this ban is slightly wider than a WP:ARBPIA topic ban, however I think you're probably right. Regardless, the result is essentially the same. After this ban is enacted, I'll put a note in the WP:ARBPIA log . PhilKnight (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, Nableezy isn't quite right. The difference is this. When an individual admin imposes a sanction under ARBPIA, appeals can go to either an individual admin, AE or ArbCom. For the sanction imposed here, appeals can only go to the community (either here or WP:AN), or ArbCom (though they'd be expected to bring it back here anyway, in light of the fact this sanction was not imposed under the ArbCom remedy, despite its existence). Effectively, this sanction should be logged at WP:RESTRICT - not at ARBPIA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I see. Thanks for the clarification. But an admin could impose the same restriction, but the appeal process would be different, right? nableezy - 04:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. To clarify, even if it's the same sanction, this one would run concurrently to the one imposed under ARBPIA. That is, even if the appeal was accepted by the imposing admin who used ARBPIA, another appeal would need to be heard by the community before the effect of the restriction can be lifted. Does that make sense? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• As much as anything else that happens here, thanks :) nableezy - 04:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Having decided that his behavior so far was unacceptable, we need to give Wikifan a chance to collaborate in an acceptable way. If you impose a topic ban right away for the rest of the year, then when it has expired, he won't have learned how to behave correctly (keep in mind that Wikifan is just 14 years old...). I think it would be far better to appoint a mentor who will watch over Wikifan's edits. Every time he violates, even in a very mild way, basic decency rules, he'll get strong warning. If the mentor concluced that Wikifan is not learning from these warnings, then a topic ban would be appropriate. Count Iblis (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

All we know is that he claims to be 14, but age should not be a factor here regardless. He was blocked for personal attacks and harassment soon after joining the project and once again about half a year later. I'm sure he's had numerous warnings along the road as well. He either knows the rules and is defying them, knows the rules and can't help himself, or sincerely has no idea he's doing anything wrong, in which case there is little hope. People who sincerely believe he can be reformed should work with him during his ban as informal mentors. That way, if they are right, he wont take his second chance for granted.PelleSmith (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, would you like to be his mentor? :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to AGF about the claimed age? If not, then the fact that he is so young is grounds for more optimism about him than some of the martyrs such as Malcolm Shosha and Jayjg he has recorded on his page. They were adults and should have known better. He is still at an age where people are learning about how to behave in society. Of course, one fo the first actions of a mentor will need to be to try to get him to understand why they, (let alone Tundrabuggy,) were not hard done by. If there is a mentor found then I think that the issue of a topic ban should be left in their hands. I would see learnign how to post to IP articles in a constructive way as part of what his being in mentorship would be about. Selective supervised posting to a small number of pages might be part of that.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Both Malcolm Schoscha and Jayjg were in fact "hard done by". Gwen Gale was gunning for Malcolm with a vengeance and would not stop, despite admonitions from senior admins, until she could do the victory dance on his skull. The weak-willed Arbcom caved to a slur&innuendo campaign (on Wikipedia Review) against Jayjg. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How about a temporary topic ban and a formal mentorship during this time to help him develop?--76.214.144.81 (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, with disclaimer – I've been in a conflict dispute with this user; specifically, over the article 2009 Hamas political violence in Gaza. He seemed to adopt a battleground mentality in discussion, and was fiercely defensive of the content he was trying to insert. He had an obvious intention to push a view, and the article has been problematic ever since. This behavior is apparently part of a pattern. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Ban sounds reasonable. For those saying "no, wait, let's mentor", this suggestion doesn't make much sense. If someone wants to mentor, sure, they can go right ahead, but this needs to be done concurrent with a topic ban, not instead of a topic ban. We're primarily a project to write an encyclopedia, not a project to teach children to write an encyclopedia. Teaching is nice but content comes first. Friday (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As usual, Friday is the hammer hitting the nail on the head. → ROUX ₪ 04:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment per nableezy. Is this really a vote? Very peculiar here how so many editors with opposing views of WF125 have showed up to annihilate him. Was this discussion published somewhere or canvassing done to verify his destruction? --85.250.122.62 (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a cabal! Or perhaps he has been disruptive to a larger segment of the community for an extended period of time across multiple noticeboards?--76.214.144.81 (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly suffers from a battleground mentality; it would be better all round if he was given an involuntary "leave of absence" from this topic area. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note - This discussion has reached the mandated 48 hr time period, any uninvolved admin can now review and close, taking both the comments here and the transcluded section below into account, etc. We aren't mandated to close immediately after 48 hrs or anything, if people feel more discussion will help feel free to leave it open for now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support...I agree with Editor:Friday but have a slightly different take than Editor:Roux. To me, WF125 is the Hammer and the rest of us are the nails. Until he rethinks his purpose here, WF125 will continue to look for opportunities to strike. A leave of absence is necessary.--Buster7 (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

(Something went wrong when I posted this below, it now appears on wikifans talk page, but not here, so I'm posting this again here.)

Why not let Wikifan edit the articles on Israel/Palestine on one day of the week only? This will cause him to make edits that he thinks will stick without him being around to "protect" his edits. So, edit warring, being uncivil etc. etc. would be pointless and counterproductive. The days he can post on would be some fixed day chosen by wikifan, say, Saturday and the times are fixed in a 24 hour interval. Count Iblis (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Creative. And then he would be able to sandbox all he wanted in his userspace, right? I'm not sure what he'd think of it though. Awickert (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment section from Talk:Wikifan12345

This section is set up to allow Wikifan12345 to comment on the ANI discussion while blocked, per his request, and is transcluded from a subsection of his user talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I made this for you.

WTF

I editing rarely so did notice your predicament until right now. How did a sock puppet get to you? --Shuki (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Sol Goldstone filed the last successful AE that ended in a timed topic ban and he/she ended up being a sockpuppet though I was unaware until months later. I'm quite certain Jim Sukwutput is not a sock puppet. Like Cptnono said I was "asking for trouble." I'm just glad my last contribution to the area of conflict was a self-revert. A timely edit. Thanks for the message Shuki. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Just popped in to see what's going on and saw this. Time off might not be such a bad thing. Everyone needs a break. In the meantime, edit productively in other subject areas. I’ve always thought highly of you as an editor. Would be a shame to lose such a valuable contributor. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I second the two up above. You got screwed even though you were asking for trouble. I still think that second revert was borderline but hopefully strict enforcement on you will set a precedent (oh wait, it isn't since Supreme Deliciousness is still editing). But I have already sent you an email so you know that I think it doesn't matter. I don't support Israel in all things but I know that they will win off Wikipedia and that is what matters. Maybe they shouldn't but they will. Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And I have requested an enforced break for myself. I simply am bored of this. After seeing a good game, having some drinks, or even getting some pussy I find myself coming on here and yelling at Arabs. It isn't healthy. Screw it. They don't need us. They will still be stuck and I personally get a kick out of it.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Suits low resolution logo cropped.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Suits low resolution logo cropped.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please consider

Please consider the impression given by comments such as this: Wikipedia does not have a country of its own. If you mean that it is a big shift "where you are", then say that. Kevin McE (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a quote from the source, not my voice. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Response

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. You have new messages at Bazonka's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Sudan-Iran relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gabriel Cadis

The article Gabriel Cadis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A murder victim is not inherently notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. See WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Gabriel Cadis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gabriel Cadis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Cadis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bgwhite (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Red link in AfD link (your comment in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Cadis)

Purging the page almost always corrects the problem of the AfD red link in the template. See WP:PURGE for various purging techniques. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

ITN

based on Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Nigeria_attacks, you could mark it ads "ready"(Lihaas (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)).

Norwegian C-130 Hercules plane crash

Well, you wanted to wait for more info about the accident. Now we have it: all 5 senior military officials on board were killed, plane hit Sweden's highest mountain and exploded into small pieces. Nanobear (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

A smile for you You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.48 (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Administrators' noticeboard. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Adam Yauch

I see you have twice added an ethnic category to this article on a recently dead person. As WP:BLP also applies to the recently dead, you would have to be sure to conform to WP:BLPCAT when adding such categories to this article. This entails finding good references that Yauch self-identified with this ethnicity, then attaining a consensus at article talk that this was worth adding to the article. Let me know if you need any help. --John (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

All right I will address this in talk. I was not the only one who restored the tag. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Piven ‎

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Josh Groban

Funny that you should mention Josh Groban. He has quite an interesting "interfaith" background in that not only was his father Jewish, but his maternal grandmother had a Jewish father (and a non-Jewish mother). And they all ended up Christian. Anyway, while I don't want to get involved in these discussions myself, I will say that there are sources where Piven says he is Jewish, i.e. this, and that John uses the term "ethnic categories" on the talk page of Jeremy Piven, even though BLPcat does not cover ethnicity, and in fact, the proposal to add ethnicity to BLPcat was not passed through. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It was just an example. I am quite disturbed John is going around and removing these categories unilaterally when they have been in place for quite some time unchallenged. I don't considered myself qualified as someone experienced in BLP disputes, and I don't want to be reverting John's edits at this point. What do you suggest? Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You really can't do much other than continue to provide opposition. Certainly with Piven, you have a source where he says that he is Jewish, and John's claim that BLPcat has anything to do with ethnicity categories is totally false. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. You have new messages at Talk:Adam_Yauch.
Message added 23:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Brendon is here 23:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Franklin and Bash scene 1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Franklin and Bash scene 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Franklin and Bash scene 1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Franklin and Bash scene 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

South Sudan internal conflict (2011–present) move

Hi, I saw that you put a lot of work into the South Sudan internal conflict (2011–present) article so I wanted to get your input on moving the bulk of the content that focuses on the Murle-Nuer conflict to a clearer title. At the moment it is a hodge-bodge of several conflicts that are distinct even if they are related by geography. If you're still interested in this topic, could we get your opinion on the talk page? Thanks! Keitsist (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Acaida logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Acaida logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:294808 arotechlogo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:294808 arotechlogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Wikifan12345/Arab League Monitors in Syria

User:Wikifan12345/Arab League Monitors in Syria, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wikifan12345/Arab League Monitors in Syria and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Wikifan12345/Arab League Monitors in Syria during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of 2011 Tel Aviv nightclub attack for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 Tel Aviv nightclub attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Tel Aviv nightclub attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 21:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 09:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

To answer several of those questions: the ban phrasing clearly says until the end of 2009. It is temporary and the idea is that working on other topics you'll learn to respect WP policy (WP:NPA more than WP:CIVIL, but the spirit and meaning of other policies such as WP:CONSENSUS too) and fellow editors - as I wrote in my endorsement. Your response (continuing to attack one editor, and missing such key points) does little to inspire confidence. Incidentally, you ask "Are there not more appropriate and honest boards..." - yes and no. WP/ANI does this all the time. But a WP:RFC/U provides a better basis for a structured discussion of a user's behaviour, but when FOTG started one (I'd suggested it too), it failed to get an endorsement within 48 hours (possibly a stupid rule, but there it is), partly I guess because he didn't announce it here, or possibly because by then this ANI thread had evolved beyond that. Rd232 ^talk 05:53, 7 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)

While it was withdrawn, it has not been disproven, nor was it withdrawn because of an inability to reproduce the results, nor because another paper debunked it. It was withdrawn because it couldn't be modified as time went on. I see no reason why this is not still a perfectly legitimate study, aside from the fact that it doesn't go against homeopathy and any excuse is an excuse to exclude it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:01, 8 August 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: [21].

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.[[22]]

"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?): [[23]]

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)

  Oppose ban. He should be given another chance to stop has disrption, because he doesn't seem to be editing in total bad faith. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 13:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - this user has long since passed his use-by date. His pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing is well established. He's here to further a particular agenda, not the encyclopedia. It's time for the community to flush him once and for all. Crafty (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban We are not here to give people chances, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Someone does not need to act in "total" bad faith to be disruptive. We don't need people who turn this place into a battleground. Chillum 13:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose indef community ban, in case it wasn't clear from my TLDR post above. This seems way out of proportion. Arguing with Dana is frustrating and his presence at the homeopathy talk page seems unlikely to improve the article. But as in the case of Dr.Jhingaadey (just look at the groundless agitation at User talk:Avathaar) some people are going nuclear because of a perceived danger from Dana that I simply can't see. I believe any perceived disruption comes from the reactions to Dana at least as much as from what he says. It's not unreasonable to ban such an editor per putting the encylopedia above everything else. I believe the German Wikipedia might do it like this. But here? I am not currently aware of any other topic than homeopathy where a community ban would even be considered for this behaviour. Hans Adler 07:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think the problem here is limited to the subject of homoeopathy, and probably results from Dana's advocacy and his frequent COI issues there. His failure to acknowledge COI issues may also contribute to the problem. For example here, where I had drawn attention to the fact that advocating insertion of references to "Oscillococcinum" on homeopathy so that it supported an article he has written (and which had recently been republished in several places on the web) about swine flu gave him a clear COI. He responded "why does it matter what I've written off-wikipedia, and have I ever mentioned any such writings here or linked to them?" He just doesn't seem to understand the issue here. Note also that in the diff I've linked to he also implies that he hasn't cited or linked to his own articles ("have I ever mentioned any such writings here or linked to them?") despite having done so (albeit having acknowledged that it was his own website) only a week before on the same talk page; in the past he has at least once pasted material from his own site directly into an article (see this diff and this article - incidentally the reference cited in that diff appeared to mention neither William Court Gully nor George Woodyatt Hastings, despite having been cited to support a passage about their alleged antagonism). A topic ban may be appropriate. There's probably no reason for a Wikipedia-wide ban (I assume that's what is meant by "community ban"); however, since all (or almost all) of his edits have been in some way connected to homoeopathy a topic ban may amount to the same thing. Brunton (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, a topic ban on homeopathy would serve the same purpose of stopping the disruption (mind you, only under the same conditions as Vassayana's two-week topic ban above). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• opposeIt is quite surprising that a well known writer who has served as an instructor in homeopathy at the University of California at San Francisco, and as member of the Advisory Council of the Alternative Medicine Center at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons as the chairperson for the National Center for Homeopathy's Annual Conference, and has been consulted by Harvard Medical School's Center to Assess Alternative Therapy for Chronic Illness, he is a regular speaker at universities, medical schools, pharmacy schools, and hospitals to be treated like that in this forum. This does not look good on wikipedia. Even if I understand all the editor's concerns about pseudoscience and I agree with them ( some times ) this animosity cannot be justified. Maybe his style is passionate, maybe he made some mistakes in terms of style in the past but I think skeptics and Wikipedia could use him to improve the Homeopathy article. I don't think we are enemies here even if we disagree some times. I m confident that a civilized solution will be found. --JeanandJane (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• His credentials outside Wikipedia are irrelevant they would be relevant if he used his expertise to improve the articles in wikipedia according to policies and guidelines, which he is not doing. And they are relevant when evaluating if he is violating the WP:COI conflic of interest guideline which seems to be the case here. The reasons for the ban are his continued disruptive behaviour in-wiki, and his refusal to correct it. "He is an expert in Real Life" is not a reason for not issuing a ban unless ignoring this reason worsens the quality of articles. If he behaves in Wikipedia in unacceptable ways then he can fully expect to be banned from it. I remember that User:ScienceApologist was banned (temporaly) in spite of being an expert, and so was User:Peter Damian, and Dana was already banned by one year by Arbcom, and I'm sure that there are other examples. And I don't think that those bans made Wikipedia look bad at all, quite the contrary, it showed that we treat all users equaly. And please don't understate the disruption that he has caused in the talk pages of homeopathy-related articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Brunton writes about my “frequent” COI, where he correctly sited the ONE time I referenced my own site AND where he referenced my acknowledgement of this and my assertion that it is not RS, along with my note that this link was to a personal email from Professor Ennis that provided some direct insight into the veracity of a discussion at hand. Brunton also expressed concern that my Talk contributions sometimes included some of the same references to research in which I provided in articles that I have written. In due respect, I did not reference or link my articles. Is he actually suggesting that a wiki editor who writes about a subject in a non-wiki source creates a COI if he or she writes about this subject on wiki, even when he doesn’t reference his own work? It seems that someone is either extending the definition of COI or simply selectively enforcing it.

By the way, I originally chose to edit under my real name because I seek to maintain high ethics in my life and being transparent seems to be one important way to maintain this standard. While I could have easily used a fake name and thereby allowing myself a lot more ability to refer to my work, this is neither my style nor ethics. If I were really trying to be an “advocate,” I would have done this. Instead, I want to be a resource to people who are working on this article.

User:Verbal asserts that my references and discussions the Cochrane Report and to a Lancet “News and Notes” article are “advocacy.”[24]. User:Brunton then chose to question if the Lancet’s News and Notes was “peer-reviewed” [25], as though something written by their editors or editorial staff of this prestigious journal was suddenly not reliable because it had something positive to say about homeopathy.

What is remarkable is how offensive some editors can be to me personally and to my references to high quality research (as determined by reliable sources), and yet, no wiki editors or admins do any degree of admonishment of them. I can only imagine what would happen if I referred to an editor here as “delusional” as User:NRen2k5 did here [26] or what User:Friday did when he created a section entitled Talk:Homeopathy#It.27s_probably_best_to_ignore_Dana_Ullman.

Because so many antagonists to homeopathy edit the article on wikipedia, it is not surprising when normally recognized reliable sources of meta-analyses are ignored when these sources report positive results from homeopathic treatment. There are many examples to give, but the Cochrane Report on the homeopathic treatment of adverse effects from conventional cancer treatment is ignored in the article [27] My apologies for providing a “content” issue here, but my point here is that wikipedia needs more balance in many of its articles because they are dominated by just one side of the issue, while there needs to be a better effort at balance.

It is surprising how many editors who have sought to reference good research meta-analyses that have positive results for homeopathy have been sanctioned, banned, harassed, or simply overwhelmed by the larger number of antagonists to the field. I would hope that wikipedia would seek to protect some “experts” in order to create a real encyclopedia. DanaUllman^Talk 22:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana Ullman is known to misrepresent sources. Evidence of this appears on the arbitration page, but we can give

For instance, in Talk:Homeopathy#Proposed change on replication of trials, Ullman uses a note, which is not included on the journal's webpage or pubmed; a study's inclusion in a meta-analysis, and various other things to suggest that we throw out all large-scale metanalyses and work showing that homeopathy doesn't work, and replace it with his hand-picked set of studies, raising the weakest results to the status of "high-quality replicated studies". Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker all the meta analysis are not definitive and are kind of controversial. Look at the talk page Linde's criticism to The Lancet about Shang meta analysis. Adler above says that 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. Maybe he meant that? I don't know about the other papers. --JeanandJane (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Dana has misrepresented sources, and also misrepresented the consensus of other editors at the talk pages, and he got that three-month topic ban when was caught red-handed misrepresenting the comment of another editor during the Homeopathy arbitration case, as seen here (at the end of the section). This is not a content problem but a behaviour problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For recent (i.e. since his return from the 1 year ban) examples of this sort of thing, see for example this diff, in which he claims that when he cited his own website "several people defended this action": the "action" in question is in the section of the talk page headed "Rephrase please" - there is no sign there of anyone defending it. Or this diff, in which he writes "The wiki community thought that it was important to bring up the issue of replicability in this article, and I have simply provided references to RS and high-impact meta-analyses on the homeopathic treatment of specific ailments": scrolling back up the talk page to the relevant section (headed "Updating Info on Replication of studies") reveals that the issue was brought up not by "the wiki community" but by Dana Ullman himself. These may be comparatively trivial examples, but they would appear to indicate a continuing pattern of behaviour. Brunton (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana - What you are trying to do with Wikipedia is essentially to synthesize a secondary source here, from a number of primary sources. You have been constantly treading on the grey line dividing normal summarization and reporting and paraphrasing legitimate secondary and primary sources, and WP:SYNTH (and in the process, WP:BATTLE, and other related policies).

You are, for all intents and purposes, too close to the topic to be doing what you've been doing here.

If you go out and write overview secondary source / tertiary source articles in reliable publications, those can be cited in Wikipedia. Trying to write that material directly in here - what you've been striving to do (directly with pre-Arbcom-block, and indirectly with talk page discussion since) - is not acceptable behavior.

Fighting the secondary sources battle in Wikipedia is all about what WP:SYNTH and WP:BATTLE show is entirely what Wikipedia is not here for.

If you will not work to understand that, in good faith, then you need to leave the project. In this case, your being an expert (and as experts are, particularly opinionated) is leading to significant mis-use of the Wikipedia project. This type of debate is not what we're here for. Please accept that, or leave of your own accord. You will do your field much better work if you write these synthesizing opinions and reviews and overviews elsewhere and let others include those (presumably, as you're clearly an expert) reliable secondary sources here once you've published elsewere.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Can you please clarify what do you mean? I agree though synthesis is not in our rules. For instance The lead which is not written by Dana Ullman says "Homeopathy 's efficacy is not supported by the collective weight of the scientific and clinical studies". Since meta analyses have been controversial and inconclusive with the results conflicting somehow each other ( according to our reliable sources ) this could be considered a synthesis and thus should be avoided? I m trying to understand what we should not do. Thanks --JeanandJane (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In the case of controversial topics, we have to say something. WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE work to support WP:NPOV - we report the general community biggest consensus as our main focus, and present major alternative viewpoints commensurate with their weight in the field.

We can't avoid doing some judgement to determine what is the consensus neutral point, and how much weight, but in the case of Homeopathy (and many related fringe science/medicine topics) we have determined that the "mainstream view" is the consensus neutral point and that the proponents view, fairly reported, is the alternative. An article focused on alternatives like this should probably aim for something like 50:50 balance (the article topic is the fringe / alternative topic, after all) in terms of page space, though that will vary by topic greatly.

Dana Ullman's work, done in an external reliable venue, could then be presented neutrally and straightforwardly in the sections describing the pro-homeopathic research studies in more depth.

Done directly here, however, it's WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and bad for Wikipedia.

We are not denying that he's a major figure in the field - our point is, him being a major figure and being here does not shift the point of neutrality, even though he can both argue in more focused detail and depth than the average editor.

He can write synthetic overviews, in external reliable sources, and we can include them (he should not - WP:COI and WP:RS prohibit that - but others could). He can perhaps provide better, more balanced specific sources for the pro-homeopathy arguments. There are lots of things we can do here.

But what we and he can't do here is use Wikipedia as the venue to synthesize new material that's original research - whether that's new primary research or new secondary source overviews and reporting. You make secondary sources out there - in reliable venues which we can verifyably find and cite. And then, we can include them.

Synthesize here bad. Synthesize elsewhere in RS, then report on what RS said elsewhere, good. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As an introduction : I was looking to determine if Homeopathy is a fringe belief and I could not find a reliable source which states it. In the contrary, I found a reliable source BBC which states "Homeopathy isn't some wacky, fringe belief." No skeptic argued against this during the conversation. If somebody has a major reliable source which states that Homeopathy is fringe - besides the skeptics organizations, please let me know.

Homeopathy is a highly controversial topic according to our reliable sources. The mainstream scientists have not reached a strong consensus about its efficacy, if we believe again in our reliable sources: World Health Organization is attacked by the Lancet for supporting Homeopathy 's efficacy. The American Medical Association states that "The efficacy of most homeopathic remedies has not been proven.". The early meta analyses are positive but not fully conclusive and definite, some others negative and positive and the recent Lancet meta analyses are negative but its results strongly criticized by other mainstream sources (with letters published in the Lancet and papers at the J Clin Epidemiol.

Meanwhile very notable Homeopaths have published their criticism for the latest meta analyses. Currently excluded from the article!

The main problem is that some of the sources have been excluded and the article reports that the mainstream consensus is that Homeopathy is unsupported by the collective weight ...... which is as you see above at least inaccurate according to the our RS.

I believe that Ullman tries to convince the other editors to use all the RS about Homeopathy's efficacy and not only the negative ones. And also to include the minority view in the article which is currently excluded for instance Fisher's article/J Clin Epidemiol.paper.

I did not see any synthesis from his part but maybe I have to look more for this. If you have seen something please provide a diff so I can also read it.--JeanandJane (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose ban of DanaUllman.

