Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Abductive long term disruption

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

This part of the discussion seems to be finished and we've moved on from it

Abductive just showed up on something on my edit list and edit warred his way to a block. While it is his first block, I took a look and for an account that isn't even a year old he's had a major amount of disruption. An SPI was opened on him last year. It was closed without action. However, he did admit to using multiple accounts to mass nominate AfDs/prod articles. This created at least a couple AN/I threads and a substantial bit of disruption as most of these nominations were apparently bad. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Abductive/Archive. In regards to the socking, Abductive also has on his user page the claim that he's been here for over 3 years. One account was made last July, one last May. Which means there is quite likely at least one more account out there he didn't admit to using. Since he's using the current account disruptively, it is likely a disruptive sock. I don't know that I could file an SPI though since I don't have the foggiest who the other account might be. Issue two is the edit warring. He was just blocked for edit warring on Asian fetish. Making odd claims about how you can't name the author of a study unless he has an article himself. First claiming it was WP:UNDUE then claiming it was vanity, and then claiming I must have a COI because I wasn't buying his bizarre arguments, a bad faith assumption and insult, frankly. He was blocked for 31 hours, but after a quick check I found out that this isn't his first edit war. He was warned back in July of last year about edit warring. [1] and seemed to show a better understanding for how 3RR worked than someone who'd only been here a couple months and had never been warned about it before. Only a month ago he was involved in a big edit war on an article [2] which was stopped with page protection. He also engaged in an edit war back in October [3] and when he wasn't getting his way he again resorted to making personal attacks. This resulted in another page protection. So in less than a year, he's engaged in 3 or 4 edit wars, helped to get 2 pages locked, and disruptively mass nominated/prodded a ton of articles. With this behaviour and the claim about how long he's been on wikipedia I feel like this might be a returned blocked/banned user. At the least I feel he should be restricted to 1RR on any article given his propensity for edit warring, but I also think a greater look needs to be taken at the SP issues, unfortunately I don't think SPI would be remotely useful as I don't think it keeps year old IP data.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I have no comment as yet on the substance of the complaint, however, I find it odd that the block for edit warring came almost 7 hours after the last revert, though there is no question that the 3RR was violated. I think it might be an idea to have this conversation when Abductive is able to speak directly in his defence, but in fairness, you have notified him of the thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC) He was reported to the 3RR noticeboard as is the normal process. The only reason his editing stopped was that I disengaged and have for now, let him have his way. I've also informed him that if he wants to make a statement it will be copied over. There is a history of edit warring and insults that goes well beyond the current situation.--Crossmr (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Can you evidence the history of edit warring and insults with multiple diffs please. Please can you explain why you do not appear to have addressed your concerns about socking with Abductive? Spartaz Humbug! 12:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC) That is already there. Click through. If you'd like the exact diff where he insulted someone last time, [4]. That edit war was stopped by a page protection before it went completely out of hand you can see the full ANI discussion above. As for the SP issues, those were already raised with him and that was all he disclosed, but that doesn't seem to be honest given his claim on his userpage.--Crossmr (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC) The first diff does not show a violation of the 3RR, the second appears to have been two reverts and the third also appears not to have been a 3RR violation. This out of a total of 12,000 edits in 18 months. I suggest you need something a little stronger then this and please can you show a diff where YOU addressed the sock allegation directly with Abductive before raising it here? I do agree that Abductive could do with improving their civility from time to time. Spartaz Humbug! 13:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I agree with Spartaz, though at least this editor's insult made me chuckle, which I always say "if your going to be uncivil at least make it funny" so I'd like to see him be a bit more creative if there's a next time. Is there any risk if Abductive is unblocked long enough so he can actually contribute to his defence here at AN/I? Yea, transcribing his responses over here isnt much of an ability to defend himself or contact others who may be able to help him in his defence, or directly confront his accusers in a meaningful way (and hopefully insult-free). Personally I say let him be and unblock him.Camelbinky (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC) There is no requirement that he be unblocked and AN/I has a long history of transcribing statements from blocked users if the need is there. Encouraging uncivil behaviour isn't exactly a compelling position.--Crossmr (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC) May 2009-Now is not 18 months. That is 11 months. In that time, he's socked and been disruptive. he admitted that. I'm now pointing out that the extent of what he admitted to isn't the complete picture. I'm under no obligation to discuss it with him further when bringing it here as the part of a bigger package. The first diff shows he was warned about 3RR and seemed to show an understanding of it (without being linked to it) beyond what a user 2 months into editing wikipedia should show. Its evidence that this is probably not his first account. One doesn't need to violate 3RR to be edit warring. I never said he violated 3RR that many times just that he'd been involved in 3 or 4 edit wars, 2 of which resulted in page protection, and 2 of which resulted in him insulting other users when he couldn't get his way. The first was in reference to this [5] where he was basically fighting with another editor to try and get some tag (any tag) onto the article. Which is similar to what happened now. He was trying to remove content for some reason, any reason and when it was apparent he didn't have consensus he just edit warred and insulted until blocked. The second edit has 4. Edit warring isn't just reverting, it is undoing another person's edits. He has his first edit where he removed several entries that another user removed, that is 1, then he has 2 reverts, that is 3. Then he changes a bunch of stuff later on that wisdom power changed. That is 4 separate series of edits undoing other peoples work. If you really need a 3RR violation, there you go. [6], [7], [8], [9] 4 times undoing anothers work in less than 24 hours. In the last one, he gets to 3 and the page is protected before it can go further. There was only 19 minutes between his last revert and the page locking. The other editor he was fighting with wasn't watching the page like a hawk and reverting immediately. He was obviously edit warring if the admin felt the need to protect the page.--Crossmr (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Of course I deny these allegations. "Almost" violated 3RR? That means I didn't. With these other claimss, find me anybody with as many edits as I have who hasn't rubbed somebody the wrong way. As for the dispute that did get me blocked, it was pure 3RR, not a violation of WP:CIVIL, nor was it about the usual politics, religion, spam or ethnic stuff that graces ANI daily. User:Crossmr has a major WP:OWNERSHIP problem with the Asian fetish article, whereas I'm just trying to whip it into better shape. A thankless task--the article has been through 6 AfDs and has attracted some serious sockpuppeteers. Abductive (reasoning) 21:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I just demonstrated where you violated 3RR last month. Do you deny undoing peoples edits those 4 times? Your contribs are a matter of public record. The first article didn't see you violate 3RR but you were edit warring to put "something" on the page, you just didn't know what but were editing it back and forth anyway instead properly considering what should go on the page or discussing it on the talk page. In the last one you only avoided a 3RR violation because the page was locked. Accusing someone of a COI without evidence is an assumption of bad faith and uncivil. The only ownership problem with the article is demonstratively you and hippo43 who have both been blocked for edit warring over it. You are too quick to push your version making sniping comments rather than engage in meaningful discussion. You seem to have zero concept of WP:BRD and would much rather fight over it than actually discuss it. You have a history of it that extends almost back to your account creation. Coupled with your admitted sock puppeting, your account has basically been disruptive for its entire history. You've also failed to comment on the account issues. Your user page claims you've been here over 3 years, both accounts you've had were only made last year. Are you still using another account?--Crossmr (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I know nothing of his history so won't comment, but I fully support Abductive on the recent issue at Asian fetish, and I'm concerned by Crossmr's focus on the individual, not the issue. Crossmr has refused to discuss specific issues relating to content, aggressively and high-handedly reverted to his preferred version of a long-contentious article. Similarly he has referred to edit warring in my past (in this discussion and elsewhere) presumably trying to undermine me as a contributor, rather than deal directly with the content dispute, and has criticised me above without notifying me. If this all leads to wider scrutiny of this article, so much the better. --hippo43 (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I categorically disagree with Hippo43's characterization of Crossmr's actions. Crossmr has been dispassionate and professional concerning his interaction with Abductive, who obviously has a history of disrupting other pages in unacceptable ways. And Crossmr has repeatedly (the requests would be approaching about 50 times or so by now) requested that both Hippo43 and Abductive give specific information to back up their claims and demands. They have not done that. And this is entertaining: "Crossmr has refused to discuss specific issues relating to content." Wow. That is simply not true. Please refer to the discussion page for the proof. In fact, both Crossmr and myself have repeatedly and extensively made efforts to discuss the issues in a democratic fashion on the discussion page. Crossmr's "focus on the individual" is of course related to the fact that Abductive has insisted pressing positions that frankly make little sense; Crossmr, to his credit, has kept his composure. In the end, both Hippo43 and Abductive have incessantly insisted that they have the right to completely change the makeup of a very controversial section that has represented the status quo for years. However, the burden to provide proof for the need for that change is imminent, and the burden belongs to them — not anyone else. The problem is that they cannot provide that proof. So because they will not simply acknowledge this and provide a lettered response concerning proof that has been requested, they just keep making the same statements that do not represent arguments, or content that makes their case, but only the vague pretense of such. And it wastes everyone's time in the process. Computer1200 (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Just for clarification. You support someone edit warring to push their position? This thread is about abductive's behaviour that goes well beyond this particular article. If you want to discuss the particulars of the article feel free to go to the talk page. you'll see ample consensus seeking in all the various sections titled "proposal" all started by me.--Crossmr (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I've asked abductive if he has anything further to add [10] but since he's continued editing (and warring on the article in addition to contributing to the consensus discussion) and hasn't responded I guess he doesn't. He clearly violated 3RR this time, he violated it last month. In october he got a page locked by his actions and last summer he was warned over fighting on a page. In addition to that he admitted socking last summer to mass nominate/prod articles (the vast majority of which didn't stand). For me, that's far too much disruption. In addition I've asked him directly about the account issues and he's carried on editing without commenting on that. If there is some legitimate reason for his changing accounts and not wanting to reveal the old one, that is fine, but the fact that one sock was already brought out of the drawer is a problem.--Crossmr (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I would like to note that with regards to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abductive/Archive, that was a clear username change there. Secondly, that was a bad-faith SPI report made my serial sockpuppeteer User:Azviz, who was at the time harassing him and User:DreamGuy. –MuZemike 03:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Don't shoot the messenger. He still used more than one account to mass prod/nominate a ton of articles which didn't stick. Neither account goes beyond May 2009, so the account(s) that he's used between November 10, 2006 and May 2009 are unknown. We don't know if he's still using them or not since we don't know which ones they are(were). If there is a legitimate reason for him changing accoutns he's free to email an admin or arbcom and report the change and they could comment here and say it is fine. However, due to the initial disruptive behaviour and the continued disruptive behaviour it doesn't really seem like it.--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I wasn't trying to (and apologies if I felt like I was), but I wanted to make that clear that Abductive and DreamGuy were clearly being baited and harassed by an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer during that time. As far as the other account is concerned, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive195#Wholesale deprodding by new account and [11] (the latter is repeated in that SPI case). –MuZemike 02:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC) After debunking one of his bizarre claims in the current dispute [12] where he continually claimed there wasn't a single other article on wikipedia that included researcher's names, he's gone through to make a ton of pointy and WP:BATTLEGROUND edits. He's also shown absolutely zero understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD and continues to disrupt across multiple articles. I provided him with 2 google searches which showed tons of wikipedia articles using the phrase "study conduct/done by". His response was to run to those articles as fast as he could and remove as many mentions of that as he could. [13], [14], [15], [16], etc you can see his contrib history for today with a full list of all the articles he's tried to do this to. He knows there is no consensus for this change, I've asked him several times to cite a policy or guideline for it and he can't. Each time it is a new excuse as to why a researcher's name can't be on an article, but I think one tells us a lot. I have seen (and man, is it pathetic) junior professors post their mention in a Wikipedia article on their doors This would seem to indicate some personal interest/bias in the situation. [17] especially since he's utterly failed to properly cite any policy which says researchers names shouldn't appear in the article and they should only appear in the footnotes. He's reverted the Asian fetish article twice again today despite the on-going discussion to try and reach consensus on the article.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Somebody tell this user he doesn't own articles, and that he shouldn't wikihound. He really isn't getting it. Abductive (reasoning) 05:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC) This your defense for making pointy battleground edits across multiple articles? You might want to look in the mirror. You have no consensus for your edits. You have been asked repeatedly to provide a policy or citation for your position and can't do it. You can't cite a single passage on wikipedia that says researchers shouldn't be named in articles and rather than discuss it you continue to edit war over it. As we can clearly see here [18], and [19]. What you're not getting is that your opinion isn't the only one and if you want to change the status quo, you need to gain consensus. You've been told to read WP:BRD but at this point I don't know if you're just not capable or what the problem is. You were bold, you were reverted. You should engage in discussion. Instead you continue to revert and push it on to may other articles knowing your opinion is opposed. This is further evidence of your on-going and long term disruptive behaviour. We're still waiting for you to explain what happened with your account between Nov 10, 2006 and now.--Crossmr (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC) That is how you characterize it. As I make edits to remove just the inline mentions of non-notable researchers who are already credited in the refs, you follow me around reverting me and say that I'm making a battleground? I don't have to engage in discussion with you on articles that aren't on your watchlist. As you yourself have demonstrated, if only ~2000 articles out of 3 million use the "in a study conducted by" language, then using such language is not the norm. I have already discovered that most such usage "in a study conducted by" is followed by "UNESCO", "an NGO" and so forth, not the names of non-notable scientists who most likely edited the pages themselves. Abductive (reasoning) 05:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Yes you are. You knew before you made those edits that your position was contested. You knew after I reverted 2 of them, that the position was contested. But you continued to make the edits and you continued to revert instead of enter discussion. You knew I was watching those 2 articles, because I reverted you. You ignored the community standard WP:BRD and continue to edit war your way across wikipedia to try and push your point of view. As I've already pointed out the absence of that sentence on an article doesn't prove the community disagrees with its usage. Your claim was no articles used it, you were wrong. Now in an attempt to correct that you're going to try and edit as many articles as you can to remove it. You've been asked to stop and discuss it and you've refused. This is your disruptive behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC) If mentioning the people who discovered a fact was used inline for every fact throughout Wikipedia, it would take me 3,262,608 x about 15 minutes per article, or 93 years of solid editing to remove them all. Abductive (reasoning) 05:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Yet again your failed logic. Absence of a piece of text in an article isn't proof of consensus from the community. Still waiting for that citation, or do you want to continue to try and distract rather than actually proving this mystical consensus you claim? Your claim was about naming researchers, not everyone who ever discovered a fact. You see, each time the story changes because you have nothing to support your position except your unending willingness to continue to edit war instead of discuss it.--Crossmr (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I really don't think so. Studies are by researchers, yet inline language in Wikipedia articles naming the researchers who conducted the studies is vanishingly rare, especially if the researchers don't have a Wikipedia article. By contrast, naming researchers in references is policy. This suggests consensus, perhaps unwritten or even unthinking, that one shouldn't give non-notable people so much "play" in articles. Abductive (reasoning) 06:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC) What policy? Please cite the policy that indicates researchers are only to be named in the footnotes. Still waiting. Another story change, we're going to need a play book here soon to keep up all the various lines you've tried to use to claim this shouldn't happen without actually providing a citation. Let's not forget that 3 of the 4 researchers you claimed were non-notable that started your latest disruptive edit warring over actually meet our notability requirements. You'd know if you'd have actually checked. I wonder how many others you've removed meet the guidelines or did you bother to check before removing their names?--Crossmr (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC) As I have told you many times, it's WP:UNDUE, in particular WP:UNDUE#Characterizing opinions of people's work. And you are characterizing my contructive edits to articles you only found by checking my contribs as disruptive and edit warring. You are completely mistaken about the notability of the researchers. Finally, I did not remove them from the article(s), just formatted them into refs (if they weren't already in the refs). Haven't you noticed that no admin has taken your side? Abductive (reasoning) 06:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC) And as I've told you that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. Have you actually read what you just linked to? Your claim was that policy stated they should be listed in the footnotes. Where is that in the text you've just linked to? It isn't there. Your second link has absolutely no bearing on this situation at all. it is talking about aesthetic opinion. You're not removing names that have anything to do with aesthetic opinion. But it shows how little you seem to understand the policy you're clinging to like a life-raft. You are removing the names of researchers who conducted research. Some of whom are notable. Like 3 from the article you got blocked for edit warring over. And [20] why don't you check out Flávio Henrique Caetano you'll find plenty of google news, books and scholar hits for him. Its unfortunately not english, and I don't know how common that name is but it comes up enough to be at least worth checking out. Especially before claiming he isn't notable.--Crossmr (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC) and here he is finally admitting he has no consensus for his actions [21]. If he had the consensus he claimed he did, he'd know where it is and wouldn't need to look for it. He's basically been making up argument after argument on things that have no real relationship to the issues and edit warring on multiple articles over it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Crossmr is the one making things up. I have been repeating the same argument, using different words, a variety of statistics, examples and links, in a vain attempt to get this user to see my point of view. As can be seen, of the four people arguing on the talk page, 2 hold one position and 2 hold another. Everything else is just Wikihounding and tenditious editing on Crossmr's part. Abductive (reasoning) 07:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC) That isn't what you just claimed was it? Everyone can see your edit. Or do you want to continue to try and lie? To tell the truth, I have not looked for a proper "citation" for the consensus I claim, what part of that is made up? Still waiting on the name of the other accounts by the way. Your argument has been all over the place. You've refused to gain consensus and even after being blocked you continued to try and push your way on the article without consensus. Please enlighten us to what the passage on aesthetic opinions on creative works of art has to do with researchers names being in the article in conjunction with the studies they've produced. The tendentious editing comes from your unwillingness to see a discussion to the end before trying to force your opinion onto multiple articles by edit warring and even when you participate in a discussion to provide evidence to support your position. You just admitted you didn't look for the proper source which basically means you don't want to or can't provide it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC) As I previously stated, the consensus is in the form of millions of articles that do not give prominence to individual researchers, but instead use the established reference formats. I stated that this consensus is unwritten, but that does not mean it isn't the consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 07:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC) No you clearly stated you didn't look for the consensus. studies aren't used in millions of articles on wikipedia so it would be unreasonable to expect them to give prominence to things they don't use. Unless you've actually got evidence of mass removal of these kinds of sentences unchallenged or with discussions showing consensus agreed with their removal, you have no consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I didn't look because you Wikilawyer everything, and because I use abductive reasoning. What I try to do is educate. As for my actions or statements being unchallenged, how much admin inaction here does it take for you to get the message? Abductive (reasoning) 08:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC) No. you didn't look because it doesn't exist. Your juggling on the Asian Fetish talk page is plenty evidence of that. You're concocting the most elaborate and asinine arguments I've ever seen. Citing completely unrelated polices and guidelines coupled with what almost appears to be intentional misunderstanding of them to try and support your arguments rather than cite the consensus you claim you have.--Crossmr (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC) ♫ Nobody's listening to us ♫♪. Abductive (reasoning) 08:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC) When you two are done, any concise diffs or condensed explanations might be more useful than the above. Are there perhaps a few places we could focus on? Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC) For what it is worth User:Abductive previously edited as User:Joey the Mango. He put some strange comments on my talk page but I can't say that I found them objectionable enough to complain about. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