What I've found most frustrating about the editing process for this topic is the screening of allowable RS articles published in respected peer-review journals, and also prominent secondary sources. When a statement that requires support of an RS is advanced, and that source either contends to support the efficacy of homeopathy, or criticizes the results of other anti-homeopathy research, that RS itself is attacked on some obscure grounds, lessening its value by stating it's too old, or it's been detracted (not!), or it's results have been heavily criticized and put to rest, or newer sources invalidate them (as if seminal older RSs suddenly become impertinent). All in an attempt to keep fair and RS supported content at bay. This is not in the least neutral in my opinion. DanaUllman, unfortunately, has been caught in this whirlpool of bias and intransigence. From my perspective, attempting to disassemble it, it seems, has proved overwhelming, to the point where one person cannot be expected to respond to every accusation or criticism made towards him by a group of others (allusion to IDIDNTHEARTHAT). In the short time I've contributing to editing for this article, many criticisms of propositions and suggestions I and others have put forward to make the article more neutral, have been repeatedly attacked even after they have been explained very clearly as to why and the reasons. And counter-suggestions have rarely, if ever, been advanced by the anti-homeopathy quorum. It seems as though a strong case of viral IDIDNTHEARTHAT is sweeping the forum.

As far as misrepresentation of RSs goes -- virtually *everyone* on the homeopathy talk page that has attempted to say anything substantive, has misrepresented sources by selectively quoting from them, selectively summarizing them, or biasely paraphrasing them, and then failing to notice a statement in some other part of the article which puts this interpretation into serious question. If DanaUllman is guilty of this, he is in *very* good company. Even so, I don't really blame editors for this if it's occasional, as perhaps this is due to unintentional zeal of having found what appears to be clear evidence in support of one's POV, to the blind exclusion of all else.

I don't believe DanaUllman should be banned, as I've learned a great deal from his participation in the discussion. He provides a unique perspective that is refreshing in (what I perceive to be) an already highly anti-homeopathy-biased forum. I've addressed specifically in the talk page two of the areas I see as biased, and now I've noticed a third involving the citing of publication bias -- but only in one direction in support of anti-homeopathy views, when there are *many* examples of publication bias in the opposite direction as well (the talk page reference lists many of them). But I haven't yet gotten around to addressing this latest issue on the talk page.

If DanaUllman is ultimately banned (which I don't support or agree with), then I would at minimum suggest banning at least two or three editors from the anti-homeopathy side as well -- those who are especially culpable in creating repeated and consistent obstacles to constructive editing and more neutral improvements based on the merit of arguments advanced and RSs to support these arguments.

Dbrisinda (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with banning

But Agree with Dbrisinda above. While I would support DanaUllman not being able to edit the actual homeopathy article because of a conflict of interests, I see an attempt at totally banning him as the anti-homeopaths just trying to lock away any and all resistance.

I have also said this before, and will say it again: If a homeopathic doctor can not be used for input, research, and statistics on their subject of expertise, then all physicians must be banned from editing medicine related articles, as it is a conflict of interest, regardless of how up in the air the subject matter is.

It's pretty clear that every editor that contributes to Homeopathy puts their opinions first. Anti-homeopathic editors will always search the Earth for any studies that disprove the efficacy, and shoot down anything otherwise, while pro-homeopathic editors will always search for studies that prove the efficacy while shooting down anything that disproves it. To be quite frank and honest, everyone (Including myself) needs to take a break from the subject and come back to it with an editors neutral point of view. - ʄɭoʏɗoiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose ban - I have had some concerns that I have pointed out to Dana and he has been very responsive and understanding. He is a COI editor and he acknowledges this, and he has not recently attempted to edit the Homeopathy article or any related article to my knowledge. What he has done is participate in Talk page conversations related to Homeopathy, a subject in which he has expertise other editors do not. I believe that those most strongly accusing him of bad behavior have engaged in similar actions, cherry picking and selectively representing sources in order to portray homeopathy in the most negative possible light. As far as the claim of synthesis, the policy applies mainly in article space, not to the same extent in Talk space, where editors of all sides frequently synthesize in the course of discussion. The article has been one sided for a long time and I very much appreciate the input of others who can explain the other point of view and help us to achieve a more balanced presentation. I believe that Dana would benefit very much from helping improve Wikipedia in other articles unrelated to homeopathy, but I do not think a topic ban is necessary, nor would it be fair to single him out. —Whig (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Note and reminder

If anyone was in doubt the Homeopathy Wars are now in full blood again after a period of relative calm. Note also that the article remains under Arbcom sanction. If there are admins out there who have rhinoceros-thick hides and want to help sort things out, please do. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please, we have even gotten back where people will place POV tags at the top of the article because their proposed changes were all shot down at the talk page because of not being in agreement with what the high-quality sources say. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice how many editors dispute the neutrality of the article? .--JeanandJane (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is moot because, once it was discussed thoroughly, they failed to show that the article didn't represent sources accurately. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Or they failed to convince the editors who added those sources that there was a neutrality issue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV dispute never ended, and I continue to believe that the article should be tagged, but I have not personally added the tag recently. —Whig (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Clayton College of Natural Health

A previously uninvolved admin, please, to take a look at Clayton College of Natural Health. Please see its recent history and also the recent history (only visible via the history tab) of User talk:Shannon Rose. My own opinion on this matter is fairly clear, but I also have a rather clear opinion about the value of the kind of stuff that this College is teaching (even when it's taught well), and have made the mistake of expressing this opinion; fearing that I might be taken for an edit warrior myself, I'm not reaching for my own cluebat er sorry I mean my own submit button. -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Note the frivolous and clearly wrong SPI filed by Shannon Rose against three editors in good standing, where no evidence was even presented against one of the editors (me). They have also repeatedly placed inappropriate warnings on talk pages of involved editors, and provided no policy rational for their blanking of large sections of relevant and well sourced text. Editing suggests a connection with the college, giving a WP:COI, and a strong WP:POV. Verbal chat 14:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Shannon Rose (talk · contribs)

This user is repeatedly removing well sourced and pertinent information from the article, despite many warnings and a consensus against their edits on the article talk page. They have recently come off a block, but a new block should probably be considered to stop further disruption of this article, as warnings and discussion have had no effect. They have also engaged in personal attacks, accused other good faith editors of "slander", and filed frivolous SPI reports against long-standing editors (see above). Verbal chat 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that ShannonRose is alone in her current campaign to expunge one particular sentence from Clayton College of Natural Health. Everyone else who has looked at the article recently seems to find the sentence reasonable. I think that protection of the page would be a more fitting way to cool the edit war than blocking the user. --Orlady (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As there is only one user edit warring against consensus, locking the page down is unfair to all other editors who wish to improve the project. I have reported Shanno Rose to WP:AN3 for breaking WP:3RR as well as continued edit warring. Notice they have expanded their accusations of bad faith and sockpuppetry to even more editors. Verbal chat 20:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for 48 hours based solely on the 3RR/edit warring on the article. I haven't time to dig further into this thread or the circumstances at this time, but based on their block log a longer period may be in order. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just added a warning against legal threats and intimidation. Brangifer (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added another appeal for Shannon to stop the gross incivility and disruption. Please read this section. Brangifer (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Die4Dixie's attacks on another user.

--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

See Die4Dixie (talk · contribs)'s comments here and here. Di4Dixie either needs a civility check, or a psychologist. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Are you now, or have you ever been..." Seems like a pretty tactless question and the line of inquiry behind it ought to stop. Protonk (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Question was answered by the rant he left on my page. I´m satisfied and we can move on.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What rant? All I see is a reasoned response to your personal attacks, and your continued attacks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As the user in question, I would add that I find Dixie's accusations and the possible paranoia that spawned them troubling. Apparently he/she believes that they can openly insinuate and impugn the motives of other editors - going so far as to assume that because I edit articles with relation to Che Guevara, that I must secretly be a hired communist agent sent by the now defunct Soviet Union to rally the Proletarian masses on Wikipedia for the coming world takeover (oops did I just disclose the plan?). To top it off Dixie then believes that he/she has the right to interrogate me and make flippant accusations that I am "safe for now" in my supposed role as a "Communist/Maoist" insurgent within academia (Dixie's obviously never roamed the halls of the Sociology department, some of who would make me look like Milton Friedman). I'm not sure what should be done (if anything), but I would like Dixie to focus on editing articles, and not his/her own personal Wiki ‘red scare’.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened to assuming good faith? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Whom are you addressing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

{ec}Sorry, failure to indent correctly (actually I think you may have snuck a comment in above me. Is this any clearer?Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4DixieWhatever happened to assuming good faith? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie, this was not reasonable or appropriate. Polite inquiries into other people's political or social affiliations are not abusive by nature - this was over the line, an acusation and impeachment couched in polite wording. Do not do that again. We require all editors to assume good faith about each other's participation, edit in a manner which is collegial and respectful to others' participation, and not launch personal attacks on other editors. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I won´t ask again, but we can agree to disagree politely about your view on the situation. Please review the reporter´s recent comments and the rant left on my talkpage. I don´t want any sanction, but it seems a little Pot, kettle black, and my question was nothing like the comments these users have left.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• If you're looking for some communists to harass, Dixie, how about The Smurfs? Their leader ever wears red... HalfShadow 00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Then there's all those Republican states, colloquially known as "red" states. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I second that Die4Dixie's question was an inappropriate and weasely attack, though politely-worded. The response was more pointedly angry, but I'd be angry if such accusatory material were posted on my talk page. Die4Dixie also appears to be making accusations about another user's character and fitness to edit here, with conclusions made from their anger. I haven't reviewed the situation and therefore don't know on what basis Die4Dixie questioned Redthoreau's edits, but place to deal with another editor in that way is a RfC or 3rd opinion. Sneaky comments and smug assumptions are WP:ABF. Awickert (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie's question was a politely framed inquiry as to whether a particular editor who was editing communism-related articles was in fact a believer / adherent to communism. Wikipedians are not required to disclose their beliefs (or genders, or background, or nationality, occupation, age, etc), and suggestions that their editing is influenced by such factors are discouraged. So asking someone if they voted for Obama is also a little impolite. They can volunteer it, but they aren't expected to. Being a communist is not necessarily a scandalous thing, but in many countries it is more controversial than being a mainstream party member. The accusation here against D4D is that it was not a real question, but instead a dig or a politely worded accusation. He insists it wasn't. Are we in the business of deciding D4D's intention wasn't what he says it was? That just doesn't seem helpful. Let's just note that Redthoreau took exception to the question (although RTO was not the editor who filed this report.. D4D has already said he did not mean to offend. Maybe he can also say that he won't ask Redthoreau if he/she's a communist again? Maybe even an apology for having that misimpression? I don't see much more to it than that. Wikidemon (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would mostly agree with that. The part at the end about subverting Wikipedia seemed a little too snarky. But I'm happy to see the issue dropped if the two editors are OK with things. Awickert (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, for the record, I did not personally report this incident, and would be more than glad to go back to editing articles without continuing interrogations from our resident political inquisitor. I am willing to move on, and hope that Dixie will heed others advice and refrain from similar actions in the future.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 01:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. I am sorry if he was offended.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently now I'm a fellow traveler. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC):And now this. Die4Dixie's attacks continue. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie's implication that WTWAG is a homosexual communist, after this thread on his accusations and comments was opened, shows that he isn't about to stop. Were he simply contrarian, we could point to the value of having a functional, vocal opposition, but what we have here is a Birther describing everyone who he feels disagrees as unpatriotic, unAmerican, and a communist. His attempts to win disputes through bullying tactics, insults, and intimidation show what kind of person he is, and it's not the kind that's ever going to fit into this project. ThuranX (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice ad hominem. For the record, Obama was born in Hawaii. I haven´t seen any reference to homosexuals. My only desire has been that the article meets Wikipedia´s standards. Seems like there is are several who share my concerns on the article in question. Please find some diffs please, or retract. I imagine that any impartial admin who reviews this page could find justification for a nicely worded, similiar to the one left on my page, for ThuranX and WWTAG. In fact, I can´t remember a direct interaction with Thuran in over 6 months. Some diffs really would be appreciated. --Die4Dixie (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Katsumasahiro2

Previous thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive556#Troublesome Pair

Katsumasahiro (talk · contribs) was originally blocked for 24 hours over edit warring on Kira Takenouchi‎ by repeatedly adding unsourced and poorly sourced material in violation of WP:BLP. During the coarse of time, I opened a sockpuppet case do to similarities with another editor Kxings (talk · contribs). Kxings (talk · contribs) has since been confirmed as an obvious sock of Kxing (talk · contribs) who was indefinitely blocked over a year ago for spamming via repeated recreations of Kira Takenouchi‎ and Yaoi house. (Note: Kxings is also the creator of the current Takenouchi‎ article.) Katsumasahiro immediately made a legal threat over the sockpuppety case[28] just prior to his 24 hour block for edit warring. A checkuser confirms that the Katsumasahiro and Kxings use the same ISP and are from the same geographic area. Earlier today Katsumasahiro2 (talk · contribs) was created and is a clear sock of Katsumasahiro (talk · contribs). The account was added to the sockpuppet case and Versageek (talk · contribs) blocked the IP as a result. Now the account is making multiple unblock requests as well as being very uncivil. --Farix (Talk) 01:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have strong doubts that this user will contribute to the project in a constructive manner if unblocked, however if anyone wants to lift or modify my block, feel free. --Versageek 01:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Both Katsumasahiro accounts should be indeffed as disruptive. I find it hard to believe that he/she just happened to forget their password all of a sudden. The incivility, the ranting at the AFD page and all makes it obvious this person will not be a net advantage to the project. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I declined his unblock, and asked him to address the numerous problems noted from his first account, which need to be addressed before he can be unblocked. Even if we assume his is truthful about forgetting his password, his general problematic behavior spread across two accounts must be addressed. --Jayron32 02:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

He is now seeking someone to "override" the block since he claims we are the ones being "rude".[29] --Farix (Talk) 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the level of insults and personal attacks he has hurled, unprovoked, against other people, I find such claims about others being rude to be laughable. --Jayron32 02:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Katsumasahiro2 is now using their user talk page as a sandbox initial addition. I'm a little concerned this (or the actual content of the makeshift sandbox) may breach WP:BLP - second opinions? --Malkinann (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys, just realized he's not actually blocked; he's only just been caught by the autoblock on his prior account, see his block log and talk page. It seems plainly clear that, given that an Autoblock only lasts for a short time, that his claim to being ignorant of a prior password seems like a false premise given that he conveniently only forgot the password when the account got blocked. Would someone care to ACTUALLY make the real block on his account. I think also we may need a CU to look into this, as there appears to be some sort of shenanigans going on... --Jayron32 03:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I already specified that the IP was blocked. In fact, here is the block log.[30] --Farix (Talk) 03:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that there are some serious WP:BLP issues with the "sandbox" as the sources don't support the claims being made. --Farix (Talk) 03:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Presumably there's nothing to stop this editor logging out and requesting a new password for their Katsumasahiro account. If they are managing to edit as Katsumasahiro2 then they are presumably able to get to the "Email new password" button for Katsumasahiro or am I missing something? If the answer is yes then the 2nd account should be indeffed with a pointer to that page. Right now they are effectively block evading by chatting on their 2nd talk page, even if is it currently constructive. Seems like a no brainer to lock down this second pointless account if only to keep all the discussion in one place. Mfield (Oi!) 03:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a theory: while the original block on Katsumasahiro (talk · contribs) has expired...the block on Kxings (talk · contribs) is indefinite...and is probably the one he's getting caught in. --Smashville^talk 14:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What is actually happening with this case? It appears Katsumasahiro (talk · contribs) was blocked for 24 hours, a block that has now expired. Katsumasahiro2 (talk · contribs) has said he didn't have email activated on the first account and can't remember his password. He claims still to be blocked at Katsumasahiro2 (unable to edit anything but his own user page). Has a Checkuser found anything conclusive? I gather that he and Kxing may be related. At any rate, something should be done about this. Could the autoblock be lifted, the first account indeffed, and the current account be dealt with on its own merits/problems? Exploding Boy (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If Katsumasahiro is being caught in Kxings' autoblock, that makes it very clear that he is a sockpuppet. I would take very serious issue with Kxings being unblocked so that he could edit under a user name. --Smashville^talk 20:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If he is, right. But is there any way to determine whether that's actually the case? Exploding Boy (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't a template appear for an autoblocked user? Granted, he should be indefinitely blocked for the legal threat, but I had already blocked him for 24 hours before I saw it... --Smashville^talk 20:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just asked him if he gets a template message. He has said he can't edit the sandbox. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Which means he's autoblocked. For some reason, he doesn't want to move to step 3. I have a hunch why. --Smashville^talk 20:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right, which is why I'd like to get to the bottom of it, because in the meantime he's editing a once-deleted and soon to be re-deleted article in his user space, and generally being a bit of a pain. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering that he wasn't blocked for abusing multiple accounts, but is clearly getting that message...apparently, he's still at it. --Smashville^talk 21:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already pointed to the IP block above, which I got when he posted the initial unblock request.[31] Aren't you guys paying attention? --Farix (Talk) 23:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well then, if that's the case, and given that the user is thus far refusing to complete the Clearing an autoblock instructions but is continuing to edit his page, what's the next step? Remove his ability to edit his new page as well? Exploding Boy (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the content on the user talk page which breaches the biographies of living persons policy, explaining it in terms of protecting Kira Takenouchi. Hopefully Katsumasahiro will understand. --Malkinann (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Stalking hounding and harassment

I've been at the receiving end and seen other editors receive very abusive treatment when they try to edit articles to include minority viewpoints consistent with our wp:NPOV policy. The policy states that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Yet those attempting to include minority viewpoints are often hounded and stalked. I understand that user talk pages are important means of communication, but if someone is told they're not welcome and their comments aren't related to article content why is the behavior allowed to continue? Also, I've seen and experienced these same "editors" following me to other talk pages and commenting in threads I'm involved in. Is this kind of taunting and harassment acceptable? The violation of our core NPOV policy seems bad enough, but after watching some major content contributors leave because of this, I'm very concerned that these methods are used to promote censorship and bias in our article content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, you might actually get some help if you were a slightly bit more specific. General statements about how things are going aren't going to result in much. Can you provide some examples? Also, WP:UNDUE is probably the policy you're more concerned about than WP:NPOV. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are some diffs of an "editor" who has been asked dozens of times to leave me alone and yet continues to stalk, harass, and taunt me. I have never seen them contribute to an article, so I don't see how any of their comments could relate to content contributing or collegial collaboration. [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], and there's also more discussion of me on their talk page. I've tried to ignore it, but it hasn't stopped. I'd just like them to leave me alone and to do their ummm... whatever you want to call it away from editors who don't welcome this activity. I haven't looked closely at all these diffs, they're just a recent sampling, but I don't think any of the discussions involved them at all so their comments were wholly unwelcome and not constructive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What does all this about Baseball Bugs (and have you notified him of this) have to do with NPOV? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, since we won't actually name the editor in question, I'll let him know that he is being discussed. Protonk (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Without having seen this, I'd left a note on Bugs' talk page asking that editor to avoid commenting on or interacting with ChildofMidnight (which Bugs had said would happen in the past). Rather than this turning into another endless Obama thread that produces nothing other than acrimony, can ChildofMidnight and Baseball Bugs both agree to not interact with (or comment on) one another? It should not be that hard. ChildofMidnight already sounds amenable to that, and as I said Bugs was at one point. I think that addresses the core issue, so let's see what the two editors have to say about that proposal before going any further. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think in this case, regardless of what you feel about the politics at the heart of the dispute, these comments are over-the-line in terms of WP:NPA and Bugs needs to stop this sort of thing. Calling someone names like "POV-pusher" is probably not very helpful in terms of resolving any dispute, and clearly violates the letter and spirit of WP:NPA. I think he needs to step back and stop making these sorts of comments at Wikipedia. Furthermore, it would help if Bugs and CoM agreed to stop interacting with each other across any articles if possible. Of importance here is a recent ArbCom case as well, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles. --Jayron32 03:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can't point out that someone is pushing a POV then why even have a policy against POV? From the post above where Child of Midnight complains about this issue he admits he is trying to add minority viewpoints, and a look at his edits shows he is indeed violating WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV by extension. I have no comment if Bugs went over the line, but the idea that you can't point out that someone is a POV pusher, especially with such longstanding evidence, is simply ridiculous. It's not a personal attack to point out when someone is breaking policy, and if they find that label as disparaging in some way the correct way to fix it is for them to stop breaking the policy, not to complain about the people pointing it out. DreamGuy (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Homer and Tarc engage in similar behavior towards me. I should point out that I went to BB's talk page to notify them, but Protonk beat me to it. BB has also been asked to cease this behavior by numerous admins. I prefer to edit content than to chase down diffs. But if I need to I will try to come up with some. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (ec multiples)

ChildofMidnight, are you amenable to the solution put forward above, i.e. that you just completely avoid each other, assuming Baseball Bugs agrees to and abides by it as well? That seems to me the best way forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fantastic to me. If there's a discussion that actually invovles us both like an Arbcom issue or something fine. But he can keep to his section and I'll keep to mine. Otherwise I don't see any need to interact at all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

One point of clarification to Jayron, none of his comments are on articles or article related, or in discussion involving him. Since I'm optimistic that at some point Arbcom will end their improper censoring of me, I don't want to be limited on what articles I can work on. I don't follow BB anywhere, but it's possible we'd be working on an article at the same time. In that case I think avoiding discussing each other directly would be fine. I already have enough people after me trying to chase me off wikipedia and off articles. I don't want to have to keep track of where he may or may not be. Like I said, I won't comment to or about him. No problem. That's the status quo for me at this point. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Bugs has been clearly pushing your buttons. You've also been pushing his buttons and other people's buttons (your comments to ProtonK on his talk page on Aug 2, before Bugs chimed in; elsewhere). You and Bugs pushing each others buttons is actually staying remarkably restrained overall for how many times each of you did something to each other.

I agree that this is not constructive or civil. We have a tendency to let "experienced users" who get grumpy to poke each other for a while, if nobody complains then we assume everyone's thick skinned and can handle it. I think that's probably a mistake - even if you aren't personally insulted, it does bring down the level of conversation and drive away third parties, and the odds that someone will eventually become actually upset and it be a real problem are high.

Without ascribing any root cause / fault - if Bugs can not follow any of your comments, if you can not leave comments folllowing his, or like those you left for ProtonK on the 2nd, and you and Bugs stay separated for a while it would probably be for the best. The voluntary mutual topic ban Bigtimeinpeace proposed seems like a great idea to me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I need to clarify this stattement after reading GWH's comment. I absolutely have not pushed BBs buttons. I avoid that editor like the plague. Your comment is a gross distortion and unless you have diffs to back it up I suggest you strike it.

My comments to Protonk related to his allegations against me which he didn't back off even when they were proved wrong. That behavior, in violation of AGF, was totally unacceptable and I let him know that. I haven't pursued the matter further and had you not brought it up I wouldn't have either. I see it as done and over. As you know from personal experience GWH, when there is behavior that I find disruptive and of serious harm to Wikipedia I address it. My comments to other editors and admins don't have anything to do with the stalking, harassing, and hounding of editors with minority viewpoints that promotes censorship, and you're conflating the two is disruptive and somewhat outrageous. I don't pursue those I disagree with on articles and I try to stay focused on article content and to leave personal opinions out of it. Despite the smears against me I am quite moderate, I avoid discussing my personal politics except in a discrete and humorous way, and I think it's important that various viewpoints are represented consistent with our core policy as cited above. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• CoM, I don't "engage" in any action against you, I just don't like your actions on some subjects. Like the Obama thread above. YOu are on restriction from Obama articles and talk pages but you knowingly post at an ANI thread about Obama doing an end run around your restrictions. That is bad faith editing. Then when you are called on it, Baseball Bugs or I have been mean to you or some crap. Act right, follow the rules, do something other than getting in people's business, follow your restrictions and maybe...just maybe...people wouldn't be on your case about everything. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If CoM would apologize for this [39] then he would need never hear from me again, even when I catch him violating his topic ban the next time, and the next time, etc. He's driven me away from political pages; he's tried to box me in in various ways; he constantly makes accusations against me (and many others); but I'll be damned if I'm going to let him dictate my efforts here any further. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs you link to that thread often, though I'm not sure why it still bothers you so much since it was literally five months ago (I'm also not sure exactly what aspect of it bothers you since there is so much stuff there). Can't you just let it go at this point, and do you really think an apology will actually be forthcoming, or that requiring someone to apologize on-Wiki before moving forward is helpful? I'm genuinely having trouble understanding what you want here. You and C of M do not get along in the slightest and are seemingly never going to agree on much of anything surrounding this tiff. Why not just back away, which C of M says he will do, and avoid one another, which is what you said you were going to do a month ago? The dispute between the two of you wastes other editors' time and accomplishes literall nothing, so can't we just squash the beef (mmmmmm....squash beef....) right here and now? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Twice now I've turned him in for topic ban violations, and both time the experts agreed with me. He calls my reporting "stalking and harassment". For example, he accused me of "stalking" him to the Gates page. That is not true. I went to the Gates page to learn more about the subject, and there he was, violating his topic ban. I turned him in for it, and he didn't like it. Tough toenails. He's on a topic ban, and should know better. As someone else said earlier, he is constantly trying to push the envelope of that ban. The thing is, thanks to him and his brethren, I stopped watching nearly all the Obama articles, months ago. I want nothing to do with him. But he keeps popping up. With his complaint here, he's basically saying I don't have the right to report it when he breaks his topic ban. He has no right to dictate that. But here's the deal: He is basically saying he wants me to go away for good. I'm telling him how he can accomplish that. If he apologizes for that slap in my face back on March 8/9, he'll never hear from me again, unless he initiates a conversation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out, though, that it's not just due to narcissism on my part that I keep going back to that link. It's to point out that his political agenda, what I call his POV-pushing, has been there from the beginning, and nothing has changed. Then, as now, he accuses wikipedia of being a cheerleader for Obama. He impugns the integrity of many editors, not just me. He has demonstrated that he has not a clue what NPOV means. I worked on both political poles - Obama and Palin - at times when they were under siege by POV-pushers. I actually got compliments from Republican-leaning editors for defending the Palin page. What I got for defending the Obama page is stuff like what CoM said back in March - a beat he continues to drum here, against everyone who dares to stand up to his behavior. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Until 1 January 2010, Baseball Bugs and Childofmidnight are topicbanned from commenting on, about, or to each other anywhere on Wikipedia, apart from ArbCom proceedings where both are named parties.

I support this, obviously, as I wrote it. Your turn. → ROUX ₪ 07:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that if I observe him breaking his Obama topic ban, I am not allowed to report it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Either it will be noticed and dealt with by users less ...attached... to the situation, or you may email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org to let them know. In any case, the onwiki disruption is getting silly, so it's best for the two of you to retire to separate corners and stay there. → ROUX ₪ 07:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How about it if instead of reporting in on-wiki, you e-mailed an administrator? It's likely that someone else would catch it - and really you should just ignore his edit trail - but if something comes up you could always ask an admin to investigate. That would avoid on-wiki drama but make sure that someone looked into the situation.

Roux's proposal is fine with me, although it might not be a bad idea to simply make it indefinite rather than giving an end date, and to make it an informal arrangement which the two parties agree to. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite, sure, but informal seems like a bad idea. CoM has already nibbled at the edges of his current topicban, so a clear and unambiguous statement--no comments on or about each other anywhere on en.wikipedia.org--is the best way to go. Simple and effective, with the usual escalating blocks for either editor even pushing at the edges. No commenting. Period. End of drama. → ROUX ₪ 07:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Endpointed or not, if I happen to see what looks like an Obama topic ban violation, and if there's no issue about my sending an e-mail to an admin about it, then it's fine. And if I have reason to defend him (which I have done before, and which I did in a section farther down), then I would also use e-mail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And to formalize it, presumably amend the arbcom ruling page on this matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

However, he has impugned other editors besides me. Can the arbcom ruling also be amended that he is to refrain from accusing wikipedians of being cheerleaders for Obama, regardless of where he might say it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is fine, so long as both parties agree to it. I will state that hearing from CoM above that NH and Tarc act the same way with respect to CoM gives me pause. What we don't want is to establish a network of mutual editor bans where the real problem may not be negative pairwise interaction. If this is indeed the best solution at the lowest level, let's do it. If it isn't, then we should avoid it. To BB specifically, if you agree to this, I don't think you should worry about watching over CoM's vis a vis his topic ban. If he has really violated it in a specific area, someone else will notice and say something. Protonk (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec)See, the problem is that his accusation is false. I'm NOT "watching over" CoM regarding his topic ban. The two times I turned him in for possible topic ban, I did not "stalk" him as he claims, I just happened to see it. He came to the table here months ago with the preconceived WND-like agenda that wikipedia is controlled by liberals and that that problem must be "corrected". He sees himself as some kind of knight crusading against this alleged problem, as the pronouncement on his own user page proclaims. Thanks in part to his behavior, I stopped watching nearly all the Obama pages months ago, and I don't watch his page either. But he does not have the right to dictate what pages to watch. What I watch or don't watch is my choice, not his. But if the consensus is that I only use e-mail to report possible violations, and to pretend on-wiki that he doesn't exist, I can do that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, it's within your power to refuse to agree to a mutual editor ban. I'm just saying that should you agree to it, you probably shouldn't comment about CoM's edits at all. Protonk (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      • It's obvious he's never going to apologize for his offensive comments to me (and a host of others, but that's another story), so I'll have to settle for a "CoM on-wiki topic ban", and if I happen to see other rules violations that no one else has reported yet, I assure you I will not hesitate to report them myself, off-wiki as per the recommendation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
        • IRC useful channels is a wonderful place to handle on-wiki things, off-wiki - as I've recently learned. ;] - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 09:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
          • I've heard of it, and it doesn't sound like something I would want to get involved with. The next times CoM violates his topic ban or breaks other rules, I'll notify a trusted admin via e-mail and let him take appropriate action. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I do sometimes think, given CoM's ever-widening circle of targeted editors, that he has a secret wish to actually get perma-banned here. Then he and his WND buddies could do the "Told Ya So" dance together. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: I will pretend that CoM does not exist, for as long as he remains active on wikipedia, provided that he is required to cease and desist from using inflammatory terms including but not limited to "troll", "vandal", "stalker", "harasser", "censor", "abuser", "POV-pusher" and so on, against any and all established users. That would be on any and all pages. Then I will likewise refrain from any such labeling against any and all users. If someone is feeling abused or harassed or whatever, there are proper channels which are permissible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that counterproposal (the part about avoiding certain words) would be agreed to, unfortunately. The usage of inflammatory terms is a serious issue, but I don't think a voluntary restriction is going to work (in the end further dispute resolution may be required). However a voluntary restriction can clearly work in terms of you and C of M avoiding one another, and it seems you both agreed to that above, but I'm not sure if you're withdrawing that and saying you need something more now. Rather than insisting on this counter-proposal, can we just stick to something that can actually be accomplished and end this thread knowing that both of you agree not to engage with the other? As said you can contact admins about any issues you see. I don't want this ANI thread to end with no useful outcome. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In the bright light of day, it occurred to me that it's easy for him to comply, because the only time he ever mentions my name is when I've called him out for rules violations and other bad behavior. So it's a one-sided deal, and unless there's some commitment on his part to improve his own behavior, we're done here. But I will do better to try to avoid him. Unless he changes his approach, he is headed slowly but surely for banishment (which is probably what he secretly wants), and there will be a parade of others to facilitate that; I won't be needed for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand the logic of the last comment. If you're not interacting with each other you're not interacting with each other, period. You would not be calling him out for rules violations (at least on-wiki) so he would not be able to complain about you doing that, so the behavior you dislike would stop. How is it a one-sided deal? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that you are indeed harassing him, Bugs. You are quite aware that your interactions with him are inflammatory and continue to do so anyways. Stop causing drama and leave him alone and there won't be any problems, as far as you are concerned. Jtrainor (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

To explain my proposal in a little more detail. There are clear problems with some of CoM's behaviour and have been since basically his first edit. There are also problems with Baseball Bugs' behaviour, particularly with regards to CoM--there are unavoidable similarities here with AllStarEcho/Bluemarine. These problems need to be addressed. Unfortunately, when it's Bugs calling out CoM, the discussion quite neatly swings to being about him (Bugs) and not addressing the problems with CoM's behaviour. In much the same way that ASE's topicban regarding Bluemarine will allow those less attached to the situation to see problematic behaviour without any drama sauce on top, the mutual topicban (and I urge admins to impose it rather than ask for a mutual agreement; the latter is easy to game and far too nebulous. An imposed restriction is unambiguous) is intended to remove the drama caused by Bugs commenting about CoM, permanently, which will allow more clarity when viewing the separate actions of both Baseball Bugs and CoM, and provide more opportunity to find solutions. In other words, the solution proposed quite deliberately avoided dealing with any of the larger issues; the goal is to blow some of the smoke away and let us see whether there is indeed a fire burning and what is feeding it.

Imposing this topicban will very simply remove a source of drama while clarifying what, if any, the actual underlying issues are. Should those underlying issues be resolved--and one way to resolve some of them is ongoing at ArbCom as we speak, via ArbCom clarifying CoM's topicban parameters--I see no reason why this restriction on both users cannot be lifted at some date in the future. → ROUX ₪ 21:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to just implement the restriction as proposed by Roux. I could, and would, do this under terms of the Obama article probation. ChildofMidnight is amenable to this arrangement, and Baseball Bugs seemed to agree but then pulled back. Regardless the issue is clearly Obama related and admins have a bit more leeway in that area.

But I'd rather get a stronger consensus for an imposed "go to your separate corners" for these two editors. The basic proposal would basically be Roux's above, modified to make the time frame indefinite, with slight wording changes and a note about enforcement:

Until further notice, Baseball Bugs and Childofmidnight are restricted from commenting on, about, or to each other anywhere on Wikipedia, apart from ArbCom proceedings where both are named parties. Failure to abide by this restriction will result in 24 hour blocks, escalating to lengthier blocks if the violations continue.

I'd like a few other comments on this as I said (and really I'm looking for uninvolved people here ideally), but I'm willing to implement this myself (if someone else wants to that's fine as well), inform the two parties in question, and log it here. Thoughts? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Being that this is basically a community sanction, it should be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community, if not in both places. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Just do it. It's a totally one-sided deal, because CoM doesn't have to do anything. It's easy to comply with something you're not doing. He's driven me away from the Obama articles, and if I see him editing anything else, I'll have to stay away from that page too. He better stay away from the baseball articles, though, or there will be hell to pay. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing that's irksome is that I have to give something up, and he doesn't. I report him for topic-ban violations, and I get punished for it. So here's another idea. He's topic-banned from Obama articles for some stretch of time, I'm not sure how long. I'm effectively prevented from reporting his violations of that topic ban or other rules, since I shouldn't be watching his contribs list, and if I randomly go to an article that he's doing something with (as with the Gates article), then I have to stay away from that article or risk a block. So just extend the no-contact ban to the point where his topic-ban ends. Because at that point, there'll be no reason for any crossover whatsoever, and both of our banishments will be over. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Bugs. You can edit any articles you please. Just don't talk to or about CoM. And obviously stay off his talkpage. If you see him infringing his topicban, email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. The point of this is not to punish you, it is to remove some stuff that is obscuring the real issues at play, if any. → ROUX ₪ 01:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. I cannot edit any article he's working on; it's not practically possible. And you won't be getting any e-mails from me. You can deal with him yourself. I report him for possible topic-ban violations twice, one of which bought him a block that stuck, and the other block was overturned simply because the admin didn't word it quite right, and this is the thanks I get for it. Similar to the thanks I got for defending wikipedia against his ilk back in March. No. You can have him. He's all yours. Have fun! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, that is your choice. But please understand that this proposal is like applying an ice pack to a sprained ankle; it's there to reduce the swelling, and after that's gone the doctor can see if any further damage has been caused--and fix it if there is any. There is nothing more to it than that. → ROUX ₪ 03:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's your choice. You've taken away mine. Whatever. There are other fish to fry. But no e-mails. I get enough spam as it is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

may I have leave to comment, please? I have a relevant opinion which, alas, I cannot safely express here without leave to do so despite being the target of the alleged Arbcom violation under discussion, thanks to a Cache-22 arising from a similar stay-away order. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever difference that is likely to make...--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe CoM is right about his claims of censorship. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing restriction enacted

I'm going to go ahead and put this into effect. Bugs (somewhat reluctantly) and previously ChildofMidnight are both agreeing to this, but I think we can also think of this as a community-imposed restriction and/or a restriction stemming from the Obama article probation, wherein admins have broader authority to implement measures like these. If there are concerns with how this was implemented I'll take the heat as the admin taking this action, deriving my ability to do so from this. But there also seems to be consensus from other editors and from the two parties in question, so I don't really think we have a problem.

I'll leave leave notes on both editors' talk pages announcing the conclusion here, and log the action in a couple of places. Perhaps the thread can stay open for a little while longer to make sure there are no major objections, but after awhile I suggest this be marked resolved and we all move on. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, Obama probation allows individual administrators to implement reasonable sanctions without a full-community-discussion; the community in effect places an amount of trust in allowing them to skip a step. However, Obama probation is not to be used as a means of making something stick if it has a chance of being questionable in the eyes of the community - that would be a serious breach of community trust. You used it exactly how it shouldn't be used. You should have made it plain that this was a sanction you were considering under Obama probation and that you were merely gathering other views in general. This is because remedies under Obama probation may be reversed at the discretion of the imposing administrator; unless specified otherwise, ordinary community sanctions may only be reversed by another community consensus, or via ArbCom channels. This did not happen. Instead, this discussion has all appearances of being one an ordinary community sanction, and Obama probation is just a means to cover yourself if your imposing of this as a community sanction is not acceptable.

To summarise: as you believe that it's ready to be implemented, then it will be as an ordinary community sanction (that's how the discussion appears) - the remedy is not implemented under Obama probation at this time. Consequently, I am reversing the entry you've placed in Obama probation log of sanctions. If your imposing of this as an ordinary community sanction is acceptable, then the restriction itself cannot be reversed at your discretion - it requires another community consensus or ArbCom intervention. Finally, though this is a less major consideration, I hope you have not translated an informal agreement into a formal restriction - it's well known that informal agreements should be tried first, and formal restrictions should be more towards a last resort, so that parties have some leeway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You might have tried talking to me about it first, especially since you are not an administrator and you've essentially reversed an admin action. If you want it to stand solely as a community sanction, that's fine with me (and I could have reversed the edit on the Obama log myself had you bothered to even try to have a discussion with me), though I saw no problem with approaching the matter both as a community sanction and an admin sanction under the terms of article probation. I'm not much into rules-lawyering I'm afraid, and my point was to demonstrate that the restriction had support on multiple fronts (including from the editors themselves). The point was that the end result was "overdetermined" as we sometimes say.

You obviously don't know what I was or am thinking, and as such the idea that "Obama probation is just a means to cover yourself if your imposing of this as a community sanction" or that this was a way "of making something stick if it has a chance of being questionable in the eyes of the community" is something you are making up out of whole cloth. That is not what is happening at all. Nor did I have any intention of reversing the restriction, as it was also imposed in a communal sense. It stands until the community reverses it. Again, you might have asked me about the matter, rather than essentially accusing me of having no idea what I was doing and possibly committing "a serious breach of community trust." You are way, way out of bounds there.

And yes, this has been translated into a formal restriction, though I was not even the one to propose that. If you want to re-open the discussion about that feel free, but you're the first person to complain, and indeed in the end the two editors agreed to this. I'm disappointed in the process wonkery here, but far more disappointed in the fact that you could not simply leave me a note on my talk page to discuss the issue. I have no idea where you think your authority comes from to undo administrative enforcement, but I don't think you have any. Ironically we could have ended up with the same result if you simply would have left me a note. Please don't do anything further on this without discussing it here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take responsibility for my actions, including my extraordinarily slow notification, which got mixed up in my tabs. I apologize for the unreasonable delay.

There a series of problems with putting it both under Obama probation and as a community sanction, particularly all at once. Both Obama probation and community sanctions are community-based; but they are separate - appeals, logging requirements, among other things, are different. Obama probation came about to avoid the need for individual-sanction discussions so trusted members put in whatever they want; community sanctions in the same area were to be used so that they are implemented after involving a full community discussion.

Given that the community sanction discussion ran its course, for one thing, it was not made plain that this sanction was considered under Obama probation and this was merely getting some other views. For another thing, it makes no sense for someone who isn't interested in rule-process-wonkery to add more of that process-wonkery, unnecessarily, to an otherwise simple remedy. It's ironic. Why would someone want to log it using Obama probation requirements which are more extensive? Finally, the other dimension Obama probation has is in appeals - that the imposing administrator can grant an appeal, while community sanctions require yet another full community discussion. With all these factors, my point is one can easily think that your actions appear to lack propriety; I don't personally believe they were deliberate - and you may gather that if you read the last sentence a few times, in the second para of my "lecture" as you called it.

I myself have no issue with the restriction and whether it's formal or informal - nor should anyone else. It's something for the parties to think about themselves. The amount of paperwork and process involved with Obama probation was intentional at the time of its creation; it highlights the difference between a community-based decision, and an individual administrator decision. I would not have known all this, had I not been the very user who proposed and enacted Obama probation for the benefit of the wider community. I knew that the effect of the sanction is not reversed based on your imposing it as a community sanction, and trusted that you would leave it at that. This is not our first encounter. Once again, I apologise about the notification, and even the delay in replying here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue is basically closed now (and as such this is a postmortem), but if you read the discussion above, you'll see I was originally going to enact this under the terms of Obama article probation, and just wanted a little more feedback before I did this (which I said specifically). Then another editor suggested it needed to be logged as a community ban, and perhaps should be logged both as that and as falling under Obama article probation. Because I had initially been only going to do the latter (and asked for feedback in that regard), it seemed a better idea to not switch solely to a community sanction, but to acknowledge that the action was originally going to be take under the terms of Obama article probation. I was clearly following another editor's suggestion, not going out on some weird limb by myself. I also wanted to take full responsibility for implementing this, as I noted above when I said "I'll take the heat as the admin taking this action." Obviously that is exactly what is happening here, as you have been criticizing me, not the collective discussion. The suggestion that there is an appearance of impropriety seems odd to me when I followed the suggestions of other users in terms of the wording of the remedy and the places where it was to be logged, and also in the end still said "I take responsibility for this." You could have clarified what was going on by asking me, rather than adding your own (incorrect) interpretation above without any consultation.

Your talk page posts to Baseball Bugs and ChildofMidnight muddied the issue. They had both agreed to this, yet you ran over there and said they could come back here and try to undo the whole matter. That's not true, and you could well have made things more complicated by saying that. I'm not sure you even read the above thread carefully enough to know what was going on here, because if you had you would have seen explicit agreement from both of these editors.

Again, the main issue, which you don't acknowledge, is not delayed communication ("notification" as you say) with me, but the fact that you took it upon yourself to reverse certain actions without talking to the admin first. That is common courtesy, you are not even an admin, and you have a history of over-stepping your authority and acting like an admin (or an ArbCom clerk) when you are neither of those things. It matters not that you "proposed and enacted Obama probation" (the community actually did the latter - but whatever), and you do not have ownership over that process. If we have another "encounter", please try talking with me first before taking me to the woodshed and reversing an administrative action of mine. Your concerns could have been dealt with by me in about ten minutes and with no acrimony by leaving a few sentence note on my talk page, so in the end you handled this poorly.

I consider this matter closed and will not comment on this again here, but if you want to discuss it further you can head to my talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been off for a few days but I see, as usual, ChildofMidnight name-drops me once again. This is a continuing pattern, most recently seen in a topic at Bigtimepeace's talk page (User talk:Bigtimepeace#A regrettable unblock) where I expressed disappointment that CoM's block did not stand. This user employs either one of two tactics; #1 is to name-drop when the other person has not even been involved in the current situation, as above, or #2 does the vague and nebulous call for "disruptive and persistent policy violators" to be banned. When asked, by myself or others, to provide diffs and evidence to support such a claim, CoM either backs away completely or demands that the other person be the one to do the digging. I'm not sure in what Bizarro-world one expects/demands the accused to provide the evidence that damns them, but whatever.

This user is obviously having serious behavioral issues with a wide variety of other users, some so acrimonious as to warrant ArbCom intervention i.e. (CoM vs. Bugs, CoM vs. Scjessey, CoM vs. Wikidemon). It seems that ChildofMidnight is seeking to add more and more users to this list (i.e. myself and NeutralHomer, tho I haven't the slightest idea what the context is of the latter), some sort of "these are the meanie wikistalkers, keep them away!" shtick. Perhaps the solution to a problem of one user having a problem with many users is to sanction the one rather than creating more and more specialized one-to-one relationship restrictions. Investigate the source of the problem, not the branches. Tarc (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I too share concerns with both the method and the wisdom of adding to the list of editors who are prohibited from interactions with this editor after having run-ins with him. Having created and maintained a number of the Obama article probation pages following Ncmvocalist's initial bold step of creating the community general sanction, I think the inclusion criteria for logging sanctions has been very loose to date: many of the 100+ on the list were blocked or banned on general principles, not with reference to sanctions. On the other hand, many who were sanctioned under probation did not make the list. Shall we add to the list all 30+ others who have exchanged mutual accusations of bad faith with this editor? That would remove at least one and possibly more of the administrators on this thread, one or more of the Arbcom members, and the co-founder of Wikipedia... more or less anyone who has tried to deal with the problem. To what end? What is the likelihood that removing involved parties will lead to a solution? Do you really think that if you forbid from interaction those whose patience has run out in favor of your own personal efforts to teach and have patience, you're really going to have a better result trying to reform this editor than all the others who have tried? I am a party to this latest incident, not of my own choice. Please let me know if I am free to discuss that here, and if not, please take this to Arbcom or some other forum where all of the interested parties are free to speak.Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The diffs at the top of the thread speak for themselves. Numerous admins have asked the editor to cease the inappropriate behavior for months. Stalking, harassment and personal attacks are unacceptable, and I hope that this solution will remedy the problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that by commenting directly about Bugs, you have just fallen afoul of the editing restriction enacted by Bigtimepeace. An admin should block you for that. → ROUX ₪ 21:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As this is an active discussion about editing restrictions that involve me it's quite reasonable and only fair that I be allowed to comment. As the restrictions have now been put in place I support the discussion being archived so we can all move forward. But if editors wish to discuss it further, then I think I am allowed to respond, don't you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(before ec) Please note - I've mentioned this issue, and also my query over my own ability to comment on it, before Arbcom.[40] - Wikidemon (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

CoM, I see 7 diffs in regards to Baseball Bugs. Can you either provide evidence to back the "Neutral Homer and Tarc engage in similar behavior towards me" claim, or, y'know, stop making such a claim? Tarc (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Is 7 not enough? He's been warned repeatedly by at least three different admins and promised on at least two different occasions to cease the offending behavior. Netural Homer has also been asked on several occasions to refrain from baiting me and making unconstructive additions to threads where I'm involved. The diffs are in his talk page history. The concern about users teaming up, stalking and harassing an editor they disagree with is serious and legitimate. If this particular problem with this editor can be resolved, that's a good start and I'm hopeful that things will improve. There are no editing restrictions involved other than not being allowed to talk to or about me. They are still allowed to take any concerns that they have about my editing to an admin via e-mail. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Bugs; I actually agree that he has done much to exacerbate the situation, esp with this pedantic "apologize to meeeee!" stuff. What I'm angling for here is essentially a "put up or shut up" with the accusations-without-proof stuff. I may weigh in at ArbCom amendments and clarifications and at AN/I, and seeing your name pop up in article edits where it isn't supposed to be popping up, but that certainly is not, quote, being a "disruptive and persistent policy violator". That's the sorta thing that needs to stop. Tarc (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum, I honestly find the entire concept of "UserX and UserY cannot interact" as a permissible sanction to be a bit retarded. If some issue has reached a point where users have to be separated like a couple of brawling schoolboys, then just straight out block one or both for a period of time. Seriously, how much time has been wasted over the years in AN/I, ArbCom Clarification, etc...trying to clarify the Rules of Engagement for such sanctions, as the sides poke and prod what is and isn't allowed? I'd like to see this particular "remedy" removed from ArbCom's arsenal. Tarc (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of user pages

User:Otterathome has come to several users' attention due to his behaviour surrounding his user pages. First, on July 14, he redirected his user page to the Autofellatio article, supposedly in protest over the lack of application of WP:NOTCENSORED to the article, because he wanted to add more images to the article over consensus. Since Otterathome refused to undo the redirect, this ultimately resulted in his user page being protected, and it remains so.