Concise diffs

• Last summer it was noted that Abductive used multiple accounts to mass-prod a bunch of articles Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive196#Wikihounding, by bunch over 150. They were all contested. AN/I shot the messenger because he was a sock, but it doesn't change what abductive did. Disruptive socking. At that time it was also noted that he refused to disclose old accounts and if you follow this discussion he ducks the question every time, but his user page indicates he's been here 2.5 years longer than his account.
• Around the same time, he got in a dispute with an editor here [22]. Not a 3RR violation, but he was going back and forth without discussion.
• In october 2009 he was involved in another edit war that was stopped with page protection before he could technically violate 3RR Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#User:Abductive_Uncalled_for_Behavior [23] It was also noted he was uncivil making a personal attack.
• Last month in March he violated 3RR [24], [25], [26], [27] the page was locked shortly there after. His violation was missed.
• just recently he was blocked on Asian fetish for violating 3RR. After being unblocked he made a contribution to the consensus building discussion we were having [28], but followed that up with trying to push his version back into the article [29] [30] twice. Before being blocked he insinuated with evidence that I had some kind of COI when he wasn't getting his way [31]. this was an assumption of bad faith and I consider it a personal attack.
• During the discussion he brought up the point that there were no articles which had researchers names in them with the study. I provided a couple google links showing plenty, his response was to start making disputed, WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND edits to multiple articles. [32], [33], [34]. See contribs, he's done this to 7 or 8 articles. He knew his position was disputed but reverted any opposition and carried on with other articles.
• After I reverted a couple of this indicating there was no consensus to remove these names, he accused me of wikihounding and reverted again. Ignorinig WP:BRD. [35], [36].
• He's repeatedly claimed consensus yet each time he's asked for it he refuses to provide the link because he doesn't want to look for it [37] or claims I'll just wikilawyer it.
• Knowing that there is no consensus for his assertion and that it is disputed and still failing to provided evidence of his consensus he just tried to push it on a featured article [38]. Basically anything that gets mentioned as support he will try to edit out.
• While a discussion is on-going on one page that shows that users don't support his POV [39], he uses mis-leading edit summaries on other articles to push it [40].

Maybe a few more shortly.--Crossmr (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I should also note that his edit war last month, this month and his pointy and battleground edits all seem to center around academics he thinks are not notable. Couple with his statement here about "juniour professors" [41]. It would seem like its a hot button issue for him.--Crossmr (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Quick point to Abductive about "consensus" regarding the names of authors; look at Court of Chancery. That's an FA; one of our highest-quality articles. That's an article which has been peer reviewed, and the idea that it is high-quality and does not violate policy has reached consensus. You'll notice authors' names are mentioned when they've opined. Ironholds (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have made an example edit (reverted by Ironholds using automation and the single word No) with a concise explanation of my reasoning on the talk page to the Court of Chancery article, which is easier to wade through than the mess in Asian fetish. Ironholds may not agree, but I think my reasons are sound. Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that your behaviour is at ANI and the (admittedly small) consensus at the talkpage says you're wrong may make you want to think twice about your quote unquote "sound" reasons. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oh I think twice often. For example, the phrase "according to academics" occurs in only 4 Wikipedia articles. "According to Professor" occurs in only 347 of Wikipedia's 3 million articles. In my discussion with you in Court of Chancery, I suspect that your opinion is colored by the way this stylistic concern was brought to your attention, and you might have reacted differently if I had just made the edit de novo. Abductive (reasoning) 19:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, judging some form of WP natural law from statistics doesn't work. And no, I'm pretty much the same all the time. Again, have you considered that since nobody is agreeing with you, you might be wrong? Ironholds (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Before User:Crossmr went on his fishing expedition, the talk page was tied 2:2, with Hippo43 taking the same position as I did. Also, if you look through the article history of Asian fetish, Hippo43 has been struggling with many POV editors and socks, alongside Crossmr. Questions were raised about the appropriateness of including a study of racial preferences in dating in an article on sexual fetishization of Asian women, concerns which Crossmr shouts down. The treatment of this study has been given steadily more prominence in the article, to the point that it is the majority of the text, and that's when I started to try to trim it back a bit, per WP:UNDUE. This issue revolves around WP:UNDUE. I say that using the names of researchers inline lends a certain weight to the statement that may or may not be justified. In spite of the fact that WP:OWN is a policy, many people own articles and cannot see that there may be legitmate concerns. Abductive (reasoning) 01:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• The fishing expedition which is showing you don't have the consensus you claimed you did and refuse to cite? The issue revolves around what appears to be your personal bias. Your two latest edit wars, your combative edits this time around, your casual comment about juniour professors on the talk page all show some kind of contempt for academics you don't deem worthy. Even knowing there was opposition to your position you just went and tried to change a featured article to push your point of view. you've been trying to dance around this for awhile now and providing all kinds of ludicrous and borderline disruptive answers as part of your reasoning. Claiming that you can't find a certain sentence pattern in some required imaginary number of articles as consensus that it shouldn't exist in any article is akin to saying your position is right because you're wearing blue pants. Your latest argument centered around the fact that somehow a notability guideline for article creation meant that we couldn't name a studies author in the article text. Naming the authors and/or universities involved in a study has absolutely nothing to do with WP:UNDUE and everything to do with presenting a clear picture to the reader.--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• As further evidence of your doing whatever you want regardless of what other users say: [42] after two users explained to you that it is perfectly normal and correct to identify who it is that is making statements, claims, etc and that it is not a problem with WP:WEASEL, you went and gutted one article changing several statements from being attributed to a particular person or sources point of view to blanket facts. [43]. While he did remove a couple "some people say" kind of references, the vast majority of the ones he removed were named sources. He's basically providing false edit summaries. Claiming to be removing "according to's" per WEASEL, when in fact WEASEL only says you should remove the ones that are unattributed and unclear. Named sources don't fall under that.--Crossmr (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• So are the two studies on the GA Theodore Kaczynski.--Crossmr (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see any WP:UNDUE weighting in the Theodore Kaczynski article. Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A few thoughts about the diffs above. I don't have a stake in this issue nor do I want to engage in a blow-by-blow regarding the below. I'll make a few specific points though. The two ANI's up there don't bother me. In fact, aside from an isolated uncivil comment (it really wasn't that uncivil either), they're entirely appropriate. It's not 3RR to keep removing vandalism or spam. Similarly the List of University of Toronto people edits are essentially an IP (that changes) attempting to add inappropriate redlinks to a list page, something that had previously been discussed a lot by Abductive and others on the Talk page. In that case he RVed 2 times, then sent the IP to the page. I don't see why that's a problem. Similarly, the "mass prodding" was to a whole set of address pages that a sock puppet account then had issue with. I don't think anyone else called it disruptive.

The James R. Davila stuff is a little pushy, and should have been discussed somewhere other than in edit summaries. The proper move would have been for Abductive to have undone Avraham's RV with a note to go to the talk page. If Avraham continued to remove it after that, then take appropriate action. Neither of those are model behavior, but nor are either of those fatal. That incident was almost a year ago too.

What is inappropriate are the edits that got him blocked, and the similar ones removing researcher names. I agree with Ironholds on some of those details, but that's not the point of discussion here. There is a tendency to be a little pointy about some of these recent edits. My conclusion is that there are some legitimate complaints regarding this recent trend (especially in the 3R situation, which after the first change was explained there was ongoing discussion), but Crossmr's claims regarding the past edits are either without merit, or minor problems.

I think Abductive should cool down on these "Professor X says..." edits for a while. If they're going to be made across a bunch of articles, there should be a central debate about it somewhere. As for the SPI stuff, you should put that over at SPI and leave this other stuff out of it (or else I pity the clerk who has to wade through all of that). Shadowjams (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple notes, the admin who protected the page last October specifically said "but also got carried away in his response to reinsertions of the kind that got the article deleted in the first place". The reinsertions might not have been appropriate but the admin felt that Abductive got carried away anyway. This is more about his response to challenges to his editing. At the toronto article only the first 2 edits were explicitly over redlinks with the IP, the next two were reverts of Wisdompower. To me it shows that he doesn't handle opposition to his POV well, which is what is happening again now. While I don't find those two events to be huge problems, I just find them to be indicative of a on-going trend that with this account.--Crossmr (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• And the WP:TLDR award goes to... You guys! Serioisly, have you noticed that everyone else seems to have tuned out a while back here? Dare I suggest you do the same and just try to avoid one another for a while... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• That's not particularly helpful and since the addition of the concise diffs section we've been getting some helpful feedback.--Crossmr (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox is right but so are you. The frustration here though is that the disagreements appear to be largely personal. It's not long til someone says "this isn't an administrator issue", which is mostly true at this point. We'd all appreciate any remaining issues be boiled down to some core contingency and those be funneled to the right place.

Look, you're both good editors, but even the best of us make mistakes from time to time. The question is if Abductive, takes this to heart, and similarly if Crossmr does too. This isn't blame... and someone else may still do something about it too. But notwithstanding that, I'd hope you both try to discuss things a little bit more. You two know enough to be incredibly productive, or incredibly disruptive. Not that I think either of you are doing the latter, but you know the game, so please understand that if the rules are applied somewhat more rigorously to this issue, it's because of that. Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing personal here. I've rarely ever edited the same article as abductive [44]. 1 of those few articles we've both edited was like 4 years apart. I brought this here because I saw an editor who repeatedly edited against consensus, and refused to properly discuss issues before hitting the revert button. Since I brought this here you've seen him continue the disputed edits knowing they're disputed and even doing so on a FA. You've suggested he should cut that out unless he's going to start a central discussion to get consensus on it. Continually pushing POV without properly seeking consensus when you know your edits are disputed is an administrator issue. It is why I brought it here. If he's going to cut that out and engage in proper consensus building discussions and adhere to WP:BRD I've got no issues dropping it. But if he's going to just blindly revert any opposition to his POV we're just going to be back here tomorrow.--Crossmr (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for administrative actions

Which as I expected brings us right back here. Yet again Abductive is doing whatever he wants regardless of who speaks out against him [45]. As I pointed out yesterday Abductive ignored the opinions of experienced editors and used misleading edit summaries to change another article. After an IP (which he assumed was me and was wrong, reverted him for legitimate reasons) instead of WP:BRD he just reverted and made bad faith accusations. The blind reversion and bad faith accusations need to stop.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Shadowjams suggested above that these edits were not a good idea and that he should stop until a central discussion was held on the issue. After trying to push the change on an FA, he was told there was no problem with the researchers name being inline by two different editors.[46], [47]. It is clear Abductive has no consensus to make these changes. So he went off to several other articles and made those changes.

• [48] Here he claims to be removing entries per WEASEL, but WEASEL addresses using words like "according to some" he only removed 2 of those and removed 4 instances where those statements were attributed to individuals. This was just explained to him that it was okay and that he shouldn't make these edits
• [49] he does it again
• [50] and a third one here
• An IP (which he assumes bad faith and assumes its me, feel free to run a CU) comes along and reverts him with explanation. [51], [52], [53], [54]
• Ignoring WP:BRD Abductive continues his WP:BATTLEGROUND edits, assumes bad faith and insinuates the IP is me, threatens the IP on his talk page for reverting him, and then reverts all of the articles. [55], [56], [57] [58]

I said I'd let it drop if was willing to edit inline with policies and guidelines but its apparent he isn't. So far, he's violated:

• WP:POINT
• WP:CONSENSUS
• WP:BATTLEGROUND
• WP:AGF
• WP:BRD
• WP:3RR in the last week.