Subsequently, Otterathome turned his attention to his user talk page, which he decorated with flashing rainbow graphics that obscure the left hand navigation links. Since July 22, several users have been asking Otterathome to remove these graphics which, among other things, make it impossible for some users to click the links they cover. He has consistently refused to address these issues, and a short time ago has added further graphics along the bottom of the window with the comment "I hope you all like the new changes, and am flattered you take have taken such an interest in to such a low profile wikipedian. And I thank you for all your patience unlike the admin who protected my user page." Clearly this, like the previous nonsense with his user page, is all about making a point. I'm not sure how he has done all this, possibly by modifying his css or whatever, but it seems impossible to remove them, and he continues to refuse to do anything about it. Clearly something needs to be done at this point: a block? A page deletion? I don't know what. Suggestions? Exploding Boy (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently they're not impossible to remove: I just accidentally removed them while leaving him a note about this thread; we'll see how long it lasts. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

2 seconds. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I made the changes so there aren't any links that are obscured. And why don't you WP:AGF? I like the rainbow graphics and they were on my user page long before people started complaining about anything on my user or talk page.--Otterathome (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't know what I'm talking about? Exploding Boy (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you like a picture showing you how to click the left-side links on my user page?--Otterathome (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Otterathome is being deliberately disruptive, by his own admission, to make a point about Bjweeks protecting his userpage for the exact same issue. Remove the Jefferson Airplane decoration, block, and lock the talkpage until he agrees unequivocally via email that he will neither restore the images nor engage in any similar edits, broadly construed, until the heat death of the universe. Why waste our time? → ROUX ₪ 07:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Roux, once again, has it right. I've removed "trippin' the light fantastic". Using your talkpage disruptively to deliberately make a point is totally unacceptable. You could give someone a seizure with that inane graphic. →javért ^stargaze 07:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh so now it's seizure-worthy? If even look at the talk page history I have been addressing your concerns, but you just come up with new reasons to say it's not good enough.--Otterathome (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson Airplane? At least it's not those stupid Grateful Dead dancing bears! <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• As a side note, the links work perfectly fine in my Firefox, which is the latest version. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 08:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue really is that Otterathome has been directed to WP:UP and the guideline has been thoroughly explained to him, and multiple users have asked him multiple times to remove these decorations from his talk page for multiple reasons. We do not own our userpages, and the community has made itself clear: it does not want that content there. Otterathome ignored the issue for 2 weeks, declined to address the points raised, and simply reiterated that he likes them and sees no reason to remove them. Then, when another user told him the decorations would be removed if he didn't do it himself, he responded by simply moving the images around with the sarcastic comment "I hope you all like the new changes" and a reference to the admin who protected his userpage. This is obviously disruptive behaviour which all appears to have begun because he refused to accept consensus at Autofellatio, as noted above. I can't imagine how many person hours have been wasted by how many editors dealing with these utterly silly issues. It's a shame, because he appears to have otherwise useful edits, but he seems to be heading for an entirely preventable block. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't "supporting" his graphics usage. Just pointing out that the links work for me, even with the graphics. I agree that with an overwhelming consensus by people here and at his talk page, he should have removed them himself. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 18:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If the issue of the links being obscured and there being too many images in the graphic have been resolved, what are the remaining issues? It seems to me that the userpage should be unprotected. If he redirects again he should be blocked since he's already been warned. But the editor seems to be willing to respond to concerns, albeit reluctantly, and has made modifications to their userspace to meet the rules. Self expression is allowed as long as it's within policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue with the excess decorations on the user talk page has been resolved by someone removing them. As for the user page, it remains protected; I would be fine with it being unprotected, however I would dispute the claim that the user has shown himself willing to respond to concerns; quite the opposite, actually. User:Exploding Boy 21:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible IP stalker

I want someone to check out 76.66.199.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Taking a look at this users edits, it appears that this user is stalking my contributions, and is selectively editing my areas, whether its articles, talk pages, or other namespaces, this user is there.

Here is a chronology:

• At 20:57, 26 July 2009, I remove a large portion of content on The Biggest Loser (season 8). At 22:34, 26 July 2009, IP restores content without an edit summary.
• On 01:31, 27 July 2009, I report two users to ANI. At 22:32, 27 July 2009, IP expresses opinion in the discussion.
• On April 30, 2009 - May 1, 2009, I was in a discussion with another editor about the content of Archie Bunker. At 15:46, 5 August 2009, IP inserts "Test wikibreak" to the same talk page, but at 15:47, 5 August 2009, IP removed the text.
• On 04:28, 7 August 2009, I propose a name reformatting at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, and on 14:59, 7 August 2009, I make a further comment. On 16:23, 7 August 2009, IP expresses opinion in discussion.

These are all of the users edits in which I feel is stalking, and in fact all of its edits in my areas.

Previously, on 00:28, 21 April 2009, 72.188.57.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a post to my talk page informing me that it had been looking through my edits for "for a few months now". Whether this information is needed, I don't know, but a checkuser might need to check if these IP's are the same user.

Given the timing and areas this user is editing, I strongly feel that this IP address is stalking me on-wiki. Since this user is apparently stalking me, should this user be or not be notified of this discussion? Administrators, please look into this. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 17:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

4 edits? While it is obvious the anon checks your contribution history, I think 4 edits in 12 days hardly qualifies as "stalking". Except for the revert, the edits don't seem to be made to annoy or harass you, so I can't possibly see how you could be bothered by this.--Atlan (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are all of the users edits, except [41] which is a page blanking of the users own talk page. Since that's the case, I definitely believe this user is stalking me. Do you think I should or shouldn't notify the user of this thread? I haven't done so. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 20:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread. Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So you find this objectionable behavior? 4 edits on the same page as your edits? 1 of them is a revert, 2 only tangientially involve you and the other one is just a comment on the same page as yours. OMG let's call the cops.--Atlan (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It is the timing of the edits, and the fact that all of the users edits have been areas I've editing this year, and made shortly after me or just a few months after. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 06:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said, it's obvious the anon tracks your edits. As we all have an edit history anyone can view, that's no big deal. Read WP:HOUND: "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing". Now, if you feel those 4 edits disrupted your enjoyment of editing, you should go find a different hobby. Can we slap a resolved on this?--Atlan (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

AFDs

The following related AFDs are only being edited by what appears to be people offically connected to or fans of the subjects.

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackson Davis (2nd nomination)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG15: The Last
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Pawlak
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Becki Kregoski

Any participation from uninvolved users would be greatly appreciated.--Otterathome (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope this isn't canvassing because that is discouraged. The closing administrator should carefully consider the notability of the article and decide. AFD is not a vote. If the closing administrator is closing solely by vote, whether the vote follows policy or not, this is not desirable. User F203 (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Admins are rarely that bold, as shown in the previous AfD of one of the articles. This isn't canvassing as I am simply asking for participation from anyone who wants to, and why we need more users involved.--Otterathome (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In the future, I suggest you take the advice at WP:AFD (Step II) and attempt to add the AfDs to deletion sorting lists. That will help you generate more interest from a wider group of editors in a faster time, instead of only attracting people who would have the articles on their watchlists. -- Atama^chat 23:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Skimming the AfDs and seeing no disruption, I think that no admin action is required and that this notice was posted to the wrong forum. As suggested, please use deletion sorting going forward; you may list these AfDs as long as they are open. Flatscan (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think limited participation from interested parties is reasonable concern. I echo the calls to use deletion sorting to post notices to the appropriate project pages as the best way to deal with it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Banned user editing mobster articles?

I've just blocked 76.111.54.219 (talk · contribs · block log), an open proxy rapidly reverting a banned user on a load of mobster articles. The so-called banned user, 72.74.225.180 (talk · contribs · block log) still has a lot of outstanding edits, and it also looks like this little war has been going on for some time. See also 208.83.212.19 (talk · contribs). Can anyone shed any light on this? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There was some recent activity at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mynameisstanley that might be related to this... wouldn't explain everything, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Luna, it certainly looks like something to do with Mynameisstanley and a friend. Since they claim each other is banned, they'll probably just continue reverting each other forever... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User: Phoenix of9

Locus of dispute, or action in dispute

Tendentious disregard of consensus and disruption of consensus-building process in Homosexuality and Talk:Homosexuality

Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

• Phoenix of9 (talk · contribs) (notified)
• Scheinwerfermann (talk · contribs) (posting editor, no notification needed)
• Rivertorch (talk · contribs) (notified)
• MishMich (talk · contribs) (notified)
• Dhilvert (talk · contribs) (notified)
• Haiduc (talk · contribs) (notified)

Description of the dispute and the main evidence

The behaviour of Phoenix of9 (talk · contribs) has been strongly and persistently uncivil, uncoöperative, tendentious, and combative at Homosexuality and its talk page. Following the very productive, drama-free, week-long development of a new lead for the article, in which Phoenix of9 himself participated, consensus developed to install the new lead in the article. Shortly thereafter, Phoenix of9 reverted the lead. This reversion was undone with a polite edit summary pointing at the talk page. (all such reversions of Phoenix' insertion of a lead unsupported by consensus have been accompanied by polite, courteous edit summaries: [42][43][44][45]. Nevertheless, Phoenix has repeatedly defied consensus confirmed on the talk page, and continued to insert his own text which is not supported by consensus, with inappropriately belligerent MPOV edit summaries [46][47][48].

All other participants in the ongoing talk page discussion are coöperatively, calmly, civilly discussing how to optimise the lead, all attempts to bring Phoenix into that effort have been polite and courteous, and several participating editors have commented on Phoenix' unhelpful behaviour and tactfully pointed out factual problems with Phoenix' assertions ([49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58], etc.).

He's been offered a friendly cup of tea, and he's been counselled on his talk page [59][60]. Despite these efforts at outreach, his tone remains strident, insistent, dismissive, judgmental, and unilateral: [61][62][63][64][65][66][67], with a persistent theme of combative insistence that he is objectively right.

I do not primarily see this as a content dispute; we have here a group of editors working consistently and collaboratively for the betterment of an article, and one editor seems intent on spoiling that effort by persistent tendentious behaviour. He may very well have some valid points about how the lead can be further improved, but he is actively sabotaging discussion and consensus-building by his absolute insistence on having his way and refusal to participate in discussion (other than to reiterate that he is right and everyone else is wrong, "stupid", a waste of time, etc.). It's very disturbing to see this kind of willful, deliberate disruption of what had been a really nice example of how to collaborate effectively and efficiently to improve an article about a complicated, delicate subject (full disclosure: I was awarded a barnstar by one of the other participants for my role in facilitating the coöperative effort on the lead).

Were it not for this tendentious disruption, it seems (by talk-page consensus) that most of the participants involved agree the remaining minor issues with the lead would be quickly and coöperatively optimised, without drama. As it stands, we are being held hostage by a single editor who seems intent on disregarding consensus. By the looks of his talk page, it appears he has something of a history of edit wars and uncivil behaviour, for which he's been cautioned and warned repeatedly. What can be done effectively to bring this editor in line with community standards of behaviour and coöperation? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

Yes, Phoenix is fiery and provocative. Yes, I just reverted him because it was necessary. Yes, has me personally in his sights. So what? Let´s not make a mountain out of a molehill. I am concerned that such an ANI process will further polarize things. Let´s all settle down, everything is workable. --Haiduc (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes made by Phoenix seem to be a bit too ambitious (i.e., making changes spanning the entire text of the lead section), but this may have been precipitated by the just-prior change of the lead following a long discussion on the talk page. Reviewing the history of changes, Phoenix has adjusted his text to account for criticisms of his version (e.g., the and/or squabble). The best way forward would probably be for Phoenix (and others) to introduce rewrites as a sequence of well-isolated changes, so that any controversial material can be identified, and reverted or discussed, as necessary.

Incidentally, is this the right place to be having this discussion? --Dhilvert (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because edit warring/editing against consensus and wikiquette issues are all involved. Rivertorch (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The changes were discussed - why didn't he say something then? He seems to have waded in scornfully and dismissively rejecting what had been arrived at. Not much more to say than that - this does seem a bit heavy handed, it should be talked through on the talk page (with a moratorium on editing the lead until the problems are sorted). Mish (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix's tone indeed left something to be desired; I guess I'm just inclined to ignore tone. The fact that I have the facility in English to occasionally state things precisely and unoffensively doesn't mean that everyone does. More to the point, it should not be considered surprising that moving the lead text from the discussion page to the article would raise new objections (even following an apparent consensus). Phoenix has had his edits reverted by two editors now. Perhaps he'll get the idea and be a bit less ambitious in his changes. --Dhilvert (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I hate that it has come to this, but I believe that Scheinwerfermann is correct in bringing this to AN/I. As amply shown by Scheinwerfermann's diffs above, Phoenix has repeatedly edited against consensus and, while doing so, taken an insulting tone in his edit summaries and attacked the competence and trustworthiness of other editors on the article talk page. Despite receiving a friendly warning yesterday, he has not tempered his behavior at all. Rather, he has been dismissive of the civil requests made of him and has continued to ignore consensus (see same diff— Scheinwerfermann's edits were based on a very lengthy discussion that resulted in clear consensus). By engaging in this behavior, Phoenix has displayed a remarkable unwillingness to cooperate or collaborate or even listen, and his actions are not only poisoning the atmosphere but are threatening to derail what otherwise had been shaping up to be a highly productive and 100% civil period of teamwork on an often-controversial article. Rivertorch (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

I consider myself uninvolved in this as I wasn't although I've certainly worked on that article and am presently working on these issues. While i think there is a lesson here for Phoenix of9 to chillax a bit I also want to point out the this historically vandalized and often negatively pointy and POV article was quite a mess before Phoenix of9 started a process at the end of March of this year to completely overhaul and improve the article by recruiting a handful of editors to start improving each and every section. The article has greatly improved ever since. I see this as a frustration for some sticking points that Phoenix of9 feels strongly about and finding the worst way to express their concern. Generally they have been cooperative and even when consensus has gone directly against them they have accepted it. Phoenix of9 should likely step back for a few days and see if some of their concerns aren't addressed without disruption. If not bring them up in order of importance and since there is a lot of discussion maybe one point at a time. To me this is an area of major social dispute so I'm actually surprised there isn't more disagreement. If an uninvolved admin would look to giving them a word of encouragement to play nice on their talkpage it may help the situation. I'm not sure if anything beyond that will be helpful, this thread should likely serve as a stern public warning against disruptive behaviour. -- Banjeboi 16:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Remarks by closing editor

Alleged incivility and soapboxing by Keepscases

Moved from AN Viridae^Talk 00:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy-pasted RfA thread

1. Oppose User scrubbed offensive userboxes, including "please keep your imaginary friends to yourself" directed at religious folks, in hopes of passing this RfA. Keepscases (talk)

...

1. I advise the oppose section to find a less flimsy rationale. Shappy ^talk 01:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Flimsy? You're not even taking a stand one way or the other, so you may want to dismount that giant equus caballus of yours. Keepscases (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   He has just yet to make up his mind. He is stating that in order to convince him to oppose he will need a more solid argument.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Like Gordon said, I'm Takin' My Time reviewing this candidate, making sure I have a good all-around perspective in them. Better than automatically opposing someone for their beliefs. Shappy ^talk 02:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   If you think anyone's being opposed for his beliefs, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Keepscases (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   No, it's obvious that you've used RFA as your soapbox against atheism. Perhaps you should try and review the candidate's contributions and their article work to give you a better idea of what kind of an admin they would be instead of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Shappy ^talk 02:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Oh? Surely, then, you can provide an example of a time when I've taken issue with atheism itself, as opposed to elitist and confrontational attitudes that make someone of any religious persuasion (or lack thereof) look awful. I'll wait. Keepscases (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tedder, you go as far as to bar good-faith users of WikiProject Atheism from becoming administrators due to a few users carrying a certain userbox. While not a bias against atheism per se, it shows that you have an unacceptable predisposition against good-faith users who are interested in the subject of atheism. Shappy ^talk 02:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   The group in question proudly displays that userbox on its page to this day. I do not trust anyone who is associated with such a hateful group; the religious preferences of such a person are irrelevant. Keepscases (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   When you see a candidate using an atheism userbox you instantly infer that they are going to act inappropriately and cannot be trusted. Please please please explain in detail why this is. I do not like these userboxes, but boxes do not make the candidate. You are going out of your way to check if the candidate has at one point in time had an atheism related userbox. Can you also please explain why this is? I do not wish to sound mean, but I am utterly puzzled. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Sure--because I simply can't fathom how any responsible, respectful, and thoughtful individual--the sort of person I want to see promoted to administrator--would ever display such a userbox, or associate with a group who did. For anyone who paints me as anti-atheist--find me any other userbox, religious or otherwise, that is so intentionally disrespectful towards other Wikipedia users, and I will enthusiastically oppose its proponents with the same vigor you've all come to know and love me for. Keepscases (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   You are attacking a specific subset of editors with a specific belief. I can't see how that isn't worse than displaying a few pixels on one's userpage. Triplestop x3 02:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   I only agree with you if by "belief" you mean "belief that being condescending and confrontational towards other users is a 'cool' thing to do". Keepscases (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) I'm not trying to stop you doing so; I knew before this argument. I just gave you advice on other ways to review RFA candidates. You've also been told by many editors that your stereotypes are just as, if not more offensive that said userboxes. Shappy ^talk 02:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   (ec) No, by belief I mean atheism. Hate/smugness between people of different groups happens everywhere. And I don't see you opposing based on this "condescending and confrontational" from any other belief than atheism. Again, Rfa is not your soapbox. Triplestop x3 02:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alan16&oldid=306328221#Oppose and #Neutral.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here. Are you proposing a ban? Malinaccier (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am helping to expose what this particular user is doing, to a larger audience than WT:RFA. I do not find that such behavior is consistent with building an encyclopedia, therefore the user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and should consequently be banned, or at least blocked.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A link is sufficient. I recommend removing the text as it's distracting and will likely lead to more admins ignoring this than paying attention. Also, may I recommend Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Keepscases makes the comments above that Anyone associated with Atheism is a member of a "hateful group". He states that anyone who is an atheist, and not ashamed of it is a "condescending and confrontational" person. It can be read from other comments that Atheism is not a 'belief' to be respected like a religion is. How much of this Dominionism-based disruption and bad faith are we expected to endure here? By his logic, I should oppose every single RfA candidate who displays, or has ever displayed a userbox identifying membership in a faith in an irreverent, or humorous, or even sarcastic, manner. That will certainly reduce the number of candidates if it catches on. ThuranX (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, why is this here? No, I didn't move the comments asking why was it at ANI but I think the point was clear nonetheless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me be more specific. He's been here almost two years. So why should his very recent behavior in two RFAs be justification for a complete ban as opposed to a discussion at WPT:RFA about limiting his discussion at RFAs? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As of about four days ago (due to toolserver replag), 54.90% of this user's edits were in the Wikipedia namespace, with eight of the top ten edited pages in that namespace being related to RfA and all of the edits in Wikipedia talk namespace being related to RfA.[68]   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the minor issue of what the right venue for discussion is, a ban from RfA would sound like the appropriate measure to me. Looking at his contributions, I have a feeling he's been running a very long, very successful troll, knowing that Wikipedia has a high proportion of atheists and that tempers run high on RfAs. The trolling could be motivated by actual hatred for atheists, or he could just be doing it for, as they say, the lulz. But one thing that is clear is that these opposes do not contribute to the discussion at RfA, they undermine it. rspεεr (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If only you were as concerned about the reasons why administrator hopefuls might think disrespectful and confrontational attitudes are acceptable, as you are with the user who thinks such attitudes aren't compatible with adminship. When people like you claim that it's the jerks who are being persecuted and suggest that it's me who's the hateful one, I feel like I'm in Bizarro World. Keepscases (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed long copy-paste Badger Drink (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This should be at ANI if it is a ban discussion.....Malinaccier (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? I think ban discussions are more appropriate here than at the shitstorm that is ANI. See previous discussion on this here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive199#Use of this page. –xeno^talk 20:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not this is Incivility and soapboxing, the user has a right to express his opinion. However, there are some points that are for sure:

1. Keepscases's comments do not address individual candidates, the point of RfA
2. Keepscases's comments have incited much conflict
3. Keepscases asks many "unique" questions on RfA [69]
4. The user has done nothing but do this lately

Triplestop x3 16:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(Begin random lurker's opinion...) I have no dog in this fight, and no opinion one way or the other on what should be done. However, I think it's important to point out that the issue Keepscases seems to have is not with Atheists per se, but rather with the userbox that says "Keep your imaginary friends to yourself". The reason he brought it up at the RFA is that the candidate seems to have recently removed it from his userpage, which would appear on the surface to be an attempt to "cover up" something that would potentially have a negative impact on the RFA (as opposed to removing it because one no longer agrees with the sentiment expressed). Could he have argued his point more tactfully? Sure...but I think it's important to note that the disagreement seems to have its source in how the userbox was phrased rather than the actual sentiment behind it. Dgcopter (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's seems this discussion supports your theory. He should just file an MfD and get the box deleted if he hates it so much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not an advocate of censorship. I think users should be able to create and display any userboxes they wish, but any user who thinks posting a disrespectful userbox is a good idea is an unsuitable candidate. Keepscases (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm increduluous that people are actually proposing to ban me. I'm not doing anything wrong. Your beef should be with people who insist my long-standing, very sincere opinions are not valid...most of whom blatantly misrepresent said opinions to try and undermine my credibility. I just now supported an atheist who appears to have no connections to publicly-displayed elitism and hatefulness, and I have done so in the past. Keepscases (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That does not excuse your long history of disruption. Triplestop x3 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

All I do is post my vote, guy, but don't expect me to stay quiet if people want to argue I don't have the right. Keepscases (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The right to do what? What you're doing is basically the definition of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Even if all you were doing was fighting against a userbox (in which case you wouldn't have seen anything wrong with Tedder), RfA is not the venue to fight against a userbox. rspεεr (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't fight against any userbox, I oppose candidates who think it's a good idea to display it. I do not think any such user should represent Wikipedia in any position of power, "no big deal" be damned. I don't disrupt anything. All I do is cast my vote and then defend myself against people who attack me for it. Keepscases (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nineteen edits alone to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alan16, seventeen edits to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tedder, ten edits to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gordonrox24 2. These are just from the past couple weeks; the pattern has been evident for a long, long time. How many "keepscases oppose" threads are we gonna start? When someone generates as much mass drama as he does, it's clear whether they are a net positive or a net negative to the project, regardless of motivation. Highly support a topic ban from RfA or related threads. Tan | 39 00:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(ECx7)Really? You are surprised that few other editors are voicing support for your bigotry? You're actively discriminating against a large, and growing, group of people, based on their beliefs. This is exactly the same as discriminating against the Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, seventh day Adventists, southern baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, protestants or any other christian group which proselytizes. I don't see you doing that; I see the opposite. Why should we keep around someone whose attitude is 'anyone who isn't a christian shouldn't be an admin, especially people who think really differently than I do about something which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's you who should be banned, for completely misrepresenting my beliefs and actions. There is nothing wrong with being an atheist. I defy you to show me one edit in which I say there is. Keepscases (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Support a topic ban Besides the issue of having almost all of your edits to RfA religion based, you also repeatedly make inane edits such as these [70] [71]. This is 100% unproductive and does nothing but incite conflict. Triplestop x3 00:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, because the idea of actually making a potential administrator think about something new/unexpected, and give voters a little insight into his or her personality/demeanor, is grounds for a ban. Tell me, exactly what conflict did the edits you mention bring about? Keepscases (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

they didnt yet bring conflict but they were definitely a little silly and not really relevent to his duties as an admin. usually the questions show how they would interpret policy and improve Wikipedia nad not how they would cast a movie about Wikipedia!! Smith Jones 00:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Right as always, SJ! Let's slay these misconceptions about a Wikipedia movie! Skinwalker (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if you go through my questions, you'll find plenty of instances in which candidates were sincerely appreciative for the opportunity to answer them and/or they were helpful in voters' decision-making. The one candidate chose not to answer my movie question, and you know what? Everything was fine. There was no drama. Keepscases (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Smith Jones 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)::Thats a fair point, and I agree wthat you dont deserve to be sanctioned because of THAT (I dont know about the other things too much) but i can see how that might be constured as being part of a pattern of mocking behavior. you have to see this from evryones perspective since this a community-oriented and circumobular project which sometimes things that you thing are WP:FUNNY are actually being seen as violating WP:CIVIL due to too much sarcasm or Smith Jones 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Now supporting a full ban Keepscases was already blocked indefinitely for asking blatant, inane questions and was warned. See here [72] for examples. And he still continues to this day. I don't know what is going on, does he not get it or is he deliberately trying to troll? He clearly still hasn't got a clue and given his attack against Thurnax, it isn't likely he will get one anytime soon. Given that his edits to articles are all minor changes, and his inane posts at the Help Desk recently, I don't see that this user will turn around and go do something productive if he is banned from RfA alone. Triplestop x3 00:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Per below Triplestop x3 01:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what "attack against Thurnax" are you referring to? He accused me of something I've never done. As for my "inane posts at the Help Desk", I posted there looking to learn something. That is inappropriate why? Keepscases (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a no brainer to me.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 00:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, as the things I'm being accused of are easily disproven. Keepscases (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How are they disproven? Can you explain, please?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been explaining throughout these discussions. The main accusations against me seem to be that I am prejudiced against atheists and that I cause drama. Neither are true. Keepscases (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I supposed I'm a bit biased (seeing as I was an active participant in the argument at Alan16's RFA), but I don't see Keepscases as a positive contributor. Shappy ^talk 01:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, we've given him/her way too many chances. Like Kmweber and DougsTech, people who troll RFA should be topic banned. Shappy ^talk 01:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Outside views will be the judge of that.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. RfA is just like any other topic area. If an otherwise productive editor is unable to participate positively in one topic area, we can and should remove them. Protonk (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) See 'vote' below. Protonk (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, it may actually be worth your time looking at the section below.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I trust whoever closes this to be mindful of both discussion and vote, but thanks for the heads up. Protonk (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, this thread wasn't an official topic-ban thread. For there to be a discrete community-sanctioned ban, we need an obvious consensus, not the willy-nilly discussion above. However, you obviously may participate as you see fit. Tan | 39 03:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Keepscases topic ban from RfA

Might as well officially figure out if this has community support.

Proposal: Keepscases (talk · contribs · logs) is topic-banned from WP:RFA-related pages.

Support

1. Support as nominator. My comment above and a quick look at Keepscases contribution history, along with the above thread, should be sufficient. Tan | 39 01:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Comparing this to DougsTech: While DougsTech's opposes are not very constructive, they at least don't cause problems, and after all, he is entitled to his opinion. Though I find opposing based on atheist userboxes to be groundless, Keepscases does have a right to his opinion (an not unreasonable argument could be made that they are inflammatory), but asking such questions bites the candidates and does adversely affect the RfA. (Sorry this was poorly worded, with so many negatives.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Definitely. All that is done here is disruptive. Shappy ^talk 01:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Support as above. Textbook case of WP:POINT. rspεεr (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Support giving Keepscases a change to be productive outside rfa. Triplestop x3 01:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Enough. This is not because he is attacking atheism, it is because he has done nearly nothing aside from this constant disruption. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Support I haven't been involved in the discussion, but I've seen enough. Jeni ^(talk) 01:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Suppport Even though I think that some people in this discussion have had a knee-jerk reaction against "anti-atheism", when in my opinion the template isn't pro-atheism, it's anti-faith. But RfA is not the place to bring up that argument. Banning the editor from an area where they are causing routine disruption is both appropriate and fair, it allows them to edit constructively elsewhere if they choose to and also to start or participate in an MfD of the userbox they dislike so much. -- Atama^chat 01:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Strong Support, although repetition of such behavior after being blocked for it deserves a stronger remedy (that is, I prefer the proposal below to this one). Keepscases' disruptive behavior at WP:RFA has gone on for far too long.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Support based on the diffs provided by Mythdon down below in the This is distracting to the above, and premature. collapsed discussion. TIMMEH! - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Did my providing of diffs make your investigation easy? --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 03:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    It certainly helped. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Good! I hope it's helping the other users. I'm glad I took the time to provide that much evidence. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 03:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

11. Agree that behavior at RfA thus far has been disruptive enough to warrant a topic ban. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Kindly provide one edit of mine you believe was "disruptive" and not merely a statement of my opinion and/or a defense/clarification resulting from an attack on me. Keepscases (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    A list of diffs of your behavior is right here. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 05:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    And none of them support the allegation. If you disagree, be specific. Keepscases (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    This is disruptive. "Who would you tell?" What has that got to do with anything? And so is this. Voting so the numbers look pretty is not disruptive? Opposing per age is disruptive - if they are a competent editor, there age is irrelevant. This is just stupid. And there are plenty more. And thanks to Mythdon for the list of diffs. Alan16 (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Heh--if you're proposing that anyone who makes light-hearted or seemingly frivolous edits should be banned, be forewarned that you'd be taking out a veritable all-star team of Wikipedia users. The edits you provide weren't disruptive anyway. Keepscases (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    If you think "Who would you tell?" is a productive question, and one which would decide whether to vote for them or not, then you should certainly not be allowed to vote again. If you did this sort of thing once in a while, then it would be fine, but you don't. This isn't one or two frivolous remarks, it is a few dozen. Alan16 (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    A question like that can be very useful to understand someone's personality/character/demeanor. Have you ever been to a job interview? Anyway, I am allowed to ask whatever questions I wish. Keepscases (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Yes I have. And however you try to defend it, that is a pointless question that helps you judge them not at all. Alan16 (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    I encourage you to criticize questions with the same fervor when you're interviewing for jobs. It will get you far. Keepscases (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

12. Support Well, I certainly support it, to the surprise of no one who's seen my comments at the related RfAs. Please understand that merely displaying a userbox that simply and politely states that one is a member of the Athiest Wikigroup is enough to disqualify an admin candidate in his view. Why? Because there are apparently some other atheist userboxes he doesn't like. But rather than try and delete them, he seeks to ban any and all self-declaring atheists from adminship, per WP:POINT. Anyone who self-declares as a non-believer therefore becomes non-admissible. It's prejudice. It's intolerance. I look south from our border and see this kind of religious fundamentalism ruining a country I used to have respect for: I don't want it infecting this project. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    May I just add that WP:NPA expressly prohibits "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    I would never, *never* "seek to ban any and all self-declaring atheists from adminship". Your contempt of me based on things I would never do is becoming tiresome. Keepscases (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

13. If the user can't be indefinitely blocked, then a topic ban should certainly be done. This disruption can not be tolerated, and it is much worse than DougsTech ever was. I support a topic ban, though I would prefer an indefinite block. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 03:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    All I do is vote. Why do you fault me for the disruption? I have a right to believe that offensive userboxes show a candidate has no business representing Wikipedia. Keepscases (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Whether you believe that is irrelevant. In RfA, you're suppose to participate based on the behavior of the candidate, but more importantly, whether they'll abuse the tools or not. Comments there are suppose to be relevant to the candidates qualifications for adminship. You are not doing that. Instead of asking nonsense questions, you should be asking things like "how would you have closed this AfD?", or "what is your understanding of this policy?". Those are the questions you're supposed to be asking, but those are just examples. If you look through previous RfA's you'll find the questions you should be asking. Instead of doing that, you ask "Kindly demonstrate your grammar skills by explaining at least one way Quadell's nomination could be improved. ", and "Were these definitions provided by you? ". And as for your comments in the "support"/"oppose" sections, instead of making comments like "I do not agree with this user's positions on singular 'they', usage of quotation marks, and spacing between sentences. ", you should be explaining whether or not the candidate will abuse the tools and whether or not the candidate behaves consistently. You have a right to your opinions, but to express the opinions you are expressing at RfA is disruptive and irrelevant to the candidate. Let me be as clear as possible here: Your comments are disruptive to RfA, and it is best to ban you from all RfA participation to prevent further disruption. Until you learn your lesson, you just can't be at RfA. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 04:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    It is telling that you have to bring up things that have nothing to do with this discussion in order to try and appear that you're "right". But--those questions were asked for specific reasons and were appreciated by the users in question, and shame on you for trying to tell me what my voting criteria should be (would you like to live in a country that did that?) Keepscases (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    I am not telling you how to vote. I am telling you to vote within the relevance to the candidate, and you should do the same when asking questions. Whether or not the candidate appreciated the questions is irrelevant, as they disrupt the RfA. Your participation is no better than the participation of the now blocked DougsTech. After all, There was a discussion about whether to topic ban DougsTech, and let me tell you that that user didn't get nearly as much support as you are getting for such a ban at this rate. DougsTech didn't get topic banned, but did later get blocked. Let me tell you that if I were an administrator, and if I saw you engaging in this behavior, I would block you, no questions asked. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 04:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

14. Support, as Tan is predictably on the money here. Alternative option, allow Keepscases to vote and ask questions, but only by proxy of a crat (who will then obviously recuse from closing or voting themselevs) who must approve of the question/vote rationale in order to vet it for drama-inducement. In six months, revisit topicban to see if Keepscases can be trusted to edit on their own at RfA without creating drama. → ROUX ₪ 03:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    I don't think that will work. Having somebody vote for the user will not be a good idea. I think the user should learn on their own. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 03:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

15. Support Per my above, for the sake of transparency. Also, note Tan's important comment below. The alternative to this is that the community go through this rigmarole each and every time Keepscases feels like disrupting an RfA. We eventually learned our lesson w/ Kurt and RfA was better off for it. This is analogous. Protonk (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    I have the right to vote based on my criteria that I have made perfectly clear time and time again. Why do you blame me for the disruption, and not the users who attack me for my opinion, usually twisting my words to make me appear anti-atheist? Why am I the bad guy, Protonk? Keepscases (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

16. Keepscases' votes have always struck me as single-minded and POINTy. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    "POINTy" implies that I am intentionally disrupting Wikipedia. I am not. I vote based on the fact that I think users who select intentionally offensive userboxes have no business being administrators. Keepscases (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Whether you are intentionally doing this is irrelevant at this point. You have a right to your opinions, but that opinion is not an opinion that you should be expressing at RfA. If I was an administrator, let me assure you that I would block you. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 04:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Good to know; see you at your future RfA. Keepscases (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    You won't be there, because if I see you there, and if you are topic banned, you'll be reported, period. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 04:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    I don't plan on being banned, as I'm not doing anything wrong. Don't fool yourself into thinking that this "people who don't respect Keepscases" convention gets to decide my fate. Keepscases (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    You don't have to plan on getting banned, because the community has power on Wikipedia. They can actually decide your "fate" by a simple majority consensus, which you seem to find hard to believe based on your recent comment. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 05:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Unfortunately for you, this is not a representative cross-section of the Wikipedia community. This is a bunch of people who hate me in here, most of whom completely misrepresent my views and actions. A lynch mob alone can't get someone banned here. Keepscases (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    These people in this discussion have absolute power to direct you out of further participation in any RfA, and have the power to tell an administrator "please block", and that administrator will act fast, and will ask you no questions. A possible future block for a violation will prove this point. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 05:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    And yet, as much as it may pain you to hear this, I have exactly the same rights as a current Wikipedia user as you do, so you may want to get off your high horse, quit flexing your cyber-muscles, and go away. At some point, Mythdon, when you keep sounding off on every comment that I make anywhere, you have to understand it is you who is responsible for the drama. Keepscases (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, we're both responsible for this drama. If you respond, you have fault. If I respond, I have fault. Not all users have the same rights. Some users are placed under editing restrictions, and you're just about ready to get a restriction when a user closes this as successful. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 05:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    The extent to which you're fantasizing that I get blocked is more than a little scary. Keepscases (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    It will happen should you violate your future topic ban, if it becomes effective. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 05:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Could you just have your orgasm already and go away? Keepscases (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    I am not going away until this is done, and when it's done, your participation at RfA is over. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 05:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

17. (ec x3) While I 'get' that Keepscases claims to only object to outspoken Atheists, i.e., only those who make public their view that people of faith believe in fairy tales, this to me is a sign not of his view that they should be 'respectful', but of an expectation that they should be all out deferential, and that by his actions he is actively working toward a 'chilling effect' against atheists. It is that subversion of WP, and the fact that he's voted against non-offending atheists as well, that leads me to this vote. He wants the atheists to shut up, keep wuiet, and stop speaking out. Well, once theyv'e come for all the atheists, who will they come for next, and will anyoen be left to speak up for me when he, and his, come for me? ThuranX (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    I've been on Wikipedia for years, and I'm sorry, but that is the single dumbest thing I have ever seen posted. I think people who like offensive userboxes are unsuitable for adminship, and you're comparing me to Hitler. Keepscases (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Ah. You saw my Jewish Userbox, and now try to bait me by suggesting a Jew made a Hitler comparison. I see what you did there. Very shallow and transparent. I like the attempt to turn the persecutor into the persecuted by sugggesting a persecuted is now immorally behaving like hispersecutor of old. Very Interesting. And a transparent bid to someone get my vote ignored. Nice try. ThuranX (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Get over yourself. Your little statement there was based on an easily-recognizable quotation about Nazi Germany. It sucks when you try and put one over on someone and fail, huh? Keepscases (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    What the fuck are you going on about? You said I compared you to Hitler, I did no such thing. I used an old quote about the cumulative effect of giving in to a Chilling Effect. That it came out of the Nazi era is thoroughly irrelevant to my point. IF you really think that's me saying your Hitler, let me say it this way: My family ran from Hitler. And you sir are no Adolf Hitler. You're a paranoid little man, afraid that if you are exposed to too many new ideas, you may have to actually face them and think about them. I never, in any way, compared you to Hitler. Get over yourself. I stand by my assertion: Not content to insult ONE set of beliefs, you now are either looking for bigger fish, or so defensive that you're now lashing out at anyone NOT LIKE YOU. Bigot. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    You're just making an ass out of yourself now. Feel free to continue if you like. Note to all: I don't want this. I'm being compared to Nazis by someone who first denies it and then claims I'm a bigot for bringing it up. All I want to do is oppose RfAs from users who like offensive userboxes. Keepscases (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... is required reading for anyone who might buy this bullshit that ThuranX wasn't comparing me to the Nazis. Keepscases (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Chilling effect (term). Read it. That is my intent by that, and you know it. That it happens to make you look like a Nazi is your own conscience telling you something. YOu seek to make a class of people shut up and hide their presence. I simply pointed out what will happen when you're done with that group. That you suddenly see in that statement a comparison between your attitude and that of that Nazis is entirely of your own inference, not my implication. That you suddenly choose to accuse a Jewish Editor of Godwin'ing this, hoping for the Irony points, just shows how desperate you are. Let me help you out. this is only 6 to 12 hours from a SNOW closing, especially given your tactic for antagonizing every single voter, which is get a different campaign of intimidation. ThuranX (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    But yet all you're going to get is either a block or a topic ban from RfA. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 05:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Does it make you feel powerful to pretend you're in control here? Keepscases (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    We the community are in control as one. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 05:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Thuran, the "bigot" comment was blockworthy, so please don't repeat anything like it. And I suggest all of you end this line of discussion right now, because it's headed nowhere fast. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

18. Support Absolutely. →javért ^stargaze 05:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Good word! That word is what I think too. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 05:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

19. Support I really thought I was going to oppose this; even though Keepscases questions are often off-the-wall, they do provide interesting answers and a bit of levity. I didn't see a problem with the majority of Mythdon's links below, but those that are a problem are a serious problem and I hope this disturbing pattern doesn't show up anywhere else in Keepscases editing. Specifically, Keepscases seems to have difficulty with editor's personal religious beliefs and has gone so far as to attack other editors (examples here and here. Other comments that indicate an inability to put aside personal prejudices in this area are [73], [74], [75] and this is just the past few months of RfAs. RfA is a difficult enough process; there is no need to subject editors to attacks based on personal religious beliefs. Shell ^babelfish 05:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Every single link you provided was based on userboxes, Shell. Part of me wishes that religious groups had offensive userboxes that I would of course oppose in a similar fashion...but I guess a bigger part of me is thankful that they don't. Keepscases (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    So? Can you explain how that justifies calling someone "pompous, unprofessional and disrespectful"? If their userboxes offend you, its clearly possible to say so without name-calling. Since you don't see a problem with this hyper-focus on religious beliefs (which has no bearing on suitability for the mop), I don't see any course but removing you from participation where you're causing the disruption. Shell ^babelfish 05:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    It's so annoying when people claim they support the concept of freedom of speech, but pretend there's something wrong with judging people based on what they say. Keepscases (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    This is easily your strongest argument, and why someone might be willing to protect your privilege to oppose candidates based on userboxes. I don't feel that your opposes are limited to that (despite your claims here to the contrary) and I don't feel that your opposes represent a sensible way to go about criticism of candidates. Beyond this, you seem to refuse to accept that you might not be going about things the right way. Protonk (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    "Right" and "wrong" are arbitrary, and userboxes are contributions that should be evaluated unless someone else put them there. Which opposes of mine do you believe I haven't been straightforward about? Keepscases (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Keepscases, you might want to take a breath and realize that attacking folks who support your topic ban isn't doing your case any favors. I never mentioned free speech, so lets see if we can get back to the point. Do you have an answer to why you feel personal attacks are acceptable? Can you show us where you've gone through proper channels to object to these userboxes or start a community discussion about them? If you just keep on indicating you don't respect the concerns other editors have raised about your behavior, then you're painting us into a corner. Shell ^babelfish 06:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    My so-called "attacks", and by "attacks" I guess you mean single "oppose" votes on RfA's, were based quite clearly on attitudes that the users in question chose to express through their selected userboxes. And, as I have said countless times, I am no advocate of censorship, and think users have the right to create and display whatever userboxes they wish...but they should damned sure be judged on them. If I had a userbox stating (and I apologize, this is intentionally going to be offensive) "Any NIGGER Wikipedia user is gonna be MY SLAVE", would you EVER consider promoting me to adminship? Because, admittedly that was over-the-top, but you need to understand I find certain confrontational atheist userboxes *really, really offensive*. I don't want to censor the userboxes. I'm thankful I get to see which Wikipedians think they're a good idea. Keepscases (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    I'm going to take this to talk to avoid cluttering up this page further :) Shell ^babelfish 06:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    The talk referred to above is at User talk:Keepscases#Userboxes.2C_RfA_etc. and User talk:Shell_Kinney#Hi.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

20. Support My concern is not so much that there is a violation of WP:POINT, but that the editor persists in labouring the point. An opposition to a candidate for displaying a particular userbox which may inflame the sensibilities of other editors is legitimate - but using that !vote to focus upon that aspect of the RfA is not; either the premise of the oppose will influence other respondees or it will not - it does not need bringing up repeatedly. It is evident that Keepcases is unable to understand this, since they are engaging in the same behaviours in this discussion here. Disagreeing and explaining your stance at every oppose vote is disruptive. The other point of interesting questions is as troubling, in that there seems to be an element of elitism in requiring some arcane standards of English or similar - and I say arcane because while this is the English language Wikipedia there are very different cultures using different grammatical constructions. Simply, RfA is a discussion regarding the trustworthiness and experience of the applicant in requesting extra tools and not a battleground for idealogical/religious viewpoints, nor a dissertion upon grammatical styles. Keepcases appears confused in this, and should therefore be required to avoid those pages until they can contribute in a more appropriate manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
21. Support - "No member of "WikiProject Atheism" should represent Wikipedia as an administrator" [76] is an invalid reason for opposing adminship. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Oh hell yeah. BigDunc 13:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
23. Weak support. I was going to oppose per WereSpielChequers. I still endorse everything WSC said except the bit about former membership in the National Secular Society and being a "lapsed atheist" (not sure what that means, exactly). I consider some of Keepscases' RfA questions to be more problematic than the problematic userboxes. But what really made me switch to supporting the RfA ban was when I realised that apart from a few trivial fig leaf edits Keepscases seems to be a single purpose account for voting on RfA. That's bad enough in itself, but it's particularly bad when it's reasonable to assume that the voting behaviour is controlled by ideology/religion. – I also note this (unrelated to RfA), which suggests to me that this user is already well on the slow route to a permaban. Hans Adler 13:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    While you may consider that assumption "reasonable", it's still incorrect. I believe users who choose intentionally offensive userboxes are unsuited for adminship, and I'll oppose every one of them, no matter what ideology is involved. That only atheism-related boxes have been involved is a reflection on the users responsible for them, not on me. Keepscases (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Don't talk such nonsense. It is only atheists you oppose because of userboxes. this this, and this surely portray the same supposed elitism that you think certain atheist userboxes do. However I've not seen you crusade against these userboxes. Alan16 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    This is the first time I've ever even seen any of those userboxes, and they are statements of belief and not confrontational. It's okay to believe in loving Jesus, it's okay to believe in creationism, it's okay to believe in atheism. It's not okay to be disrespectful to others. Keepscases (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    "Real men love Jesus" is easily as confrontational as "keep your imaginary friends to yourself". Why will you not just admit that you have something against atheists? Alan16 (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Because I don't have anything against atheists; why will you not just admit that you can't seem to argue against me without using strawmen? "Real men love Jesus" is not aimed at people who don't love Jesus, nor does it suggest there's anything wrong with them. Whereas using the term "imaginary friends" towards religious people is intentionally confrontational and disrespectful. Keepscases (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    The use of "real men" implies that people who do not love jesus are not real men. If "imgainry friends" is confrontational, then so is the "real men" one. Alan16 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Both are wanton, empty personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Well, unless anyone can provide examples in which I've failed to speak up against RfA candidates who displayed the userboxes Alan16 cites, none of this is relevant anyway. Keepscases (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    (ec) Actually, there is a big difference. "Keep your imaginary friends to yourself" is a brilliant insult against believers, optimised for maximum impact. "Real men love Jesus" can be read as a negative statement about men who don't "love Jesus", but I think it makes much more sense to read it as a self-ironic statement that plays with (1) the stereotype of men with strong religious feelings being soft, and (2) the homoerotic overtones that stem from the fact that Jesus was a man, and which create a tension with the conservative attitudes that are particularly common among religious people. Also note that it fits the general pattern exploited in Real Men Don't Eat Quiche. For me this is a typical statement of a young Christian who is looking for his place between the conservative norms of his community and the much more open-minded culture among his friends.