This has to stop.--Crossmr (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• How did I insinuate that an IP was you? This claim is bogus. Abductive (reasoning) 03:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• By slapping him with the same bad faith warning and using the same verbiage to dismiss his edits?--Crossmr (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hardly evidence that I was saying it was you. Abductive (reasoning) 04:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• But plenty of evidence to support you are acting in bad faith and ignoring WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS.--Crossmr (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Lionel Hutz: "Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence." Abductive (reasoning) 05:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Your edits are right there where you accuse him of wikihounding you and threaten him on the talk page. Are you telling us you didn't make those edits? Was someone else using your account? Another lost password? How about the fact that you went out and made those first edits in the face of growing opposition to your point of view which you still can't cite a consensus on? You're right people should read your edits, because it is clear as day that you have no regard for other people's point of view and feel entitled to revert any page to your preferred version regardless of discussion and in violation of the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. While there was only small connected evidence before this began, you've shown since its started that you zero regard for any kind of opposition to your POV.--Crossmr (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• If I decided to remove instances of "not uncommon" from every article it which the phrase appeared, would that be a blockable offence? No, because the phrase fits WP:WEASEL. Similarly, removing a few instances of "according to" is both a minor change and consistent with the MoS. Abductive (reasoning) 03:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• You were just told by multiple editors not to remove that and that it was not consistent with MoS. Removing according tos, when they're attached to words like "some people" or "some academics" is appropriate. Removing according tos when they're attached to "John Smith" or "Professor X" are not appropriate. It is clear attribution of an opinion. This was explained to you. You ignored repeatedly. Which is why we are here and people are supporting your block.--Crossmr (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, those edits predate Shadowjams suggestion at 23:29, 20 April 2010 that I "cool it" with those sorts of edits. If people take a look at the edits, and the edits summaries, I think some will not see any problems at all. Abductive (reasoning) 04:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Your reversions of the IP who disagreed with you do not predate that suggestion. They also don't predate being told on the talk page of the FA that the names are appropriate [59]. Nor does it excuse you using misleading edit summaries to cover up the changes you make.--Crossmr (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• So I continued to edit articles I already edited? My edit summaries were not misleading. I strongly recommend that all editors reading this look at the edits. Abductive (reasoning) 04:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Editing an article once doesn't give you license to revert any opposition to your edits. That is specifically spelled out on WP:BRD (which has to be well over a dozen times I've linked you to it which you seem to have great issue reading). You were bold, you were reverted, and instead of discussing it you reverted again with bad faith assumptions and accusations. You were also bold at a time where there was not. WP:WEASEL specifically addresses removal of "according tos" that don't go to a specific source, you removed 4 such entries that did go to specific sources. That is a misleading edit summary.--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• In each of the follow-on edits I made, I carefully considered what the IP said, and made new edits that were either different from the first, or explained why I felt I was correct. At present, are any of the articles worse than when I started? Abductive (reasoning) 05:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• 2 of the 4 were blind reverts were you accused him of wikihounding then threatened him on his talk page. None of the removals were appropriate at that point because multiple editors had said it was inappropriate. The status of the articles is immaterial because you clearly knew these kinds of edits were disputed but you persisted in pushing your point of view without having the discussion that was recommended to you.--Crossmr (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with everything you just said, except to note that now we're down to 2 out of 4 articles. Abductive (reasoning) 05:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I never said the other 2 were okay. At that point it was still suggested you stop making those edits. Its only in 2 of them you made direct bad faith accusations and blindly reverted the articles. The other two you still removed the names without consensus. When you reverted those articles Shadowjams had recommended you stop and 2 editors on the FA had told you that the names were appropriate. You had no support for your edits yet pushed away.--Crossmr (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree. The edits were consistent with the Manual of Style, and 2 or 4 edits hardly constitutes any kind of mass action. Again, I note that the articles are better now than they were before. This is how editing gets done on Wikipedia; there may be some opposition, but given that the IP hasn't complained or reverted, perhaps s/he doesn't perceive a problem. Abductive (reasoning) 05:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, they weren't. You were told that already. you were told to stop making them. The IP could just be busy and hasn't come back to the article. Their absence isn't evidence that they support you. I know you like to use that a lot as argument, but it doesn't fly. The problem is you ignore other users, and revert pages rather than discuss. It is what got you blocked before, and the exact behaviour you've continuing since then. You've intentionally gone to articles and made edits you know were disputed. I haven't reverted all of them yet because I'm waiting for a clear consensus which is starting to form. If you want to continue these edits you need to make a proposal at the village pump that they should be removed and see how the community feels. Everything else disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• You know what? I think that you need to get the last word in. You and I repeat the same arguments over and over, with you making sweeping statements about consensus forming, when in fact the general consensus is that this is not important. It is an editing dispute, with some people even agreeing with me. Abductive (reasoning) 05:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support block This is a long list of violated policies. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support block Abductive's WP:POINT violations concern me the most. If he wants to have inline attributions of studies to their researchers removed, he should have gone to the village pump, rather than just removing them all himself, without prior discussion. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 18:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that this is a real problem. Disruption, socking, fait accompli mass edits, wikilawyering about 3RR (there is no 3 revert entitlement). Talks like an academic and edit wars at asian fetish? Give me a break. Overall attitude could be viewed as an ownership issue towards the whole encyclopedia. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is no socking. Abductive (reasoning) 03:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Then why don't you tell us who the previous accounts? You were asked by an adminstrator last year to name your accounts and refused.--Crossmr (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I refused correctly. There is a difference between sockpuppeting and legit alternate accounts, and there is no problem at all if the accounts don't overlap in time and articles. I tell you what, though; if you can guess any of my alternate accounts, I'll admit them. You can have 1000 guesses, just ask at my talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 04:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• How would anyone know since you won't disclose it? I'm certainly not going to take your word on it at this point. The very least you can do is e-mail the list to arbcom.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'll tell the truth. After all, if in the future any admin or member of arbcom ever did take an interest in this non-issue, my lying would be perceived quite negatively. So, if there is any account that has ever aroused your suspicion, just ask on my talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 05:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• If you want to come clean with your past accounts you can do so here or you can e-mail the list to arbcom. No reason to tuck it away on your talk page. Last year you claimed that they would only show more of the same (Which tells us a lot) but that there wasn't anything untoward, so why not just list them unless you got blocks or bans to hide?--Crossmr (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed. Who said academics can't have fetishes? Seriously, this seems a pretty wp:lame conflict, people should just back off from gouging each others eye's over stuff like this. I don't see significant issues with Abductive's latest incriminated edit [60]. Removing some verbiage is always good. It makes sense to repeatedly use "According to ..." only if the statements are contentious, and some alternative interpretation is provided, like "According to X, A1 happened, but according to Y, A2 happened." Just repeatedly using "According to X", where X is not even the same across occurrences, and the there are no disputed issues, just induces the impression that there may be a different interpretation when none is provided, so it should be a construct to wp:avoid just like "claims". Pcap ping 00:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Except he's been told by multiple users he shouldn't do it without getting consensus first. There are multiple problems here. 1) that he's making WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT edits he knows are currently disputed and 2) any reversion of those edits is met with assumptions of bad faith and reversions rather than discussions per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. it was suggested above that he not continue these edits without a central discussion on it, and after he tried to push it on an FA he was told by 2 users there that there was no problem with the edits. Someone ignoring consensus and edit warring their pov into an article isn't lame. It's a problem. The problem at Hephthalite was several, 1) disputed edit, 2) misleading edit summary, 3) assumption of bad faith, 4) consensus and BRD. He managed 4 violations in 2 edits. and we already know that Abductive is removing this names not because the claims aren't disputed but because he feels these individuals are "non-notable" academics, and that naming them is some kind of vanity, spam, or whatever other story he's concocted today.--Crossmr (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, Ironholds has warmed a bit to my point of view. The way you have characterized my edits is not consistent with the, well, truth. Abductive (reasoning) 04:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• "I'll take a look" doesn't mean, I agree with your point and you're free to remove researchers names from countless articles.--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Listen carefully; I am not advocating removing researchers from articles; what I want is their names down in the footnoted references--not inline--unless there is a good reason. Abductive (reasoning) 05:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Listen carefully; there is opposition to your moving names down to the references from in-line. You were told to stop it, both here and on article talk pages. You continued. More people opposed you. You reverted and made bad faith accusations. You are being disruptive, see no problem with your edits, and have no regard for consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I disagree. The consensus you claim is actually people wishing that this ANI discussion would die out, or people who came quite late to this discussion and clearly are mislead by you. Earlier, Ironholds, one other user and I had a discussion on a talk page, with results amenable to all. An IP and you are the only ones intrested in following my contribs and finding fault, and I made an effort to take everybody's concerns into account, and the IP has not edited the articles further. Are you saying that I cannot edit? Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, the consensus I claim is Shadowjam who told you to get consensus, ironholds and the other person on the FA talk page, the IP, and even Radman above specifically states that you should have gone to the village pump to get consensus first, as well as a second IP. If you made an effort to take everyone's concerns into account, you wouldn't have run out to change every article that was provided as evidence to dispute your false claims. You're free to edit, but you shouldn't be moving researchers names out of the inline text until you have consensus to do so. Several users have told you that. You've ignored it repeatedly and made bad faith accusations and ignored WP:BRD to push your point of view.--Crossmr (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Again, you make sweeping claims that I changed "every article", was going to remove "all" of something, and that I am reverting when the edits are not reversions, and that I am not following suggestions when in fact I am. I'm also engaging in normal editing practices to the best of my ability. Go ahead, put in the last word. Abductive (reasoning) 05:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Crossmr, I don't see a good reason to invoke the source of some science in text by default. You haven't provided any. Just because you and some other editors disagree with Abductive on this issue, it doesn't make you (or them) any holier than him. I do use similar constructs occasionally, but when I have a good reason to do so. For instance, I used something like that in the capacitor plague article "The failed capacitors analyzed by two University of Maryland researchers..." to emphasize that the guys that did the analysis are reasonably independent of the hardware manufacturers. Another case is when someone pioneers a new technique etc. But in general, I don't see a reason to give the names in text for routine science, especially when they don't have wikibios here. Can you argue for one? Pcap ping 09:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Holier no, but knowingly going out and repeatedly making edits you know are disputed is disruptive. Especially when counselled to start a consensus discussion. It is completely contrary to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Individual articles have to be addressed individually, but anyone who has disagreed with his edits finds their work undone. This is the problem. Other than the featured article, every other article has him constantly putting his preferred version, without names back in. He probably knows that edit warring on a featured article would get him far more attention than some fringe article so that is why its the only one he chose not to to instantly undo the opposition to his edits. You have to remember the whole reason this started was because of his false claim in defense of his edits on Asan fetish was that no article on wikipedia had this language in it. As soon as he was confronted with a list of tons of them, he started changing them.--Crossmr (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support block. I am disappointed that after the improvements Abductive showed in his editing at WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators after receiving a dressing down from several regulars at that page and changing his name from Joey the Mango to Abductive he has edited disruptively and against consensus in other articles. It seems that he edits subjects of which he has limited knowledge in a domineering and recalcitrant manner and is unwilling to accommodate the views of others. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC).

• The more I see the more its clear there is some personal bias against academics he thinks are non-notable and is out to remove every mention of them from wikipedia regardless of how others feel.--Crossmr (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Again, this characterization is untrue. User:Crossmr uses the word scare word "remove" to describe either my desire to see the names of researchers mentioned in footnotes rather than given undue prominence, or a legitimate process called AfD. Seizing upon an AfD nomination I made when I was rusty upon returning to editing, he makes sweeping, untrue claims. Abductive (reasoning) 15:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban needs tweaking

Frankly, I don't like interaction/topic bans very much. I think they generally create more problems than they solve, and one particularly flawed one has come to my attention. There is a ban listed here that came out of a discussion here at ANI last month that restricts three users, Mbz1, Gilisa, and Factomancer from interacting with one another. In the right hand column a huge loophole is detailed. These three are to ignore each other except if they think one of the others needs to get in trouble, then there is a complex set of procedures they have to follow to report one of the other two. I think the community made a mistake in adding these provisions. The ban is supposed to prevent these users from stirring up trouble with one another, but this loophole actually encourages them to look for opportunities to create more drama. I propose that this "reporting mechanism" be removed from the ban and that the users be instructed to ignore one another, period, full stop, no exceptions. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the rules are silly, and IMO the ban is not working as it should. The ban was supposed to prevent the community from the disruption by constant fights at AN/I, but as the events of the last few days have shown, the effect is just the opposite. Although I have never violated neither the ban itself nor the rules, I feel myself like an informer in the worst meaning of that word, and I'm ashamed of myself for following those rules and doing that. I am asking the community that the ban is lifted from all three of us. I promise voluntarily to stay away from the user no matter what the user does to me, and not under any circumstances report the user to AN/I (I have never done anyway). I was reported to AN/I quite a few times. I promise to do my best that it will not happen again, or at least happen much more seldom :) I mean I promise never again to write "Drork was right" in my edit summary :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

*It's worth noting that I have now blocked Mbz1 for violating the ban yet again with this edit [61]. The restriction clearly prohibits commenting on one another's talk pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC) actually I misread it, ignore that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

At first, Beeblebrox's idea seemed strange to me, but now I see the logic of it. We would literally be preventing all complaints by these users about one another, per any channel. If they consider this poses a handicap to their participation in Wikipedia, they have the option of not editing here. Of course, if they can choose articles to work on that are unlikely to be visited by any of the others, then they should not be inconvenienced by this restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just to make things easier here, here are the details of the reporting mechanism: "If any of the parties feel that the other party has violated this ban or other Wikipedia policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hrs they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same manner, but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki. Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption." I've never seen such an elaborate scheme in an interaction ban before. The main text of the ban says it's to be "broadly interpreted" and this provision seems to directly contradict that, and to actually encourage stalking and wiki-lawyering. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That language was written by me; it's a close or direct copy of an interaction ban from mid last year-ish that I wrote, after discussion on ANI and elsewhere, for other users. Let's see... the Koalorka / Theserialcomma interaction ban from Aug 22 2009 and on - [62]. It seemed to be well liked at that time as a reasonable balance. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I read the discussion, and indeed at the time there was support for this, and I'm sure it was done with the best of intentions, it just hasn't worked out very well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, the next appropriate step IMHO would probably be indeffing people, not changing the restriction; but that's up to the community. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem to be blocked indf if I violate the terms of the ban. But I do have problems with totaly erroneous enforcment. And the talks about the ban "spirit" replacing the ban "letters" are actually an open door to block without a case.--Gilisa (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- Yes, this makes eminent sense. I have watched this interaction ban work out horribly, just become an attempt at "gotcha!" while it creates more and more drama. Beeblebrox is right-on. Stellarkid (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Expand Actually perhaps lifting the ban altogether would be best per Mbz1. I think both users have learned their lesson here. Mbz1 has made a commitment, now if Factomancer would make a similar commitment I think this thing will go away. Stellarkid (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to make nearly any commitment to make this distracting ban go away, but I doubt that is going to happen. Factomancer (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Anything that reduces the WikiDrama in this editing area is a Good Thing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Otherwise, one of them may violate seriously and get away with it, with the others unable to point it out without being sanctioned themselves. If the users can't abide by the terms as written, the next logical step is an outright ban, rather than removing their ability to point out violations. The intermediate step is asymmetrically unfair. I agree the situation is approaching or at the next step level, but this proposal isn't the right next step. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• oppose considering the problems already existing with the enforcment of this ban (which to me seem as bad idea from the begining)removing the reporting mechanism will only make it just worse, of course. --Gilisa (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support in that it would stop any encouragement for one party to follow the other around looking for violations. --SGGH ^ping! 20:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment to SGGH: And you assume that reports of violations from other editors who are not banned will not come?--Gilisa (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The point of an interaction ban is to reduce drama, clearly that goal has not been achieved. Most of us can see for ourselves when it is in everyone's best interest to walk away from a user or a situation, but you three don't seem to be able to do that on your own, hence this restriction. This is the central point here, and I know you're sick of me but I'm going to try one more time to clarify this. You should just ignore Factomancer, and they should ignore the two of you. Try and follow the spirit of the ban as opposed to the letter of it, and everyone, including you, will be happier on the long run. If one of you is doing something that is really so bad as to merit blocking, it will be noticed by somebody. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Makes sense. The reporting mechanism was a very bad idea to begin with, given that it encouraged each party to inform on each other. Factomancer (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support, per Factomancer (with the word "apparently" in front of "encouraged"). --Avenue (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support, as I have stated earlier about this interaction ban: "the way I understood it (silly me); was that an interaction ban should force people to move on...it wasn´t meant to give people a cause, or inspiration, for spending day after day, collecting diff after diff, posting on admin after admin, ..for a block." And, IMO, one should also consider applying such a full interaction ban on more editors in the I/P-area. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Plan B

Maybe George is right, and it's time to up the ante. What if we leave the ban conditions as they are now, but instead of a slowly escalating series of blocks, any of the three who can be shown to have violated the ban gets an indef block. If this thing actually had some teeth it would have a better chance of curbing the problem. The first user to violate it would essentially solve the issue be eliminating themselves from the equation. In the interest of keeping this conversation on point I will go on record right now in recusing myself from any further blocks based on these conditions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Along these lines - the whole point of this was really to point out to those involved that the community has communally run out of patience with all of this mess, both sides of it. In general it would seem like the message was not received.

We can only warn so many times. The question is zero more warnings, one more warning, or N (very small) more warnings. Beeblebrox is proposing zero more; I agree that that's within reason given the situation. Perhaps two more and a six month block is the least strict next step I think I'd agree is reasonable. Some solution bounded by those two limits seems about right. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Zero more warnings - It really is time to try to put a stop to all this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No more warnings - Agree with BMK. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Ugh, I didn't want to be drawn into this discussion, and I'm supposed to be on a Wiki-break, but this proposal would mean one of us would be indeffed for sure. Given that we are active in similar topic areas, it's very, very easy to accidentally trigger the interaction ban without thinking, particularly considering that the ban is to be "construed broadly" and one of the ban conditions is reverting an edit with no time-limit, which essentially means that we have to check the origin of all material in an article before editing it to be 100% sure that we aren't violating the ban; even the writer of the ban has admitted that that condition is an onerous burden.

"The first user to violate it would essentially solve the issue"? Only if it's me. Is that the assumption here? Because I don't really feel I deserve to be indeffed quite yet. And if not, then let's be honest and discuss that.

To be frank, I think this ban has been a disaster and has encouraged interaction, of the "informing" nature, not discouraged it. A simple ban on reporting parties to noticeboards would have had a much better outcome because that was 99% of the original problem. Factomancer (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we agree that the ban has been a disaster, that's something. It wouldn't have to be you that would get the indef, I only meant that the first one of you to violate again would get the banhammer, although I suppose it's possible that one of the other two would get it and then one or the other of the remaining users would be foolish enough to follow suit. Of course the more desirable result would be for the three of you to take this seriously and just follow the ban to the letter and not make any edit that even comes close to maybe possibly violating the ban, ending the need for any more blocks or other drama. Simply ending this cycle of drama is my only concern here. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty I have taken this ban seriously; unfortunately I assumed the ban was supposed to prevent actual interaction not incidental, accidental mentions of the other party or editing material they may have also once edited. As I explained, I am still concerned about the indefinite nature of the revert prohibition. Given that Wikipedia doesn't have a "blame" feature, in my opinion the ban still places an undue burden on us. Factomancer (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Give plan A a chance to work first, at least. --Avenue (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Support zero warnings toward me only--Mbz1 (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

'Oppose Plan A and B and also Mbz fetish for getting the third degree, though I might understand wanting to get forced to take a break. The interaction ban was interesting, but simply detracting from editing the encyclopedia. I would suggest a simple extended topic ban on all and hope the time off does it's usual work. --Shuki (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• As one of the admins who has had the slightly traumatic experience of trying to enforce the ban, I agree that it has not really worked, mostly because the three editors have a penchant for excessive drama (to perhaps varying degrees) and attract a peanut gallery of equally unhelpful supporters in each instance of conflict. I tend to agree with Beeblebrox and Georgewilliamherbert above.  Sandstein  21:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Plan Z

Every successful person has a plan Z. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This issue has wasted too much time. I propose a completely novel solution. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with trying to be fair is that people can push to the edge and then pull back when they get some kick back - the incentive is always to try and game the system. I propose a solution from Drama theory. This is not supposed to be fair. The punishment is random, and its scale may not fit the crime. Bigger crimes are more likely to have bigger punishments though. Thus while there is a slim chance a participant may get away with a major provocation, there is also a chance that even a mild infraction would be met by a response completely out of proportion to the crime. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

People who continue with undesirable behaviour will inevitably at some point be met with sudden death, completely out of the blue. In this case, this would be a ban, but several other punishments may be meted out with higher probability, such as long blocks. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The participants either behave, or the random throw of the dice will remove them at some point from the situation - leaving the remaining participants to contemplate the corpse and the value of life before deciding their next course of action. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a set of dice with all 6's on them.

And another with "Live" on half the faces and "Die" on the other half. And one die with "Die" on all 6 sides.

Plan Z, however, is obviously the Zombie solution, which is not satisfactory. This situation must not live on and on and on in a warped half-alive state. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(In an effort to lessen the tension), not Zombies GWH, but Nazis.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I truely like this solution, but the problem is that the one who should enforce the ban is always an admin-i.e., assumably human, and therfore, it's very hard to assume (maybe impossible) that the choice he/she made is realy random and totaly unbiased. If there is any on line application that allow to both editor and administrator to see a set of dice and then the result after they were thrown-and lets say that 2=no sanction needed...3=48 hours blocked, 4=72 hours blocked.. 7=one month topic ban 12=indf block-then it could work. But it's all not even realy hypothetical.--Gilisa (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Zombies is Plan 9, surely? Guy (Help!) 09:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Plan "B" for ban me alone

Okay, here's the deal.

I am the subject of three months broadly constructed topic ban (not to be mistaken with indefinite broadly constructed interaction ban :) )
I propose

1. To lift the interaction ban altogether from everybody involved or leave it in effect only for me. I have never violated the interaction ban, and I have no difficulties in complying with the ban in the feature,
2. Change the time span of my broadly constructed topic ban from three months to indefinite without the right to appeal. This will successfully illuminate almost every possibility of my interaction with others, who are editing in the area that falls under my topic ban.

Few words why I am proposing that change:

1. Gilisa got into that interaction ban by a pure accident, and ever since the editor was blocked two times for nothing. I feel myself responsible for those blocks.
2. Following the rules of the interaction ban turned me into an informer. I'd rather to be informed about than to be an informer myself.
3. I'm tired of being discussed on AN/I over and over again. Hopefully with the new measure it will not happen again.

@Shuki, my proposal has nothing to do with "fetish". I would hate to be forced to take a break. I am just tired. I called an anti-Semite "anti-Semite" at an article's discussion page, and was blocked for "BLP violation" without any warning. I wrote a first article about Robert Kennedy, and was dragged into fishing SPI. I was not allowed to remove the accusations of me using a sock neither from the article's discussion page nor from the article deletion request even after SPI came out as "unrelated". I was also falsely accused in being a racist. I wrote a second article about 800 years old synagogue, and was falsely accused in "demonizing Muslims in every paragraph". I filed my first ever AE request about the admin, who misused his tools, and was topic banned. I exercised my right to appeal the ban, and few admins suggested that I should be punished harsher and harsher for doing just that "As such, I oppose any slippage in the current ban on Mbz1, and in fact encourage it being tightened" and "I recommend that further appeals, complaints, and other nonsense from Mbz1 should result in escalating blocks.". I was wikihounded on its worst, and not just by one, but by few users (I guess I am an easy target). So, no, Shuki, my proposal has nothing to do with "fetish". I am tired, and I guess everybody is tired of me. Now, after two blocks for the "violation" of my topic ban, and declined request to add some reference to my old article, I understand how broadly constructed my topic ban is, and I will be fine in avoiding being trapped and blocked for violating it. After everything that happened to me I am no longer interested in the editing I/P related articles. I am a coward, I would not like to end up with an indefinite block issued by admins, who are simply too busy, and/or cannot care less to try to get to the bottom of the problem.

So, please adopt my proposal ASAP, and archive the thread. Please, everybody, accept my apology for the time I took. From now on I will try to do my best to remain in the corner I was put into. Sorry for the long post, hopefully the very last one on that board.

@Sandstein, I might have violated my "broadly constructed" topic ban with that post. I am sorry about that. It will be great, if you could forgive me this hopefully very last violation, and do not block me, but I sure, will understand, if you do block me. I guess my next block for the violation of my topic ban is a week now. Anyway....

--Mbz1 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• I really don't think disruptive users should be allowed to propose the conditions of their own bans. We went through months and months of rigmarole with Grundle2600, haggling over which of the parameters (originally of his own devising) of the topic ban he was or was not skirting at a given time. I don't even like the idea of interaction bans, as they just create needless drama and red tape for the rest of us to deal with. We aren't equipped to deal with what amounts to a wiki-restraining order. How about users are simply held to the standards of conduct that we already have in place? If User A does something against User B that is sanctionable...personal attacks, incivility, or whatever...then simply sanction User A for that action right then and there. Tarc (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes that would be nice, wouldn't it? The problem is that before this interaction ban, User A would repeatedly do something sanctionable against User B and admins would refuse to take any action simply because there was so much drama that they would rather stay uninvolved instead of do their job. That's how this idiotic interaction ban came to be. Now it has evolved into the same thing. After a while of strict enforcement, it has reached the point where admins are refusing to take action on clear violations of the interaction ban simply because they don't want a spotlight on themselves. Breein1007 (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

@Tarc, I do not know the user you are talking about, but apparently the user was asking to reduce the sanctions not to make them harsher. The only reason I asked for that is to stop taking time and causing the disruptions. I would not like my proposal to be a cause of a new lengthy discussion. I said what I had to say. I believe the project will benefit from my proposal. Let's just adopt it by a sole admin's action (I was topic banned by a sole admin action anyway). Please. Okay I said it all, and now I am taking that board off my watch list.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, I have no problem with any editor making any proposal. I don't think, and you probably agree with me, that editors in conflict with the sanctioned editor are in principle always a better source for amking proposals about him or her. All we have to weight is the rationale of the suggestion. No one is asking for pity or even second chance here. We only ask reason to play a role here again. As Mbz said, I was blocked for nothing twice, and I found this interaction ban to be totaly superfluous and much more distrupting than anything that preceded it. And I do believe that there was too much drama about the drama. Lifting this interaction ban would be more beneficial.--Gilisa (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Breein seems to feel that anyone who won't make a block based on their recommendation is some sort of coward. At least that's what was strongly implied in my case. The point, which I have tried again and again to make to this group, is that interaction bans are supposed to be a mechanism for reducing drama, and just because we could block somebody for a technical violation does not mean we must. Conversely, if a user engages in behavior that is contrary to the point of the ban without technically violating its specific conditions, they can still be blocked. Unlike content editing, admin work consists of making numerous judgement calls as opposed to rigid adherence to rules. At least you are all pissed off at me now instead of continuing to go after each other, that's something. I think in the end the best course is to do what was mentioned above, to strengthen the severity of the consequences of violating the terms, and to strongly recommend to all the users involved in this matter to try and simply avoid each other as much as possible instead of looking for reasons to get someone blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I thought Plan A (prohibiting the banned users from reporting other banned users) clearly had more support from admins/uninvolved users than Plan B (strengthening the severity of the ban). Factomancer (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, give me a break-you had no reason to block me and that's clear. Maybe I will submit soon a request for amendment in the AE. If you suggest that all of these proposals will be enforced the same way you blocked me, then I oppose them all from obvious reasons. --Gilisa (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel you must. As I have said again and again, my only interest is in putting an end to this drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for caring.--Gilisa (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

We need to bring this thing to a close and decide what action, if any, is to be taken.The whole "random" Plan Z is more or less a joke, and the idea of a one-way interaction ban does not make a lot of sense. Then there is my initial idea of removing the reporting mechanism, but I think GWH makes a valid point that it was done in good faith and failed, and now it's time to move on. That leaves increasing the penalties for violating the ban in a last-ditch effort to get these users to simply stop interacting and ignore one another. Of the options presented I think this is the simplest and most likely to have the desired effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you not hear me the first time? Plan A was much more supported than Plan B. You can't just ignore consensus because you want to. And GWH wrote the failed ban. Why should he have input into new ban conditions? Factomancer (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I get the feeling nobody is listening to me. I have posted again and again on the undue burden placed on us by the unlimited revert prohibition, whereby we have to go through the entire contribution history of an article to ensure we do not accidentally edit material inserted by the other party. Increasing the severity of the penalties of this ban would ensure that we would get indeffed for not exhaustively checking an articles history. This is ridiculous. The ban conditions need to be changed. Simply increasing the penalties won't solve anything; although it makes for good politics. Factomancer (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't get to demand the ban conditions to be changed. The ban was imposed on you. It is up to the community to discuss the ban. I find it pretty rich that you, the person who was sanctioned, is questioning someone else's (more specifically, an admin's) right to comment here. Breein1007 (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Trolling by single-purpose account

A single-purpose account, A930913 (talk · contribs), has been trolling this deletion discussion, generally hectoring every user who comments in favour of deletion – which has so far been unanimous bar A930913 themselves – and getting passive-aggressive in response to criticism. Of their 20 edits, 18 have been based around the discussion; if a block is not in order, a strict warning for probably COI etc. almost certainly is. (User notified.) ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 20:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Being a single purpose account is not a blockable offense, or indeed an offense at all. Neither is being passive aggressive, and that's if we accept your contention that this is even occurring, which I personally do not. Responding to multiple persons who hold a point of view contrary to one's own is how we build consensus. Yes, sometimes users take it too far and end up hurting their own cause as a result, but that also is not a blockable action. I don't see that this needs to be here at all, at worst this merits a WP:WQA thread, but my advice is to just let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that something's slightly wierd here, but he's using policy based reasoning on the AFD for the most part, and is not being disruptive or abusive. I don't know if he's right or not, but whoever they are, they have a right to participate in a discussion as long as they do so constructively (and aren't already banned, and there's no sign of that). I think there's nothing here requiring administrator intervention. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not an SPA quite simply because I have made more than just these edits. (I made this account over a year ago with the future intention of just this?!) Not a troll either according to Wikipedia because my primary intent it to preserve the article, not to "provoke other users into a desired emotional response". "Passive-aggressive in response to criticism" where criticism is calling me a hector implying that I am bullying other users and then tells me to read a dictionary when I say that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If A930913 ever decides to try a bid for adminship then this AfD may haunt them, but other than that I don't really see the problem. The discussion seems overwhelmingly supportive of article deletion, and I don't see a single policy being violated. -- Atama頭 00:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I consider edits like this to have no constructive purpose and to be purely disruptive. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 06:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, that looks like a pot and a kettle to me. jæs (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, however, you initiated that conversation by calling me a hector. I said that was a derogatory term, to which you said "go read a dictionary." I went on, in your link above, to bring proof to what I previously said, to which I still stand to be corrected. On the basis that you then went to move the said content into the (empty) discussion page, I can only assume you realised you were wrong and wanted to hide the evidence. --A930913 (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was not wrong, and I did not hide the evidence; only a fool could seriously suggest that I did. If you are not prepared to edit Wikipedia constructively, you need to find other things to do with your time. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

TT, you are the one acting like a bully here, trying to intimidate a less experienced user. Back off already. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not bullying anyone. A39 is a troll operating a single-purpose account which is clearly not his first, who is hectoring every single editor who comments in a non-controversial deletion discussion. He is also edit-warring over the conduct, as well as sniping, hair-splitting and back-biting.