    I was aware of all this, but it's no reason to change my opinion. I did not support the bans in the previous somewhat analogous situations, but there are just enough differences to make me support a topic ban in this case, especially the danger of polarisation along religious lines where religion simply shouldn't matter and the danger of an actual impact on RfA outcomesHans Adler 17:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

24. Yes, please. RfA is already dramatic enough without Keepscases; we need people who throw water on the flames, not gasoline. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 14:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
25. "Everyone is entitled to their opinion" is like the First Amendment: on paper, you can do anything, but there are actually restrictions to prevent the abuse of power. Now, seeing as both Kmweber and DougsTech were eventually both kicked off Wikipedia even though people insisted "oh, they're just saying their opinion!", I think we should actually learn from our mistakes and topic ban him before he does something which would warrant a site-wide ban. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not comfortable with your analogy, given that I'm not making any false statements and not looking to abuse any power. All I expect is one vote, just like everyone else gets. Keepscases (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    However, you're not voting or asking questions based on the candidate. If you would just do that, we wouldn't even be here, and you would have nothing to worry about. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 16:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

26. Support He appears to have a bias against atheists or maybe it is only just one userbox, but that doesn't matter because either way it shows that he doesn't actually read the RfA before voting oppose, and I don't think this is the sort of person we want voting in RfAs. Alan16 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
27. Support (mind, I don't "self identify" as atheist). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
28. Support, though I don't exactly have much to add, given the completeness of the reasons above. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose as I am not doing anything wrong. I have nothing against atheism, no matter how many users try to paint me as such, and I have the right to vote in RfA's and the right to defend myself against attackers. I propose discussions on how to discourage others from badgering me about my votes. Keepscases (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   You said above that the accusations against you are "easily disproven". It would be helpful to your case to see some evidence of this.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   Strongly Oppose Full disclosure, I haven't edited in about 9 months, but I still do a lot of reading on various policy and process pages, and I'm finding it impossible not to step in here, so here I am. First of all, let's put to bed the notion that this user is voting based on candidates' religious beliefs. This all stems from a higly inflammitory and inappropriate userbox displayed by the athiesm wikiproject. Frankly, I'd be shocked if anyone here thought this box, which blatenly insults anyone who believes in any form of higher being, was appropriate for display anywhere. The idea that an oppose based on a user endorsing such divisive and insulting content is worthy of a ban is silly, even if you don't agree with Keepscases views or methods of voicing them. If a Cristian RFA hopeful displayed a userbox that stated "Anyone who doesn't believe in God is doomed to burn in hell for the rest of eternity", I'd expect an oppose or two. Bleeding Blue 01:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC) To Neutral per discussion below. Bleeding Blue 04:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   What someone puts on their userpage doesn't need to have anything to do with their article contributions etc.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   More to the point, Keepscases has opposed people simply for being members of WikiProject Atheism, even if they never displayed one of the userboxes that are supposedly the sole problem. rspεεr (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   More to the point, that is what I was just saying. What someone's personal views are should not be as significant at an RfA as their relevant contributions to the project.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   I say if you have have a problem with the userbox itself, nominate it for deletion via the Mfd process but the userbox itself shouldn't be used support or oppose anyone. Creating drama around it, even more so. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Opposed to shotgun witch trials on general principles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   In favor of block. - Changing to support. Block discussion closed. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

3. I'm in the clear minority here, but so be it. While I disagree with Keepscases' opinion, I think he is entitled to it. Personally I don't think it is right for the community to say certain kinds of opposes aren't allowed at RfA. The only reason Keepscases' !votes cause a lot of drama is because editors feel the need to reply and say how dumb they think the !vote is. If people just ignored the !vote, much like the closing crat is likely to do, then there would be no drama. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
4. I support the right of anypne to come up with any grounds they feel like to oppose an RfA and the right of the community to summarily ignore them. Viridae^Talk 05:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   I thank you, but why should I be ignored? Why shouldn't my vote count as much as anyone else's? If I'm out of line, won't the votes reflect that? I don't like where your slippery slope leads to. Keepscases (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   That wasn't directed at you specifically, but at the ether. As to why your vote shouldn't count, that is up to the community poor some some representative portion of it, to decide. Viridae^Talk 05:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   I for one believe everyone's vote should count. If a user's position is unsupported, the votes should reflect that. Keepscases (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose for the most part Keepscases has been spot on about the userboxes and while I have found some of his other conduct trivial at times it has been repeatedly sanctioned at WT:RFA as acceptable. Icewedge (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
6. oppose Anyone with an account can NotVote for any reason, or no reason at all. Merely having a numbered comment SHOULD NOT MEAN ANYTHING in itself. I'm baffled that RfA editors refuse to spit the hook - didn't they learn after the "SELF NOM IS PRIMA FACIEA EVIDENCE etc etc" stuff? About the ubx: I'd agree that people displaying that ubx are probably not suitable for admins, but Keepcases has begun notvoting on people who are members of a project that has the UBXs, even if those editors have not had the ubx. this atheist thinks some people need to think hard about the userboxes they display NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
7. These ridiculous voting sections should be removed; sanction discussions are not RFAs, nor should they take this RFA format. Why is this considered an exception? I'm sorry; Keepscases is not an exception - the sanction proposal discussion should be treated like any other user. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose I do not share Keepcases' concern over the userboxes and I have stated as much in an RfA from several months ago. That being said, the only genuine drama that is generated does not come from Keepcases himself, but from a tiny number of individuals who have repeatedly sought to take his occasional and (admittedly) non-influential userbox-related comment and turn it into a Wagnerian opera. I have yet to see any evidence of how Keepcases has derailed an RfA based on his unique observations. Ultimately, this debate is going to have to question something that is becoming painfully obvious: is Keepcases being prosecuted because he has hopelessly disrupted the RfA process, or is he in the hot seat because a few people hate him and this is the only way they have to get back at him? Pastor Theo (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Weak Oppose. Amongst encyclopaedians views on religion should be as irrelevant as ethnic background or preference in team sports; providing they edit with a neutral point of view. I think Keepscases would be a much more effective participant at RFA if he were to shift his attention from POV userboxes to POV edits and broaden his opposes so that he didn't appear to be targeting atheists. As a lapsed atheist myself and a former member of the National Secular Society, I'm aware that one of the differences between the US and the UK in particular is that a lot of our US editors come from societies where prejudice against atheists is one of the few socially acceptable prejudices, whilst many of our UK editors come from a post Christian society where atheism is pretty normal, at least amongst educated people. To make this project work we all need to find ways to work with people we wouldn't normally expect agree with. I would prefer that this sort of debate was held at MFD's over particular UBX's rather than here, and would suggest that Keepscases not be topic banned but instead consider this as an admonishment for an RFA !voting record where a disconcertingly high proportion of his opposes have been of atheists. BTW I wasn't impressed by this either. ϢereSpielChequers 12:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose mostly per Pastor Theo. We've seen similar disputes regarding userboxes; people who support Israel, Palestine, and Christianity, and many others and at those time people made controversies on any possibility of candidate's bias on race, belief, religion, politics, etc. If you want to ban Keepcases, bring all people who had the similar disputes in the past on the table. --Caspian blue 13:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Okay. Show me any editor who is repeatedly arguing in RfAs that, say, a Jewish or Muslim editor cannot participate fully and equally in Wikipedia on the basis of their declared religious affiliation and I'll vote to ban them from RfAs, too. With pleasure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    I don't think I need to. I've state my stance so have you.--Caspian blue 19:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose What ThaddeusB says above is the essence of the problem: We cannot go around telling people for what reasons they are allowed to !vote and for what not. I have argued against DougTech's topic ban the same way. The problem does not come from Keepscases' irrelevant !votes (and they are irrelevant because he has so far failed every single time to show any single piece of evidence that a candidate he opposed for such reasons has really edited in a non-neutral way). The problem is the reaction they cause and we would do good in reminding people to simple stop commenting on these !votes and let it rest. No candidate will fail RFA because of these !votes because I think no closing crat will consider any !vote (support or oppose!) valid that does not have any relevance to the contributions of the candidate in question. But as Thaddeus says, we should not start forbidding people to !vote for whatever reasons they deem relevant. We should instead inform those !voters that their reasons will be ignored if not relevant to the candidate and we should encourage people to simply let those !votes stand. Wikipedia:Thank you for your vote is a good essay on this "problem" (although the problem is caused by wasting hours discussing such topic bans instead of simply ignoring those !votes and doing something that is more important). Regards SoWhy 13:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    I disagree 100% that my votes are "irrelevant"; first, the addition of a userbox itself is a non-neutral edit, and secondly, I have always been clear that my concern is regarding users with disrespectful/confrontational attitudes being the face of Wikipedia, and not so much with their edits themselves. Keepscases (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    I know that you do. Unfortunately for you, an overwhelming consensus in the community agrees with me on this. Edits on userpages are per definition non-neutral and as such, your argument would be against having userpages at all. As for the "face of Wikipedia", in my experience, no new user or outsider will go to a userpage before observing edits by said user and as such, their edits are what people will see first when encountering them. Personally, I have not observed a single occurrence where a new user agreed with someone's edits but has then afterwards felt threatened by something they read on said user's page. Usually they will judge someone by their edits and so do we at RFA. Hence your !vote, while your right to cast, has so far not been considered relevant to someone's ability to become an admin. Regards SoWhy 19:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

12. Caspian is right; this argument feels like a nationalistic dispute to me. And for some readers, that's just what it is; there's been a steady decline in the relative influence of organized religions in western civilizations for the last 500 years, but that decline is spotty, and nonexistent in much of Asia and Africa. Equating religion with having imaginary friends is certain to be perceived by intelligent people in many countries as painting their entire country as childish or delusional ... not cool. Keeps is picking up on this, and I'm happy to see he's willing to take a stand; the problem is that he doesn't seem to be as interested in any other battle, and the overall effects of this fight at RFA are, for now, negative. As a first step, I'd like to see more discussion about the problem Keeps is pointing to. On the other hand, I reject Keeps' position that a topic ban is out of the question ... it's too soon IMO, and when it comes, a first offense should be temporary rather than permanent, but it's on the table. - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose - as per SoWhy and Caspian. Danks point regarding the wording of the userbox wording as it may be precieved as offensive to some people is, to me, the real problem. That being said, I don't agree with the methods or standards used by Keepscases at the RfA's and hope that he would reconsider his views. Shinerunner (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
14. Strong oppose - So let's see, this is the 3rd person we don't particularly agree with the views for? I wanna say this: We're turning RFA into a personal blocking because of how they feel, not because of how others feel. This is the fourth person who's caused crap at RFA, and it takes less than a month to go after him? We're talking walled garden here, very tall walled garden. I think the sensible solution is to work this out at WT:RFA, not causing an issue at WP:ANI. Oppose topic ban and indefinite block completely. I feel this is just getting out of hand.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 14:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    I respectfully disagree that RFA is a walled garden. Everyone who wants adminship, and everyone who supports or opposes them, gets involved at RFA to some extent, some to a great extent. That's one reason we have more conflict than some other areas; participation is very heterogeneous, including lots of people who don't agree with each other and sometimes don't like each other. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    That's not completely what I mean. Look at this - this is the 4th time in 12-15 months we're crucifying someone for making strange votes on RFA. And what a shock, the first three are blocked :|. We don't need to tell another one through this - Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 14:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

15. Oppose Mainly per Icewedge because in my opinion, having a userbox that simply says "This user is an atheist" is fine and non-controversial and unoffensive, but saying "keep imaginary friends to yourself" is offensive and is a legitimate oppose rationale.--Giants27 (c|s) 14:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Fine. But he voted to oppose Tedder for simply displaying the fine and non-controversial and unoffensive "This user is a member of..." userbox, stating unequivocally that "No member of "WikiProject Atheism" should represent Wikipedia as an administrator." Tedder never displayed an even potentially disruptive userbox, by your own criteria. This was an attempt to blacklist by affiliation, contrary to WP:NPA. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

16. Oppose per SoWhy. By now, Keepscases should be keenly aware that xe is in the minority. It shouldn't be the community's responsibility to keep anybody from tilting at windmills if they are so inclined. The !votes will be ignored, people will grumble under their breath, and eventually Keepcases will move on to other endeavors. A topic ban at this point will do nothing but provide a solid platform from which Keepcases (or anybody) can yell loudly about the evils of Wikipedia. CosmicPenguin (talk• WP:WYO^Help!) 14:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose Objections to how an editor votes can be disruptive. The votes themselves, which can be discounted by a bureaucrat and have never been shown to change the outcome of the discussion, rarely so. If an editor wants to object because of someone's user box, I think that's their privledge. Their vote doesn't have to be counted if it's not legitimate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose There must be a very, very high bar for banning an editor from spaces like RFA where significant discussions and decisions are made regarding the governance of this community. Even if the accusations made by his or her detractors are accurate - a concession I am not yet willing to make - this editor's actions do not rise to that level. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose I'm no fan of Keepscases (although I will admit that his/her questions can help inject some well-needed lightheartedness into the discussion) nor his/her views. However, I do agree with some of the above comments that a fair portion of the disruption comes simply from feeding the troll. If Keepscases opposes or supports for a reason you feel is inane, just ignore it - it will go away. The solution to all of this is that the result comes through consensus, and not a vote. An oppose based on a removed userbox is not likely to be given the same weight as a support or oppose based on an analysis of recent contributions. We should trust our bureaucrats and the working system we already have in place, not try to restrict opinions. An oppose based on religious beliefs, however flawed, is no more "flimsy" than "Why not?" Essentially, what ThaddeusB and SoWhy said. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose. While he may have a bee in his bonnet about the issue, he has clearly explained why and though I may disagree with his arguments, I think it is not an obviously unreasonable stance. Quantpole (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose Just because he has a minority viewpoint doesn't mean he should be prohibited from expressing it.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
22. While I disagree with his opinion, I will say that this is too soon. I fear that we've rushed into this much too rashly. What have we done so far? A few RfA threads, and then a topic ban proposal. There has not been any sort of dispute resolution, nor any sort of formalized discussion. Most of the WT:RFA threads have been just a lot of lynch mobs, which are trying to get Keepscases to stop via force. Those threads will not get him to change his opinion or his !vote. Conversely, they'll just make him more irritated, and that will lead to hard feelings all around. I think that there's still hope in Keepscases, as long as we go about it rationally and in an organized fashion. My opinion is that there should be an RFC over his behavior, which will 1) lay out the problem in a neat and organized fashion, 2) not have the pressure of any pending RfA hovering over it, 3) allow everyone to get their opinions out equally, and 4) be a lot friendlier way to go. It's amazing just how much a clean presence of mind will solve. (X! · talk)  · @184  ·  03:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

    Good suggestion with the RfC. I'll file an RfC after this discussion ends. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 03:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

    If you have the best interests of the project at heart, Mythdon, you'll let someone else handle an RfC; you've been more than a little obsessive about this whole thing, and while you have every right to participate and share your opinion, I hardly think you're the person to orchestrate any kind of rational and calm discussion that X! suggests. Keepscases (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

23. Oppose per Viridae. This is a reenactment of every other "He can't soil my RFA!" bullshit that solves nothing, stokes nothing but drama and reveals nothing unseen except how little faith people have in the basic observational skills of our bureaucrats and how violently butthurt some people get over their RFAs. Please note this does absolutely does not count as an endorsement of Keepscases useless conduct. I should also note that as a completely uninvolved observer, Mythdon's unhelpfully antagonistic "I'll see you blocked and laugh at you for it, punk" sneering in this thread is tremendously dismaying to me. His baiting is doing his side of the discussion no service and has almost single-handedly changed my perspective on the whole matter. With that in mind, I refuse to support breaking this particular vexatious butterfly on a wheel.Bullzeye ^contribs 03:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

    Where did you get the idea of "I'll see you blocked and laugh at you for it, punk" in my comments? I did not say I would laugh, nor did I call Keepscases a "punk". I do not know where you got that idea. I actually said things, including but not limited to "you won't be there, because if I see you there, and if you are topic banned, you'll be reported, period" and "let me tell you that if I were an administrator, and if I saw you engaging in this behavior, I would block you, no questions asked.". I don't know how you picked up "I'll see you blocked and laugh at you for it, punk" in my comments. I was not making any attempt to bait anyone. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 03:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

    Since you chose to single out my comment for further inquiry, I'll oblige you and be blunt; I initially weakly supported an RFA ban after reading the discussion, and then slowly segued to a strong oppose after seeing the eagerness and self-righteous vitriol in your comments, which suggest to me (an uninvolved and previously sympathetic observer) an unsettling degree of unprofessional "enthusiasm" in your interests here. This is the end of my comments on this topic. Bullzeye ^contribs 03:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

24. Opoose If comments at RfA are irrelevant, ignore them. DGG (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Note to Bleeding Blue, regarding your oppose above - I couldn't care less if Keepscases likes, dislikes, hates, agrees with, !votes per, or otherwise has proclaimed jihad against atheist admins. My proposal for the topic ban had absolutely nothing to do with this. It is for the years of ongoing drama in RfA. Tan | 39 01:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A block of sorts would probably be better right now than a topic ban.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 01:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but all the drama I'm aware of is the stuff related to that box, and a few irreverent questions. (Admittedly, if something more serious happened some time ago, I'm probably unaware and am willing to reconsider based on that.) I've also seen valid !votes and discussion on other RFAs, so I think a full ban is harsh, even if I don't particularly endorse some of his/her actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleeding Blue (talk • contribs) 01:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, if you don't have a full awareness of the situation, you might want to rethink jumping in with a strong oppose, especially with a strawman argument that it is about atheism. It is not. You might want to take a stroll through Keepscases contributions, and note the trends. Most of the drama you will find has nothing to do with atheism. Tan | 39 01:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to stay down here for now, I'm finding it confusing to respond in two different sections. I'm aware of the Tedder !vote, that seemed to start this whole ball rolling. I didn't and don't think it's valid to oppose based on the actions/views of a WikiProject you associate yourself with. If you all think that !vote alone is worthy of a full topic ban, that's fine, but in my mostly useless opinion, that's a little on the harsh side. I do, however, think that opposing someone who actively displays the box is as valid as an oppose on edit count or namespace distribution. While it indeed says nothing about the editor's ability to contribute, that's very little of what adminship is about. It's more about conflict resolution and cooperation, which that box is severly harmful to. As for the claims of continuing drama, if there are other issues, again, please point them out, and I'll consider them. I can only respond to the issues you raise directly in support of this ban. Bleeding Blue 01:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at User talk:Keepscases, you'll see a lot of drama kicked up about Keepscases' actions on RfA. Note that not all of their edits have brought negative attention; among many generic "thanks for voting" responses there are a few mentions of appreciation (and I have to admit that I agree that this was hilarious) but far more people who were upset by Keepscases' strange opposition votes and questions for RfA candidates. They included an oppose for a person who had a picture with a cigarette on their userpage, a question about notification if the candidate died after being an administrator, whether or not they edit under the influence of hallucinogens, etc. This userbox crusade is the latest in a very long history of strange behavior at RfAs. -- Atama^chat 02:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes, I've had a look at that. It seems to me that this user has a habit of posing unusual questions at RFAs, that seems to account for most of the queries. S/he's certainly been warned about it plenty and if it's becoming overly disruptive to the process, something certainly needs to be done. My oppose was mostly based on my perception that this stemmed from the userbox issue, as most (if not all) of the recent discussion has arisen from and been about that, and I think that usage of divisive messages on your user page is a valid concern in an RFA. The pattern of behavior re:RFAs has been consistent and odd, but it seems like we're trying to elevate it to the level of "Power Hunger" and "Too many admins", if you catch my drift. The questions s/he asks are optional and it seems , according to one particular post on her talk, that there is consensus to remove "stupid" questions. That seems like a fairer solution to the problem to me. Bleeding Blue 02:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If we say that stupid questions are to be removed, do we need a full-out discussion each RfA of which ones to remove? Who decides this? Why should resources be taken up to determine this? This has already been proposed many times and shot down each time because doing it on an ad hoc basis would be too difficult to determine. It is akin to addressing the symptom of a disease. Here, we address the root of the problem - he simply cannot participate anymore. Questions are not the only disruption; it is also in his supports, opposes, and subsequent megabyte-long discussions that ensue. If you don't want to take the time to investigate the issue, I respect that. However, you should rethink your "strong oppose" vote with a strawman argument (sorry to repeat that, there's no other way to put it) and instead either don't vote, or state something to the effect that you are opposing without taking the time to investigate the situation. Tan | 39 03:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)I believe that both of your accusations against me and/or my vote are unfair. My 'strawman' argument was in response to how every prior discussion about the athiesm thing has gone prior to this thread, and was made prior to the focus changing to his/her unusual questions at RFAs. Each prior discussion at indifidual RFAs has boiled down to slinging the 'anti-athiest' tag around, and Keepscases' futile attempts at making it understood by everyone that he has a problem with that box, and not the beliefs it represents. It's unfortunate that he opposed one user for simply belonging to the wikiproject. In my opinion, it would have been valid to ask the user what his opinion of the box was, as a member of the project, and whether he thinks it's appropriate to display there. But, judging by the standards that have been set in this discussion, that would have been dismissed as another disruptive silly question and no doubt included in that exhaustive list of diffs provided earlier.

As for the idea that I didn't look into this issue, the only reason I'm here is because I silently witnessed all of the prior discussions unfold at WP:RFA and felt s/he was being unfairly attacked for bringing up a valid concern. I was of the (apparently misguided) impression that you all were more concerned by that than some silly hypothetical questions at RFAs, and so didn't directly address them. If my vote is improper, it will be properly discouted when the time comes. Bleeding Blue 03:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't as if a 'crat is going to close this with some defined outcome. This is a community-sactioned ban proposal. I made no purposeful accusation of you. You state above, "Admittedly, if something more serious happened some time ago, I'm probably unaware and am willing to reconsider based on that." I have no other interpretation of this other than "I haven't investigated the situation in full". If you meant something different, I apologize. I made a proposal based on over a year of past disruption. I am familiar with that disruption, and intended the participants to also familiarize themselves with the evidence at hand in the user's contributions, as I stated in the #1 support of the ban. Your strong opposal was based on this statement: "The idea that an oppose based on a user endorsing such divisive and insulting content is worthy of a ban is silly". The ban was not at all proposed because of this. Thus, by definition, your argument became a strawman argument. I don't mean this as an insult, it's just the way it is. All in all, I don't mean to belittle you or strongarm you into changing your mind. What I do want you to do is ensure that your participation here is based on sound reasoning - for your own integrity. If you prefer to leave things as-is, I will comment no further on this. Tan | 39 03:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my vote above, but I'd like to make a few things clear, mostly to indeed preserve my integrity.

I was under the impresson that Keepscases alleged "Incivilty and Soapboxing" (ie the title of this discussion) was the primary issue here. As I stated earlier, I was aware of these RFA questions because a simple glance at the user's talk page makes it impossible to miss the issue. But, at least to me and judging by the nature of most of the comments I found there, it was a minor concern compared to the userbox voting. Hence my "more serious" qualifier in my original statement.

As far as integrity goes, I'm here partially because it bothers me that a hopeful admin posting divisive, attacking, hurtful, etc messages on their user page is so readily dismissed by the community as unimportant. The very nature of adminship is dealing with other users, often in heated situations. If we're all failing to see a problem with posting hateful language on a page that's supposed to represent a user charged with conflict resolution, I'm not sure what else I can say. I'd actually like to preserve my own integrity by standing by my position that these kinds of things are perfectly appropriate to discuss at an RFA. I refuse to believe that this isn't the relevant issue, because it's blatently obvious that this was the issue that caused this action, that inspired it's title, and that had been discussed several times in the past couple of weeks. If this was purely a "silly questions" problem, the timing is curious at least.

As far as the MfD dismissal I keep hearing repeated...okay, so the template gets deleted. That doesn't change the fact that users that used to have that box on their page were ready and willing to post such a message. It doesn't stop them from reposting it in a different form. I don't suppose we're going to XfD every user page that posts such messages? If I post a racist, sexist, anti-religious or otherwise bigoted message on my user page, I fully expect it to be brought up if I should run for adminship someday.