I foolishly thought that the admins may like to intervene because he's behaving like a tosser. If not, fine; since the article is going to be deleted anyway, he's lost the "war" anyway, and his attempts to score minor debating points are failing and anyway futile. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it was foolish of you to think that we would do something here on your say-so without looking into it and seeing that you are trying to get someone blocked just because you find them annoying. Calling them a "troll" a "dick" or a "tosser" isn't enough to convince an admin to block. You have not provided any diffs that show any kind of policy violation, and you have "hectored" them right back. No admin action is being taken because no admin action is warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Acting like a tosser is not a policy based reason to block somebody. I read through the discussion, and in my opinion his comments are extremely tame. This is definitely a case of WP:KETTLE... calling him a troll is not exactly civil is it, and nor is claiming his comments are "hectoring" (AFDs are a discussion, not just a vote). Now if the editor in question is believed to be a sockpuppet, that would be a different story, but so far no evidence has yet been produced for that. Therefore, there is no problem here for admins to solve. As I write, the article is headed for clear deletion, so it's not like his comments are swaying anybody. Aiken ♫ 17:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been quite involved in this deletion discussion and think that everyone who has significantly contributed to the discussion, including myself, should now just calm down and keep quiet. We have all said all that is needed and both sides have put across their interpretations of perfectly reasonable guidelines. I don't really see why there is any need for any more discussion unless prompted by new, and most importantly, different reasons for or against deletion and I won't be making any further comment unless that situation arises and warrants it. The whole discussion now just looks silly and isn't helping sway any opinions. No more vandalism, no more reverts or editing of questionable faith, please! Fenix down (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. RJ (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts‎‎#User:TreasuryTag - relates to this. Putting this here only to tie the 2 together both ways, I think it really should be done with at this point.- Sinneed 20:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What pisses me off about the above is that A93 is insisting that s/he is not a single-purpose account; can someone please, for the love of God, explain that s/he is, and direct them to read WP:SPA, since it points out that an editor who only edits relating to a single article (bar two of their edits, ever) is an SPA? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 20:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Correcting one-another's thinking is not needed, probably not practical, and not the purpose of Wikipedia. I think both of you (and I, myself, for that matter) would better serve WP to behave differently ... but our thinking is our own.

SPA really mainly impacts how the community views the editor and is very much an eye-of-the-beholder thing. There are many wonderfully useful editors who only do one thing, doing it very well, as SPA's.- Sinneed 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As is pointed out at WP:DICK, going ahead and calling someone a dick is somewhat of a dick-move in itself and decreases the chances that they will listen to anything else you have to say. Basic psychology tells us the same thing. Being openly hostile to somebody is not likely to result in them respecting your opinion. Since there is still nothing being presented here that requires admin action,I think we're done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Self-identifying minor

Is the information here too much information for a minor to be putting on their User page? Woogee (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The e-mail address is a bit much and should be removed. No strong opinion on disclosing her age. ThemFromSpace 05:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That is in a grey area as far as the need for oversight is concerned, as COPPA only pertains to those under the age of 13 (as it would need to be followed as the WMF servers are located in the United States and hence subject to Federal law). What may work here is someone to try and speak to this user privately (i.e. via email) about the dangers of releasing such information for the entire world to see. That way it won't seem as WP:BITEy but yet remain sincere and concerned. –MuZemike 06:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Normally I would say something, but since they live in LA County, it could be any number of 14 year olds. So it isn't like you could pick them out of a crowd like some other minor users have ID'd themselves. I would agree that the email address could be removed and oversighted, but others (young and old) have their email addresses on their pages. It is a risk you take. You could let the user know that they can link to their email address by listing the Email link we all use, so the actual address isn't visible. Just an idea. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've notified the user of this discussion. Suggested that she asks here if she wants her e-mail removed and oversighted. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to notify her. Thanks to Mjroots for taking care of that. Woogee (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Per this, I've removed her email address from the page, but it should probably be oversighted as well. —DoRD (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

DoRD, seems to that ArbCom decision gives latitude to remove such information, it doesn't make it mandatory. Is there some peculiarity about this matter that makes it an "appropriate case" for removal/oversight? Not sure which way I feel yet, there are some very productive children on this site, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think revision hiding would be fine here. The danger of having a publically viewable email address for a self-identified minor should be self-evident. –xeno^talk 14:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't to me, given that anyone can get in touch of said minor without let or hindrance by clicking on "Email This User".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

When using the internal email system, at least a record is kept. –xeno^talk 14:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding redundant, I have to agree with xeno. (I forgot about the alternative to oversight, though.) —DoRD (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the point, but this is a matter where we should have better guidelines than a very ambiguous ArbCom decision almost four years old.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Having a formal guideline to point to would be great (turning WP:CHILD into a guideline for example) but from what I've seen at ANI in the past, that ArbCom decision has been interpreted consistently which can be used to show how the community feels on the matter. As to this particular matter, I agree that the only troubling bit of information is the email address, all the other info is generic enough to not threaten the child. -- Atama頭 17:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Her date of birth though could, perhaps, be a problem. I won't remove it, but just saying. Aiken ♫ 17:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

<-- I feel like it would be preferable to do something like this privately by either emailing the user or functionaries. By posting something like this we only draw attention to the very things we are worried about becoming public. I know there are multiple Oversighters who deal with issues like this on occasion. James (T|C) 18:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but as was pointed out above, since she's 14 she is old enough to decide whether or not her e-mail address is public. That said, she is quite young so we should inform her that posting her e-mail address on her page is probably not a good idea. We can delete all the old revisions of her userpage to hide the e-mail address, if she wishes so. Also, in future, please send requests like this to the oversight team (contact details here) rather than posting them publically. As this request doesn't require oversight I won't delete this discussion, but had it been suppressible, I would have had to delete it. --Deskana (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the fuss is about. I don't receive any emails at the <email redacted> address anyway. No biggie lol. Age wise, I'm currently in high school so I think it's a little nonsense to considered myself a child. It won't be not to long until I turn 15. Rihanna Knowles (talk) 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna, legally, you are a child. Not everyone on the internet has your best interests at heart. Please be grateful that others are acting in your best interest. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Obituarist

I don't know if Obituarist (talk · contribs) is some kind of bot, but their only edits are to add a link to The Daily Telegraph's obituary to the articles of recently deceased people. They appear to have been warned several times, but continue regardless. Dancarney (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to notify the user of this discussion as required, but I went ahead and did it for you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks. Dancarney (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not a bot, but a single purpose spam account, who will add an obituary link regardless of its use to the article. They follow the usual MO of spam accounts in that they never respond to concerns, so I suggest a block.--Atlan (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Telegraph obituaries are generally pretty good and useful to readers and editors. DuncanHill (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

True, but it looks like at least at some point (from the user's talk) that they were adding obits for people to articles on companies that didn't appear to have any connection to the deceased. In general, I think we'd prefer to incorporate information from the obituary into the article if possible rather than single-mindedly running around and adding external links. Syrthiss (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Different people have different skill and interests in editing. I am not a fan of the "do it this way or not at all" approach. Obit links make information available to readers and editors, to do with as they will. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like a good faith editor who's been template bombed, then we wonder why he has an attitude problem and won't bow down to our Level Four Templates^TM. It appears only one person has actually had a conversation with him (User:Wine Guy, in February), and as far as I can tell, Obituarist hasn't added an obit to a non-biographical article since then. I don't think this is spamming, so there's no need to try to browbeat the guy. Just to see what would happen, perhaps drop by his talk page and politely engage him in a conversation of whether there's a better way. I have no opinion on whether as a general rule obits should be in the external links section, but they are certainly appropriate at least sometimes. This place is supposed to work collaboratively and incrementally, right? What's wrong with one person adding an obit in the EL's, and whenever another editor comes along who wants to incorporate the info into the article, they can, and then remove the link? --Floquensock (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I second that. We throw AGF and BITE around all the time on this board, and yet we're all too ready to whack the block button when it comes to it. The edits, from what I can see don't appear to be disruptive and engaging somebody in conversation rather than templating them can do wonders and has been known to turn determined vandals into productive editors. Now of course, if the edits become disruptive, we can start thinking about blocks, but let's put our money where our mouths are and enact AGF and BITE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    • And I third it. There's no reason to assume this editor is a "single purpose spam account". Note also that they have responded to concerns, although not necessarily agreeing with them. See this. All the articles listed were very rich in information, and do not indicate bad faith. Nor were they in such a quantity to be disruptive. Many times I'm come across good faith and potentially valuable editors who honestly thought the links would be helpful, and they are treated like criminals. One of the worst cases was the archivist of the New York Philharmonic who was threatened with blocking for adding links to their archives, which hold a wealth of information. Whatever happens, I hope trigger-happy spam fighters don't blacklist the links to the newspapers themselves. See also my arguments re the Prince of Austrurias Foundation here Voceditenore (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No reason to assume it's a single purpose spam account? They're called "obituarist" and all they do is add links to obituaries. Assuming they're a single purpose account is hardly a stretch. Yes, I was too quick to suggest a block as I see they actually have addressed concerns, but I hardly agree with you comparing that to treating them like a criminal.--Atlan (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be single-purpose, but it's not a "spam" account by any stretch of the imagination. And by "treated like criminals", I was referring to the way the New York Philharmonic archivist was treated and cautioning against doing it here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not just the New York Phil we've treated badly, you can add Gresham College, the American Institute of Physics and the Encyclopedia of Alabama to the list. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsure why someone would be warned for linking to an obituary. The Daily Telegraph is generally considered to be a reliable source, and certainly not spam. That the editor added it to multiple bios isn't a problem at all. We can just gently suggest they use a bot, if the edits are fast and numerous enough. Aiken ♫ 17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The number of links is excessive (close to 500 of them it looks like) but templating the user is obnoxious. Can we delete all those damn templates? There should be a new policy, "write in English" when trying to resolve a problem peacefully. Don't template someone unless you're about to block them. But there should certainly be a dialog with the user about COI and the EL guideline. In general the standard for adding an extlink to an article is much higher than that the linked content might contain useful info. It's ok to add the link to the talk page for a reason like that, as I did last night at talk:pair-instability supernova. If I work up the energy for it I might leave a note for the user, and I'm also inclined to move the links from the articles to the talk pages. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Aiken, using a bot to add extlinks to 100's of articles is the last thing we want. Using a bot to remove the extlinks is more appropriate. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't go mass moving the links to the talk pages. They are far more beneficial to readers and editors on the subject pages. DuncanHill (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Support for this, I have already found a couple of the links that he added beneficial to the article, one of them confirmed a disputed date of birth.It is a bit excessive but it is also beneficial, he will likely slow down or stop as there are only so many obituaries. IMO his edits are beneficial. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory of links. Whether a link belongs in an article is an editorial matter that should be evaluated on a case by case basis per WP:EL. There's a substantial question here of whether a suitably neutral evaluation took place before adding the links we're discussing. I might move a few of them to talk pages and ask for discussion, and use the results to form a proposal about what to do with the rest of them. I might also ask for advice at WT:WPSPAM, and might remove some links based on spot checks if I review them under WP:EL and find they don't meet the standard (but I don't have the energy to do that for 100's of links). Let me know how this sounds. I agree that a unilateral mass move would be disruptive and I won't do that without prior agreement. Note: merely "beneficial to the article" is not the standard for adding a link. We add beneficial material to articles by writing the material ourselves, not by linking to it outside of conditions discussed in the guideline. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

And this editor is not turning Wikipedia into a directory of links. I am well aware that the WPSPAM police do not like any links to e.g. reputable newspapers, encyclopaedias, expert institutions or anything else that might make Wikipedia better for the reader, or easier for the editor. There is no need to do anything about the links. DuncanHill (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, let's shut down the blacklists and let the every article have a link to UniverseDaily and 700 YouTube copyvios. Why didn't I think of that? ;-) Guy (Help!) 21:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! The old slippery slope argument! Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Routerone

This incident covers etiquette, edit warring, and battleground issues so I'm reporting it here instead of at a narrower-purpose noticeboard.

Routerone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in 3RR violations at Linguistics and the Book of Mormon (see page history for evidence), incivility at User talk:Duke53 ([63]), and in general has exhibited an ongoing battleground mentality regarding the subject of Mormonism (see user's contribs). User is also reverting other editors' complaints regarding them on noticeboards ([64]). Although my religious sympathies align with those of Routerone, I find their behavior inappropriate. I think Routerone does not exhibit the degree of emotional detachment from the subject of Mormonism to constructively contribute to articles or discussions surrounding that topic. I'd like some uninvolved admins to have a look to determine if some sort of sanction is warranted -- whether a stern warning, topic ban, or limited-duration block. Thanks! alanyst ^/talk/ 17:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I would think that a deletion of a legitimate 3RR report would be grounds for more than a 'limited-duration block'; he has done similar things in the past. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I find this highly unfair. Firstly, my edits on the page were justified. Nobody should make a biased and controversial statement on the page using a youtube video as a source, that's why I was revertign. Secondly, I do not wish to promote incivility, all I want to do is fix what I feel are problems in Mormon related topics, as many of the articles have been unfairly written and somewhat manipulated to meet a certain viewpoint by those with a prejudice against the religion. I have had hundreds of legitimate edits unfairly reverted to these pages, and to be honest it isn't easy to keep my cool over it. Duke53, also has a severe history of incivility and distirbuting bad faith towards editors. I do not want him to be involved in a "punishment" over me. Especially when I have been discriminated against by him and numerous others upon trying to fix problems in articles. Routerone (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

report has been reinstated at 3rr (with no additional commentary from me there). Routerone, do not do that again. If the report is spurious, the reporter will likely find themselves blocked. If you have not broken 3rr, you have nothing to worry about. Syrthiss (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) First, I'm coming to this as an involved admin. While I am not a fan of either of these editors or their tactics, there are two issues here: first, Routerone should not remove 3RR reports, no matter if they are legitimate or not. Second, Duke53 has a history of provoking editors, especially Routerone. A quick search will show the headaches caused. Blocking or banning Routerone over this would be a poor option- a better option would be to ban the two users from interacting on the other's talkpage. tedder (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason I removed the report is because I feel I recieve a degree of harassment from this editor, and therefore cannot take him with respect. In the past, he's reverted legitimate edits by me claiming them to be "vandalism" and called them "point of view". Duke53 himself, has just not long come off a weeks ban for personal attacks and gross incivility (he also left personal attacks in his unblock requests). He can usually edit legitimately, however he has a prejudice against mormonism and looks to simply annoy mormon edits in the topic field, (also making fun of the religion on his userpage). He usually behaves uncivilly and crudely, to all LDS editors who comes in his track. Routerone (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You aren't entirely blameless in this either, Routerone. You've been blocked for questionable activities (sockpuppetry), and POV concerns is not a legitimate exception to edit warring (see WP:3RR). tedder (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Routerone's 3RR violation occurred in a conflict with User:Taivo, not Duke53. Duke53 was uninvolved in that dispute until he made the 3RR report, and I was uninvolved until this AN/I report. If Routerone is crossing lines in conflicts involving multiple editors, the common factor is Routerone. I was also alarmed to see this message by Routerone to Taivo, suggesting that Routerone would take advantage of Taivo's announced wikibreak to modify the article under dispute to gain an edge. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt I am guilty of these claims, and I will confess to that. However, I mentioned Duke53's behaviour and such because generally I dont want this to be an attack against me. Although I have misbehaved, I feel it is injustified if those equally notorious (Duke53) try and use this to get one over on me. I've been uncivil throughout these articles, but mostly it has been down to provoking through inapropraite reverting and such which has lead to my frustrations because of the stumbling block on the articles that I want to change for the better. Routerone (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Alanyst: it's as much with Duke53 as with Taivo, it's things like this and this, leading to this and this 3RR report between Duke53 and Routerone that are uncivil. I'm having trouble seeing any net benefit from either of these editors. tedder (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That article is definitely not in the greatest shape; quite a few big chunks of it appear to be unsourced. If these folks could figure out how to use the talk page, as opposed to their undo button, I hold out hope they might be able to improve the article. jæs (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Tedder, how sporting of you:"Blocking or banning Routerone over this would be a poor option- a better option would be to ban the two users from interacting on the other's talkpage." A much better solution would a be a topic wide ban (mormon related articles) for User: Routerone; oddly you never voiced any concerns over my recent block. Hmm.

I did everything by the book in this case, and will not accept any restrictions because he has repeatedly broken WP rules. I will always have the right to file 3RR reports against any editor; one of the rules for that is posting a warning at that editor's talk page. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

p.s. What exactly is your net benefit to WP ? Duke53 | ^Talk 18:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Duke53, I feel that really he does not need to be asked such a question. This report should not be turned against him. If you're going to make a point here, (nobodies saying you're not entitled to) keep it on track. Routerone (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Plus, a topic wide ban would be harsh. Aside from the problems I've had on these pages, my contributions towards them are not actually negative or inapropriate. They are just firecely objected to for dubvious reasons and hence that causes tensions which sadly leads to me behaving inapropriately, I know, I shouldn't... Routerone (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving into frank territory here. Routerone, you made a mistake. You've made others (as have most of us). You know that continuing to revert and claiming 3RR exemption is incorrect, yes? It seems this has come up before; I know that (ironically) edit warring on the edit warring noticeboard has come up before. It's entirely appropriate to claim WP:BEANS, but doing it again wouldn't be appropriate- again, this is at least the second time it's come up. tedder (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is "third-strike" time for Routerone on this issue. He has been indefinitely blocked until he shows that he has read WP:3RR and states that he understands that "posted to YouTube" is not covered by its exclusions. Any admin can unblock without consulting me once that has been done.

Other editors involved in this area should not view this as vindication for their role in this affair. "Sourced to YouTube" is a perfectly legitimate reason to remove material, and it probably should not have been restored in the first place. This is an editing area that has been plagued by edit-warring from both sides, and it has to stop.—Kww(talk) 19:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Block lifted. I'll be watching this article closely.—Kww(talk) 21:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Every time I think I've 'seen it all' here at WP I get a surprise; just TODAY this guy did a 7RR violation, deleted items from my talk page and deleted a legitimate 3RR report and he gets a block of about 4 hours ! His history is as shaky as anyone here, but he keeps getting handled with kid gloves; always an excuse, either by him or admins (mistake, etc.) ... why is he above the rules ? I guess that the 'block' will really teach him. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. That's why it took hours for me to respond in the first place. There shouldn't be any doubt in anyone's mind that Routerone is aware of why his editing was unacceptable. If he continues to edit war, I don't see any reason that anyone would ever lift a subsequent block. Hopefully, he understands that as well.—Kww(talk) 12:07 am, Today (UTC+1)

"I don't see any reason that anyone would ever lift a subsequent block." And I can't any reason why anyone would believe that this sham of a block will have any impact on his behavior. This was not his first rodeo. Duke53 | ^Talk 12:11 am, Today (UTC+1)

I would strongly advise against you accusing me of participating in a "sham". I can't speak for any other admin, but I can promise you that the next time I block Routerone for edit warring, it will be indef without condition.—Kww(talk) 23:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Has Taivo's behavior been reviewed as well as Routerone's? While Tavio's edits were more than simply pressing the revert button, he appears to have just as many counter-edits as Routerone in the history of the Linguistics and the Book of Mormon article. But don't demand immediate response from him, as his talk page states that he is on a wikibreak/vacation. Perhaps we should open another ANI discussion for it, or take it to WQA? ...comments? ~BFizz 00:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Does Taivo have a history of edit warring? Not a pointy question, I'm just trying to establish it. Certainly this is a case of "it takes two to tango", though perhaps more than two were involved here. tedder (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

His block log only shows one very short block (appointed for 24 hours, lasted less than 1 hour) for violating 3RR in November of last year. A quick scan of his history shows a lot of recent edits at the aforementioned article, but a history of apparently constructive edits and discussion ranging across various articles. Tedder, I'm not sure what you mean by "perhaps more than two were involved". The history of the article in question shows the edit war to be practically exclusive between Routerone and Taivo ranging April 21-22. All editors involved in previous editing disagreements on that article, including Routerone and Taivo, [full disclosure: also including myself] appear to have acted within the bounds of civility and WP policy. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want a brief statement from me while I have access to the internet for a little while, I'll offer this. If you examine the actual history at Linguistics and the Book of Mormon you'll notice that my "reverts", unlike Routerone's, were not usually just hitting the revert button. 1) I added an equivalent list of pro-Mormon summary statements to balance the non-Mormon summary statements; 2) I changed the citation of the YouTube video (which was a video presentation of a written document) to supplement the written source rather than the other way round; 3) I initiated every discussion on the Talk Page concerning these edits. At no point, either on the Talk Page or in actually editing the article itself, did Routerone actually propose alternate wording to the contentious wording, nor did he comment on why my attempts at making the wording more acceptable were not acceptable. He did not cease reverting until I removed all text in the paragraph (both apologetic and critical). As noted above, on my Talk Page he made it clear that he intended to edit to his liking in my absence. I have a solid history of NPOV editing at Book of Mormon and here at Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, and you can examine my User Contributions to see that I am far from a WP:SPA. I have positive working relationships with several LDS editors--while we have differences of opinion, we have worked well to achieve NPOV wording in the places where we have collaborated and we all fight vandalism from both directions aggressively at Book of Mormon. The difference between Routerone and those editors is that Routerone seems bent on removing all critical comments from the Book of Mormon related pages. Personally, I think he is too emotionally involved to edit objectively or to work objectively with non-Mormon editors. But I will leave that for others to decide. I violated WP:3RR as well. I, too, get too close to the action sometimes. But the difference between Routerone's actions and my own are that I was trying different things to edit to a solution while Routerone ignored everything and just hit the revert button. (Taivo (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

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

This thread has become outdated, with discussion moving from here to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection and from there to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#RfC: Time to dispense with WP:NOPRO?.

---

I asked a protection of the Today's Featured Article (TFA), the answer was no (though in the article there is excessive vandalism. 3 admins didn't add a NPOV because one said "and probably having my admin status revoked.", he other said "Please see WP:NOPRO", and the third said (and that's why I'm here) "Instead of fussing at an admin who doesn't want to risk losing their admin status, go ask another admin and see what they say." This is incredible because there's where the users can ask for protection, so why I should go to another place. I'm not asking revoke of permissions I only want some protection to the article Earth. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes we ask for something and the answer is no. It happens.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss a conversation somewhere? Why would you be defrocked for protecting TFA? Dlohcierekim 19:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably best just to read the comment in context... –xeno^talk 19:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)IMAO, the article doesn't need protection. There is vandalism of a kind but the article is well watched and it is quickly reverted. There is one disruptive editor who will be blocked if he/she continues. Let it go. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's being reverted, but how about we protect the article so that vandalism isn't an issue any more? It would save the watchers some effort, and reduce the likelihood of a reader seeing a vandalised version to virtually zero. Nev1 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this applies as yet. Main page featured articles often attract vandals, but they also attract (albeit very few) genuine IP editors who would be pleasantly surprised to discover that they can edit the article. It's a tradeoff! --RegentsPark (talk) 3:28 pm, Today (UTC−4)

What you're referring to is a guideline, ie: not binding. Keeping TFAs unprotected lets many more vandals through than people genuinely interested in improving the article. It's a trade off, but you have to wonder whether it's worth it. Nev1 (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there's some creationism/evolution edit warring and the typical "Oh Boy, Look what I can do nonsense." The reverters seem to have a handle on it. However, the TFA may be protected if the vandalism is "excessive." Not seeing that right now. Have not seem multiple vandals working so fast you can't revert. We leave it alone so new editors can learn. Dlohcierekim 19:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It's a long standing practice that we don't protect TFA unless the vandalism becomes exceptionally severe. We want non-editors who read the article to find out that yes, we really mean what we say by "anybody can edit". So we keep it unprotected, watch it carefully, and revert vandalism quickly. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean it's a guideline that was written long ago? Any admin who declines protection due to NOPRO, and any editor who supports the guideline, has a responsibility to help out with the monitoring IMO. The turnout for the TFA patrol is usually very disappointing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• A couple of comments/questions:

1. Do I understand correctly that this article has been essentially permanently semi-protected since 2008 because of too much vandalism day in day out, but since it's the TFA we unprotected it?
2. Where do you suppose a good place would be to have (for I'm sure the 10 millionth time) another perennial discussion on changing the WP:NOPRO guideline? I assume WT:NOPRO wouldn't be public enough? My spidey-sense tells me that it's possible consensus has finally shifted on this. --Floquensock (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Tbhotch, I don't see where you notified any of the editors that commented at RFPP, particularly Beeblebrox, about this discussion. —DoRD (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

imo, this isn't really about them but more about the article (and NOPRO). I did leave a note at the RFPP thread. –xeno^talk 19:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim:Well I asked at 16.30 UTC, see the historial at that tme. Also the first response for my request was at 17.37, when the vandalism was very persistent too. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I see 3 admins on that page, and I'm sure if they felt overwhelmed they'd go ahead and protect for a few minutes to get a handle on it. Dlohcierekim 19:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither admin at RFPP will protect the page due the template {{RFPP|d}} it's on the requests. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Without arguing the past it looks like only 1 vandal edit (that contained a touch of truth) in the last half hour. Even if it could have used it then it seems like a waste of time to beat the horse carcass now.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm in and out, but I'll watch the thing. If I should protect and someone felt I'd over reacted, they'd certainly be free to revert me. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• A couple of quick points:

• They only asked for one hour of semi-protection. Frankly I didn't see the point of that at all.
• The thing about ArbCom and being desysopped was in reference to the move protection. When the page was unprotected from editing indef move protection was left in place. That decision makes perfect sense to me, but another admin apparently did not agree and reduced it to one day. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I would be wheel warring if I then undid that admin's undoing of another admins actions. My initial recommendation was to re-address this matter tomorrow, but apparently that is too long for Tbhotch to wait
• I've already thoroughly explained why I did not believe a one hour protection, which by now would be long-expired, was needed nor any compelling reason to exempt this from the normal practice of not protecting TFA but if another admin sees such a need they can feel free to go ahead and do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support restoration of indef move protection. It wouldn't be moved without discussion. –xeno^talk 21:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• I support it too. Beeblebrox is correct that reapplying an administrative action after another admin already reverted would be wheel warring, but it can be allowed to occur if there is a consensus to do so. So let's get that consensus going right here. -- Atama頭 21:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone has already done this. Dlohcierekim 21:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, it's kind of funny that on Earth Day, Wikipedia refuses to protect the Earth, but does ensure that it can no longer be moved. -- Atama頭 21:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You'd think more people would be willing to protect the Earth. Where's Hancock? Dlohcierekim 21:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hang on a minute, has anybody actually read WP:NOPRO?? I just read the protection log for the article, and it's been indefinitely semi-protected since February 2008. Now, to quote WP:NOPRO (the only guideline stupider than WP:R2D imho) "Pages which are already indefinitely semi-protected because of vandalism are generally left protected while on the Main Page". Thus, it shouldn't have been unprotected and the protection should be restored in keeping with the guideline. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  (ec) :I read it. But, given that it has been unprotected, the vandalism is nowhere near the level that it needs protection. Facts on the ground earth, so to speak. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Facts on the ground; facts on the ground; lookin' like a foo' with your facts on the ground" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW, I did find some useful IP edits to today's FA [65], [66], [67], and believe it would be counter-productive to stop continued evolution on Earth by hindering anonymous forces (even though some are malign). More seriously, does anyone know of a way to add the day's featured article to ones watchlist without doing so individually each day ? Abecedare (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

At Mitchell-- glad someone else noticed. :) Actually, Wheelwarring would be fighting over an admin action in a "combative" fashion. It's another matter to take action one sees as emergent and then submit for review and discussion. Dlohcierekim 21:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

But to be more down to Earth, there's much less vandalism today than I'd have expected. Dlohcierekim 21:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I spend a lot of time around the Main Page and the vandalism today seems relatively light. The last two occasions I've seen it so bad that protection would be in order would be wife selling (though it was April 1 if memory serves) and Kirsten Dunst, which was way out of hand. I think it's necessary that protection on TFA should be uncommon, because it's inevitable that it will attract more than most articles, but it's a sorry state when admins (not meant slightingly of anybody- I have the utmost respect for the admins involved here) are afraid to protect it because of that stupid guideline. I agree with Floq that we need to have a serious discussion about rewriting it (or deleting it altogether!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the discussion (definitely a 'down to earth' suggestion). It's an open question as to whether we actually attract new editors through the featured article. And, I do wonder about the potential damage to wikipedia's reputation when the creation date according to christianity is left on the article for a minute. Presumably there are enough people who read the article during that minute to conclude that wikipedia is an unreliable source of information. (I'm less concerned about obvious vandalism because it's, well, obvious.)--RegentsPark (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Not wishing to attract controversy, rather to start a meaningful discussion on the issue, I've sent WP:NOPRO to MfD. The discussion is here for those who are interested. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• What the hell happened to the rest of this thread? I'd restore it, but I can't find a diff for the removal. Anyway, I'm MfD'ing WP:NOPRO. Discussion is here for those who are interested. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is what happened. Not easy to undo, either. Brad 23:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Bloody hell that was complicated! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. I didn't dare try. ;) Brad 23:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't easy, I can assure you, but it's a good job there weren't many intermediate edits. The only logical explanation is an edit conflict, but Duke53 says he didn't get one. I hate edit conflicts >:( ! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

He edited an old version of the page. Take a look at this diff. Brad 23:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

How the... Excuse me on minute, I have a trout to deliver! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Failure to understand wikipedia policies and blatant lack of care towards warnings.

Resolved

 – User blocked Abecedare (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. User:Lukek26 is proving problematic with edits to Janet Jackson discography. It is a long term issue begining with edit 1 on february 27, 2010 where he added information was not in the source given alongside (basically falsifying brazilian chart certificates). After being reverted around an hour later on same day he re-added the info edit 2. Then on March 12 he/she added incorrect information in edit 3 and despite being reverted added it again edit 4 and following reversion one again edit 5. Then over the course of 3 edits on March 18 and 20 he changed credible sources to uncredible ones edit 6, 7 and 8. Then despite being removed he re-added them on march 23 in edit 9 with two more edits adding falisified information edit 10 and 11. On april 22 in edit 12 he inflated sales figures and once again claimed something which was not in the source given. Then for a second time on the same day in edit 13 he added unsourced and inflated information and upon reversion did it again in the space of 10 minutes and five edits, edit 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.