Finally, I'm mostly retracting my original !vote because I respect some of the editors that have arrived here, and if they are of the opinion that Keepscases behavior is truly detrimental to the RFA process, I'll respect it as a less experienced editor and trust their judgment in that area. I hope you'll in turn respect the opinions I've laid out here. Bleeding Blue 04:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It saddens me that you changed your vote. Unlike most here, you did and still do seem to grasp what this is about. Keepscases (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

To Thad and Viridae, I understand your point, and see it as analogous to a community's response to trolling. Permit me the parallel here, even though I do not feel Keeps is trolling. When a board is trolled, the actual disruption comes not from the troll but from the response of unwary individuals. Someone (to pick an old example) asking faux-naive questions on a usenet board only succeeds in trolling if respondents are ensnared. A simple community policy in the face of that kind of trolling is don't feed the trolls. And while there are tremendous returns to such a policy (for one, it is ahierarchical), it clearly doesn't work in all cases. RfA represents a venue ill suited to DFTT. Kurts question and oppose invariably brought responses from regulars, candidates and new users just discovering RfA. No amount of time passing or admonishment offered from regulars diminished the yield on Kurt's questions. Even worse, discussion would be locked down (or shuffled off to the poorly attended RfA subpage talk space), leaving only the oppose. From the standpoint of an outside observer, it would appear that community norms allowed the irritant but not the response (obviously this is a lopsided and rushed comment on the business of RfA baiting/trolling). Wikipedia has developed the practical necessity for some community control. DFTT is insufficent. If we don't establish some norms and enforce them, we will fight and refight this battle until everyone is sick from hearing it. How long before we can make a determination that Keeps's participation in RfA is distracting enough that we respond (rather than shuffling it off to the closing crat and adding the insulting and inaccurate "of course this vote won't be counted" response) as a community? A year? 2 years? Rather than recapitulate this debate each and every time we have a new RfA, just have the debate now and be done with it. Protonk (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing that the consensus here seems to be that "ban Keepscases from RfA" is a more appropriate solution than "figure out why many users seem to think intentionally offensive and confrontational userboxes are okay." Keepscases (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not amazing at all. The userboxes aren't an issue. The original impetus for your opposes isn't what drives this discussion. This isn't about whether or not userbox XYZ is ok or not ok. Protonk (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If people let me oppose and left me the hell alone, none of this would have ever happened. If you agree, then why am I the problem? If you disagree, tell me what I am doing wrong. Stop being vague. Keepscases (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, my first response to that is that you are obviously postulating a counterfactual. The problem with DFTT (again, excuse the parallel, I don't think you are trolling) is that people do rise to the bait. But, let me also be very clear. Just because one link in a chain breaking may stop the end result, doesn't mean that all links are equally important. I have a hard time casting a wide net and saying "everyone who responds to Keeps is wrong" when the only constant in all the responses to you is you. Also, don't confuse my statement that 'the userboxes aren't an issue' with some sort of agreement about your opposes. I'm just attempting to cut short a discussion about the relative merits of userboxes because it isn't germane. Just as a relative discussion of userbox merits is only glancingly related to a particular RfA. Protonk (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really looking to paint anyone as "right" or "wrong". I have my opinions, others may have theirs, but I for one believe I know which side has brought the dishonesty and obfuscation to this debate. As much as I have been attacked for being prejudiced against atheists, one would think at some point a link demonstrating that would be provided. Keepscases (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Tan's block/ban happy approach creates a chilling effect. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

NotAnIP - comments like that provide absolutely nothing productive to the community effort. Tan has always done his best to improve the quality of our project, and regardless of the results - suggesting that there is an ulterior motive is simply ludicrous. I suggest that you rethink your approach. — Ched :  ?  13:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Invalid, prejudiced reasons for opposing, that have nothing to do with adminship, should be chilled. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any prejudice. If someone wants to display a userbox that announces he's a jerk, I'm not prejudiced when I believe him. Keepscases (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your own words say otherwise. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely you can provide an example, then. Keepscases (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I stated it earlier, and here it is again. Your statement, "No member of "WikiProject Atheism" should represent Wikipedia as an administrator" [77] is an invalid reason for opposing adminship. It expresses prejudice (prejudgment) that has nothing to do with adminship. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That comment is based on the attitudes that that group publicly displays. You need to get over this way of thinking that it's "prejudiced" to judge a person or a group based on positions that they publicly and intentionally represent. Are users who flaunt KKK membership suitable for adminship? Keepscases (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As do many Christian groups. So what? As to the KKK - why not? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone who says he loves the KKK or is otherwise some kind of political extremist will probably not last long enough to even be considered for adminship. Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comes to mind. They will most likely engage in extremely tendentious editing, and even if they don't get indef'd for it, that will sink their chances for adminship, because then you've got a valid reason to oppose. Likewise with membership in any other organization, never mind some wikiproject. If you had evidence that Tedder was editing tendentiously, you might have something. Pre-judging as being unfit, just because of membership in a project, but without supporting evidence of actual bad behavior, renders you unqualified to cast a vote in the matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT - Baseball Bugs - You should read through some RfAs sometime. Many people support / oppose for arbitrary nonsense. The only difference with keepscases is that everyone knows they're nonsense reasons and piles. A few admins directing irrelevant discussion to the talkpages would be useful, as would telling people to ignore pointless notvotes. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're saying there are others who have no business voting in RfA's, I certainly agree. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Chad Davis - Tan often suggests blocking people who he finds difficult to work with. What policy is being broken here? We see here Baseball bugs suggesting that these opposes are "not valid" and should be blockable. There is no policy stating what reasons are not valid for RfA. Indeed, the policy specifically says that bizarre opposes happen and are ignored by the crats and can be ignored by everyone else. Frankly, opposing someone because they are a member of the atheism wikiproject (which has a "hateful" userbox; even though the candidate has never used that userbox) is no less stupid than many contribs to the thoroughly fucked RfA process. BUT I WOULD NEVER SAY THAT BECAUSE IT ASSUMES BAD FAITH. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I concede that that particular vote may have been a mistake on my part. Tedder seemed to be genuinely unaware of that userbox, disapproving of its contents, not closely connected with the project anyway, and understanding of my vote. I have wished him well. Keepscases (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the candidates calm response to you may have swayed more people to support the persuaded people to oppose. Admins will often come into contact with people who have strong viewpoints. Being able to understand those views (which many people in this thread haven't demonstrated) and being able to work out a "solution" is a good thing. I do hope you see that asking candidates of their opinions about the UBX is probably better than opposing right away NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have not read every comment involved in this thread and have not followed the dispute in every intimate detail, but it seems to me that those objecting to certain votes are causing more of a disruption than the votes themselves. There are already bureaucrats whose job is to sort through the discussion and to weed out votes that aren't reasonable. I am very wary of restricting good faith contributions to RfA discussions. I suspect that once a pattern emerges in a particular voters comments, they will be viewed accordingly and appropriately to that context. I'm really not sure why it's such a big deal why a particular editor votes the way they do, and as others have pointed out, lots of RfA votes are based on dubious arguments or either straight support or opposes. So if someone wants to vote based on a reason that others see as frivolous, let the policies and those elected to assess votes deal with it. Sorry if I'm not grasping the big picture or some critical detail. I would just like to see votes and discussion at RfA go forward without those objecting to a particular vote or pattern of votes being able to cause a disruption and then say, "see all the disruption this editor is causing when we keep objecting to what they're doing?" in order to restrain and limit those they disagree with. If there is a true consensus among editors that a certain type of vote is inappropriate, then I'm okay with that too, but deciding which chads to count can get pretty tricky and we already have people elected by the community serving in that role. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Would someone please care to identify exactly what policy Keepcases has violated?   bsmithme  04:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block and evidence

I have proposed an indefinite block here. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 02:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is distracting to the above, and premature. –xenotalk 03:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposed indefinite block and evidence I am proposing an indefinite block on Keepscases. It seems to me that a topic ban from RfA will not legitimately solve this. I know I supported a topic ban of DougsTech from RfA, but I think now that this kind of disruption is warranted for an indefinite block, as I don't think topic bans are harsh enough for these kind of users. I think that a topic ban will not make the user learn lessons as much as an indefinite block from Wikipedia. An indefinite block will more likely achieve a lesson learned, than a mere topic ban. Here is a list of diffs that convince me that this user shall not be editing Wikipedia, much less RfA: 20:58, 9 March 2009 22:22, 10 March 2009 21:24, 12 March 2009 19:30, 16 March 2009 19:23, 17 March 2009 22:21, 1 April 2009 16:45, 8 April 2009 18:59, 10 April 2009 17:25, 15 April 2009 22:02, 5 May 2009 15:37, 13 May 2009 18:09, 28 May 2009 18:54, 28 May 2009 16:12, 31 May 2009 16:14, 31 May 2009 22:56, 11 June 2009 18:11, 18 June 2009 14:44, 19 June 2009 03:08, 21 June 2009 14:49, 23 June 2009 21:41, 24 June 2009 17:10, 14 July 2009 15:25, 15 July 2009 22:50, 25 July 2009 01:39, 6 August 2009 18:22, 6 August 2009 23:49, 7 August 2009 And I don't even need to provide my reasons for each diff, except in short that this user makes up nonsense reasons for supporting and opposing candidates and asking nonsense questions that don't help the RfA in any way. This user needs to be blocked. If I was an administrator, I would block the user myself. --Mythdon talk • contribs 02:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Keepscases would probably Oppose your RfA because your deleted userpage shows that you're trying to hide something. -- Atamachat 02:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Support Strong Support.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose Oppose I think the topic ban is better. I see one of three results as likely from such a ban. The first possibility is that Keepscases moves elsewhere on Wikipedia and is productive. The second is that being unable to disrupt RfA any longer, Keepscases leaves Wikipedia. The last is that Keepscases acts disruptive somewhere else, in which case they are blocked from the entire site. So we either have a positive result, a neutral result, and a result that ends up eventually doing what you're proposing anyway. -- Atamachat 02:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose The topic ban is debatable. I don't think anything this user has done warrants action of this magnitude. Bleeding Blue 02:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Ridiculous, and counter-productive to do this while another proposal was fresh. I have no issue with Keepscases's participation in any arena outside of RfA. Tan | 39 02:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose per Tan39. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose Topic ban should suffice and its outcome should be made before attempting another proposal. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Discussion If keepscases remains unproductive after his topic ban an indef block could be applied Triplestop x3 02:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Some other editor should "officially" SNOW close this. No one is gonna indef block Keepscases right now, and we should all concentrate on the above topic ban proposal. Tan | 39 03:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Page move edit warring and sinifying names

Pub849sp (talk · contribs) has been performing numerous page moves of Xinjiang-related articles, changing native placenames to Chinese versions of those names:

• Aksai → Akesai
• Hoboksar → Hebukesai'er
• Qinggil → Qinghe
• Burqin → Bu'erqin
• Kumul → Hami
• Barkol → Balikun

I asked him several times [78][79][80][81] to start a discussion at an appropriate article talkpage or naming convention guideline page to seek consensus for widespread changes such as this, but he has ignored these messages and just keeps moving on to new articles and moving them. It is reaching a point where these changes are disruptive, and he is creating a lot of work for people to clean up; given that he refuses to start a discussion on either of the talkpages I directed him to, would a block be appropriate? (I'm reporting this here rather than the edit warring noticeboard since it pertains to pagemoves rather than edits, and is across numerous articles. The issue here is not the content disagreement, the issue is the user's insistence on continuing to make controversial edits without starting a discussion.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Skiingat54162: immediate ban requested

Resolved

 – 48-hr block by Protonk. — DMacks (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see the edits done over the last two days by this individual and close the account which has been created for the purpose of vandalising articles. Thanks. --Jack | ^{talk page} 05:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat by email for Kate McMillan

Resolved

 – IP blocked for six months for making legal threats. MuZemike 16:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Locus of dispute, or action in dispute

Kate McMillan

Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

User:216.65.186.200 ([82] notified)

User:Jamesofur (notification not needed posting)

Description of the dispute and the main evidence

Ms. McMillan has a somewhat understandable issue with the article about her. However to counter the issues she finds she has resorted to adding commentary throughout the article to try and refute problems she sees. Because of this her edits are often reverted by multiple users. After ([83]one such revert) I received an email threatening legal suit if the article was not taken down and if I continued as I had. I will be happy to post the email I received as well as the email address it came from (which appears to prove it came from the person it claims to be) but wanted to check before I did that. There are definitely issues with the articles neutrality and sources but I am concerned about the attitude and meathods that Ms. McMillan is using to try and get her way. Jamesofur (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

Comments by uninvolved editors

Remarks by closing editor

Please email me the threatening mail - I will review and take appropriate action. We don't allow posting of emails on wiki without permission, but you can forward it to admins, arbcom, OTRS etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Emailed Jamesofur (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

IP is blocked.

I think that an awake, very patient admin may want to try constructive engagement with the IP on its talk page. I am not going to be awake much longer, however, so someone else needs to be it on this one... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Should have been indefed per [84]. MuZemike 16:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

IP addresses are not normally indef'd because they could be shared. I've seen them blocked for up to a year, though. 6 months ought to be enough to cool that character's jets. And if not, there's always another 6 waiting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The closest they get to indef blocking an IP is in the case of proxy IPs. HalfShadow 16:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Or if it's certain that the IP is static. But 6 months is a good stretch in wiki-poky. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I was non-observant that it was an IP. Six months is plenty. MuZemike 17:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

...and the NLT-block template is always on indef for some reason. MuZemike 21:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it ought to be changed, although it might be protected from us peons. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Pls block asap

Resolved

 – vandal blocked, AIV cleared, world peace declared. ~ mazca ^talk 08:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Massive vandalism campaign. I've posted to AIV but there's a backlog... [85] - thanks    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   08:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done, blocked that friendly fellow and I'm taking a look at AIV now. ~ mazca ^talk 08:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   08:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Block request: User:Benmols2

Resolved

 – blocked and locked -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A new user has been created by name of Benmols2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

It's clearly a sock; the only actions so far are to attack people who have disagreed with WebHamster (talk · contribs). It's possible that it is WebHamster, though I think it is more likely that it is someone trying to make WebHamster look bad. I don't think it's worth a checkuser, but I see no reason not to block Benmols2. I've rolled back the worst of the user's edits. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The account has been indef'd. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ben Aveling 09:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Botnet attack?

See the log for edit filter 3, multiple IPs attempting to add the same nonsense information and edit summary to Guestbook. I checked a couple of them and they don't appear at first glance to be proxies, but they sure look like a botnet of zombie computers. Should these IP addresses be blocked? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the title of the article is a magnet for those who want to generate links to their own sites for search engine optimization. I've semi protected the article for a month. Should the spamming resume at that point, I think we should permanently semi-protect. You have to picture somebody following bad SEO advice to look for guestbooks where they can post to. This Wikipedia page is going to be the first thing that shows up when they search for guestbooks. Jehochman ^Talk 22:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked some of these at the time, and they all looked to be non-open-proxies. The IPs also look quite dynamic. While a block would not be inappropriate, the question really is how long the block should be for. Since the edit filter is already stopping them, and is likely to continue to do so, I'd be inclined to just ignore them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Ancient Egyptian race controversy continued

Anyone remember Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#Disruptive editing by Wdford at Ancient Egyptian race controversy? That was a little more then a week ago. Yesterday I actually added my first new contribution to the article, the first sentence: "The Controversy surrounding the race of ancient Egyptians involved Eurocentric and Afrocentric considerations in the 19th and 20th Century." I have more than one reference for the term "Eurocentric"; this is provided at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy#Towards an acceptable lead parapgraph (typo sic). However, Wdford, whom you might know from the preceding discussion, vehemently opposed this one sentence, but I still can't figure out what his editorial argument for his opposition is, actually. He is saying that this is an "inappropriate POV statement" diff, but actually all I did was to refer to one of the best non-partisan sources I could find. The statement was (in a slightly different form) previously present in the article and simply flagged with 'citation needed', before Wdford removed all flagged statements from the article. diff. I think that "Eurocentric considerations" need to be mentioned in the lead. Just look at the statement of the historian to whom I referred:

"Far from trying to conceal these cultural sources [from ancient Egypt], they [the ancient Greeks] took pride in what the received from Egypt. For centuries thereafter Western historians too made no attempt to conceal this debt [of ancient Greece to ancient Egypt]; only in the nineteenth century did Grecophiles or Philhellenes, under the sway of Western racism, reject the idea that the sublime culture they so admired was not original or, worse, was not of Indo-European (Aryan) origin. The mere thought that Greece had been influenced by second-rate Egyptians or, perish the thought, by African, made them break out in a mental rash. They resorted to every trick in the book in the book to hide the truth and disseminate a perverted history with unmistakeably racist overtones. [...] For the African-American authors, reconstruction of the ancient world thus means liberation from the shackles of the racially distorted picture of the past and redemption of the historical truth. It means discarding the Eurocentric point of view in favor of a fresh description of the ancient world's history and its cultures - a description in which Europe has neither primacy, exclusivity nor supremacy." (Yaacov Shavit, History in Black, pp. 43-44)

Shavit certainly is not an Afrocentrist. "History in Black" is one of the best books on the topic. But in any case, there would be a lot more sources that say essentially the same. But regardless of my argument, the edit warring with Wdford continued, and currently I am at 3 reverts, if I count correctly. With his last edits, Wdford then re-added a lot of content from the previous revisions diff. To me this looks like a cheap evasion tactic. Wdford doesn't want to discuss the issue of the relevance of Eurocentrism for the article, so he adds some different content. But I am not falling for that. We need to discuss the issue, and I don't suppose that Wdford can bring forward a source-based argument that the "Eurocentric considerations" should not be mentioned in some form in the lead paragraph. I would revert him again, but that would be breaking 3rr.

In any case, I can't work at the article under these conditions. If this wasn't actually a notable topic, I would have already proposed the article for deletion, but the topic is notable and I could write an article - just not under these conditions. So could an admin please take a good look a the issue? Zara1709 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes please - you might also be interested to check the talk page near the end of "Towards an acceptable lead parapgraph", where the complainant openly threatens to start an edit war in order to "speed things up a little" and then says "Let's see what the admins have to say about this." This article is plagued by editors with fringe POV who start edit wars on purpose to cause an article to be protected, so please would you look carefully before simply protecting the article. Please would you also review Zara's history of edit-warring, her previous involvement in this article specifically and her tendency to prefer to work on articles she is allowed to "own", as indicated yet again by her wording above.. Wdford (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"This article is plagued by editors with fringe POV who start edit wars on purpose." I couldn't have put it better. That only leaves the question who the editor with the fringe POV is. And it is certainly not me because I don't even have an individual point-of-view. Really, I wouldn't know what that POV should be. All I did was look up what the reliable sources, which I had previously identified, have to say on "Eurocentric", and I came to the conclusion that is is an appropriate term to describe one side of the controversy in the lead paragraph. From what he has written on the talk page, I wouldn't even know that Wdford understands the difference between an editors POV and that, what reliable sources have to say, and I suspect that I could discuss this issue for about a month and Wdford still wouldn't understand. SO it is necessary to speed things up a little. Zara1709 (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And here we are again, in under a week, like clockwork. People still doubting my suggestion that everyone at that article should be topicbanned to let the cooler heads prevail? It isn't stopping, and nothing we are doing is working to end the nonsense. According to Wikichecker here, four editors are responsible for approximately 50% of the edits to the article, and many of the same names pop up when you look at theincredibly high number of edits to the talk page.

I suggest the top 10 contributors to the article and the talkpage be topicbanned for six months. Let non-SPAs do something about this article. Alternatively, delete and salt the nonsense. If nothing else, the name that keeps on coming up here as being non-constructive is Wdford, so a topicban there at the very least would reduce a lot of this ridiculous disruption. → ROUX ₪ 15:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternately, since Wdford was unfairly accused before (go check the arbitration record) and has been unfairly accused yet again, instead of listening to gossip you might instead review the actual talk page and edits and make a decision based on the facts. Topicban Zara, who is blatantly gaming the system here, and the threatened edit war won't materialise. Seems simple, but it requires admins to look beyond the superficial and the gossip. Wdford (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Incredibly, I am only number 8 of the contributors to this article. By the way, the main reason that I am editing there now is that another editor remarked on my talk page that I would "find it a more congenial editing environment" at the article by now. Most likely, that impression was wrong. I don't mind the additional work I have to for the article, but I don't really need it either. And I especially don't need having to deal with editors like Wdford. In a review of "Not out of Africa: How Afrocentrism became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History" by Mary Lefkowitz, August Meier, who some people from African-American studies should know, remarks:

"Not out of Africa" is an effective polemic. [...]Not recognizing that Afrocentric views are rooted in a long a respected tradition, she simply falls to answer the question raised in this books subtitle . To argue with the claims of the Afrocentrists is one thing, but to overlook or ignore the work of the band of Afro-American intellectuals and popularizers who enunciated a line of thought that was deeply rooted among rank-and-file Negroes would, I believe, reveal an essential Eurocentric orientations in this study. Thus, as a work of scholarship "Not out of Africa" is deeply flawed." (Emphasis added)

This is from the December 1996 issue of the Journal of American History: (stable link). If the Organization of American Historians, or at least the board of editors of their journal, doesn't have a problem with describing one side of the controversy as "Eurocentric", why would Wikipedia? The only reason can be that some editors at Wikipedia disregard reliable sources and rather write articles based on their own POVs. Of course, you could simply ban all involved editors, but that wouldn't solve the problem, because sooner or later some more come along. Even deletion wouldn't solve the problem, sooner or later someone is going to recreate an article on the issue, because the topic is, as one historian would put it, the battlefield of a "culture war" in the United States. Zara1709 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think these types of content disputes should go to content related noticeboards such as the article content noticeboard before coming here so that additional opinions on the content and citation issues can be solicitied in hopes that a consensus or compromise can be reached. That article, like many on Wikipedia, seems to be very contentious. But arguments over citations and content are not really administrative issues. Appropriate dispute resolution needs to be tried, and consensus sought. I'm not seeing clear behavioral issues other than frustration on both sides. Getting more opinions to try to work out the differences seems like the best way forward. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Both editors that have posted here are currently edit warring at the article. If you continue, you will be blocked to prevent further disruption. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wdford has already been banned from this article before. His block was commuted here [86]. Now, less than two weeks later, he's at it again. Is there any reason why he shouldn't be rebanned immediately? I'm rather inclined to ban Zara1709, also, since he/she seems to be pretty consistently edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Though looking closer, it appears that at least Zara is trying to include sourced content, not unsourced like Wdford, so perhaps that should be a mitigating factor. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

They're both repeat offenders, but banning people isn't the best way to do this. Too heavy-handed. I'd prefer we settle this like civilized people, on a level-playing field, rather than the admins stepping in and dealing out punishment arbitrarily. The furthest I think we should go is a protection of the article; otherwise, I plan on discussing the matter thoroughly and possibly mediating a compromise between Wdford and Zara (who are warring right now). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Left messages on Wdford's page and Zara's. I'm hoping to get some productivity out of this. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm far from convinced I agree that banning is too heavy-handed. These kinds of POV disputes are rarely solved with out it coming to blows (figuratively, of course). Remember that this article is under probation from ArbCom and has been for quite some time, and that this article has been discussed here several times. It seems pretty unrealistic to think things like warnings and discussions are going to get us anywhere. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic-banning them won't do anything, though. It'll save us a headache, but I doubt they'll just give up. As has been said before, they're both repeat-offenders; they've already been talked to about this and punished. I just don't think that's the way. Listening to what they have to say and settling the issue in a human fashion, rather than telling them to back off for a week, is more promising, at least in my eyes. By no means is my idea binding; even if they agree to it, other administrators can block them. That's their discretion. I'm just not in support of that. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 23:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I had retreated from the article roughly 6 months ago; I returned because I perceived an opportunity to fix the article; it appears that I was wrong with that. Previously I have broken 3rr in other controversies, but this was because in both cases statements from reliable sources that I had added were removed without justification from the respective articles. Wdford is trying to pull the same stunt here - removing the view of reliable sources from the article without going into a discussion based on these sources. I have mentioned 3 academic sources so far that describe one side involved in the controversy as "Eurocentric." However, even if I would throw another dozen sources at Wdford, he would still refuse to acknowledge the view of reliable sources. The topic of this article, Ancient Egyptian race controversy, extremely controversial. I actually have found two historians by know who describe it as culture war. I think I can honestly say that I am the only editor at Wikipedia I know who has an overview about this controversy, but there is no reason why I would have to work on the article. Unlike other editors I don't have a special point-of-view that I need to propagate through Wikipedia. I do think that having a good article on the topic would help the Americans find a truce in their cultural war, but that is not enough motivation for me to keep up with this. So unless I get an affirmation that articles on Wikipedia should be based in reliable sources (and not on individual editor's pov), I will simply retreat from the article. For already in the my first comment on my edit I made clear that this sentence was based on a reliable source, and Wdford can't possibly intent to write an article based on reliable sources when he argues against that sentence by calling it a "blatantly Afrocentric opening sentence". diff He should know that the historian I've quoted is not an Afrocentrist; he should at least have stopped to revert when I brought a quote from another historian, Stephen Howe, to whom he later himself referred. As far as reliable sources go, I don't need to put up with this, and I will not. Since it is rather unlikely that there will be another editor who could write a balanced article on the controversy (all you can expect from the other currently involved editors is material on skin color, skull shapes and Y-chromosomes), I would suggest that you propose that article for deletion. Zara1709 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that at one point Vassyana was considerded as a mediator, I wonder if he could not be called in to manage this case; everyone woul dhave to agree and agree to abide by his process. For myelf, I have three comments: first, I think it is always a good idea for people toagree n general principles or a framework for moving ahead, and then just follow where that leads. Zara seems to have set up just such a framework and fram an admittedly quick glance it looks like the has broken work down into good stages. Two: introductions are not worth getting caught up in, especially when an article is being revised because introductions have to introduce the whole article. If the intro is the point of contention, just drop it for now and work on those parts you can agree on. When you have done that you may find the intro easier. Finally, after multiple protects and blocks, I think everyone should agree to a zero-tolerance policy on incivility. Wdford, if you fel you have to further your argument by labeling Zara "topic-ban Zara" as you have here, I conclude you have no game left to contribute to this discussion as an adult. You may as well leave. Zara, I have not checked everything you have written but off course this would go for you too. Why should anyone care about this article if it is only a space for personal attacks and squabbles? Try - I say this to all people involved in the dispute - to show how this is a conflict of ideas, and others may wish to get involved and perhaps even help resolve disputes. If anyone slings another drop of mud I would take that as an admission that they have nothing left to support their side so they are not worth listening to. I hope these comments provide the basis for a framework for everyone to work together. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note, Slrubenstein, that I did not label Zara as "topic-ban Zara". I was suggesting to ROUX that actually topic-banning Zara is a possible solution to her threat to start an edit war, in response to his suggestion to topic-ban me. I’m sure that when you read that entry carefully you will see this, and will appreciate that there is a world of difference between my sentence and your assumption.

Re Zara's repeated complaints about her proposed opening sentence – I have stated more than once on the talk page that I accept the accuracy of the quote, but that I object to using it as the opening sentence of the lead section as I feel that it mis-defines the controversy. I hear and agree with Slrubenstein’s comment that lead sections must introduce the controversy as a whole, and that is specifically why I feel that this particular wording is misleading and inappropriate.