In between all that he made similar changes to Number Ones (Janet Jackson album) on April 15, 2010 in edit A and on April 22, 2010 in edit b changed credible sources to uncredible ones. He was given one warning (a serious one) on March 25 and two on April 22, 2010 [User talk:Lukek26]. Note that he left the following response to one of my warnings diff. I'm at a loss because he has failed to enagage in any discussion and has ignored all warnings given to him as well as all of the removals/reversions made on his edits. I won't comment on what sanctions should be made that is the job for administrators but i do think there's certainly a case of administrator intervention and action. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that he's received more than just a single warning. He'd blanked all of the prior warnings before the level 4, which I gave on 25 March. Please note that in that warning, I invited him to discuss the edits, but as far as I know, he hasn't. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Apoligies i wasn't aware he'd been involved in blanking prior warnings. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's been anons, too. I've been having to revert fake certifications from numerous Janet Jackson articles recently. Janet Jackson has never had any level of certification issued by the ABPD for any single or album, which makes the vandalism a bit easier to spot. I'd support a block, and probably a week or two of semi-protection of the target articles to prevent the nearly-inevitable followup.—Kww(talk) 00:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking this over more carefully: this was pretty nasty. His very first edit was this, so I have to conclude that he is a sock of some previous editor that Ericorbit interacted with (most likely Special:Contributions/189.32.228.8). I haven't found a constructive edit yet.—Kww(talk) 00:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Was this comment on my page from December profanity in Brazilian his native language? i wasn't even aware although i've just translated it with babelfish/google and im shocked.Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the account indefinitely, with the provision that it can be unblocked at any time if the user commits to citing sources accurately and responding to concerns about their editing. Abecedare (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Monkees

Would someone please go over to The Monkees and work with the guy there that's just made me too pissed off to assume good faith? (I really don't like being called a Nazi.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Has the user been informed yet? NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 04:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to leave a nice, friendly message on his user talk page. Let's see how he reacts. –MuZemike 04:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I must be blind, but where's the personal attack you refer to? --SGGH ^ping! 14:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any 'nazi' attack either (although it might be hidden in the history). I removed his email from the page. Phrases like:

R u serious here ? LOL ...I said SAME thing, the orig. was awkward & 'illogical' Captain' ...in fact there was a sentence fragment,, my edit there was merely grammar. 'an agreement must be breached, c'mon take INtro to LAw 101 bro Luv ya

seem to suggest this editor needs a little attention though. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The "nazi" comment is here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The nature of that guy's updates remind me of Hanlon's razor, and that along with subsequent attempts to correct his changes, lead me to think it would be best to revert the article (again) to where it was before that "bro" got started with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to crack passwords?

Resolved

Earlier today (about 16 hours ago, 1300 UTC-I think) someone from IP address 65.30.190.86 reset my password using the option on the log-in screen. I was wondering if anyone else got a similar email. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 05:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You have a simple enough username that it might simply have been random. jæs (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's nothing to worry about. Somone else wanted the username DC, that's all. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Esp. considering the IP is from Herndon, right next to DC...  7  06:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I get three or four of those emails a week from es:wp. It's people requesting that the password is e-mailed to them, but of course the e-mail comes to me. You should not need to change your password though.   pablo_hablo. 09:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

These emails crop up from time to time as trolls try to mess with people's heads. You can safely ignore the email, as it changes nothing about your password unless you follow the directions therein. TNXMan 13:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I get these fairly often too.--SKATER ^Speak. 13:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To bring back a sense of panic, I've never had one. --SGGH ^ping! 14:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright thanks guys. I didn't know if this was a random thing or some sort of mass password cracking attempt. Best editing, ~DC _{Talk To Me} 14:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Abidreh

Abidreh (talk · contribs)

Was indeffed last year for being basically a Pashtun supremacist SPA who reverted only, and reverted endlessly using homemade youtube videos, eg see Behbudi and another page and and another. Was given a reprieve and now inserting a youtube sermon into Pashtun people; the said cleric allegedly predicted that Pashtuns will be the ones who will wipe out Israel and ccreate an Islamist Palestine YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Abidreh has been edit warring on the Pashtun people article. I've indeffed for that. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Community ban: HistoricWarrior007

HistoricWarrior007 (talk · contribs) is/was a more or less single-purpose political agenda account promoting a pro-Russian view on military conflicts in the Caucasus, especially at 2008 South Ossetia War, an article he kept busy for over a year through incessant slow edit-warring and talkpage argument. I blocked and restricted him a couple of times under the WP:DIGWUREN Arbcom rules, and finally gave him a 6-months block some weeks ago. Since then:

• he socked in late March through an IP (68.164.118.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) that could easily be proven to be his known range. When blocked, the IP vehemently protested its innocence [68], although I consider its style of contributions to be quite WP:DUCK-certain.
• another IP sock, from the same geolocation though a different ISP (12.88.135.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), was caught today, again DUCK-certain on the basis of style and agenda. I re-blocked his account indef in response to the latest sock.
• As a response, he re-appeared with yet another IP (69.3.133.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), again from the earlier range, again protesting the innocence of the 12.88.* IP, but revealing that he had been socking with this latest IP all along too (and, implicitly, again confirming that the first IP was indeed his too.) He is also now threatening that he will continue socking [69]

See User talk:HistoricWarrior007#Sock IP blocked and User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 19#Your recent Block of 68.164.118.203 for details of the sock cases.

I propose treating him as formally indef community-banned from now on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Holy crap, I'm agreeing with FutPerf. Clearly not going to learn and persistant socking proves this. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• The socking is fairly apparent, but I would like confirmation regarding the disruption of the original account - would I be correct in assuming that HistoricWarrior007 was replacing sources with those of a pro Russian nature, or otherwise attempting to bias the article(s) by unduly representing pro Russian sources and deprecating others not of that viewpoint? The edit war being so slow makes that determination difficult, but I would respect Fut.Perf's word on it - the other side of the coin being that simply bringing in other sources, especially where it presents a differing viewpoint from the majority, and arguing for their inclusion is not by definition disruptive. I should think, from the recourse to socking, is that it is the former activity that has been the case here, but I should like confirmation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a complex picture. His first sanction and its background (back in November) are described here. That was for a threat against an opponent. Overall, his behaviour has been a mixture of constant low-level edit-warring with an overall aggressive, overbearing attitude on talk pages and a tiresome WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-like tenacity in arguing the same points over and over – like when he kept arguing literally for months that a certain quotation, where an obviously partisan source was giving a glowing endorsement of Russia's policies in the Ossetia war, had to be quoted verbatim, at paragraph length, and given a particularly prominent place in the article. Or when, more recently, he kept arguing for weeks that between two apparently reliable sources, one of which gave a negative assessment of the military prowess of the Russian army as demonstrated in the war, and the other a positive one, only the latter could be used. In fact, the sheer quantity and length of his talk page postings was disruptive. This article has run up to something like 32 pages of talk archives, and those are almost entirely filled with debate fired by him. It's difficult to pinpoint individual postings in this maze as exemplifying the disruption individually though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Users who don't know what Wikipedia is are being misled

moved to WP:Village pump (development). Equazcion ^(talk) 09:52, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)

user:Draganparis intentional and habitual misconduct

Draganparis (talk · contribs)

For weeks now, user Draganparis makes constant accusations and slanders certain users he deems as his archenemies in Wikipedia. In the course of a few months he was banned once for disruptive editing and once for sockpuppetry and has 3 confirmed socks. Two of them were discovered after my complaint and were confirmed here [70]. Since then, he has been roaming Macedonia related pages intentionally and blatantly slandering my name and this of other editors. He also initiated a sockpuppetry case against user Athenian, accusing me and two other editors of being his puppets, which produced unconfirmed results only. It proved that 3 of us operate from northern Greece, but that was all [71]. Since then, user Draganparis is constantly making improper and slandering comments in a personal battle against me and other users making customized "technical notes", posting them around and threatening people (even admins!!!!) not to remove them!!!

Evidence:
[72],
[73]
[74],
[75]
Here he is warning another user to not remove his "technical note"...[76]
Here he is warning an admin to not remove his "technical note"...[77]
Here I warn him to stop propagating slanders... [78]
He of course goes on... [79]
..and on.. [80]
..and on.. [81]

...

Anybody who will look into this matter will easily see that throughout this time, I tried to refrain from discussion with user Draganparis and most if not all of his comments were made in irrelevant instances and with me (and the other users he mentions) absent from the discussion. This clearly shows his intention to slander. It will be very interesting for any admin to occupy himself with this case to look into the edits of all concerned editors, mine, Draganparis' as well as any other's Draganparis constantly abuses. Since day 1, he has not made A SINGLE constructive edit in any article. He is a man of single purpose and is only active in discussions to disrupt and propagate his personal beliefs. I could go on and on about how he has behaved to other editors and admins, but in this complaint, I only refer to his conduct towards me in the last weeks.

Please, look into this matter and rule out something... GK (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a heap of irritating disruption in that long message of his, and I agree it does not belong on a talk page. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has removed it three times now - and since April 9 it has not come back. It's a bit late to leave him warnings about that unless he does it again. I have notified the editor for you. --SGGH ^ping! 14:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, my informing the community that we "might" have kind of collaborative editing is not accusatory. I think it is now well known, and if there is no collaboration, there is certainly a need to reduce edits of bare support of the opinions of the other editors from the "group" and STOP permanently insulting the opposing editors. Producing evidence (this is a history page!) is needed instead. I would appreciate if the Administrator would inform the mentioned "group" about the rules of decency on Wikipedia.Draganparis (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So, here you have it... He "informs" the community that some users "might" have some kind of collaborative editing... And then he again talks about the mentioned "group" which "might" exist and "might" collaborate and "might" be socks as he propagates... I think that user Draganparis' words here clearly show the extent of his misconduct... He propagates his suspicions, no matter where or why and blatantly attacks me and other users. He does not seem to understand that accusing somebody once, during a heated discussion, of something that according to his opinion "might" be true is not the same thing as continuously and methodically propagate such accusations. GK (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit war and protection on Eric Ely

Resolved

 – Article deleted per WP:SNOW by Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). –xeno^talk 19:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is currently on AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ely (2nd nomination). (Disclosure) I nominated it. It is clearly heading for a delete consensus. However, this is a second nomination following hard after the first, so it isn't that straight forward.

An edit war broke out on the article itself during the AFD. Some argued that the article contained lots of non-notable trivia and strippedit down, other argued that the stripped-down article violated BLP. Eventually someone blanked the article for the duration of the AFD and suggested people look in the history. To avoid further edit warring, I protected it. I'm sure its the m:wrong version, but whatever.

I'd like someone uninvolved to look at this and either endorse my protection, or otherwise.

I further wonder whether we might short-circuit this by WP:SNOW closing the AFD - there's no way that article is going to survive anyway, as even the keep voters must admit. However, given it is a second nomination, some may disagree.

Anyway, I'm not touching this again (maybe *I* shouldn't have protected it) - I leave others to think about it.--Scott Mac 14:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say that an early closure wouldn't hurt anyone. I'm suprised this survived the first AFD as he isn't that notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I haven't been involved in the discussion, but looking over the history—there is indeed significant editwarring happening—I endorse full protection of it. You're right, Scott, you might not have been the ideal person to carry out the protection, but I don't think there's a need to go through the hoops now of you unprotecting it and then me immediately re-protecting it. I'm not offering an opinion as to what the "right" or "wrong" version might be. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO a hard line needs to be taken against people who edit warred to keep poorly-sourced, contentious information in a BLP. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would endorse this version being protected for the duration of the AFD to prevent edit warring and to err on the side of caution for BLPs. The current note is peculiar. –xeno^talk 14:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, this is less peculiar. –xeno^talk 15:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

While I endorse protection, I wonder if a SNOW closure at this stage (2 days) might in flame the overall debate more than if we waited for it to run a couple more days. --SGGH ^ping! 14:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've half a mind to snow-close it, but I agree with SGGH that it may just end up at DRV if that's done. –xeno^talk 14:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I object to an involved editor protecting a version different than the one originally proposed (and only endorsed by Xeno). That said, I would endorse the SNOW delete (as a keep !voter) as it's clearly a snow delete. Obviously either snow or otherwise the closure should be done by a non-involved admin. Hobit (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was not involved in the edit war at all - indeed I'd never edited the article except to afd it. I took no view on the correct version. Further, I did report the protection here for review. So I don't think I did anything objectionable. And looking at it, there's no substantive differenced between the version I protected and Xeno's - which is, I assume, why he rightly felt free to edit a protected article.--Scott Mac 16:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hobit may be talking about the minimalist, but still article-ish version [82] I spoke about above at 14:38. –xeno^talk 17:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this gives us a reason to close per SNOW.

The discussion at the AfD now has shifted to debating WP:N and WP:EVERYTHING, whether simple citability is notability, and on what to do after the article is deleted. -- Rico 18:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnett Shale

Barnett Shale has been the subject of an advocacy campaign involving concerns about drilling in the formation. 66.169.152.96 (talk · contribs), Theotocopolis (talk · contribs) and CureForPeace (talk · contribs) are inserting identical walls of text citing concerns about drilling. Note this little gem from the IP [83]. While a discussion of the subject is relevant in the article, the meatpuppetry is out of hand. Since I'm modestly involved, I'm bringing it here. Acroterion _(talk) 15:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, the gem the edit summary...not the reintroduction of the screed. Both the named accounts there seem to edit Barnett Shale in a SPA fashion. Syrthiss (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, three single-purpose accounts all adding the same information to an article? Looks fishy to me. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Theotocopolis has engaged on the talk page, but it's a bit too early to call this resolved, as his next action was to take the B-class article down to a stub. Acroterion _(talk) 15:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Nineteen Nightmares, continued incivility and personal attacks

This user seems unhappy about the arguments being presented in the deletion discussion of Valley Entertainment Monthly. The user has engaged in personal attacks and incivility.

• The user called users "panty wastes" [sic][84], "wikinazis"[85] and said some of us have "small minds"[86][87]
• The user was warned to be careful with personal attacks and incivility,[88][89][90][91] but did not cease.
• The user has also accused us of a conspiracy to delete the article in question.[92]
• An examination of the user's talk page history will show that many other editors tried to engage the user and help explain WP policy. The user blanked many such comments.

P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 15:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am the "user" in question and I have one thing to say: if the article you were working on from day one was mercilessly attacked by a group of editors who it has been discovered regularly gangs up on other users, you would be upset, too. I was given NO CHANCE to succeed, with these ------ scouring the entire article (at least four of you!) for anything wrong, the best I could do was try and answer these descrepencies rather than work on the article. And EVERYTHING was answered sufficiently. Now they are going on about notability. You could claim notability issues with half the stuff on Wiki, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place here.