I did however include Zara’s sentence in my last attempt at correcting the lead section, but not as the opening sentence, and I reworded it slightly to better clarify the context. Although every sentence I added was referenced in detail, Zara nonetheless reverted this entire effort with the comment “wdford, your 'content' has so many problems that I don't even know where to start”. This is her usual alibi for not explaining why she is reverting referenced material, although she accuses me of disruption for deleting her preferred sentences without first providing a detailed explanation.

For those who are concerned that I am adding “unsourced” material, please check my contributions to the lead section that Zara reverted at [87] – they are fully referenced.

Re her insinuations about my adding an unsourced section on the controversial issues around ancient Egyptian art, my intention was to expand this to briefly describe inter alia the accusations by Prof Manu Ampim that artwork showing the ancient Egyptians as black people have been systematically destroyed, while fake artwork has been inserted into museums etc to deliberately misrepresent the ancient Egyptians as being lighter-skinned than he believes they really were. He even accused a respected scholar – Prof Frank Yurco – of deliberately misrepresenting evidence, even though Yurco was actually quite correct, and he did so after Yurco was dead and couldn’t defend himself. (See e.g. http://www.raceandhistory.com/manu/book.htm for a taste, although the Prof is apparently a published author on the subject and there are many better references available.) I think such a conspiracy theory would qualify as controversial, and it is a widely disseminated theory. However this initiative was instantly reverted by Zara before any progress could be made, on the basis that I did not first obtain her consensus to add the section. I let it go at the time with the intention of following a consensus process, but please do not mistake my conciliatory approach for a mea culpa – I could have built that heading into a valuable and fully referenced section given half a chance. Hopefully that chance will come again.

Finally, I am more than happy to work with Master of Puppets to resolve matters.

Wdford (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Article full protected for 3 days

I would like to encourage all the warring parties to calm down and try to work together. To encourage that - the article is fully protected (administrators can edit only) for 3 days. Further multiparty disruption after the protection expires will be followed by multiparty blocks. This is not acceptable behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Joseph Jackson (manager)

Moved from AN

Resolved

 – Offending text removed (diff). Nja²⁴⁷ 18:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a BLP expert, but would someone mind checking this page, specifically the comments of User:Jaxdave ("DIE JOSEPH DIE!", etc.)? Thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• The issue isn't that exact line, there is a lot of junk from the same editor, about how this man abuses the children etc. Shortly after that text was removed, came Special:Contributions/65.190.201.132. Obviously this is someone with a bit of WP knowledge, probably logged out, maybe the same editor. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The text has been removed as noted above. If there's anymore feel free to also remove it per WP:FORUM and WP:BLP policy. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 18:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Block Evasion

Resolved

Locus of dispute, or action in dispute

Bonita Vista High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

63.196.194.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) notified

70.135.164.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) notified

Description of the dispute and the main evidence

Since the beginning of the year, the same vandalism has been committed by around ten different IPs, all from the San Luis Obispo, California area. The article was semi-protected in mid-July. Since the two-week semi-protection ended on July 30th, the same IP vandal has returned six times.[88][89][90][91][92][93] After being blocked,[94] the vandal evidently switched to another IP and continued.[95]. I've brought this to WP:RFPP as well, but thought the block evasion should be dealt with here. Any advice around a long term strategy would be very welcome, as well. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

Comments by uninvolved editors

Do you have any idea who the primary account may be? We could either try range blocks or page semi-protection. Jehochman ^Talk 17:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't know that there is a primary account. The IP addresses that seem to be the same individual are:

66.122.76.188, 64.161.56.144, 99.146.223.111, 66.122.67.218, 63.196.195.66, and 99.177.104.141 (eight including the ones above, not ten, there were some unrelated IPs). That's eight different class C's to range block, I don't know if I'd try that. The WP:RFPP folk gave it a one month semi, so that helps. I just don't like the IP getting away with block evasion with no consequence. Any other options? Celestra (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I would note that Tiptoey has sprotected the article for a further month from this date. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Remarks by closing editor

There are too many IPs involved for a range block. We'll have to semi-protect until the malefactor gets bored with this game and moves on to another pastime. Jehochman ^Talk 22:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Resolved

Locus of dispute, or action in dispute

• Burger King products
• Burger King

Involved parties

• Jerem43 (talk · contribs)
• RaseaC (talk · contribs)

Description of the dispute and the main evidence

This is a content/3R dispute that I would like to have a third party look at. RaseaC deleted a section in the article, which I disagreed with and restored. He then deleted it again and I restored it requesting that she not delete it again and discuss it on the talk page before continuing. He then deleted it again and started a discussion. I replied to her stated my reasoning, implying his behavior was consistent with edit warring and requesting she restore the information until such time that consensus could be reached. He refused, claiming that he had consensus based on a previous discussion regarding an unrelated issue involving fair use and that he was in the right.

Lets add the Burger king lead discussion to this. Also the comment in the Burger King history that borders on a violation of personal attack, though it really doesn't bother me. It does point to an issue with his behaviors that I am having an issue with. I do apologize for the error of assuming he was a she.

Could an uninvolved admin look into this for me please?

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

Firstly, I'm a he, not a she, and I will refrain from substantiating that particular claim. Secondly, the previous discussion mentioned was related, as two other editors clearly stated doubts that there was encyclopedic merit, hence, as far as I'm concerned, a consensus. I'll be back in a few minutes when he opens an ARI on the other page he owns.RaseaC (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Don't sweat about the gender thing. My response to the Burger King page was that there is no need for such an indepth paragraph regarding such a mundane issue, and I couldn't really find any basis for such from a handful of other similar pages, though reading through my response on the talk will clear that up. Not sure where the personal attack was, but it probably did happen, people often complain about my behaviour, but then we've got more important issues. RaseaC (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

Remarks by closing editor

RaseaC, if people often complain about your behavior, please think about what you might be doing to upset others, and then modify your style for the better. It is a good sign that you recognize there might be a problem, and that you are able to respond civilly here. Jerem43, your complaint does not include specific diffs. Most editors here are unlikely to dig in unless they see diffs. You appear to have a content dispute. If you would like help from uninvolved editors, please try the new Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. Jehochman ^Talk 22:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey_D._Gordon

This article needs administrator attention. There are two editors who continue to remove content from this article which I have reviewed to be properly sourced content and verifiable by a reliable sources (I could be mistaken, though). And while I may be mistaken, the editors continue to apparently ignore the talk page to discuss the issue.   bsmithme  21:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs and identify the editors who are having a problem. The format below may help you organize your presentation. Jehochman ^Talk 22:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Locus of dispute, or action in dispute

Disagreement over WP:BLP on Jeffrey_D._Gordon. The two editors believe that a section added by user Geo_Swan is libelous and should be removed.

Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

• Antoniomarg8
• Robclement
• Geo_Swan

Description of the dispute and the main evidence

1. I found that the article had had a substantial portion removed by Robclement so I initiated an investigation.
   1. Robclement did use an edit summary describing the action.
   2. Robclement did blank the talk page replacing it with what I think is an except from WP:BLP.
   3. Robclement did make an entry on the article's talk page after blanking.
2. After reviewing the quotes, statements, and facts asserted for the section in question, I found that they were both referenced and that the references were reliable. Substantiated by this source (Miami Herald) and this source (Washington Post).
3. I undid the revision by Robclement then added a reply to the article's talk page and asked that further changes be discussed there.
4. My revert was then undone by user Antoniomarg8 without edit summary or talk page discussion.
5. I assumed good faith and undid user Antoniomarg8 edit.
6. My edit was again reverted by user Antoniomarg8 again without talk page discussion.

• Furthermore. After further investigation I found that user Antoniomarg8 subsequently vandalized user page of Geo_Swan multiple times. 1 2 3 INV:5   bsmithme  23:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Further note. The talk page was blanked and I am not sure the best way to restore it.   bsmithme  23:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

Comments by uninvolved editors

I think the source may support the addition of this content. Editors need to discuss whether the biography is balances, or gives undue weight to these controversial matters. The two accounts who have been removing the content appear to be single purpose, and may very well be controlled by the same editor. We should not overlook the possibility that one of the real life people involved in this matter may be trying to influence the content of Wikipedia. I think it may help to leave messages for the two new editors welcoming them, and asking them not to remove sourced content, not to edit war, and not to use more than one account. We should also advise them how to address concerns about the content in a productive way. Should those steps fail, a block might then be necessary to prevent further problems, but I think we need to try the lesser steps first. Jehochman ^Talk 02:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think those suggestions should be executed by someone else. I will not be taking action on this matter in order to prevent appearing bias and disingenuous.   bsmithme  03:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Remarks by closing editor

RetlawSnellac, Neftchi (formerly Baku87) and copyright issues

Locus of dispute, or action in dispute

User:RetlawSnellac

Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

• User:Neftchi
• User:RetlawSnellac

Description of the dispute and the main evidence

I don't contribute often on English Wikipedia, being mainly active in Armenian WP. While browsing through Commons categories I came across photos of new user RetlawSnellac who registered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RetlawSnellac and on commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:RetlawSnellac

He uploaded 4 pictures to commons claiming to be the author [96]. It caught my attention, because Retlaw Snellac is one of my Flickr contacts, and I do follow his photo stream [97]. Retlaw Snellac is the acronym of his true name, Walter Callens, spelled in reverse. Browsing his folder on Azerbaijan, I checked, and found that all 4 pictures were in fact taken by Retlaw Snellac I know from Flickr. I became curious, because I remember Walter publishes his photos on Flickr under standard, "strict" copyright, as once I checked his Flickr page, to see if I can import some of his photos to Commons. The other obvious reason was, that from lot of nice photos from different countries, only those 4, and only from Azerbaijan were uploaded. Even more, he suddenly shows special interest in discussions related to Azerbaijan.

I wrote him on Flickr, to see if it was really him to upload his photos to Commons and participate in some discussions/voting. His reply was:

Hello,

Thanks for the information.

Retlaw Snellac from Wikimedia is NOT me.

Kind regards,

Walter

The problem here is that the RetlawSnellac on Wikipedia claimed to be the real Walter Callens, uploading his own works, using the date of the real Walters visit to Azerbaijan from flickr to come up with this story, he even explicitly claims to be the real Retlaw, see here.

Upon the incident I contacted another member who too contacted him. I was advised to prepare something about this and report it here, as upon checking this user contribution there seem to be one obvious correlation between this suspicious account and user:Neftchi (formerly Baku87).

Here is the evidence I gathered so far:

Since June 26th, Neftchi edited daily, until July 3rd. Retlaw registered on the 4th and edited until the 7th, Baku87 never edited during that time period. He returned on the 11th and soon request a name change from Baku87 to Neftchi. [98]

• Ratlaw Snellac addeed this map, which has the same borders as this map uploaded by Neftchi. This was probably done to support the revert war on the ADR article initiated by Neftchi when he adding the map on Jan 2009 [99].

• Here he announces having uploaded new picture of petroglyphs of Qobustan. Note that the original uploader of those petroglyphs was Netchi(formerly Baku87)[100]. Neftchi then shows an interest in pictures, by switching the pictures[101].

• On Church of Kish, Retlaw reverts to Neftchi version. The article history indicates that there was an edit warring in process, this user, who registered one day ago, apparently knew the edit war was going on and reverted to Neftchi version.

• "All by sudden" continues the discussion started by Baku [102], [103], [104], [105], [106] (adds a website owned by a well-known Adil Baguirov)

• The article Azerbaijani Special Forces was created on June 18 by Neftchi, Fedayee requested a source for an element, which was provided by Retlaw here. Check the article history and see that in fact this user who only registered on July 4, only showed interest in Neftchi contributions.

• He edits the Azerbaijani Armed Forces article, in which Neftchi is the most active editor.

• On Nagorno-Karabakh War, Neftchi added an unreliable source [107] which was reverted twice. Retlaw re-added that source.

• Baku87 started a thread in August 2008 [108]. Almost a year later RatlawSnellac backs him up [109], [110].

• Retlaw voted for an AfD here in which Baku87 had already voted.

• Retlaw created this article which was copied from here, Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Azerbaijan.

• Both users show interest in documenting Chinese alleged crimes during the Urumqi riots. Neftchi provides a source in its talkpage. [111] [112] So did RetlawSnellac. [113]

• RetlawSnellac goes on to add dozens of individuals in the List of Azeris. [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119]. Neftchi was by far the most active contributor to that list for the last couple of months. [120]

• Neftchi adds a picture of a carpet manufacturing in Ganja and here RetlawSnellac adds one on the Carpet Museum.

• Here RetlawSnellac even leaves a message on the Neftchi talkpage inviting him to use his pictures. This leaves Neftchi to do what he wants with those pictures without having the trouble of using two accounts. Note that the real RetlawSnellac denied having anything to do with this account.

• Funny here, the fake RetlawSnellac even goes to attempt to have the picture of the so much loved by Neftchi petroglyphs of Qobustan to FA statues.

• Also see here, most of the edits in the last few months were done by Neftchi. And here, where he supports Neftchi out of nowhere to add the POV tag.

• Note also that Retlaw claims to be from Belgium/Netherlands. [121], prior to Neftchi name change, this was Baku87's personal page on Wikipedia, which read: Deze gebruiker spreekt Nederlands als moedertaal.

The pattern between both users, as if he switched from one account to the other, and while one user was contributing the other never was.

I do not know Neftchi and never interacted with him, so nothing personal, but impersonation, and compromising whole project by thief of IP and abuse of freedom and trust, is something that in my opinion, can not and should not be tolerated. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged one of his images at commons (File:Carpet Museum in Baku.jpg) with {{subst:npd}}, since I have found it on the flickr website. I'm out of time, I'm afraid, to contribute more now, but these are serious allegations which do need careful investigation. If he is truly who he says he is, he should be able to verify permission at the flickr site or through e-mail. If it should prove that this individual is deliberately misrepresenting himself to commit intentional copyright fraud, then I think it would be appropriate to immediately indefinitely block any and all accounts that may be involved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I just received a message in my talk about alleged sockpuppetry, impersonation and IP thief suspicion related to me and RetlawSnellac. I certainly hope this has got nothing to do with me being ethnic Azerbaijani and Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen being Armenian as we both work on articles with in which we have strong opposing perspectives. I noticed that the only users who have ever accused me in Wikipedia were ethnic Armenian. For example I was accused of having a sockpuppet account called Baki66 thats why I changed my name from Baku87 to Neftchi to prevent confusion. I want to make it clear that I dont know who RetlawSnellac is and its certainly not me, he posted a message in my talk see here and I never replied back to it. I have not talked or had any contact with that user I do have encountered him several times in wikipedia in articles in which I was active, I think he is just checking out my contributions list and works from there. Also notice how all his edits are done after me. This kind of approach is often done by anon-users. So just going through my huge contributions-list and finding any connections with RetlawSnellac is easy work but in no way is that evidence or proof. With this kind of approach I could probably link you to sockpuppetry aswell. I have been a member in wikipedia for a long time and I have never engaged in this kind of forgery so under what motive and reason would I suddenly start now. RetlawSnellac said in my talk page that I was welcome to upload any photo of his Photoalbum in Flickr and gave me this link and also note that the username in Flickr matches the one in wikipedia (that is retlaw snellac), why not approach him instead of me and ask him to verify his identity on both Flickr aswell as in Wikipedia. Neftchi (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

He has been approached in addition to you as both of you have been mentioned in this thread. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, the main "hero" here, is owner of fake account RetlawSnellac, who did several serious violations and for whom I can not think of any excuse, for that. About you, no believe me you being azeri and me being armenian doesn't really mean anything for me. I had lot of contacts, and worked/lived together with azeris and turks. I'm soo far from being nationalistic or xenophobic in any other way. Also I'm in WP, since late 2006, but in en:wp 99% of my contribs are interwikis to hy:wp. So "we both work on articles with in which we have strong opposing perspectives" isn't correct, we really haven't meet, neither we worked on same articles. I'm not much into history or politics, and I do avoid Armenian-Azerbaijan related topics, as I find edit wars, one of the biggest and stupidest problems of wikis in general. I'm much into photography and I'm much for Free Software and Free Content, because I do really respect IP rights. Add because I've been following authors works for some period, I felt myself much more obliged, to report this. So If I noticed similar incident done by Armenian, my reaction would be the same. I'm probably most copyright-paranoid in hy:wp. I Hope my motivation is pretty clear now, and no one goes to look for ethnic problems here, and we can come back to incidents. Let me sum it up again, I'm sure RetlawSnellac on wikimedia, is impersonator and thief, as I got reply from author, I'm almost sure RetlawSnellac here is puppet (my expereince of moderating several forums tells me so), what comes to you, you're account has most correlations with RetlawSnellac's contirbs. But I don't think I have any moral right to accuse you in anything, until check is done, by admins. And if it proves you have nothing to do with all this, I'll ask your pardon, for my suspicion. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm back. I've also located several others and tagged them for verification of permission. If there were a contact address for the flickr account owner, I would happily contact him through OTRS so that we could quickly resolve this. If you are in communication with him, can you perchance ask him to get in touch with info-en-c@wikimedia.org, explaining that there is an individual on Commons impersonating him and uploading his images without permission? If his e-mail address can be clearly connected to the point of publication, this could resolve matters very quickly, at least as far as the copyright problems are concerned. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Footlover277

Resolved

Soliciting 12 and over females to indulge his/her foot fetish at Wikipedia:Sandbox. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, already indef blocked. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Saw it and already blocked. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

An admin should review the unblock request - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Declined--we don't need that behavior here. And just in case he gets any ideas, I've shut off his talk page and his ability to send email. Can't take any chances ... Blueboy96 21:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite his promise to toe the line, he got the boot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

He should have been allowed to edit pages like this one Count Iblis (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Clever!

I don't really understand why you blocked his ability to edit his own talk page. Seems rather OTT to me. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Slightly creepy, perhaps, and I did consider offering him a {{Second chance}} to demonstrate bona fides but was overtaken by events. Perhaps I'm getting too soft in my old age- no jokes, please. Rodhullandemu 22:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have offered a second chance, I would have if he'd kept to to sandbox but as he harassed someone on her userpage then no. However his only edit to his talk page was a promise to stop it, and I really don't think that merits changing the block conditions to prevent him from editing it. We should at least give him the chance to explain himself. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We all get "soft" in our old age. That's why they invented that wonder drug...

Geritol! :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Blue boys explained the reason for the talk page block: "And just in case you get any ideas, you have lost any access to your talk page.". Seems reasonable to me since this person did sexualy harass people which is not what Wiipedia is for Smith Jones 22:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Soliciting sexual contact from minors is not something we need to provide any sort of forum for. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Could a passing Checkuser take a quick look? I've been seeing rather a lot of it this past week, for example Bob87654321 (talk · contribs) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have indef'ed Bob87654321. The obsession shared by these accounts are very similar to those of a couple of years ago, as I recall. Do any of the older hands recall these editors, and whether their styles are similar? It may be that there is just a coincidence of similarly orientated fetishists. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Resident Evil: The Darkside Chronicles

User 70.190.210.142 has been making edits to this article since April 21, 2009, most of which have been changing the order the Resident Evil 2 protagonists are mentioned to "Claire Redfield and Leon S. Kennedy". Leon's character and scenario are mentioned first on official sites, in the manuals, game information, press releases and in the game itself. Therefore, me and other users (such as Geoff B and StarScream1007) think this is the order to go with for the Resident Evil 2 section of this article. Despite objections by trusted editors and requesting a reason for his edits on the talk page, the user keeps reverting the article and ignores community input. I therefore think this is to be considered disruptive editing and request a block of the user's IP. Prime Blue (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin urgently needed to fix mistaken entry

Resolved

Infobox made math calculation unreliable. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Queue

then see Queue 3, which is scheduled to go next.

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

That article clearly does not comply. It is an article from 2008. I can see why the 5 day old age can be stretched a bit, but 9-10 months is too much. It is also not nearly a 5x expansion. If recognition is desired, GA or FA can be attempted but massive bending of the rules to get DYK is not right.

An administrator is needed to replace that DYK with another. Thank you Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Illegal" is a bit strong, even if it was a problem, but DYK expansion is based on the prose content of the article, not its absolute size. If you follow through the article's history, the 5x expansion rule has been more than satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My math shows it has NOT met a 5x expansion. On 11 July 2009, it was 3,379 bytes. It is now 11,973 bytes. That is a 3.5x expansion which is good but not up to DYK criteria. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is the DYK something that requires admin anything (other than it being on the main page)?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Only an admin can add or remove things from the queue where it is now. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah... but DYK counts only prose, which means only the single sentence in this version (july 11) is counted which amounts to 86 characters. Expansion began on 2 August, and Peter Connell now has 3855 characters. This should be discussed at WT:DYK if there's a problem with that. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's been expanded about 40x. Law _{type! snype?} 03:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I just found out that the byte count in the history can be corrupted by an infobox. I brought it here because of the quick response that DYK talk doesn't have keeping in mind that the DYK was next in line. Thank you. Please don't block me for making a false, but well meaninged, police report. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

1. we don't do that and 2. we aren't the police. Viridae^Talk 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:NiveKJ13

• This user (NiveKJ13) keeps Accusing me of sockpuppeting. I am not a sockpuupeter. Look at User talk:NiveKJ13 for evidence. He also vandalizes my talk page too.

GMA Fan 9 August 2009 9:04PM

This matter can be explained in my talk page and in the administrator Mufka's talk page. And FYi, this is started by GMA Fan himself. And remember the thing Mufka have kept telling you?...never call edits that you don't like a "vandalism". --NiveKJ13 (talk2me) 04:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

NiveKJ13, because your edits are very similar to Witchy2006's edits. Like blanking portions of LaLola (Philippine TV series).

GMA Fan 9 August 2009 9:15PM

I have explained that to Mufka and it has been resolved. But what did you do?..you still continued adding the accusation in my talk page even though it has already been resolved. --NiveKJ13 (talk2me) 04:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OK Can we stop aguring and cooperate like friends. Wikipedia is a plae where everyone should cooperate.

GMA Fan 9:23PM 9 August 2009

I wasn't arguing. You're the one using capital letters here. Showing only that you are angry or shouting. Its very unpleasant for the person you did that to even bother to cooperate with you. --NiveKJ13 (talk2me) 04:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Facebook event to recruit Arab and Muslim editors to contribute to the Gaza War article.

You need a Facebook account to view the event page that is under discussion

In January 2009 (incorrectly typo'd at Facebook as '10), unknown Wikipedia editors organized a Facebook "event" with the stated goal of recruiting "Arab and Muslim contributions to the Wikipedia page on [sic] Israel-Gaza Conflict". [122] The event has three administrators, but only one of the names match any WP user names: User:Mustafaahmedhussien. 118 people signed up and there were 48 maybes.

These recruiting efforts made strong headway into the article as major NPOV-violations have been included in the article in the name of a consensus. For example, the second line of the article proclaims that the conflict is known as the "Gaza Massacre" in the Arab media. The use of this term has not received coverage, let alone any mention, in mainstream sources, yet this name is given prominence in the second line of the article. Similarly, a number of repugnant pics were placed in the article, including one of a dead, burnt Arab baby, [123] in the name of a concensus. There are other NPOV issues with the article, but this is not the forum the resultant content problem; these are merely two examples of the problem created by this "event".

A year and half ago, a major witch-hunt went underway that culminated at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying in which a bunch of editors were banned for being part of a group intending to correct anti-Israel POV's. Due to this, non-anti-Israel editors of the Gaza War article are frequently harangued and accused of working for the Israeli government, CAMERA, or another organized entity.[124][125]

While the CAMERA situation was problematic, this is of far greater concern. The CAMERA situation involved a few editors, but this event involved way over a 100 people, and that's counting only those that signed up officially.

One WP user who is an example of a probably Facebook recruit is User:Thrylos000. S/he first appeared on Jan. 4 and edited until Jan 11. Almost every single edit concerned the Gaza War, including arguing vociferously for the inclusion of "Gaza Massacre" [126].User: Cryptonio is another. He appeared on January 7 and has mainly edit warred at the Gaza War article. Another example is User:Falastine fee Qalby ("Palestine in my heart"), who with clear POV on his sleeve, started editing on January 11 and whose first edit was to the Gaza War article.

What I'm hoping would result from this post is that we find out which Wikipedians are behind these recruitment efforts and ban them, just like we banned the editors involved in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. Secondly, we need to figure out how to deal with these off wiki POV recruitment efforts in the future. Sincerely, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)