Someone said previous that I wouldn't say those things to these "editors" in person, but that is a load of horse dung. I would have A LOT more to say to these people in person and it would not be the least bit censored. In fact, I have been unusually reserved on this site because I realize we are trying to create something academic and important here and I did not come here to fight. The people complaining about me are reminded that Wikipedia is not their fiefdom. They should stop acting like it is. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

The argument that "other stuff exists" is not a logical one on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. Likewise, outlining "what you would do" face to face with a user is, well, dumb. You should be careful not to mistake a group of experienced and policy/notability-knowledgeable users commenting on content for a group of conspiracy-ninjas. A group of users who say the same thing ought to show you that there are issues with the articles in question, not that they are ganging up on you. the "fiefdom" you refer to is in fact a group of well thought-out policies being utilized by experienced users who know what they are talking about. Wikipedia is not important enough to get this upset about things, and an AfD discussion is no place to get bogged down in the nitty gritty arguments. If enough experienced users say there are issues with the content, then I'm afraid it is likely that there are issues with the content. Users would be much more inclined to listen to your points if you didn't resort to these attacks. --SGGH ^ping! 17:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My gut response is that this user has only been editing a few days, and we should cut him/her a little slack rather than running to ANI. They'll get the hang of how things work here with a bit more experience, hopefully. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:25, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Unfortunately you are in the minority of reasonable thinkers here, but I thank you for some semblance of sanity amongst all this nonsense. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

(ec) Nineteen Nightmares has been given an extraordinary amount of tolerance over violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as well as explanations that reliable sources are necessary to verify article content. Actually, I think he will find that editors were scouring the entire article for anything right, and attempting to find sources for it. There seem to be none online, and Nineteen Nightmares has not responded to requests to provide relevant material from print sources. He has been pointed to wikipedia policy and guideline requirements, but seems unable to accept that these should apply. He said on my talk page, "I see that Modernist, you, PD Cook, and JNW have other articles you work on together, so obviously the others were "brought in" by JNW to sink it."[93] The person who "brought me in" was Nineteen Nightmares, when I read his post on JNW's talk page (which I have watchlisted).[94] I had no contact or request from JNW about this. Ty 17:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This user's only interest seems to be in this article on Valley Entertainment Monthly. The user has been given a lot of slack, but remains unrelenting, because he sees the editors he is interacting with as being a gang against him. It would therefore be useful here for other non-involved editors to review the matter and give their input. Ty 17:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is he doing that couldn't be solved with just dropping it, ie. discontinuing any response to them? Are they unrelentingly disrupting a Wikipedia process or venue? Exactly what administrative action would you like to see imposed? Equazcion ^(talk) 17:56, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)

I agree that just dropping it would be a fine solution. However, I essentially did this myself,[95] but the user continued being uncivil to me.[96] As for me "running to ANI": I don't come here often and I don't take lightly the posting of this thread. I agree new users should be cut slack, but this user continually behaved sarcastically, was uncivil and engaged in personal attacks after being warned. I hope that after the close of the AfD we can move on and Nineteen Nightmares can continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but with a little more respect for other editors. As for what administrative action would I like? I believe the user has been disrupting (with insults) my talk page and the AfD page. If Nineteen Nightmares stops this behavior, then I suppose no admin action is needed. If it continues, a block seems fitting to give the user some time to again review the salient policies. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The AfD stuff may need to stop, true. I haven't given that a thorough look. As for "dropping it" on your talk page: WP:JDI means doing your best to end the exchange. Getting the last insult in, and then complaining when you get two new responses, is far from dropping it. Let the other guy get the last word and then archive the discussion, and then I'll agree that you did what you could. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:34, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not (nor ever was) interested in a fight. I was trying to tone the debate down and offer some help[97], but I'd hardly call my comments "insults." P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you were looking for a fight, only that you perpetuated it. This is not the way to end a fight. It's asking for more. "Small minds" is an insult as far as I'm concerned. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:44, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misreading my intentions there. I was indicating what from this post[98] I believed to be a personal attack (the statement at the end of that diff where NN says "Small minds produce small results"). I was in no way intending an insult. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I know why Tyrenius has suggested that, but I do believe that 19nightmares is mistaking a group of informed, clue-up-on-policy editors for being a "gang". He will have to accept that this is incorrect. I would say that the AfD is the suitable venue for "non-involved" editors to establish consensus n the article. When that has run out, we will have our answer. Obviously 19nightmares needs to be told, in no uncertain terms, that we can discuss but not shout/disrupt the AfD process. --SGGH ^ping! 17:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't bring the issue here. I presume Pdcook was implying that, as 19nightmares has been warned over his conduct,[99] and continued the abuse, he should be blocked. His behaviour is disruptive. I was suggesting some advice from others not in the "gang" he imagines to exist might be better at this stage. Ty 18:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm am imagining nothing. Go look at the talk pages of the users in question and you will see they work together and bring other editors in to bolster their positions against other articles/users. How about if you just submitted an AfD and then waited for the response from other editors you don't know personally on the site that are likely to back you no matter what the content? That would be too level a playing field, right? You must think me a fool to not see straight through your gig like saran wrap. And yeah I'm upset about it. There is nothing wrong with that. I will do my best to not call anyone "simple minded" if that really botheres you. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

The article has no notability and the User:Nineteen Nightmares appears to be clueless about wikipedia. Initially I saw his attack on JNW's talk page and I advised him against personal attacks: [100] - I was the first editor to warn him and I was surprised when he deleted it. He is a newbie - he has been cut alot of slack; no one here is a gang people here are volunteers writing an historical project and this fellow is a disruption by virtue of his own actions. He posts an article about an utterly obscure local short-lived publication with no particular political, sociological, religious, economic or philosophical uniqueness - that has absolutely no google hits or valid sources; his article is on AfD aand he is freaking out on everybody else - with no sense of what we are doing here; and he trashes the work people do here and the place itself. I think an uninvolved administrator needs to deal with this fellow...Modernist (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Yeah, that would be nice. Let's get someone objective in here to review the article. You are biased, jaded and working with others to sink this article, that's a blatant fact. You are not innocent as you proclaim but are quite obviously part of a club of juvenile editors that get their yah-yahs out of harrassing people who clearly are still learning to work the site. Thankfully, I have learned quite a lot quickly and it will not be so easy to hoodwink and confuse anymore as in the beginning. Here's an example because I know you will call for one if I don't provide it: one of you nominated my article photos (of the VEM that I took myself this week) because he didn't feel it had the correct template. If he had been anything near altruistic or even the slightest bit helpful, he would have let me know what was wrong and given me time to correct it. Instead, I get a notice that it is being nominated for deletion without a word.

  It should also be pointed out that by virtue of the fact you guys are continuing to go back and forth on this like we are saving the world, you prove your agenda. The notability is really questionable as a means of deleting the article and you are all stretching it way out of proportion with your ridiculous arguments about notability. Did any of you bother to read the article objectively? Did you see the famous people interviewed or involved with the publication, including among many others, Stan Lee, Ronnie Montrose and Quiet Riot? Again, I ask because no one responds to my legitimate points of defense of the article, how is that "non-notable?"

  Trying to delete this article over non-notability is insane. You have run out of other things to complain about because I fixed them (with virtually no one's help) even though I am very new to editing on Wiki. (Been a reader for many years now, love it). Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

I am very sympathetic to your situation, because I would prefer that the article be kept, but two things are unfortuanately indisputable: (1) You have provided no citations from reliable sources which indicate the notability of the newspaper, and (2) You have behaved quite badly here and on the AfD discussion.

Here's the thing, your article is going to be deleted, because of (1). If you want to save it, stop getting people annoyed at you (which is not going to help in any way whatsoever) and go out and find reliable sources to support the notability of your subject. There's clearly not anything online, so head for a good library and do some research. I would suggest that you move the article to your userspace while you do that, and not return it to mainspace until it clearly meets WP:N requirements. I fully understand that it's easier and more emotionally satisfying to rant and rave to the gods about how supid Wikipedia's policies are and how "biased and jaded" everyone is and so on, but they are nevertheless going to prevail, so you might as well go with the flow and save your article (Which really is the point, isn't it?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:SharkJumper: Legal threat regarding image

Resolved

 – NLT indeffed, move along

SharkJumper (talk · contribs) made a legal threat on my talk page regarding the infobox image at Don Murphy. The derivative image, File:Don Murphy (cropped).jpg, and the original image, File:Don Murphy.jpg, were released under CC licensing. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The name is particularly ironic, given the impropriety of his response. --King Öomie 16:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NLT followed, awaiting retraction of threat. --SGGH ^ping! 16:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

this is also interesting... "restart the war"?? --SGGH ^ping! 16:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See[101] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Closed this, nothing else to do here. The image appears to be properly licensed, so there's little to be done. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I saw the edit and tried to call him off, but I guess there's quite a bit of history behind all this. One thing though, the image is rather unflattering, catching the subject in some sort of mid-goofy facial expression. I'd rather see the article have no image than to keep that one, regardless of sourcing. Tarc (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have re-opened the discussion. The image has been removed, apparently on the grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Woogee (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

the user has had an explosion of silliness on his userpage and has been blocked indef with talk page disabled. SGGH ^ping! 20:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, there is some real-life outing of User:Erik on Murphy's forum page on his website. Woogee (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The website should be removed from the person's article, both as a reference as an external link, and perhaps blacklisted. It's been the launchpad for off-wiki harassment of various editors on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that this section should be merged with the other one down a few sections. Anyone else agree? Also, I looked at the website and I agree with Woogee and Erik about it. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 20:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've merged them, and relabeled the top section with the blocked user's name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And, yes, I agree: remove the guy's website as an EL and a ref. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

New threats by blocked user, and off-wiki stalking

SharkJumper (talk · contribs) was blocked for legal threats (see above thread). The user is now continuing those threats on his user talk page, and posting a link to a forum where there's a request to expose all information available on the person to whom the threat was made. Could use some more eyes on this, and blocking the user's ability to edit his own user page would be beneficial, although given the past incidents I've read, sockpuppets and meatpuppets are likely to appear. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

TP access revoked, I also blocked email just in case. Tim Song (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

One wierd thing about this, if Don Murphy objects to the photo, why not simply release a photo that he prefers? A good quality image, presenting the subject in a better way than the current one, released under a CC license, would solve the problem, wouldn 't it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not about the photo.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter anymore. We had a drama-free discussion on the talk page, and editors consider the image too lousy for inclusion. Hard to tell how much it has to do with editors being afraid of him; no one is going to complain about the image at Charles Roven, also from Flickr. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That one is kinda meh as well, but not in the same ballpark as the Murphy one. For the record, I've never heard of this guy and have little idea of what the beef with Wikipedia is all about. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't want to know. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Judging from his website and forum, "beef with Wikipedia" doesn't even begin to describe it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A bit Daniel Brandt-ish it seems, yes. I'm wondering just how much being a producer is really all that notable for an encyclopedia. He's not exactly in JJ Abrams territory. Other than some alleged tiff with Tarantino, the sources are more about the work of his Angry Films outfit than the man himself. Tarc (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

He's definitely notable. See 1, 2, 3, and 4. Every time someone tries to edit the article, though, even with an image apparently, stuff hits the fan. Feel free to expand and see what happens. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Feminists Fighting Pornography

Feminists Fighting Pornography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is the subject of an OTRS ticket with factual corrections (which were reverted but I've taken that up with the editor). The content has many hex codes in it, suggesting it was copied and pasted form somewhere, most likely a (spit, spit) Word document. The maintenance tags invite further scrutiny of the subject matter for WP:OR and other issues (such as half the sources being vague citations to the organisation's own magazine). I know nothing of the events concerned so if anyone has time to look over it, check for copyright violations and so on, it would be appreciated. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand

Resolved

I person left me a strange message at User talk:ExpertResearcher. The same person did this. I apologise if I did anything wrong. I don't understand the intricit working of the Wikimedia Foundation's website. I apologise if I caused any harm to deodorant. Sincerely, Frank. ExpertResearcher (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll answer on your talk page. --SGGH ^ping! 17:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry on AfD

Resolved

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

while there has definitely been some puppetry/canvassing going on, this AFD has been closed. Based upon the off wiki canvassing, I'm guessing that we aren't dealing with sockpuppets, but rather people coming from that website... which personally does not impress me in the least. Between that website and the comments on the AFD I feel sorry for Deb. Her actions may have been mistaken/ill informed, but she didn't deserve the schlacking she got. Very uncool, people can make mistakes... grow up, it doesn't mean that she's evil incarnate.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Hi. Could someone advise me how to deal with an outbreak of sockpuppetry on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Garcia y Robertson? I can no longer tell the genuine users from the ... well! Deb (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it certainly looks fishy, but do you have any actual hard evidence they are all sockpuppets? None appear to be obvious SPAs or new users; if they are sock/meats, it's not immediately obvious. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a deletion discussion like this would have attracted so many comments all of a sudden - four since lunchtime? All of them questioning the truth of my accurate statement about Avon Books? Deb (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

if you look at the notes left in small print in the AfD, the discussion was listed on two different deletion-sorting lists, one for authors and one for academics. This is undoubtedly where people are coming from. And, by the way, your statement is inaccurate, the books that were published in the 1990s by Avon are not self-published, Avon was at the time a major paperback imprint (although I'm not certain who owned it at the time), and the self-publication industry was not nearly as well-developed as it is now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Check th AfD, please, for definitive information on the "Avon" question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly take this to SPI. Jamesaxler, gryphonrose, and Padguy and one of the IPs certainly look suspicious. The way that the bolding of the KEEP is messed up, the use of "on the basis" in 3 of the statements, how they cite one another cumulatively, and the fact that each of these were dormant accounts that just sprung back to life---3 within minutes of one another. You should probably initiate an SPI.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. If they're sockpuppets, the puppeteer is tremendously disciplined, since they only have their edits to the AfD in common, per this Wikistalk result. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't visually see any overlap and their histories were short enough that it was doable visually. BUT I can see the potential based upon my observations above. No guarantee, but enough to have me curious.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of sockpuppetry, but there does appear to be some off-wiki canvassing. Nothing to do here except pay attention to the arguments, not the sheer numbers of !votes. Brad 20:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, for the information about this group of... well, what can one call them? I didn't realise they had become so powerful within wikipedia. I get enough hate mail on my talk page, let alone getting it on a website I didn't even know existed. Let's hope they don't find their way over to wicipedia. Deb (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"well, what can one call them?" Interested parties who figure your opinion isn't gospel. Don't assume that it's so impossible that a group of people might disagree with you that they must be a bunch of sockpuppets, especially when your opinion of what is or isn't notable is incredibly skewed and biased based on what I can only assume are your own personal interests? Explain to me how Peredur Lynch, editor of a Welsh Encyclopedia and Welsh academic, whose article you created, is more notable than the author R. Garcia y Robertson? Especially since your initial case for him not being notable enough was partially based on blatantly inaccurate information (your claim that he was only self-published by a vanity press imprint). The reason you suddenly have a bunch of people disagreeing with you (that's NOT hate mail) is because you are (1) wrong, and (2) guilty of double standards. 86.136.82.253 (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think this just proves my point. Deb (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I'm not going to keep posting on this, because this isn't hate mail or a flame war, but you could do with learning that when multiple people disagree with your opinion it isn't automatically sock puppetry or a personal attack. In this case it is because your opinion was both uninformed and wrong. You got more and more people coming on to Wikipedia to tell you that because you stubbornly stuck to that demonstrably incorrect point about Avon Books being a vanity press, demanding ever more proof of them when you couldn't prove your own claim that Garcia wasn't published by a reputable publishing house. 86.136.82.253 (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Continued copyright violations Bs1996

Resolved

 – blocked

Bs1996 (talk · contribs) continues to upload images missing copyright statuses after final warning. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeffed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:NoNewsToday again

Resolved

After a short block, we are back: User:NoNewsToday copied another user's userpage to his own again. This time it's User:Taelus's user page, the admin who blocked him for 24 hours and so now his userpage claims, among other things, that he is an admin. And again, the edit summary he used is “Resolved discusion” without even an attempt to answer. Svick (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And before I finished this post User:Jauerback blocked him indefinitely (and deleted the user page). Svick (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If any admin wishes to unblock, feel free. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Although, I'm sure I'll see a sockpuppet in the future using my userpage. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of ROLLBACK tool

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

Another admin please remove WP:ROLLBACK privileges from this user now.

Sequence of events

1. 21:56, 23 April 2010 = misuse of WP:ROLLBACK tool, to rollback edits that were good faith and not vandalism.
2. 22:10, 23 April 2010 = I post to the talk page about this issue.
3. 22:13, 23 April 2010 = My post to the talk page is reverted, again, misuse of the WP:ROLLBACK tool, to rollback edits that are not vandalism.

Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed. [102], [103], [104], [105] and [106] are not acceptable uses of rollback, nor are the two edits Cirt listed above. Tim Song (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)